What, no square or rectangular people invited?

Ah, what a difference a comma can make.

We're not talking the comma of million dollar (Canadian) fame, but just the same, one that would have saved a little snickering here at CSJ central.

This one is from the New York Times (which seems in the past couple of days to be the mega-mart of editing errors -- see my previous two posts) and the post "A Bomb Squad for Wall Street" by William D. Cohan. Take a look:


The sentence in question is the lede: Gather round people, today we are going to discuss the highly opaque but hugely important topic of "O.T.C. derivatives" ...

Now, at a svelte 280 - OK, 300 . Well, OK 31 ... let's just not go there ... I probably qualify as a "round people" and can join the discussion. You scrawny 250-pounders, go away. Nothing to see here. (Although perhaps he is giving you a directive to pick up every rotund roustabout you see and bring them on over to the NYT site.)

Have you seen the problem by now? It's that "people" is a noun of address, and nouns of address are set off by commas to avoid just such ambiguity. So with the wayward comma thusly inserted:

Gather round, people, today we are going to discuss the highly opaque but hugely important topic of "O.T.C. derivatives" ...

It becomes clear, the snicker level goes down, and I don't have to worry about a bunch of 220-pounders hunting me down.

Those pesky directions

Fev, at Heads Up the Blog, spotlighted a wee little error in the NYT in an article on the reunion of the crew and passengers who were aboard the USAir flight that ditched into the Hudson River a year ago.

Forty degrees 46 minutes 10.19 seconds north latitude, 74 degrees 16.69 seconds south latitude: Michael Leonard had been there before.

Oops, as the Times' corrections column later noted.

An article on Saturday about a reunion of the passengers and crew aboard the US Airways jet that crash-landed onto the Hudson River a year ago misstated the location of the crash and the event that occurred 90 seconds into the flight. The crash was at 40 degrees 46 minutes 10.19 seconds north latitude, and 74 degrees 16.69 seconds west longitude — not south latitude. It was the intake of geese by the plane’s engines that took place at the 90-second mark, not the crash itself.

Problem is, it's not just enough to acknowledge the correction, you have to correct the correction correctly too (just follow along now ...). Look closely:



Yep. Now it's "west latitude."

Is there a Boy Scout with a compass anywhere near the Times' HQ? If so, be a good lad and do a good deed by dropping in and helping out the folks, will ya?

A bit to digest

Today's chunk 'o journalism comes courtesy of Penelope Green and the New York Times from a story on how some people shun heat in the winter.

Go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait:

As Americans across the country wrestle with spouses and their thermostats over how low to go — as they join contests like Freeze Yer Buns, now in its third year, a challenge posed by Deanna Duke, a Seattle-based environmental blogger who calls herself the Crunchy Chicken, to lower the thermostat to around 55 degrees, or follow the lead of the Maine couple trying to live comfortably in a furnace-free house and blogging about it in their Cold House Journal — there are those who are living nearly without heat by choice, and doing just fine, thank you very much.

If you lost count, I get 97 words.

McGuire on copy editing

Tim McGuire, former editor of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and now of the Arizona State University Cronkite School of Journalism, has a good post on copy editing - and the ill-advised headlong rush to do away with all or large parts of desks. (See, for instance, the recent memo from the Strib's new editor cutting much of the copy desk.)

His is not a paean to the romance of copy desks, but a solid look at the reality that too many copy editors missed in past years - they are cost centers and the layer upon layer of editing had to be suspect in newspapers, which are essentially manufacturing operations.

McGuire says things must be rethought and redesigned - but he also finds fault with those who think all that copy editors do is the mechanical stuff. Some excerpts:

I am not a traditionalist on this subject. I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to cutting copy editors based on the “way we’ve always done it.” That historical assembly-line approach had some serious problems. ...

Do not assume that copy editors must go. Copy editors are multi-skilled problem solvers. They have been getting the paper out at night for years, and they know more about how that paper gets to the streets than anyone. Ridding your paper of all those knowledgeable minds strikes me as folly. ...

Peer editing is going to be a must. Reporters are going to have to rely on each other for editing. Reporters are going to have to offer that context, expertise and judgment to each other. And, that is going to be easier said than done. ...

That means Training with a capital T is going to be required. In 2002 when I retired from the Star Tribune, training budgets were being sliced and diced. I hear they are a fond memory in some places now. That disdain for training has to stop now if a newspaper is going to successfully eliminate several reads in the copy editing system. Reporters and others are simply not prepared for the sophisticated enterprise called copy editing.

I still wonder, though, if such appeals to newspaper execs really are effective. For them, errors, even the risk of a libel suit, are a risk baked into the system. As I have written here before, this argument will not become a big blip on their radar unless the case can be made to libel insurers. They are the ones who quantify those risks and turn them into the scorecard execs understand - higher rates. I still don't see groups like the American Copy Editors Society effectively making that push with solid data.

