The most interesting part of this fiasco going on at The Star — management asking veteran reporters Dawn Bormann and Karen Dillon to decide which of them should be let go in a down sizing — is that The Star apparently has done this at least once before. And got away with it.
Back in January 2011, five months before Mi-Ai Parrish was named publisher at The Star, my friend Hearne Christopher reported on his kcconfidential blog that a longtime copy editor name Don Munday (who also has a humorous verse in The Star every Monday) had been let go in a down sizing.
Hearne came back a day or two later, however, saying that might not be right, and it turned out that Munday was staying. It struck me as very odd that a guy would be cast off one day (I trusted that Hearne simply didn’t misidentify the target) and then be pulled back aboard the next.
But, as I recall (I could be wrong), nothing ever came out about the possibility that Munday and another employee might have been presented with the “you two make the call” option. Now, though, Hearne is reporting that the flip of the coin, so to speak, was between Munday and another longtime copy editor, Mike Garbus. Garbus lost the toss, or whatever, and Munday continued penning his verses.
And so the episode passed quietly.
Hearne sniffed out the latest game of “you-or-him” or “you-or-her,” and it has grabbed headlines in blogs and mainstream media partly because two women are involved. In addition, each has family caretaking duties: Bormann has a young child, and Dillon apparently helps care for two grandchildren.
What I make of this situation is that editor Mike Fannin in all likelihood engineered both rounds of this foolish game. Fannin would have brought the proposal to Parrish, who probably thought to herself something like, “Well, it worked out OK the first time, when I wasn’t here, so we might as well give it another run.”
If that is the correct scenario, this 41- or 42-year-old publisher has now found out that delegating significant personnel decisions to underlings is a huge mistake.
In addition, Parrish has not impressed me in the least. She has not built a civic profile for herself and her paper, and she is not a good salesperson, which a publisher has to be these days to be successful. Remember Jim Hale, publisher back in the late 1970s and into the 80s? He presented as an easy-going, aw-shucks Texan, but he wielded tremendous power of personality and built an imposing profile on the civic front. As a result, The Star’s profile rose to its highest point in decades and made money hand over fist.
After Parrish was named publisher in 2011, I wrote that “putting a 40-year-old person with five years of publishing experience — especially small-market experience — looks like a rather big roll of the dice.”
I pointed out that she came from a paper, the Idaho Statesman, that was four times smaller than The Star in terms of circulation. Plus she had jumped to publisher in Idaho from the mid-level management job of deputy managing editor at the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
In that same blog I also wrote this: “On the digital side, her youth should work to her advantage because that appears to be where the future lies for newspapers. But her youth could work against her on the personnel side, unless she gets some very good advisers.”
Well, her youth and relative inexperience at the highest level of journalism has worked against her.
But the Dillon-Bormann situation isn’t the first time she has dropped the ball. Just before she was announced as publisher, Hearne reported (with the reportorial help of a much less prominent blogger…ahem) that Fannin had not one — as previously thought –but two D.U.I. convictions. We also uncovered a misdemeanor assault conviction in Texas, where he worked before he came to Kansas City.
That would have been the perfect time for Parrish to unload Fannin and bring in her own editor. But, as I told Hearne at the time, that’s not the way The Star operates. When its managers come under fire, they circle the wagons and hunker down.
Now, Parrish has no one but herself to blame. If she fires Fannin, it won’t change the fact that the buck stopped with her.
I think it very likely that, as a result of this debacle, Parrish is in her first and last publishing job at a major metropolitan daily.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Parrish is now denying that the employees were forced to choose.
http://www.bottomlinecom.com/star-publisher-denies-reports-employees-forced-to-choose/
Thanks for the update, John…I don’t buy her denial, though, partly because of the Munday-Garbus precedent and partly because Parrish’s denial was more than 24 hours later than one would have expected. In a widely reported statement to NBC late Wednesday, Parrish said the paper was cutting its workforce by 17 positions.
NBC went on to quote Parrish as saying in the statement:
“These are always difficult decisions, so we will on occasion allow employees to volunteer for a severance package when we are reducing in areas where there are two or more of the same types of positions.”
She also told NBC that if an employee in a group does not volunteer, “then the person with the least amount of tenure is included in the severance program.”
The statement contained no outright denial of the “you-or-her” story that was being widely reported.
In addition, a former reporter sent me an e-mail a few minutes ago, saying: “This inhumane method of laying people off also was foisted on mid-level editors in the Johnson County/Olathe News bureau a few years ago.”
They had easier processes to swing the axe in the ’80s. The ways you would expect.
I would let the least experienced go. That would be Parrish.
I had a personal experience with one of the two reporters discussed here, Bormann and Dillon, but never met the other reporter.
