The newest member of The Star’s editorial board offered his first by-lined commentary today, and one thing is clear: He’s got a lot to learn.
Just last week, Editorial Page Editor Colleen McCain Nelson introduced Toriano Porter as eighth member of the editorial board that Publisher Tony Berg reconstructed after blowing up what was left of the former board in late 2016.
Toriano Porter
In Porter — who is African-American — Nelson is giving a young, relatively inexperienced reporter a great opportunity to make a mark at a major metropolitan daily. Although I certainly applaud the appointment of a second minority member to the board (Mary Sanchez being the other), I was concerned when I read that Porter’s major qualification was having been a general assignment reporter at The Star the last two years.
Before that, he worked at a suburban St. Louis paper and the The Independence Examiner and The Lee’s Summit Journal.
Suffice it to say, Toriano Porter is very “green” as a journalist, and the fact is there’s absolutely no way he would have been appointed to the editorial board, with such limited experience, during The Star’s glory days.
**
His column today was about the thoroughly discredited and about to-be ex-president of the Kansas City convention and visitors bureau, which is formally named Visit KC.
My objection to Toriano’s column is he was naively sympathetic to the executive in question.
But first, here’s the backdrop…
Ronnie Burt
The C.E.O., 49-year-old Ronnie Burt, submitted his resignation two weeks ago in the wake of formal, internal allegations that he had harassed and bullied three bureau employees. In addition — and perhaps more important — his firing of another bureau executive led to a discrimination lawsuit that resulted in a settlement that cost the bureau $250,000.
The plaintiff in that case was former human resources manager Janette Barron, who contended Burt fired her last year after she sought an investigation into the harassment and bullying allegations.
It’s pretty clear, this was a big mess and the bureau was in chaos under Burt, who came to Kansas City from a similar organization in Washington D.C. in 2014.
Janette Barron
Under the settlement, which resourceful reporter Steve Vockrodt got under a Sunshine Law request, the visitors bureau agreed to pay Barron $137,500 and her attorney $112.500. Burt tendered his resignation, effective Jan, 31, after the bureau’s executive committee met three times to discuss the situation.
Burt was present at the first of the three meetings but not at the last two, so it’s clear the executive committee decided Burt needed to go. This was not a voluntary resignation.
**
Porter’s column got off to an alarming start:
“I don’t know if Ronnie Burt is guilty of the harassment and the bullying behavior he’s been accused of. But what if the allegations aren’t true, as the outgoing C.E.O of Visit KC contends?”
Wow…Talk about rushing to a guy’s defense! He might was well have written, “Did Ronnie Burt get screwed???”
Porter went on to quote Burt as saying, “I was deeply hurt by the allegations,” and, “This is my character. This is my integrity, who I am as a person.”
Holy cow…To be sure, it is all about character. The problem is all the evidence — not the least of which is a $250,000 bureau payout — is Burt’s character and temperament are sorely wanting.
Porter’s naivete boiled over when he said, “Burt seemed sincere in his response.”
Well, hell yes he sounds sincere! He’s a trained salesman, for Christ’s sake…a pitchman, a glad-hander whose main job has been to convince people (sincerely) they will have a great experience if they bring their convention to Kansas City.
Porter concludes his column on a syrupy, sentimental note:
“A contrite Ronnie Burt still could rebound and learn from his time in Kansas City. This is his chance.”
Sorry, Toriano, you got it wrong: Ronnie Burt had his chance here. But he fucked up, and now his prospects of becoming C.E.O. at another convention and visitors bureau are very dim…unless some other bureau falls for his phony sincerity.
“Ronnie Burt had his chance here. But he fucked up, and now his prospects of becoming C.E.O. at another convention and visitors bureau are very dim…unless”… he finds a C&V bureau as desperate to hire a token minority as The Star was.
In The Star’s defense by hiring someone totally unqualified they probably figured he’d be easier to control (always a plus for white liberals). Unfortunately for them, most people don’t sit around thinking “I’m totally unqualified for this gig so I better kiss some ass to get along.”
Too harsh, John…Ever since Colleen Nelson said early last year that she had one more spot to fill on the board, it was clear it was going to be an African-American. And that was a necessary step.
