I sat down with Scott McPartlin of Arlington County’s Parks and Recreation department over a cup of coffee at the Java Shack, an independent coffee house near the government office buildings. Although I would have happily bought the coffee for him (I don’t think a $2 cup of joe breaks SPJ ethics rules), he had beat me to the shop and had a large cup and an even larger cookie on the table with him.

It was a warm day in December 2008, and we were meeting at my request. The week before, I’d written a column in which I said county staff, including Mr. McPartlin, had been “tight-lipped” about possible plans for a park, a triangular space of unimproved grass at the corner of two busy streets adjacent to a mall’s parking garage.

More than a year earlier the county had posted a Request for Interest (the step before the Request for Proposals) on their web site looking to see if any companies would want to develop a “world class” miniature golf course in some sort of public-private venture on that site.

I had covered that story as well as stories about the political fall-out from groups that said the idea for mini-golf had not been properly vetted with the public. That backlash set the county staff looking for possible other uses of the space, though mini-golf remained on the table.

For months Mr. McPartlin had been telling me that staff had been working diligently on finding possible alternative uses for the space. Each month, he told me that the committee would have more information soon. Before I wrote my “tight lipped” column, I asked him who was on the committee with him and called them. One of the three took my phone call on this.

In the column, I mentioned the plan for mini-golf and the tight-lipped nature of the discussions, and then I wrote: “For months however, county staff from the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources; Arlington Economic Development; and Community Planning have been meeting to consider alternate uses for the 20,000 square foot site, especially after some citizens in the area voiced concerns about the lack of input from people early in the planning process.

“‘We're still working internally to develop these [ideas],’ said Scott McPartlin, the lead planner on this project. The committee that is researching will let the public know, ‘Hopefully really soon.’

“Rich Dooley, a senior land use planner, said the different ideas are still going through internal vetting, but that the research and discussion is not necessarily tricky.”

Mr. McPartlin was on the phone about three hours after the story posted, and he said he could sit down and talk to me about anything publicly available; I could hear in his voice that he was not thrilled to have to do this, and my suspicions that the county was fuming over a return to the drawing board for this project were growing stronger.

Not wanting to botch the potentially uncomfortable interview, I wrote this to the ISWNE hotline:

Background:
On my placeblog, I ran an incorrect story about a local park that might be developed as a mini-golf course. The county planner leading the redevelopment, who I have spoken with many times about this and another park under his domain, quickly wrote a letter to the editor, correcting the mistake. I ran the letter, and a couple days later, I called and apologized (long story short, it was my stupid error). When I called to apologize I also asked him what else the county has been researching for that site, and he said "hopefully soon" the county could tell me. That's been his answer for a few months, and I've been sitting and waiting; I call about once a month and ask that same question. Finally, I asked who else has been researching the site, and he, sounding less than thrilled at this line of questioning, told me the two other departments involved, and he sorta said, kinda, under his breath, "but please don't call." (Everything in his tone and response said that to me). I called those departments, though I felt a little bad as I like the county planner and I don't really think he's trying to stonewall, but feels this won't go well publicly (the neck hairs rise just at typing this, though). Guy#2 from one of the departments called back and said, basically, "the info will be coming soon." I wrote a story that said, "The county is being tight-lipped about what else they're pursuing." Three hours later, Guy#1 is on the phone saying, none-too-happily, "Whatever is public, we'll let you know, whenever you want." We've never met face-to-face, so I suggested that I could buy him coffee and we could talk, and he sounded generally pleased with that idea, so we meet tomorrow.

Problem:
I have no doubt that I forced his hand, and now I'm wondering how to handle that at coffee tomorrow. Do I bring up any part of that, or do I just focus forward at the ongoing research and pretend my hand-forcing story never ran? (I guess I'm wondering how sensitive others feel his ego might be at this point.) I certainly won't apologize for asking that the county tell me how they're spending tax money, but what hints do others out there have for me? He is a guy that I will be talking to for at least the next two or three years as this park develops, and I'd like him to be forthcoming and honest.

You may have noticed that in my hotline question I mentioned a mistake I had made earlier and that Mr. McPartlin corrected with a letter to the editor. I was trying to get at the notion that although he and I shared many pleasant phone calls over the park plans, I had messed up recently, and then I held his (and his committee’s) feet to the fire. I expected a touchy interview.

