AN UPDATE ON THE HOSPITALS' LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The Hospitals' letter was posted on the blog on Saturday 24th April. The editor of the Islander, Bonner Joy, has responded to their letter. a copy of which is printed below. Richard Harrison, Commissioner Stoltzfus attorney, has in turn responded to Ms Joy.

First Bonner Joy's response to the Hospitals:

We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."

With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.

This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Bonner Joy
The Islander newspaper

Attorney Richard Harrison's response to Ms Joy:

Bonner Joy and The Islander Staff:

As you all know, I represent Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus. I recently learned of your response to a reader in which you claim that the Commissioner has not responded to your inquiries or provided access to his attorney, i.e., me. Specifically, you wrote as follows:

We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.

Perhaps your standard of reporting is different than that employed by the journalistic organizations with which I am familiar. Your reporter, Rick Catlin, wrote at least two articles in which he claimed that his “efforts” to reach me for comment were unsuccessful. As far as I am aware, those “efforts” did not include more than one phone message left for me. They certainly did not include, until after the hearing held on April 21, any attempt to reach me via email (you’ve heard of email, right?). They did not include any follow up telephone calls. So your “efforts” were, frankly, not much of an effort.

Your claim is particularly ridiculous in light of the fact that, well, I am not exactly difficult to reach. In something less than 30 seconds on Google (you’ve heard of that, too, right?), anybody looking to reach me could find my firm’s website with all pertinent contact information. If that isn’t sufficient, a similarly brief effort would turn up the Florida Bar’s website and its “Lawyer Locator” feature which would, again, lead you to me rather readily. And if you expended, say, five or ten minutes on that Google thingy you would quickly realize that I make myself freely available to the media to discuss any matters in which I am involved.

Oh yeah . . . speaking of your “efforts” . . . if you wanted some comment from me or Commissioner Stoltzfus it might have occurred to you to actually come talk to me at the hearing in Bradenton last week. I was there outside the courtroom for at least 30 minutes before the hearing started and for several minutes after it was over. There were also several breaks in the proceedings during which anybody seeking information or comment could have asked for it. So apparently The Islander’s “efforts” to reach people for comment do not include the extreme tactic of, well, actually asking them any questions during the relevant events.

As it happens, Mr. Catlin did finally take the extraordinary step of emailing me last week (but not until after the hearing) and I have responded to every email from him since then and also spoken to him via telephone. I will continue to make myself available to all media to address the matters involving Commissioner Stoltzfus, as I have from the moment I became involved on his behalf.

So if your readers feel, as some of them apparently do, that The Islander’s reporting has been anything less than unbiased let’s be clear – that is not because we have rebuffed or thwarted your “efforts” to obtain information about the pending proceedings. Stop lying to your readers and start doing some actual reporting.