We know what we are - we're just negotiating the price

Want to comment on a candidate for public office and have your voice heard in southeast Missouri? Then just plunk down $25, and the seMissourian will be happy to publish up to 150 words from you (each additional word, 50 cents more).

(Letters about ballot issues continue to get a free ride.)

Prevously, the paper had eschewed all such letters because of their "tone," editorial page editor Joe Sullivan wrote earlier this month. "Because of the tone of too many of these letters, the Southeast Missourian has adhered to its policy of not publishing any such letters rather than picking and choosing some."

Which then raises some interesting questions:
-- It was not OK to print these letters because you had to exercise some journalistic judgment?
-- But now that it's open to whoever has $25 to spare, no judgment need be applied? After all, money talks and nobody walks.
-- So if a thousand people agree to pay, you'll print everything?

There is a word for this.

Quick hits, good reads

The BBC's Kevin Marsh has an excellent and lengthy post of his notes from the UK's news:rewired conference. Among other things, Marsh makes the sensible, if sometimes forgotten point, that the pan-skilled journalist is probably not going to be the future model, just because everyone can't be that good at everything.

An excerpt:

I think I detect a hint of ‘return to the cottage industry’ in a lot of what is written about new media’s potential for journalists.
Don’t make the mistake, for example, of thinking that journalism’s future will be populated mainly by ‘news entrepreneurs’ – it won’t, as even that particular idea’s uberzealots will tell you.
Don’t make the mistake, either, of thinking that in future journalism will be entirely or even mainly about the kind of skills we’re talking about today.
Like it or not, much journalism is about process and organisation – and seems likely to remain that way.
Demand for people who can organise an outside broadcast or coverage of a court case for live and continuous news remains and will remain high.
Demand for people who can elbow their way to the front of a scrum – ditto. Or for people who can field produce, problem solve or persuade players to appear on screen or on the web.
And so one of the challenges of learning multimedia and social media skills is to understand them not just for what they are and what they can do, but how they fit with the other essential - arguably more endurable - skills of journalism.

While you are at it, spend a few moments with David Sullivan's latest on the High Church of Journalism and professionalism, and how it eventually promoted a fatal disconnect from readers.

How the sausage is made

Watching how the journalistic sausage is made is never a pretty sight. Exhibit A: This tape of the bickering before football coach Lane Kiffin's news conference in which he explained why he was leaving Tennessee for Southern Cal.

Hiking the App trail is euphemism of the year

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford is just the gift that keeps on giving.

The gathered linguists and other word types at the American Dialect Society meeting in Baltimore have named The Luv Guv's smokescreen for his trip to Argentina - "hiking the Appalachian Trail" - as the euphemism of the year.

"Tweet" took word of the year and "Google" word of the decade.

Heady company to be among. Way to go guv!

'Unpublishing' - the growing challenge for editors/publishers

I just came across some work by Kathy English, reader's representative for the Toronto Star, in which she looks at the growing number of requests for news organizations to "unpublish" information in their digital archives and on their Web sites.

English did her paper, "The longtail of news,"(PDF) for the AP Managing Editors. It should be required reading for every journalist, but especially every editor. (Here also is an earlier article from English on "Why the Star does not 'unpublish.' ")

It follows up on work that I, Larry Timbs and Will Atkinson did in 2007 in what we think was the first academic study of newspapers' "digital attics." It was presented at the annual Huck Boyd conference, and you can find our paper in the winter 2007 edition of Grassroots Editor.(PDF)

English finds much the same thing we did - there is widespread opposition against unpublishing. But requests seem to be growing. At the time we did our research, more than a quarter of those at community papers and more than half of those at larger papers said they had had requests to remove material from the archives. (Our research was based on responses from 63 editors at Southern Newspaper Association member papers. The response rate was disappointing, but given English's conclusion that this is a growing problem -- enough so that the APME commissioned her study -- I would hope future studies would see greater response.)

English's nine-question survey does not appear to ask directly how often the respondents (110 editors responded nationwide) have had to deal with such requests or the frequency. However, she cites one Gatehouse executive who says that while five years ago such requests were rare, now he deals with them almost daily. (On the other end, a Chicago Sun-Times editor says he rarely deals with such requests.)

She finds more than three-quarters of those who responded would consider unpublishing in some circumstances. That indicates a bit of a softening from the 95 percent who supported the statement in our study that changes should not be made unless there is clear error. But both studies still find strong opposition to unpublishing overall.

It is still disappointing to find in English's study that barely half of the news organizations she surveyed had some kind of policy for dealing with such requests. Our study found policies at about a third -- but this issue is too important, and growing, for any organization not to have considered what to do. Our paper, more than English's, goes into some detail on the legal horizon (and a principle, quickly disappearing, called "practical obscurity" - more in a 2008 NY Times article), and it is not at all certain that the legal system won't weigh in on such things. (A higher court later overturned the order to remove the stories from the Kansas City Star Web site, but we are likely to see more such cases.)

What our study does that English's doesn't is pose four scenarios to the editors and measure their reactions. I think you would find the results interesting.