In my haste to get a hotline question to the group, I didn’t give the best context. As you can see from the first part of this story, the county is nowhere near considering different bids or discussing a specific proposal from a developer. They are not in deliberations that might be off limits even to sunshine laws (though I do not think I made that clear in my “problem”). And I did not stress that they had to go back to the drawing board, and are yet again considering ideas without public input. I was looking at this situation and seeing a potential repeat of the mini-golf roll-out: Staff says, “Our new idea is X,” and the public says, “But you still didn’t ask us.”

About a dozen ISWNE members responded, and the answers were as diverse as the group (with slight edits for spelling or removing personal notes to me from friends):

From Goodloe Sutton, Linden, Alabama:

“Don't know what part of this planet you are on, but bribing this dude with a cup of coffee is tainting your reputation. Take him to some sleazy joint — better yet, get him to meet you there after dark. Ply him with lots of booze and start by talking about cheap floozies and ease into the county problems. Maybe get a floozy to come sit at your table, or in his lap, and get her to ask him the sensitive questions.

“If you are in Alabama, as I am, then you will get the ignorant county and municipal people putting you off and delaying information.

“What we have found effective in this case is to cite the questions we asked and the exact response given. Example: How much is the administrator's salary? The usual answer is, we can't give that out, it is private.

“Once the public reads that, then the administrator's salary is [on] a lot of minds who really wish to know.

“Just quote exactly what they tell you. Let the public know that you are trying to do your job, but the officials are withholding information.”

From Bill Reader, Ohio University:

“Steve - The county planner may be covered under exemptions to your state's sunshine laws regarding property negotiations. Most states allow exemptions to disclosure for a handful of matters, and negotiating on the sale/development of public property often is one of them (although the intent to sell/develop is NOT exempt in most cases; just the particulars of negotiations). The reason is actually fairly practical: Premature publicity can taint negotiations. As a rule, no deal can be made behind closed doors, however; at some point, the county will be obligated to make public its plans, and will have to debate and vote on the deal in a public forum.

“I think a coffee with the planner is a good idea ... too few journalists make those personal connections with key sources, and such meetings can temper misgivings on both ends.”

“Good luck!”

From Kelly Clemmer, Wainwright, Alberta:

“As for your problem, I think the ‘forcing his hand’ story is probably worse than the error.

“The thing is, you do have the public's interest at heart. Ego or none, if you explain that over coffee, that should smooth the waters.

“Although, being the champion of the public is pretty empty if no one wants to talk to you afterwards...

“I do think that as long as the Guy #1 isn't a complete ass, you should be able to reason with him. You have to be able to acknowledge that maybe you forced his hand, but the fact is, you want to just clear the issue up and get all the correct information out there and keep this as running theme. It's a 'good news' story for them, positive PR if they develop the park into something better than it is. If they're planning to turn it into a parking lot, there's reason for them to stonewall, they know it's not going to be a positive story.

“If nothing else, you work on the guy a bit over coffee and then let it go, and follow up in a few weeks, perhaps on a different issue to try and get Guy to loosen up a bit. Maybe find a 'good news' story that they've been wanting to promote to try and grease the wheels a bit. Sometimes city planners have lots of cool little tidbits that they keep under their hat because they don't realize they are newsworthy.”

From Cheryl Peterson, Harrisville, Michigan:

Hi Steve,

First, let me say buying the guy a cup of coffee is the perfect thing to do. Fact-to-face interaction is much better than telephone interviews any day. However, they aren’t always possible with deadlines and individual schedules.

You also did the right thing about apologizing to him and running his letter. Mistakes always make us humble and serve as reminders on how critical it is to get the facts right.

Without knowing what the political pressures they guy(s) are facing it’s hard to get a read on how you should handle the situation over coffee. My suggestion is to be humble (he might still be stinging from any backlash he might have gotten over the mistake you made), but also be clear that it wasn’t deliberate and won’t happen again.

Then ask him if you both can put it behind you and move on. You might even want to talk to him “off the record” — no notes, strictly between the two of you (and explain that to him) to see if you can get him to open up about what might really be going on.

