Republican Party of Kentucky chair Steve Robertson has sent a letter to Attorney General Jack Conway’s office calling for an investigation into the Greg Fischer/Jackie Green endorsement.
Excerpts:
As I am sure you are aware, some very disturbing allegations have surfaced in the Louisville Mayoral race involving Democrat candidate Greg Fischer and a quid-pro-quo deal he cut with Independent candidate Jackie Green. According to today’s article in the Leo Weekly, it appears that Fischer’s campaign may have agreed to appoint Green to a high-paying government job if Green would drop out of the race and endorse Fischer’s candidacy. The Leo even included alarming email excerpts between the campaigns evidencing such an agreement. Shortly after this alleged deal was cut, Green did, in fact, drop out of the race and endorse Fischer.
The allegations against Greg Fischer are serious and potentially criminal in nature. As Attorney General, you have an obligation to investigate and prosecute election fraud and public corruption. However, according to the Registry of Election Finance, you have contributed $1000 to Greg Fischer’s campaign. Your financial relationship with Mr. Fischer’s campaign renders you incapable of providing objective leadership on any investigation of these allegations. Therefore, I call on you to recuse yourself from this matter entirely and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this potentially criminal activity.
Green’s campaign manager Tyler Hess has made a few statements to the media.
Jackie was doing this to move issues forward. Greg wanted political capital because he saw Jackie as a threat and our momentum. Jackie had a baby on the way and was going to constant events on his bike and TARC – amazing man…Greg wanted Jackie out of the way and Jackie was an Office of Sustainability. Plain and simple. No two party bashing needed.
And in regard to the controversy over the endorsement, Hess says:
It’s not as much of a “story” as everyone is making it. This must be clarified.
The public is being damaged by this fire storm and are confused (and disgusted).””We must re-focus on the issues.”
The issues must continue to be known, analyzed and changed. Floyds Fork, public transit, etc
LEO Weekly is taking the Courier-Journal to task on how this issue was covered. LEO (and WHAS-TV) published more information than the C-J, and the two papers had differing accounts of how the endorsement was made. LEO published an e-mail wherein Green says there may be room for him and his team in a Fischer administration, exposing a quid pro quo situation.
Questions abound as to why the C-J didn’t include/know about the other emails. At best, it’s perhaps a consequence of “access journalism,” whereby reporters take the information espoused by high-level, hard-to-get-to sources as gospel simply for the sake of possessing that information; and at worst it smacks of the C-J’s editorial board seeking to protect its investment of a likely endorsement of Greg Fischer. When a politician like Green suffers from a sudden bout of Nixonian amnesia — going so far as to tell WHAS11′s Joe Arnold that he can’t even remember his wife’s fucking birthday — questions of impropriety take center stage in the rational voter’s mind.
UPDATE:
Here is a statement from Chris Poynter with the Fischer campaign:
Nothing was promised to Jackie Green — and Hal Heiner and the Republican Party know that. This is a ploy to divert the public’s attention because Heiner is down in the polls and losing the race.
The Edit: WFPL's Gabe Bullard blogs the news 
12 comments
October 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm
89.3 FM WFPL | RPK Chair Asks For Investigation Into Green Endorsement
[…] For more, visit The Edit. // […]
October 20, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Curtis Morrison
Whatever Chris. If nothing was promised, why was it a NEGOTIATION? I’ve been negotiating for my entire adult life and I’ve never had to negotiate for “nothing.”
Also, I believe you got messed up on your tenses. You meant to say Hal “was” down in the polls. I’m sure you and Mr. Transparency will be polling over the weekend to find the best way to spin the cover-up.