The problem, of course, is not confined to the U.S. See this U.K. editor's ruminations from earlier this year and readers' responses  [2011: This link is now dead]. And in 2007, the same year as our study, one professor told the New York Times that archives perhaps should be programmed to eventually "forget" some information, much as people do. Brad Dennison, the Gatehouse executive interviewed by English, haswas, according to her paper, decided that instituting a pilot project at some papers in which most police blotter items would disappear from Gatehouse archives six months after their first publication (though he knows they may well live on in other cached parts of the Web).

English points out that police blotter reports posted online pose the potential for increasing problems. I can tell you from personal experience as founder of Hartsville Today, a community news site affiliated with the local twice-weekly paper, that such discussions have been a hot-button issue. (Unfortunately, a system crash late last year wiped out all the previous threads, but I think I may post something on the site asking for updated thoughts.) The thing that seems to infuriate people is that news organizations are willing to publish blotter items but then seldom follow up on the outcome to produce a complete record. (And, even if they do, they seldom use the ability to digitally link the stories.)

I think English has some good recommendations in her best practices section. That includes having a clear policy and making it known to the public. I especially like her recommendation that unpublish decisions should be made by consensus. As she notes, this provides a way for editors and publishers to deflect requests from powerful people and institutions. I can think of nothing worse than, if a news organization does unpublish, it gets a reputation of toadying to the powerful and ignoring the powerless.

About 50 non-journalists also answered English's survey, and she says most supported the resistance to "unpublish." I think it may be time to do some more extensive research in this area -- and then repeat it periodically. I have a feeling this is not going to be a static subject.

Also worth looking at:
This Jan. 5 article on Walletpop from Jason Cochran about newspaper archives in general being in jeopardy -- and with it major chunks of community history -- as the industry contracts.

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 4

(This is the last of four parts. See part 1, part 2, part 3)

Afternoon legislative panel primarily on government restructuring and the censure resolution in the House against Gov. Mark Sanford.

Participants:

• Sen. Larry Martin (Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee)
• Sen. Brad Hutto (Democrat and member of thehttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6408033 tort reform committee)
• Sen. Danny Verdin (Republican chairman of Agriculture and Natural Resources and member of Medical Affairs heading a subcommittee looking at combining state agencies)
• Sen. Jake Knotts (Republican and opponent of Gov. Mark Sanford)
  
• Rep. Jim Harrison (Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee)
• Rep. Kenny Bingham (Republican. Ways and Means member and heading ad hoc committee looking at restructuring of Employment Security Commission)
• Rep. Bill Sandifer (Republican chairman of Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee)
• Rep. James Smith (Democrat and member of Constitutional Law subcommittee)

Restructuring of Employment Security Commission (Background)
Rep. Kenny Bingham: Look at the entire agency. Big job. Anticipates also having Legislative Audit Council report within a couple of weeks.

Sandifer: One of the problems is that we're dealing with a lot of federal regulations, not just state laws. So we have to conform to the feds, too. Much more complex.

Why is it necessary to restructure the ESC?
Bingham: Problems in the insurance trust fund have allowed some employers "to overuse or abuse" the system, legally but still abuse. Plus the fund is running into the red ($600 million in red with projections of next year as high as $1.7 billion). We were not notified by the commissioners as the law requires. We're the only state with a commission. Most are part of governor's Cabinet. Need to ensure it is a temporary cushion, that it is not being used for people fired for cause, etc.

Restructuring of health agencies. (Background on DHEC, on DDSN, overall background)
Verdin: Expects lively debate when full Medical Affairs Committee begins taking it up later this month. Took unusual step of allowing people to submit testimony online.
Disabilities and Special Needs: Require it to have regulations relating to fees and fee increases, also transfer licensing and related responsibility to Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Merging of Mental Health, Continuum of Care, and Alcohol and other Drug Abuse Services into a new Department of Behavioral Services: We are not recommending the merger. Instead, elevate Mental Health to a Cabinet-level agency but keep the governing board.

Department of Health and Environmental Control: We are recommending it be elevated to Cabinet-level status. There are benefits from having a unified environmental and public health agency, but more should be required from the commissioners regarding their job in hearing appeals. So proposing standards for commissioners: four-year bachelor's degree plus five years of work experience in field related to department's work. Also would require hiring internal auditor. Expects "considerable debate" on Cabinet-level status.

Hutto (one of those who wanted changes in the agencies): DDSN not going to go anywhere in Senate. Mental Health likely to get Cabinet-level status. DHEC won't be split, but we will streamline the appellate process. The real issue comes down to whether it is a Cabinet-level agency and so you "politicize" the appointment of the DHEC head. The agency oversees several politically sensitive areas, so he has his doubts it will get Cabinet status.