I just hope Toriano will grow into the job. But I’m a bit worried that Colleen, instead of choosing him because she, as you suggest, could “control” him, now will have to spend a lot of time working with him on his ideas and copy.
Is womansplaining a word?
Yes, I was astounded by the sympathy given to Mr Burt, from the beginning to the end of the column. One wonders why. But how can the new, inexperienced member of the editorial board learn if he is not mentored, which surely could not have happened in this case, could it?
This column also calls into question his reporting if he can be seduced so easily by a salesman. What the writer calls the “high road” looks to me to be a road of smoke down which the columnist was blinded, unable to see.
Good points, Vern. I do hope Toriano will come around. In the meantime, it’s clear Colleen needs to take a stronger hold on the reins.
John: Very good…”womansplaining.”
Keep in mind, this kid is replacing Lewis. My favorite Lewisism was “negative diversity yields negative productivity” operationalized by using Lewis as an excuse for the former and his columns as an example of the latter. I’ll quit now.
An alternative line Mr. Porter could have used, instead of “But what if the allegations aren’t true?” is: “What if three women are liars and one woman incompetent?” That’s the premise of his first opinion piece.
According to Steve Vockrodt’s 12/21/2017 KCStar article:
Sometime in 2016, three women reported being harassed, bullied, and retaliated against by Burt. These days, we call coming forward like this bravery.
The head of HR who received the reports, Janelle Barron, consulted with company lawyers, and was told to meet with both Burt and Board Chairman Kevin Pistilli. She did, and requested an investigation.
It’s unclear (to me) what happened in that meeting. “Request” suggests permission – was the request denied?
Later in the article, Burt is quoted as saying “He knew what she (Barron) had done and who she had spoken to about it.”
Afterwards, Barron was placed on administrative leave for two weeks, and then fired.
And Mr. Porter, after knowing all of this, concludes his article by quoting Burt:
“Overseeing an agency with 45 employees and a yearly operating budget around $13 million isn’t easy. Someone is bound to be unhappy. But when multiple people make serious allegations and a lawsuit follows, it has a way of humbling you.”
It’s cases like this – and articles like this – that have prevented women from coming forward in the first place.
Mike Round
You’re rambling, Mike…Suggest you get Lisa to review before you push “post comment.”
Maybe I should apply for a position on the editorial board.
Now, instead of saying Burt “fucked up”, how about an update on what happened with the investigation regarding the three female employees.
I’ll get on that with all deliberate speed…
As a tangential point, why does The Star feel it necessary to have 8 members on the editorial board when the reporting and copy editing ranks have been shrunken so severely?
Beats that used to be monitored full-time are now ignored or checked on only sporadically and lots of news falls through the cracks or is left to online outlets or TV newscasts.
If Tony Berg thinks a strong editorial page is more valuable than having more reporters (I disagree), then he should at least have chosen people who are more willing to speak truth to power. Instead, with rare exceptions, we get a lot of mealy-mouthed good-people-on-both-sides type opinion pieces that add nothing to civic discourse.
You and Altevogt are of like mind on The Star’s decision to beef up the editorial page at the expense of the news side. It frustrates me, too, to see the news side languish, but I am very glad Berg is allocating a lot of money to the editorial side. The Star’s editorial voice is essential to helping the public sort out complex situations, such as the fucked-up new-terminal process. It really helps readers, especially casual readers not familiar with the twists and turns of government, arrive at informed opinions. It’s hard to overemphasize the importance of that service.
Now, on your point about who is hired to help people form those opinions, I agree with your completely: It takes knowledgeable, experienced journalists with outstanding writing skills. Fortunately, most of The Star’s editorial-page writers have deep experience and excellent writing skills.
For the most part, the Star’s editorials are lively, informative and far superior to the lecturing tone we were getting with Yael Abouhalkah before Berg canned him in late 2016. He was incredibly well informed and well intentioned, but his voice had become too strident, and he was effectively a one-man show, which is never good in an editorial operation.
(Just to clarify, “Mike” is not Michael Round, who posted a couple of comments earlier.)
And it’s not me.