The one I knew was handed an amazing amount of information about an upcoming event, and had only a short time to produce the story. I waited anxiously for the next day’s paper. Worried in vain. The story was well-written, captured the essence of the event, had every detail correct. Afterwards, I watched for that byline, having confidence in the ability and integrity of that reporter.
Very difficult to build loyalty when everyone is afraid they might be next on the chopping block.
The night watchman at Mount Washington Cemetery, until fairly recently a Star reporter, tells me that he thought he heard Star founder William Rockhill Nelson turning over in his grave the other evening as if to say, “McClatchy, you can kiss my —.”
One reporter gets the spear,
And to the other goes the sword –
The Star’s “hunger games” are here …
Please have mercy on us all, dear Lord!
Jimmy C. Hearne’s story was a fabrication and there is not one source who can confirm it.
On the other hand, the editor is in writing denying the whole thing.
“Don’t buy it”
Is that good enough to pass journalistic muster?
Show us the proof. Bottom Line has a memo. What do you have. Are you willing to go on record with evidence to the contrary? Looks like all you have is your opinion, which you are entitled to but it’s just opinion and not fact.
How about the horse’s mouth for confirmation, JoBureau? Media blogger Jim Romenesko exchanged e-mails with Dillon, and here’s what he wrote yesterday:
“I emailed the two reporters and editor Mike Fannin to confirm this process. Dillon did — I haven’t heard back from Fannin and Bormann — and tells Romenesko readers that “we’ve not made an official decision” on who gets to stay. “It’s one of the most difficult situations I’ve ever faced.”
http://jimromenesko.com/page/2/
P.S. To tell you the truth, in light of Dillon having communicated with “the press,” it wouldn’t surprise me if she was asked to leave. Star managers absolutely grind their teeth — and then chew out the employee who talked out — when company insiders speak for the record on internal matters.
Congrats to Dillon for courage; I hope it doesn’t cost her the job…
Fitz,
The reason this incident got attention is not because of gender but because Dawn and Karen are reporters. We’re not talking about copy editors who do very valuable work but are only known inside the newsroom. We’re talking about reporters who have their bylines in print for the world to see. Public officials, movers and shakers and other newsmakers know them. Karen and Dawn have a combined 35 years of experience at The Star. Karen has had a very distinguished career at the paper with her numerous investigative pieces_ the KCPD’s T-account, NCAA series, the sad saga of the Dickinson Theatre heiress, and her environmental reporting. Dawn has been in the trenches of both the Johnson and Wyandotte county bureaus and has scored numerous A-1 stories, which you know is a key accomplishment for a bureau reporter.
When a bad manager, who could never have held either of these reporters’ notebook but somehow elevated him or herself to the top of the food chain, pulls a stunt like this, guess what, it’s going to get some very negative attention. And as you can see from the feedback on this blog and various others, it is going to piss off some of their former colleagues _ especially ones who have been shown the exit door at 1729 Grand in recent years..
Yeah, my story was a fabrication, right.
That’s why both Fannin and Parrish wouldn’t take Romenesko’s calls to clear the air. That’s why Dillon and several other Star staffers confirmed the story.
Go ahead and read Parrish’s full “denial” on KC Confidential. It’s a non denial denial. She confirms every detail of my and Romenesko’s reporting but tries to couch it differently. Calling it a voluntary layoff.
The Star did do voluntary layoffs five years back when Jeff Spivak and others took them. Unfortunately for Jimmy C, he opted to retire shortly before the Gift Horse showed up.
But those were completely voluntary. Anyone could apply for the severance packages.
This was totally not voluntary as Parrish would have people it was. What’s voluntary about telling two people one of you has to go, who’d like to volunteer?
By the way, Jimbo, I think we did our Fannin expose before Parrish showed up.
Am I wrong?
I think I presented the correct chronology, Hearne: We did our Fannin expose in early June, and the announcement about Parrish came a week or two later. Thus, “…Just before she was announced as publisher, Hearne reported …)
…And, by the way, don’t throw any pity my way for missing out on a buyout. I was thrilled to get out when I did…And did you hear about my retirement party? The Marching Cobras were there; we ate pizza the size of a desktop; and Managing Editor Steve Shirk led the gang in singing “For he’s a jolly good fellow.” (Nah, actually, it was a pretty subdued affair in the Indy bureau, with pizza and sheetcake, but I did recite my Top 10 reasons I wouldn’t miss The Star.)
So the Star is run by gutless wonders doing the bidding of the corporate hierarchy. Who knew?
Hundreds of thousands of people are getting ready to get whacked as we go over the fiscal cliff (and or) experience the genesis of Obamacare. That’s a story that needs coverage.
The Hunger Games reference to this episode is ridiculous. No one is going to die.