Harrison: In the last session we selected DDSN and Mental Health to move to Cabinet-level agencies. DDSN spends hundreds of millions of dollars but is governed by a part-time board that does not have the time to resolve all the agency issues and is too easily manipulated by staff. Hopes Senate will send DDSN bill back to House, but if not will pursue it another day.
He would like to take up the proposal (requiring constitutional amendment) that would have the governor and lieutenant governor running on the same ticket.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
Smith: Wants to talk about Freedom of Information Act. The impeachment proceedings against the governor showed the FOIA process is broke. Has been talking with colleagues about a unified retention policy for records, also possible ombudsman that allows for dispute resolution short of suing. He also wants to look at cost reform to keep agencies and governments from using their highest-paid employees and then levying charges based on that. Also, "I think we need to look at some penalties." These are things already done in many other states.

Later, Bingham and Knotts said they both support FOIA changes.

Governor/lieutenant governor on same ticket (and censure of governor)
Knotts: Gov. Sanford's escapades have shown the importance of the lieutenant governor's position, but he does not support having them run on same ticket. "Sometimes you need a little change."
Martin: There will be a discussion about this proposal. Doesn't know of any case where a governor asked a lieutenant governor to take over. Reality in other states is that when the governor is gone, the governor's staff runs the office, and these days governors rarely are out of touch. But should consider eliminating the office as some other states have. "That's something I think we should seriously look at if we want to streamline government." If we keep the lieutenant governor, make a job for him, perhaps heading the Commerce Department or some other agency.
Harrison: Just wants it clear that if the governor is out of state, the lieutenant governor can act in case of emergency (it's in the constitution, but Sanford did not tell Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer he was heading to Argentina). If both of them are working together, it's less likely the lieutenant governor would not know of the governor's absence.
Martin: It's been this way for years – governors and lieutenant governors have seldom exchanged that information.
Hutto: Doubts the same-ticket proposal will pass. Long tradition of elected lieutenant governor. Doesn't expect voters would change the constitution. "As I read the public now, they want the chance to help us make decisions." Asking them to change they would see as taking away one of their chances to do that.
Verdin: Agrees with Hutto. S.C. residents have had eight years to consider government restructuring, and he does not see any call from his constituents to give up ballot access. "It's just not out there."
Knotts: Lieutenant governor already has a job – overseeing the office of the elderly. And he does a good job. … "It's solely a communications problem between the governor and the lieutenant governor, the governor and the legislature. I don't know anyone he hasn't been in a fight with." As for the censure resolution against Sanford, if it comes to the Senate, he'll move to take it to committee because he won't participate in a "whitewash." Should have looked into use of state planes. Should have cross-examined witnesses, not just taken affidavit. Sanford already looks bad from fighting for so long. "And I'm not willing to take up the time of the Senate" with many other important issues pending. "It can go to committee and it can die in committee." Censure means little anyhow, just "a slap on the hand." People don’t understand why he isn't being impeached after all they've read. The censure is just political cover.

Harrison: The censure bill is expected to be taken up in the House Jan. 13.

Martin: Wants to go on record in condemning Sanford's conduct. Many of the other issues will be taken up, as the House Speaker said, in other bills and venues during the session. "We should take it up, we should act upon it very quickly and move on." He thinks it can be handled in 30 minutes if no one objects. Don't "leave it to fester in a committee."

Knotts: "I'm an old boxer and the fight's over. No need to keep kicking him."

Sandifer: We're missing part of the point, which is that "this governor's actions … will have a profound impact on how government is run in the state of South Carolina from henceforth. … a profound impact on the way we treat each other." Called into question is the assumption that we are trying to do the best for S.C.. "We've had to do business a totally different way as a result of this governor being in office." We used to send legislation to the governor with the expectation it would be signed into law. Now, "We fully anticipate he will veto everything sent and we must make every bill veto proof when it leaves the House and Senate." All of this says to us is that how government is run has to be looked at critically to make sure character does come first.

Without a lieutenant gov, what would succession be?
Senate president pro tem and then speaker of House.

Tort reform?
Martin: Not sure can ever get folks together completely, but there are three to four major sections out of 10 we might move forward on. Limiting punitive damages is one. Give the state a competitive advantage while keeping things fair. However, little chance of getting whole bill through.
Harrison: Met with the speaker and both sides of issue. Speaker said he'd like to see a bill passed. "He said he would use his 'extra influence' if he had to but he hoped he didn’t have to." Thinks can get a bill with two to three items to the point where trial lawyers, while they may not support it, "at least do not actively oppose it." Sees room for negotiation.
Hutto: We already have a business-friendly state. "This is an attempt to trample on people's right to speak in the jury box."
Sandifer: Interesting that Harrison, who chairs Judiciary, "the lawyers' committee," and I, who chairs Labor, Commerce and Industry, "the business committee," are working on trying to achieve something. "We are not trying to trample on people's rights."

Talk about opening FOIA, what about opening Ethics Commission process and House/Senate ethics committees? Martin: Sees it as a protection of the integrity of the process, from having it abused by political adversaries. He favors "pretty serious" criminal penalties for those who level scurrilous complaints. "But then you have to read people's minds, and that's pretty hard to do."