Remember that forcing a source’s hand to get information isn’t always a bad thing. It sounds like there is a story there and you have to do your job. You are right to be concerned about burning a source and keeping a good relationship going. It’s a matter of trust — both ways. He has to learn to trust you and you have to be able to trust him. That takes time. How long depends on the situation and added political pressure (which isn’t something you should concern yourself with, but you should be aware of it.)

There are always other ways to get information about a development (permits that are being pulled, zoning applications, etc.) I’d suggest that you don’t always rely on Guy No. 1 as your only source. If you check into things and then go to him (after having done independent research) with specific questions, you might get more out of him and you will be more informed in the long run with a much better story.

It’s always better to talk about the “pink elephant” in the room than ignore it. At coffee you could stroke his ego a bit by telling him you’d rather rely on his information, but that you have to double check facts as part of your job (which, of course, is true). Ask some personal questions, get to know him a bit. Tell him a little bit about yourself (whatever you are comfortable with) you might even explain (if this is the case for you as a reporter) that you aren’t trying to “make” news, but you have a responsibility to readers to get news to them while it is news and that competition plays a lot into what you do. (If this isn’t your philosophy, then don’t say it.)

Then, when you are both relaxed, move on into your interview — but make sure he knows when you are back “on the record” (if you go off).

Hope this helps. Good luck.

From Susan Hodges, Vermillion, Alberta:

Hi Steve, as someone who has been dealing with city or county officials for the past 13 years I have run into this issue. Coffee is a great idea and usually works to smooth things over. These guys need to feel they can trust you. They know you have to report on how tax payers’ dollars are spent but timelines are often sensitive and getting projects lined up is time consuming. Things fall through easily and personally I don't like reporting on projects until I know it is happening. It keeps your reporting accurate.

" There are many ideas in the works but none are written in stone," said county park manager — People then know they are working on projects and when they have something concrete they will announce it. You don't need to name the projects because they could fall through the next day and a new project will be in its place.

I had a great working relationship with a Mayor who always told me everything that was going on so that I knew what was reportable and what was not yet but would be in the future when things were finalized. We had coffee once a week and she knew that if council made a stupid decision I would report it. I played no favors. But I worked with them so that I was always informed about what was happening behind closed doors. It took a while to gain that trust but I use that strategy to this day and it works. They call me now instead of the competition to give me the inside scoop on projects and town/county issues. Part of that trust comes from being totally accurate in your reporting. Mess up once and they will forgive you, mess up twice and they will be reluctant to talk to you, mess up three times and your phone calls won't be returned.

When you talk to this guy apologize for the mistake you made and when you talk to him about the project record it on tape. I record all of my interviews as well as write my notes because like I said accuracy to me is everything. If he is willing to meet you for coffee the door is not closed so tread lightly and start the building process in your relationship.

From Elizabeth Laden, Island Park, Ind.:

Hi,

I would never run a story stating a local government or agency, etc. is “tight-lipped.” Instead I would develop my source so I would be sure to get the breaking story first by respecting their need for privacy until they are certain their deal is in the works. This is especially important when it is a relationship you will have for a long time. Now you look like a pushy reporter who tries to force a piece of news rather than let your source control his own story and timeline.

I would apologize and try to rescue the relationship. Nowadays, the news media have a deficit in their trust bank, so this is especially sensitive.

From Elliott Freireich, Avondale, Arizona:

Steve,

You can't pretend you didn't run the story but you don't need to rub it in his face. I would not mention it specifically unless he brings it up. But don't be embarrassed about doing your job. He has a job to do and he decided to apply some rules to his decision not to tell you about the project and might have found those rules in conflict with public information laws. He shouldn't be a problem since he did agree to meet with you. Make sure he knows that you hold no ill will towards him, but appreciate his cooperation to do your job. He also may have wanted to tell you but couldn't because he knew his bosses would rather he didn't, but once you “forced” the issue he had no problem to reveal the info because he "had no other choice."

Send along an update as to how this went.

From Brian Wilson, Medford, Wisconsin:

While it is always good to maintain a good working relationship with government officials, stroking egos can quickly become tiresome and counterproductive.

