I seem to remember taking a short journalism course in college where we were told to consider, “Who, What, Where, When, Why and sometimes How,” when writing a story. What's wrong with this story [“Panel reports ‘no breach'; WMU executive to retire”]? See the Jan. 11 issue of the Herald and the following sequential excerpts:
• Title of article—”Panel reports ‘no breach'; WMUV executive to retire.”
• “An ad hoc study committee … reported last week that ‘there have been no breaches of policy and that the organizational structure is sound,' according to a WMUV statement.”
• “The five-member committee … also offered ‘recommendations to help strengthen current policies and structure,' the statement said. WMUV president Becky McKinney released the statement Jan. 5.”
• “The same day, the organization announced the retirement of Earlene Jessee, executive director/treasurer of WMUV since 1992.”
• “The board of trustees will be exploring ways to honor Earlene Jessee for her many contributions to Woman's Missionary Union of Virginia” (italics mine).
• “Though the statement did not specify the concerns, it apparently was a reference to letters received from members of the WMU at Clifford Baptist Church, in Clifford, not far from WMUV's CrossRoads Camp and Conference Center.”
• “The staff turnover at CrossRoads also captured the attention of pastors in the surrounding Piedmont Baptist Association, who asked … that she [executive director Earlene Jessee] investigate the situation.” • “The statement does not describe the recommendations.”
I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not a member of the WMUV. But I do have a concern for fairness and I wonder how many WMUV members are left wondering “What” really triggered the investigation, “How” it was conducted and “Why” the committee statement did not describe the recommendations. More importantly, the ad hoc committee's statement, issued the same day they announced Earlene Jessee's retirement allows the reader to infer that Jessee may well have been the “Who” that was the point of the investigation.
As a retired corporate personnel director, it always galls me when such matters are never fully explained on the basis that it is “a confidential personnel matter.” Too frequently, that allows the person in question to be painted with the brush of suspicion and innuendo and that is unfair!
Daniel A. Polk, Richmond
Editor's Note: Your journalism class served you well! However, as a former personnel director, you must certainly know that issues involving people are very sensitive and sometimes involve legal issues as well. These, at times, limit what organizations are able to tell us.