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 3

(See part 2 here - morning legislative panel on fiscal issues)

Luncheon remarks from the House speaker and Senate president pro tem:

House Speaker Bobby Harrell (Republican)

"We are queued up even in a bad economic year to do a lot of good things for the economy and the state even in a bad economic year."

Cites increasing reserve fund, lowering from 4% to 2% the trigger for budget cuts,

Expects when session is done people will say the Legislature accomplished things that are good for the state and economic development without raising taxes. Themes: Fiscal responsibility

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell (Republican)
"This state has got to be on a job hunt, not on a revenue hunt."
We're a trillion dollars into federal stimulus and says to both political parties in Washington he's seen nothing on a "dynamic energy policy." See gas price increases as not foreshadowing good economic things.

Revenue Stabilization Act, constitutional amendment:
"It will prevent a glut of spending" as we come out of the recession. Evens things out by putting restraints on spending and shifting money into reserve accounts in good years and then spending it out in bad ones.

Very high on the government streamlining commission. Make agencies go to zero-base budgeting, justify positions and funding. Also make sure Legislative Audit Council audits get implemented.

"I don't see it as being a menu of new taxes but a menu of what we can do without."

Refers to changes that drastically reduced governor's control of S.C. Ports Authority. "We got it back running like a business." Says economic development can't be a political football.

Revenue stabilization account: First 15% of revenue would go into the account to be spent back out in lean years. Can make government more efficient and leaner and smooth out budget process. Also expects this would lessen the number of governor's line-item vetoes.

Harrell: Supports it as a constitutional amendment and since the House has passed similar bills expects a proposal from the Senate to pass the House.

Had the stabilization act been enacted a decade ago, how would the budget be now?
Harrell: Probably similar, but you wouldn't have had the huge bubble of spending we had a few years ago, up about $900 million, but then followed by the $1 billion in cuts now.

Local governments say they have to raise taxes to the max under Act 388 or they can't go back and recover that money. Reaction?
Harrell: They didn't have to raise taxes. If they had raised taxes and put it in a secure account for a downturn, maybe they have an argument. But they did not; they spent it.

McConnell: "I am totally opposed to going back and repealing Act 388 as it applies to people's homes." Calls property taxes "paying rent to the government" for living in your home. Says it would become a "treasure chest" for government. He is willing to go back and look at any adjustments if there are problems.

Censure of Gov. Mark Sanford, how quickly House to take up?
Harrell: Like to see it come up next week. People "would like to see us move on" and then deal with jobs and the economy. Have a debate – all day and into night if needed – and dispose of it.
McConnell: If it comes over from the House, if even one senator objects it has to go to committee. By the time it comes back, we will be well into our work schedule. "So unless we can deal with it very quickly, to me it is just a waste of time." It doesn't change anything; it’s just an expression of opinion. Won't bring it to the floor unless he can be assured of quick debate and passage without numerous amendments.

Sen. Jake Knotts (a Sanford opponent) has suggested he might hold up the censure unless it is strengthened. Will that be a problem?
McConnell: Many of the issues Knotts wants, such as restrictions on use of state planes, may come up in other bills and contexts, so that may take care of itself.

What about the idea of a BRAC (base realignment commission) approach to reorganizing state government, where the recommendations of a commission are reported out as a whole and can't be amended or can only have limited amendments?
McConnell: Problem is twofold – unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and that legislative rules supersede any law. So if the rules allow amendments, you can't deal that away with a law.

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 2

(See part 1 here - Les Boles, state budget director)

After Boles there was a legislative panel with the following

• Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler (Republican)
• Sen. Billy O'Dell (Republican)
  
• Rep. Dan Cooper (Republican, chairman House Ways and Means)
  
• Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (Democrat, member House Ways and Means)
  
• House Minority Leader Harry Ott (Democrat)
  
• Rep. Brian White (Republican member House Says and Means)
  

How do you approach a budget with a $563 million hole?
Cooper: FY10 cuts do anticipate deficit by Corrections. Most agencies operating at FY05 level. So far this year 76 layoffs and more than a thousand furlough days. We're not going in FY11 going to be able to fund things even at current level.

Projected budget gaps in FY12 and 13 are as high as $1.3 to 1.4 billion.

Thinking of increasing general reserve fund from 3% to 5%. Will require constitutional amendment. Also delay use of capital reserve fund from beginning of year to end of FY. Now it is the first place we go.
Increase the number of trigger dates for general fund reductions. Add one in the third quarter and lower the trigger from 4% to 2% (in other words, if Board of Economic Advisors projections show 2% drop, Budget and Control Board must reduce budgets).
Create government streamlining commission – consolidate, eliminate, privatize, outsource.

Peeler: "The good news is that fiscal year 2010 is not fiscal year 2009. 2009 was terrible."
Got to do things differently, mainly how we budget. Nervous among members about AAA credit rating. "That's going to be foremost among our minds, how we maintain our AAA credit rating."
"Get away from this boom and bust situation."