The key is to build a relationship of mutual respect. It is a two-way street with the officials needing to respect that you will dig for information as needed and your show of respect is to not burn them when they slip you a hint or background information.

I walked into a situation where my predecessors would often resort to personal attacks and I made it clear early on that I would not do that. Criticizing or calling into question an action taken by an official in their official capacity is always acceptable so long as you temper it with respect for their knowledge, background and experience. Sometimes officials have their hands forced by other forces and would dearly love to be more forthcoming but are bound by "policies, precedents, and procedures."

From Charlie Gay, Shelton, Washington:

Dear Steve: I wouldn't worry about going over ground already plowed. You said the man generally was fine with talking to you. I don’t think he'd agree to meet with you in a friendly coffee-type situation if he detested the press' intrusion on his secret little fiefdom. From what I read in your e-mail, you should be looking ahead and doing your job informing the public, not worried about something that you assume forced his hand. Government officials don't have to let anyone force their hand. He let you force his. On the face of it, it sounds like he's a public servant realizing the value of open government, but you’ll only find that out tomorrow. Of course if he gets into the subject of being upset with your coverage, you can have a discussion between professionals that you pray he understands. If he's intelligent, he knows what your job is, even if he's uncomfortable with what that means. Show that you know what his job is and you respect his situation, though you want information. I hope he doesn't put you in a position of giving you information if you agree not to print it. In that case, I would probably say, "Thanks but no thanks," and try to get the information from a source you can quote. Otherwise, if you get the information somewhere else and quote “officials” in a story, he’s liable to think you double-crossed him. Good luck.

From Patric Hedlund, Frazier Park, CA:

I hope the answers you receive will be shared. When we invest the time to read your entire story, because you asked for help, it seems that the payback to all of us is that we get the benefit of seeing our colleagues' replies, so that we all gain insight.

As to your question, I've been in that situation constantly in Kern County, and I am very straightforward about the nature of our job as journalists. We serve the same public as those employed by the county. We share with them the goal of providing good information about how the community's resources are being spent. Here in California we have the benefit of the Brown Act regarding open meetings and public access to information. It applies to the “legislative bodies” of all local agencies in California. Transparency is the objective of the Brown Act, and our public officials may try to dodge it, but they all know the law. If they stonewall we can issue a public records request.

One thing I try to hold to a minimum is “off the record” backgrounding with local officials. Some of them see this as a way of habitually trying to spin and control our reporting rather than delivering straight information. I do not get into "negotiating" our reporting. It can help to meet in person, and it is fine to acknowledge in such a meeting that sometimes your job to serve the public's right to know may lead you to ask inconvenient questions, but emphasize that you share the county employee's goal to get accurate information to the public.

There may be politics behind the scenes that have put your planner in an awkward position, perhaps even risking his job. It is vital that you be astute for such signals. If there is any such indication, you may wish to seek input from another source so that you have information in hand before you have another face to face dialogue with the planner. You may ask if there are others who he suggests you interview. You might also ask what kind of ideas the elected county supervisors have about the park's use. Sometimes you discover that support staff are being put over a barrel by elected representatives who are carrying water for political supporters. Sometimes you find that there are behind-the-scenes budget battles being waged internally. Either way, that becomes your story, and reporting it well and accurately takes pressure off the planner, who you may decide to quote only tangentially. Welcome to the role of the free press in our demanding democracy.

From Emily Thierfelder, Altoona, Wisconsin:

Hi Steve,

Aah, the joys of working with public officials! I think you handled the situation quite well; offering to take this guy to coffee is generous and shows you're willing to work with him.

At that meeting, I’d suggest you just focus forward on the ongoing research and pretend your hand-forcing story never ran. The past is the past, and there's nothing you can do about it, anyway. Just take advantage of the fact that whatever your actions were, you are now faced with an opportunity to learn some new information, and go from there. Besides, as you so rightly pointed out, you’ll be working with this fellow for the next few years and “making nice” is a good idea.

From Brad Martin, Centerville, Tennessee:

Hey Steve,

2 thoughts:

1. If you make a reporting mistake, correct it in the reporting columns. It's not fair to you to have to run a letter to the editor for a reporting mistake. I've had several people want to do that, and use it to tee off against the newspaper. Errors made honestly should be corrected in the same setting. If a victim then wants to submit a letter for publication, I would publish that. But only subsequently — let’s get the record straight first, without commentaries that letters invite.