October 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Owen Says Heiner Promised Allen Input For Endorsement « The Edit: WFPL's Gabe Bullard blogs the news
[…] Owen is referring to the controversy over how independent Jackie Green decided to endorse Fischer. […]
October 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Audio: Endorsement Accusations Continue « The Edit: WFPL's Gabe Bullard blogs the news
[…] accusation that Allen’s endorsement was traded for influence comes after the Heiner campaign accused Democratic candidate Greg Fischer of offering power to independent Jacki… Green dropped out of the race last week and endorsed Fischer. E-mails reveal that Green thought he […]
October 22, 2010 at 10:50 am
Dan Klepal
In light of the Leo Weekly story raising questions about whether the Courier-Journal, and by extension me, ignored internal e-mails from the Jackie Green campaign in a recent news story, I thought it would be useful to take a look at that question in the context of how this story has unfolded over the past week. So if you can bear with me for a minute, I’d like to go over this:
Friday: Leo and the C-J post very different stories on this at almost exactly the same time. Leo reports that Fischer is trying to “pressure” Green to get out of the race, whatever that means. The C-J posts a story that correctly reports that the two campaigns have been in negotiations for several days, and that Green is demanding that Fischer either adopt his platform related to transit and development, or allow him to name the head of a new environmental department to get him out of the race and earn his endorsement. If one of those conditions is met, the C-J accurately reported on-line, Green would make an exit from the race and endorse the Democrat.
There is a significant and sustentative difference in those two stories, particularly if you believe that Fischer has offered a job to Green in exchange for getting him off the ballot.
Hours later, Green announces he has dropped out and endorsed Fischer in exchange for the promise of “significant input” in the creation of that environmental office. The C-J runs a top of the Front Page story on Saturday, reporting all of that, and Heiner calling the deal “horse trading” and “inappropriate.” The story also reported that Green really had no idea what “significant input” meant when he agreed to it.
Monday: Heiner has a press conference to (again) call the deal improper and say Fischer should release all e-mails between his office and Green. We run a story at the top of the Metro Page saying that, and reporting that Fischer refused to give us the e-mails despite running a campaign with transparent government as a major theme.
Tuesday morning: I hear Heiner is about to air an attack ad on this situation. We get the ad and review it. There’s nothing in the ad that hasn’t already been reported on our news pages, so we hold off on writing about it.
Tuesday afternoon: A source tells me there are Green e-mails to his staff on this situation, and that at least some of them have been given to Leo, which is working on a story. My source doesn’t know the content of the e-mails. I correctly suspect Tyler Hess as Leo’s source, and call him. Voice mail. I leave a message saying I would like to see the e-mails, would he consider giving them to me?
Tuesday evening: Fischer campaign tells us that they will release the e-mails in response to Heiner’s attack ad, and says Heiner should stop airing the commercial. We make the decision to do a story, mainly because Heiner called for a public release of the e-mails on Monday, and now we have access to them. The e-mails say what I expected: Green asked for the things we know he asked for; Fischer offered what we know he offered. I redouble my effort with Hess. Voice mail again. I tell him I’m now working on a story for the next day, I think the internal e-mails would be a significant aspect to that, and I really would like to see them. “Please call me back.”
Tuesday deadline: No return call from Hess. We report on the Metro page what we can verify, which is the content of the e-mails between Fischer’s campaign and Green.
Wednesday: Leo’s story comes out. It hangs its’ hat on two major things: An anonymous source saying the deal is “illegal” and one line from the several emails they received, in which Green tells his staff that Fischer raised the possibility of him having a “role” in metro gvt. Two thoughts on that: First, we would not have used the anonymous source, even if we had it. We won’t allow “anonymous” to accuse anyone of a crime, whether their name is Fischer, Heiner or Green. Second: would we have reported the internal e-mail if we had it. Yes, certainly. But we didn’t have it.
Leo appears to have a lot invested in that sentence from Green meaning Fischer offered him a job. But the reality is that it stops far short of that. It could mean a job offer, or it could mean exactly what actually took place, Fischer offering Green “input” into the creation of the environmental office. I don’t know which is true, but certainly both are plausible.
Later Wednesday: Leo’s “story” runs, saying the C-J committed the “sin of omission,” that we either knew or should have known about Green’s internal e-mails and raises the possibility without anything to back it up that the political stance of the newspaper may have played a role in us not reporting on the internal Green e-mails.
