State Rep. Bill Adolph and Sen. Dominic Pileggi are not happy with me – or the newspaper.
They were upset with the front page of last week’s Sunday Times and the story inside that described the possibility that the new state budget could wind up costing taxpayers more for our elected representatives' benefits plan, as well as a cost-of-living increase in their salaries.
They believe the story was sensationalized and tilted to give readers the impression that they voted to increase pay and benefits. I disagree.
Adolph, R-165, of Springfield, heads the House Appropriations Committee. No one knows more about the budget than he does. Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, is the majority leader in the Senate.
They asked to come in and talk about the story and that front page last week. I was more than happy to talk to them. Adolph laid out his case. He’s right in that there was no specific vote by legislators to increase pay or benefits. They were simply part of the huge budget package. Furthermore, most of the numbers admittedly were based on estimates. Once the real numbers start coming in when we hit November, there may or may not be increases. There was no vote on a pay hike, it’s just a standard cost of living increase. As you might expect, legislators are a bit sensitive to pay hike stories after the fiasco of the middle-of-the-night pay raise saga seven years ago.
The two powerful legislators also made a point of reviewing all the important aspects accomplished in this budget, none of which made their way onto our front page.
I guess they missed our coverage of the Upper Darby education funding issue, and the work of local reps to find additional funding.
We also did an extensive story on the increases in the Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program, listing how much local schools might see under the program. Was it on Page 1? No.
I asked them if they wanted to write an op-ed piece on the story and the state budget. They did. You can read it here. It ran on Sunday, the same day the story did. I also pushed it our on our Twitter and Facebook accounts.
In it they refer to the front page as “the most glaring example of sensationalism to stain the pages of this well-respected newspaper in a long time.”
Again, I disagree. About the sensationalism, not the part about the well-respected newspaper.
The story clearly indicates that no specific vote took place. They argue the perception – as they are hearing it in phone calls from constituents – is that they did.
I can tell you this. If in fact those numbers come in this fall and there is no increases, we will do another story.
There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t get phone calls from people criticizing something we’ve done or written. It goes with the territory.
The key thing I want to stress is that I am always willing to listen, whether it’s an elected official or a local citizen and reader. And I will always offer a person the opportunity to respond – in print and online.
Don’t believe me? Ask Bill Adolph or Dominic Pileggi.
Comments