2. Sounds like you may need to have a clear-the-air conversation as part of your coffee meeting. I find that, sometimes, government officials don't know me well enough to know that I'm just trying to report; some of these officials know only what they see on TV and they think media is always out to get them, when that certainly is not true in the regular newspaper-type press. If the guy thinks you're trying to pressure him . . . well, you are, of course, but you can’t squeeze words out of his mouth, right?

Since you say he sounded “generally pleased” with the coffee meeting, I’d interpret it as an opportunity to at least explain that you're just pursuing stories. It’s hard for me sometimes to keep from saying something like, "Well, how often should I check with you about this?" because I may be giving up too much. On the other hand, trust has to build and this may be one way to go about it.

From Trey Foerster, Manawa, Wisconsin:

As to your inquiry to the international editors grapevine, start off by emphasizing that we all make errors and you will do your best not make another error in reporting what he says to you. Lay down the rules of speaking with a journalist: unless he states that he does not want it on the record, it is assumed that anything he relates is on the record. When he tells you something from here on it, repeat it back to him for confirmation, that way he'll know you are trying to be accurate. Finally, if you want 100 percent accuracy, ask him if he’d like to preview the story before it appears to check for accuracy. We do that and then there’s no complaints about that issue when the story runs. He doesn't get authority to change the thrust of the story, just check the facts and the context of his quotes.

From Thomas Mullen:

Steve,

My only advice is simple: be honest with him. If you expect to develop a relationship of trust that will last for years he needs to have reason to trust you. Also, get a second source to confirm whatever you get from him. Good luck.

+++

Although a couple of the emails came too late for my meeting, the vast majority were on my mind as I stepped into the Java Shack, notebook and pen in hand, ready to fork over $5 for a couple cups of Sumatra’s finest.

But as I said, Mr. McPartlin already had his coffee and cookie, a ready smile and beefy handshake. We quickly dispensed with the pleasantries, and I said the one thing I said I wouldn’t. I apologized, largely because a number of ISWNE members wrote that they would not have written the initial story.

Well, I sort of apologized. I said that I was sorry if I put any undue pressure on him, and he assured me I did not. I also explained to him why I felt I had to run a piece about the committee being “tight lipped.” I told him that I was most afraid that the county was doing one of two things. 1, I was afraid they were putting me off indefinitely about their plans while simply forging ahead with mini-golf. Or, 2, the more likely situation that I briefly outlined earlier, the county would come forward with a plan, surprising the public with another idea liked even less than mini-golf.

In either case, I did not want to have to write that I had known about the planning for months, but said nothing. What would my readership think of me then? He really seemed fine with this explanation (it was probably more nuanced in person), and I said that I realized, too, that he had information he just could not tell. He explained too that he was not apologetic about the idea that input from county planners before public input is a legitimate way to move forward on a project (the “Arlington Way” as it is called here usually begins with broad public input, support, discussion, etc.).

Generally, I think we put each other at ease, and we quickly jumped into the checklist of information that he brought along.

To give an idea of the pressure that, I am still rather sure, is there, he could not talk at all about the committee discussions, nor could he talk about why they went back into discussions at all. Plus, he could not give me the copy of the checklist that he was reading from (and he only read directly from it without going off script, though I often interrupted with questions or comments) so we agreed that I would take very good notes.

Here’s the story that ran:

“Public input will be sought for mini-golf site…

“I met with Scott McPartlin of the parks department over a cup of coffee last week. We discussed the county’s research on the potential mini-golf site adjacent to the Ballston Common Mall parking garage.

“Two weeks ago I wrote piece that said planners weren’t talking about what they were researching. They still aren’t discussing details, but Mr. McPartlin said they have a few ideas that staff is pursuing and that mini-golf is still on the table.

“They plan on preparing their ideas for release during the first half of 2009, and they will allow for full public input on these ideas once they are completed.

“A priority for the planners is to find ideas that will bring life to the park and that will be economically sustainable. Any decision will reflect the current economic reality, he said.”

Thank you to everyone for their help and their quick responses to my hotline question.