Later later Wednesday: Hess sends an e-mail to me and Leo reporters Bailey and Meador, saying I did call him in search of the e-mails and that he didn’t return the calls. I respond to all saying thanks, but Leo isn’t interested in facts like that. Bailey then e-mails me saying there are “important questions” about why the C-J did not have or report on the Green e-mails to his staff. Will I talk to him?
A couple things on this. First, isn’t it interesting that both Meador and Bailey now know, directly from their own source, that I did try to get the documents, but have not added that information to their “story” or in any way communicated that to their readers. Since the central issue is the C-J’s “sin of omission” I would think that is an important piece of information. I wonder why they don’t think so.
I also find it interesting that Leo had “important questions” about the C-J’s reporting on this story, yet never raised them to me or Hess until after they formed their opinion, slapped together their “story” without a molecule of reporting, threw it up on the internet and circulated it on Facebook and Twitter.
That doesn’t seem very fair to me, nor does it reflect any sort of journalism that is recognizable by me. Maybe that’s why they call it a blog.
One other sidebar. Hess called me Wednesday and said he didn’t return my calls because he was in North Carolina with poor cell phone coverage, but also because he gave the e-mails to Leo and didn’t want to share them with the competition. I understand and respect that decision. But for Leo to then write the story they did and then to ignore information from Hess that the C-J tried its level best to get the documents seems irresponsible and disingenuous, at best. Regardless, I congratulate them on their scoop.
I guess that’s about it. If you’re still reading, thanks for sticking with me. I appreciate your time very much.
Dan Klepal
October 22, 2010 at 4:51 pm
deep throat 2.0
Dan: Why aren’t you telling the whole story? Are you protecting my identity, the source who reached out to you Sunday that you didn’t call back, and then making allegations about who Phillip’s sources were?
You probably need to just let this go.
From: dklepal@xxxxx.com
Subject: RE: hey there
Date: October 20, 2010 11:11:24 AM EDT
To: xxxxxxxx
Hi xxxx xxxxx. I’m just seeing this e-mail today…it somehow went to my junk folder. I’m sorry. Just wanted you to know that I wasn’t ignoring you.
DK
—–Original Message—–
From: xxxx xxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:48 PM
To: Klepal, Dan
Subject: hey there
i don’t have your phone number and xxxx xxxxx is wanting to either do
a conference call w/ you and phil or maybe xxxxx xxxxx to debrief
and get everything xxx knows off xxx chest.
The best is yet to be,
xxxx xxxxx
502-xxx-xxxx
October 22, 2010 at 5:15 pm
deep throat 2.0
*Correction, that was Monday you were reached out to, and not Sunday.
Looks like it took around 41 hours from the time you were contacted to when you responded.
October 22, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Phillip M. Bailey
I wouldn’t be the alt-weekly reporter without offering an alternative description of the recent events.
Fri. Oct. 15: LEO Weekly and the C-J did post similar stories at almost exactly the same time about Jackie Green dropping out of the race. LEO reported that Greg Fischer’s campaign was trying to “pressure” Green to get out of the race, which is what Green and his campaign staff said on the record. The C-J posted a story a few minutes later that reported that the two campaigns had been in negotiations for several days, which is what Green and the Fischer campaign said on the record. But when asked if the meetings even took place, the Fischer campaign would not confirm or deny with LEO but did with The C-J.
Mon. Oct. 18: Hal Heiner holds a press conference to call the Green endorsement a “back-room deal” that was improper and call for Fischer to release all e-mails between his campaign and Green. Both LEO and the C-J run respective stories. The Fischer campaign refuses all media requests to share the e-mails.
Mon. Oct. 18 (evening): It appears a new revelation has emerged. See the post above.
Tues. Oct. 19: Responding to a Heiner ad, the Fischer campaign gives The C-J the e-mails it initially refused to release. The C-J is informed by several sources about the existence of additional e-mails that may reveal more to the Fischer-Green endorsement that what the Fischer camp is letting on, however, the newspaper (not the reporter!) decides to go ahead with the story.