Ott: "We've got the same guys shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic."
Leadership wants to shift responsibility to a gov streamlining commission.
"I think we are way past the day we can make across the board bjt cuts and hide behind the Budget and Control Board to make those cuts for us."
When we left in 2008, the BEA certified an amount and we spent that. "They did a lousy job of predicting how much money, $1.2 billion." I gave them some slack, maybe they didn't know recession. "But I want to know what the BEA's excuse is for the second year."
"It is an impossible thing for the General Assembly to pass a balanced budget if we don't get good numbers." Need to change way we budget. "I no longer have confidence in the BEA to give us a number that we can depend on as legislators" for revenue.

Yes, increase reserve fund, but that acknowledges BEA will miss estimates.
I'm ready to work with the GOP leadership to work on ways to change the way we project revenues and budget.
I've been huge supporter of public ed, but maybe we need to take a look at all the new programs over the past few years and suspend them till we can fund them. I'm willing to look at everything. We have a responsibility to not have midyear cuts over and over so people/agencies can plan. May mean some RIFs.

Peeler: "We're all in this same boat." You need to get your guys to go along with McConnell's spending caps bill to create a "true reserve."

Government restructuring task force recommendations ready in time for this budget year?
Cooper: probably not. We'll have to do it in XGR. Biggest drivers are aid to education and aid to local govs and Medicaid (+3 to 4% year). Plus prisons and DJJ have to be funded. But "We're going to have to cut a lot of government" to come up with a half-billion shortfall.
(He and Ott exchange words)
Cooper: We've deviated from the education and local gov funding formulas. If we had to follow those, we'd be in worse shape.
Ott: "We can't raise taxes." Have to figure out how to "provide the absolute necessity of services" with that restriction.

Cobb-Hunter: I'm listening to this and hearing we're all in same boat. "I want people in this state to remember that we're not in the same boat, but who's been captain of the ship … Republicans."
All people in my district say is "I want to know why you all aren't doing your job up there." Been here 18 years and seeing little new. See how many commissions we've had since 1990 and how much we've done with the reports "absolutely nothing."

{Note: Act 388, passed two years ago, eliminated the use of property taxes for school operations and replaced the money by replacing the sales tax and funneling the money back to school districts through the state.}
Cobb-Hunter on formula-driven items: "For me there are no sacred cows." Act 388 "has been one of the biggest budget busters that I've seen in the time I've been here" in the name of property tax reform. Have the TRAC commission refocus on Act 388. Wants specifics from Peeler on how we do things the different way. (TRAC – tax realignment commission -- was set up to study exemptions and effect on state budget.) She questions why TRAC looking at "fair tax" and not Act 388. It's time for legislators to stop the across the board cuts and make targeted cuts.

Peeler: "Nothing happens in the economy until the cash register rings." Have to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Gov doesn't create jobs, but it can run jobs away. Look at Boeing (Boeing recently announced it would build its 787 jet in Charleston), the ports, Clemson wind thing. Some good things are happening.

Ott: (About Peeler) He says we need a gov that creates jobs, but he's been in charge of it for 20 years.

Cobb-Hunter: Boeing – everyone took credit for bringing them here. So if we took credit, what does Peeler mean that gov. doesn't create jobs? Hopes for a media that goes back to being inquisitive and not just based on press release. State not being served well by not following up, such as not asking the disconnect between Peeler's gov doesn't create jobs and legislators taking credit for landing Boeing.

O'Dell: Bickering between parties unfortunate. Until we create jobs, no revenue. Boeing showed we can create jobs and that gave us "lots of credibility." Reps and Dems can't work it out alone – take united effort. "If we don't have the revenue coming in, we're going to have to cut programs and it's going to be a tremendous disaster."

TRAC is prohibited from looking at Act 388. Any chance of changing that?

Ott: A comprehensive review of taxes requires including Act 388. "We are way behind having any of these sacred cows." "We get locked in and don't ever want to say we made a mistake."

Cobb-Hunter: Need to revisit all the limitations we have put on that "hamstring" local governments and schools with unfunded mandates, etc. At least do that if we are not going to look at Act 388. "If it's bad for the federal government to send unfunded mandates down to the states, it's bad for the state to send unfunded mandates down to local governments." School boards can't do what they think is morally right for their constituents.

Cooper: I hear unfunded mandates all the time. But we appropriate 4.5% of the previous year's revenues to local government support (more than $200 million). And with homestead exemption, we send more than $500 million to local governments to make it up. Total $772 million sent to local govs, so where is the unfunded mandate?

Cobb-Hunter: Tax relief is not funded. Act388 rolled back property taxes for school operations. We provided tax relief but have not paid for it. "Unpatriotic … irresponsible" to take the credit but not provide the funding. We are not taking into account inflation. GOP talks about not increasing taxes. But look at the increases in the budget in fees and assessments. How is this different than not increasing taxes? "What we have done in this state is a shell game that has increased taxes but we call it fees and assessments."