It’s clear that the Star f’d up in handling this situation. The ability of the organization to communicate clearly, honestly and effectively with their employee’s is just as bad as their ability to do the same with their readers.
Will Parish or Fannin get Sheboygan’d? No! A promotion for one or both is probably in order. More than any other individual or organization the Star bears responsibility for the decline of Kansas City as we knew it. Stupid is as stupid does.
I like that, Smartman — Sheboygan’d.
Phenomenal post! It leaves one speechless. Thanks for staying in the mix, Jim.
Great to hear from you, Andy…I hope things are going well for you in the marketing and P.R. biz.
(Readers: Andy Miller, otherwise Andrew C. Miller, as I recall, was a Star reporter for many years, starting as KCMO School District reporter and rising to Washington correspondent — a post he held for about 10 years.)
jimmyc,
Is it also true that the Star is making money, but making these cuts just to support the corporate office??? Kind of cutting your nose to spite your face, isn’t it?
Dunno, Willie…
Come clean, Jimmy C. Did you hit your head or something?
The story you and I co-wrote about Mike Fannin’s DUIs and assault conviction ran on – wait for it – August 26, 2010. That’s nearly a year before Parrish’s appointment and the Z Man was still firmly in control at the Star.
The headline read: “Star Editor Guilty of Assault Charge in Texas
Posted on August 26, 2010”
Publisher Mark Zieman left in May of 2011 but he was still in charge when we did our expose on Fannin.
But no way was Zieman going to bust Fannin, it would have made him look bad. Really bad. Because when Zieman first offered Fannin the job in 2008, Fannin turned it down and warned Zieman he had too many skeletons in his closet.
Fannin told me that himself at the launch party for INK at the then new P&L District.
So having brushed Fannin’s cautions aside and still appointing him, it would have made Zieman look bad had he fired him. Don’t forget when Whitlock outed Fannin for having an affair with a subordinate at the Star Zieman more-or-less looked the other way.
He didn’t fire him anyway and a deal was quietly made with the departing female editor that will probably never see the light of day.
I defer to you on the chronology, Hearne…At any rate, it’s good to get some more mileage from out “expose,” isn’t it?
Good recap, too, on Zieman’s appointment of Fannin. Another good reason for Parrish to have chosen her own editor upon her arrival. She apparently accepted Fannin’s method of dealing with layoffs. A strong publisher would have said (as you often do), “Hold it right there!”
…A lot of this turmoil probably would have been avoided if Zieman had chosen Steve Shirk as editor. Steve knows how to keep the ship running smoothly and carefully thinks things through before acting. There would have been layoffs, for sure, but he would have handled it differently.
But Zieman chose Fannin, partly, I believe, because he thought Fannin could make a better transition to digital improvements and also because he is regarded as a veritable font of ideas. The selection of Fannin was riskier, and, overall, it does not appear to have paid off…Now, if McGraws wins a Pulitzer for the beef series, we’ll have to reconsider. That would probably overshadow the personnel mishandlings.
And again I pose the question why is The Star getting rid of either of these well qualified reporters when they perform tasks few bloggers either can, or want to do while retaining a staff of overpaid dinosaurs who perform (poorly) a task most blogger not only do, but do better?
I cannot for the life of me fathom the contempt this organization seems to have for journlists and journalism. Mike Hendrix fails to write even an honest opinion column and is therefore demoted to being a reporter!?!? Really, being a journalist is the penalty for being a dishonest columnist?
Now 35 years of journalistic talent is at risk to save who, Miriam Pepper? Yael Abouhalkah? Lewis Diuguid?
And Fannin? Never mind being a drunk and a thug, isn’t this the guy who caused a subordinate, another editor, to leave because of their sexual relationship? His cover-up of Derek Donovan’s ethical conundrums is another area that would merit an examination if The Star had competent management.
It’s interesting that some of the folk who used to work there are now beginning to see what many of us in the community have been putting up with for a long time.
You’ve been hammering at the top-heavy theme a long time, John, and your criticism edges closer and closer to the forefront with each round of layoffs. You’re right…It is a shame to have to lose either one of those excellent reporters. After all the shit that The Star has had thrown in its face because of this fiasco, some editor ought to take the sword. Like Fannin…Yes, Fannin. He ought to go back to Texas and return to the world of sports journalism. He’d be praised from coast to coast for doing the right thing. Think it will happen?
(Got to have a little fun with you here, John…Mike is not the brother of Jimi Hendrix. Mike’s name ends in “..icks.”)
Icks, that’s appropriate. See, we all need copy editors and the ones I worked with at The Star were all top notch. Too bad they’re gone.
Big Jim,
I asked one of your former colleagues (shall remain nameless) @ the item below this eve and he was very cynical and said it wasn’t true . . .