Tues. Oct. 19 (evening): WHAS-11 says that LEO Weekly has other information and outlines the additional e-mails involved in the matter, which raise further questions about the Fischer-Green endorsement.
Wed. Oct. 20: In ‘Jerry’s kids’ LEO Weekly breaks the story that Green told his staff that Fischer’s campaign “raised the issue of our team” playing a role in Metro government while negotiating the cycling advocate’s withdrawal from the race. Both Green and Fischer deny a job was offered. Other news outlets pick up the story and a subsequent investigation is called for by the Republican Party of Kentucky.
Thur. Oct 21: In response to the questions raised by LEO’s story and at a forum, Fischer holds up The C-J and uses their initial story as vindication showing despite questions being raised by other outlets report on questions raised by LEO’s reporting.
For the record, LEO does not have anything invested in that one sentence in Green’s Oct. 13 e-mail. We have never claimed anyone has been offered a job.
We do, however, believe reporting on that e-mail was important to an evolving story as did every other news outlet (WFPL, WHAS, WLKY, etc.) in Louisville that reported on it. The same story that has led to an investigation being called of a major party candidate. That e-mail has raised serious questions, not conclusions.
We have not blamed any reporter individually for the “sin of omission” in our editorial, but we have questioned and criticized The C-J’s decision-making process to go with half of the story from a one-sided perspective. The response thus far has been unsettling mix of trying to dismiss LEO’s coverage as “silly” and, well we will let the above posts say the rest.
My personal view is that this situation demonstrates that readers, listeners and viewers owe it to themselves to consult various media outlets. No news organization has exclusive access to the gospel truth even if some have better access to mainstream politicians, business leaders and resources.
Peace.
October 22, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Tyler Hess
No clever Mark Felt-esque nickname here. Please let me respond briefly as well although I feel Phil did well clearing up Dan’s frustration.
Gabe, thanks for the space to do so.
Friday – Come on Dan. Green was pressured so bad. Otherwise, he wouldn’t turn from a passionate advocate on public transit and convincer of the 33.4% rule TO endorsing the establishment and guy who now just considers Jackie “just another citizen.” Hell yeah he was pressured. Both good stories though
Sunday – I hear about all this legal junk and am freaked out because i was not in the loop for these kinds of negotiations nor “deals” – or however the hell you want to phrase these talks.
Tuesday – Poynter clinches his ass knowing the emails that the LEO has and rushes to scramble his stuff. Maybe in a revelation of transparency that he suddenly had despite refusing to do it sooner… or because he wanted the CJ to have a counter-acting story against the LEOs spread.
Wednesday – CJ runs a story with info from Fischer’s team and their emails. LEO runs a story based on emails a source preferred to give them and not Gannett corporate media. I don’t know, maybe that vigilante trusted one voice to do it – people who have consulted and friended him in the past..
Thursday – LEO tries sto gain even more attention by bashing the CJ, yet not too unjustifiably. Yeah, Dan – I understand and mourn that the CJ just pushed and pushed you to meet a deadline (*jackieandgreg*coughcough*). But that doesn’t meet omitting a line in the story that said, the Green campaign has not returned calls at the moment. That just says, well let’s see what they say later. Rather, it made the story look one-sided. This was not necessarily the reporter’s fault, but that’s why the LEO blames the CJ and not DAN. There is indeed a difference. I may like a friend of mine who works at McDonalds but I wish to demolish that corporate structure creating the mess it is. (Honest reporter/person – bad governing policies)
Oh and the anonymous source shit – really Dan, really. Xxxx sent you that email because I wanted to have a larger conversation with the two of you primarily (Bailey and Klepal). But instead, I just went with releasing them to the LEO – yeah, I like them better, so what. It’s not about the people involved necessarily, although Phil has outreached to be more than corporate media in this town has. It’s about the structure governing both of them. Independent media or Corporate Gannett Media…
I don’t like corporations or what they’re doing to the world (nor journalism) so I wanted the LEO to break this story, hell they got quoted in the article to Conway. Woop! Woop!!!