Cooper: Act 388 not off the table. And he understands from the TRAC meeting yesterday that TRAC may ask for authority to look at Act 388.

Peeler: Act 388 not off table, but "tax increases in owner-occupied homes, that's off the table as far as I'm concerned." But $1.7 billion is lost in past two years "it's not under any shell; it's gone" because of the economy. The No. 1 thing that brought Boeing: "Our right to work laws."

Ott: No one here saying any tax increase. But you've shifted the tax burden to small businesses, and they're the ones that will bail us out of this recession. We've got to look at Act 388 and see if we have put the burden on the business community and if we have, change it. Need to set priorities and fund them.

Peeler: A House bill will give tax credits to those small businesses that will hire people on the unemployment rolls. (Cobb-Hunter: "Good bill.")

Taking the rainy day fund from $150 million to $250 million – we are saying we are going to divert money from our current shortfall to fund the next shortfall?

Cooper: Probably be implemented in FY12 (that would be the year $700 million in stimulus money goes away). We need a larger reserve fund. It would minimize some of the midyear cuts. Other states have bigger reserve funds than we do.

Board of Economic Advisors – are its estimates a reflection of reality or politics?
Cooper: I don't influence my appointee to the board. Doesn't think Sen. Leatherman does either. Can't speak for the governor. It's looking at a crystal ball on the economy.
Ott: "Their crystal ball is broken." "I think every one of us in the business community knew that we had better be planning for hard times going into last year." Across the board cuts hurt programs that can bring in additional dollars. When I came up here as a freshman, the GOP leadership wasn't talking savings but spending. Same leadership still here.

If Act 388 went away, what's the average hit to the homeowner?
Panel demurs on providing figure. Depends on home value.

What responsibility do legislators have to improve the state's position in many rankings we hear about nationally?
Peeler: I was born in this state, like the state, think there are many good things (talks about the weather and the soil). I think we have a good government. Optimistic about the state.
Cooper: We're trying to do the best we can with limited – very limited – resources.

Had Democrats been in charge since the 1990s, how would things be different?
Ott: We wouldn't have wasted all this time on debate about school vouchers but we probably would have had some ability for parents to choose their children's schools. Probably would have had some relief on children's health care.
Cobb-Hunter: We would have settled the 17-year school funding equity lawsuit. We also would have had tax relief targeted at the middle class, not a "tax shift."

In Charleston County in 2008 Dems did not challenge GOP in many legislative seats. Will that change this year?
Cobb-Hunter: People don't want to become legislators. "It's just no fun anymore." We're encouraging people to run. But people, and in S.C. in particular, people are basing decisions on party, not issues. In S.C., if you are white, it's presumed you are a Republican and black presumed a Democrat. But if we had informed voters, she thinks the GOP would not have the clout it does. Need to vote class, not just race – the only color that counts is green, money, but people don't realize that and continue to vote against their economic interests.
Ott: I'm not looking so much for Dems and GOP, but for those who will uphold S.C. "values" – "family values."

Proposed cigarette tax increase and its role?
Peeler: The House-passed bill is on the Senate's contested calendar. 50 cent/pack increase. Biggest issue is what to do with the money and do we have the votes to override an expected veto by Gov. Mark Sanford.
Cobb-Hunter: Wait to see what happens with federal health care bill. Raise the tax but put the money in a health savings account for now till we see what the federal system finally funds.

White joins panel: "We've got to fund our needs and not our wants." You can't raise taxes on people who don't have money. "Maybe not turn to the government looking for a handout. Maybe talk to your neighbor" for help.

What sort of rollbacks or changes in education funding?
Ott: May have to look at rolling back – "I want to cut programs in K-12 that don't actually go into the classroom." He talks about physical education mandates that were passed in recent years.
Peeler: We have an Education Department, so why do we have an Education Oversight Committee? Sacred cow: economic development.
Ott: Prisons have to be funded. "What can I say? This is a law-and-order state."

Status of 10th Amendment resolution on state sovereignty?
Peeler: The sovereignty resolution is on deck in the Senate. Hopes that it will move and then can get to bill that would limit the tax provision that raises property taxes/valuation on a home when it is sold.

Reduction in school days?
Ott is not in favor of reducing number of school days. He does want to look at teacher furlough days.

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 1

The S. C. Press Association is holding its annual legislative preview session today. I have been taking notes, and in a modified form of live blogging will be posting those throughout the day. This first is from Les Boles, state budget director. Again, these are raw notes, complete with some shorthand and abbreviations. If they are not clear, leave a comment, and I will try to clarify my notation for you. (part 2, part 3, part 4)

Les Boles, state budget director

Next two years "some of the most challenging" he has seen.
His office's Web page has lots of budget info, including three-year budget projections. www.budget.sc.gov

Summary of revenue shortfalls (there was also an accompanying handout)
SC economy started declining March 08

FY08-09
BEA (Board of Economic Advisors) shortfall predictions six times plus the 13-month additional year-end shortfall in 08-09 totaling 1.2 billion. When other shortfalls taken into account, total shortfall $1.3 billion.
BCB reductions totaled $1.1 billion. Shortfall $207.3 million. We used reserve accounts – that will be problem. So final year-end shortfall $98.2 million.

