From: Tamara Kiel
Another paper with 2-inch headlines regarding an employer/employee issue. Given there have been no claims of harassment or discrimination on anyone’s part, why is your newspaper treating this issue with coverage as a crime? Nothing has been presented to suggest this is anything other than a performance issue.
Simply stated, an employer has repositioned an employee. We are an “employment at will” state. Employment at will means an employee can be terminated at any time without any reason. This fact always made me want to stay on good terms, both in performance and relationship, with my employer. In fact, even when I worked for my father, he absolutely made it clear to me, and I quote, “It doesn’t matter if I love you or hate you; it’s a matter of business, and I will fire you if I need to.”
And so I suggest in this recent employment matter so prevalently reported in the paper, this isn’t about love, like or hate. It is about prudently running an efficient, well-managed business, our city.
It appears this is getting so much attention because we are going to “investigate” for some evil wrongdoing and “mal-intent” on the employer’s part. There is none.
Letters have been reprinted in their entirety though they are filled with inaccuracy (responsibility of financial oversight was not assigned to the parks department), which leads readers to believe they are true. While another article on a different page states with authority the accurate information (located the legal document with the directive for the parks department to receive all income), which is contrary to what readers were led to believe.
The overwhelming effort to lambast our mayor is so disheartening. People are quick to criticize and slow to praise. Nearly every move she makes the paper turns in to a hostile episode, perhaps because that is what sells papers.
In fact, history has shown that after she has endured the unfair thrashing on any given topic, her efforts have created a positive outcome. However, she is rarely acknowledged appropriately for them.
One recent example that comes to mind is the ambulance contract that became so contentious 18 months ago. She was depicted through this paper as an oppositional troublemaker of things that were great the way they had always been. In the end, she saved the citizens of Columbus nearly $1 million in subsidies and bettered our service for ambulance coverage.
Why, then, didn’t the paper report with 2-inch letters on the front page how two weeks ago when the west side was cut off from the city due to flooding, it was Mayor Brown having worked so hard to ensure ambulances were stationed on the west side of town that saved the life of a man in dire distress?
You dilute your own credibility and importance when your vengeance for an individual is so evident. Save the 2-inch front page headlines for real news like floods, fires, murder and war.