But instead of maintaining me as an anonymous source and continuing with the material that is now in the public domain from what the LEO has published – I check Jacke Payne’s blog (dependable independent media) and find what – Klepal has decided to OUST a source on some Gabe’s comment feed. HAHAH, Dan – you called me and talked about the ethics of media and how the CJ would never ever run an anonymous source (oh you definitely would have if I gave you the emails and not Bailey) but then you ethically decide to “correctly suppose” it is me and tell people PUBLICLY, despite us two being OFF the record in our casual phone conversation.
EVEN MORE – as soon as I hung up the phone, I put down my leisurely reading and hurriedly made sure to email Payne, Bailey, and Meador to tell them that you had contacted me and that I was unable to return until just then (so you had at least reached out).
What I thought had been a favor to clear things up (regardless of the way the LEO responded to this new info) – I now find out that that favor of mine in offering you some insight and help into this evolving conversation is by reading a frustrated and biased post on WFPL comments.
Thanks! An 18 year old passionate volunteer for Jackie Green starts out his week-long fall break by crying to Green in trying to understand the justification for dropping out – none. Then for the next 3-4 days of my fall BREAK, I spend 5-6 hours on the phone gathering feedback, advice, criticism, and trying to understand this whole situation via standing on a roof of a cabin in the middle of the Appalachian Mountains. Stressful beyond belief, trying to keep up with all the media posts hourly and getting calls non-stop, I turn my phone off Tuesday afternoon. No one had called by that point and if the LEO was going to break the story tomorrow, hell – maybe I need to take some of this stress off my back and relax. (Oh and I received a Staph infection due to the asymptomatic virus arising in an open wound due to “massive internal stress”) So then after I think this has somewhat settled, the media is just passing around wishy-washy skeptism about what the next bullshit poll is gonna say, I check online and this has happened. A complete oust of someone who tried to assist in transparency.
Curt – No need to put a cape on your self. Hardly “Felt 2.0”
Phil – Thanks for doing what you have done, I’m still glad I gave LEO exclusive stuff. The CJ pushed Dan too much, ya’ll ran with that too hard (in my opinion). Especially since you mocked Jackie and gave him “at most 3%”.. really, I would bet an ice machine he would’ve pulled over 5%, maybe 10.
Dan – I understand your frustration, I had deadlines as the editor of my school paper; oh the stress. But “ousting” me on a WFPL comment pulled from an OFF the record conversation after doing you a favor while I’m on a only break of the semester. Plus – you only came to me on Tuesday because you wanted the emails, not any comment from me like the LEO had done prior to knowing I had emails. Peer Respect in any manner?
And you can bet when I run for something here soon, I’ll remember this. Then it will be two people who get the goods, but the the CJ. Sorry to exclude ya this time Gabe. Your reporting has been great.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/tyler-hess/immediate-mayoral-race-for-ethics-reflections/442971050737
October 22, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Tyler Hess
*not the CJ
(If all reporters want is the “goods” for their paper to profit, then why talk to them in the first place. Gabe and Phil have both asked for quotes and done well with using them. Alcock and Arnold have both asked for opinions as well, not strictly for material in desperation the night before the LEO breaks something good.)
This election has just made me see that if you talk real to voters about real proposals – not just “I’ll create JOBS, just believe me” (*smile*) Then they’ll listen and be receptive.
But I won’t have people coming up after I drop out after a long, exhaustive, and respect garnering run wishing I hadn’t dropped out.
I’ll smile after winning and beating the establishment.
October 23, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Alex Landreville
I am up in the woods with Tyler. He has dealt with a lot the break. We
October 25, 2010 at 11:26 am
Point Counterpoint « The Edit: WFPL's Gabe Bullard blogs the news
[…] First, Courier-Journal reporter Dan Klepal posted his account of what happened, and responded to a … […]