FY10
BEA reductions 450.7 million Add homestead exemption shortfall and it's $452.4 million.
BCB action so far reduced $566.5 million, or $114.1 million more than

Medicaid: Used to be 70/30 fed/state. Stimulus made it 79/21, freeing up some money, but that's going away.

Since we ended FY07, our revenue stream has dropped 24%
Rev. est. FY 10-11 zero growth.
Hope that in 18 months people get back to work and sales and individual income tax picks up.

"The next two fiscal years are going to be extremely challenging."

FY11 (Begins July 1, 2010)
Begin with $199.4 million in lower revenue. Total est budget gap $563.3 million (the $199 million plus $364 million in statewide funding issues such as replenishing general reserve fund, more money for homestead exemption (property taxes) etc.

Questions:
Any other time where estimates coming out of a recession growth essentially flat?
No. "Historically our revenues have jumped." BEA project flat for year to 18mos and slow after that, 1 to 2%/yr.

Where budget now in meeting state educational requirements – maintenance of effort
Did not meet. Got waiver. We meet all the Medicaid requirements.

18 month lag is normal but it's the limited growth after that that's unusual?
Yes.

Question about thrust of budget change proposals
We're trying to level off the peaks and valleys. That means putting more into reserve funds.

Mathematically did property tax reform exacerbate (Act 388) {NOTE: Act 388 was the property tax change enacted two years ago. It essentially eliminated property taxes for school operations on owner-occupied primary residences and raised the state sales tax, with that money to go back to the schools to make up the money lost from property taxes.}

Yes. The projections were valid at that time on projections. "The bottom dropped out on the economy and the sales tax." Thinks online sales also hurting - people not paying sales/use tax.

Homestead exemption, property tax relief for schools?
We're seeing need go up 2 to 4% while revenues decline.

I swear - newspaper reporter jobs rank low

Huffington Post reports on a new survey saying newspaper reporter jobs rank between seaman and stevedore.

Maybe this mean we can start talking like seamen and stevedores again. Would make newsrooms more interesting, at least.

Later: My boss, a veteran journalist, wrote a note back to me suggesting this might also mean an opportune time to bring in the longshoreman's union. Oh yeah, that would kick the fun up a notch.

Media General's editing hub plans confirmed

My previous post about Media General looking at creating an editing hub for its three largest papers in Richmond, Va.; Tampa, Fla.; and Winston-Salem, N.C., has been confirmed in an article announcing the resignation of Winston-Salem Managing Editor Ken Otterbourg:

From the article:

"Also, I have some disagreements with Media General's plans for our newsroom," he said. "I'm not in favor of consolidating our editing."

Media General Inc., the owner of the Journal and other media outlets, is considering consolidating the copy-editing and design functions of its three largest newspapers -- Winston-Salem, Richmond and Tampa, Fla. -- in one location. It already has created such news centers for its community newspapers in North Carolina and Virginia.

"I appreciate Ken's concerns about the impact on the (newspaper's) quality," said Carl Crothers, the newspaper's vice president and executive editor. "We are going to make sure that the newspaper's quality will not be affected."

And to be fair, though my sources apparently had the Richmond/Tampa/Winston-Salem thing dead on, there were rumors earlier about MG's smaller papers (the editing of many now having been consolidated in Lynchburg, Va.), and Rachel Kaufman of Media Jobs Daily had that rumor in October.

Media General looks at editorial hub

Word from several sources is that Media General may be the latest looking to create an editing hub for its major papers in Richmond, Tampa and Winston-Salem.

My sources say the MG discussions began several months ago and that execs have been getting ready to visit (or may already have started visiting) others who have done the same things.

Such hubs aren't new. Scripps has done it for some of its Florida papers and Media News has done it - and taken lots of flack - for the consolidation of its editorial operations at its Bay Area papers in California. AP did away with most of its national desk in New York and created editorial hubs across the country.

Gannett has started it, too; for instance, the Louisville Courier-Journal has taken over much of the editing of the papers in Greenville, S.C., and Asheville, N.C.

And as News & Tech recently reported, some publishers take it even further, seeing the day when everything but the creation of new content is outsourced.

The folks I've talked to tell me that Winston-Salem seems to be a favored spot for the Media General operation, but all is in flux, including whether to even do it.

Update:
Another source reminds that MG has already created a hub in Lynchburg for many of its Virginia papers, as well as those in Reidsville, N.C., and Eden, N.C. Word is, the person says, that the hub will eventually handle all Virginia papers except for Richmond and Bristol.

Update 1/6: Media General's plans are confirmed with resignation of Winston-Salem Managing Editor Ken Otterbourg.