How the Guidelines came into being

Wilson admits that he wished we had been censored earlier: "The editors have been across the line in previous issues, and, had any conceivable set of guidelines been in place should, could, would have either been disciplined post facto or censored in advance" D00681, Jan 26.

Part of the BoE's biweekly pre-meeting packet says that "Bill Russell has been working with Joe Wilson, Stephenie Vinch (Tattler Advisor), and our attorneys to develop guidelines for the advisor and editors of the Tattler. We have not, in the past, had written guidelines and are hoping that these will clarify things somewhat and lead to an improvement in the quality of the newspaper." D00658

Undated, unsigned document from Bill Russell ("publish june issue with my approval") lists "problematic" stories, D00659

Timeline:

Tues, 1/4/05, the night before the January Tattler came out, Judy Pastel emailed the BoE to request an executive session (closed-door meeting for discussing confidential matters, e.g., personnel, students) to "share major concerns about the upcoming Tattler issue and its leadership." D00407. Exactly what those concerns were is not apparent.

Weds, 1/5/05: Vinch met with Russell and Wilson in Wilson's office (D00554) and "discussed my desire to resign and they told me to stick with it longer, they didn't want the advisor to resign." Vinch dep 88. "They said, what would make it easier for you to stay on as the advisor?, and I said, knowing what's expected of me and, you know, from you as well as from the students so that I'm not constantly caught in between administration and students. And that's when I think the guidelines -- I think that's when maybe the guidelines came up." Vinch dep 89. Before that, she had never asked for or discussed the possibility of written guidelines Vinch dep 27.

Thurs, 1/6/05 3:32 PM, Wilson to Russell, Vinch, (D00557): "I would like to see the guidelines to the Tattler staff before they are finalized. I would also like to be caught up on the advise [sic] of our lawyers, or better yet, get an opinion letter guiding us on the legal status of the paper and what the 'rules' are vis a vis the advisor and the schools rights and obligations. I said this before, but I truly want to know where they think we and the students stand … I also think it is worth considering having a review board in addition to the advisor that looks at the paper … Since we last spoke [!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -a], I have had staff members complain to me about the off-coloro innuendo in some articles. I have not bothered to look for them, but that is apparently yet another issue/grievance that some staff members have with the content. … it should be noted that the editors are currently subject to our discipline code … if they refused to follow the reasonable directions of the advisor, they could be disciplined for insubordination. This plus the fact that the advisor could require the printer to remove portions of the paper without blocking the printing of the entire paper might give the advisor more clout than is currently perceived to exist." (In other words, the administration didn't know about Ralph's Ribs when they started discussing guidelines.

Friday, 1/7/05, 11:16 AM, Vinch to Wilson, Russell (D00554-D00555): Vinch met with Rob on that date and said that "guidelines would bne developed for the advisor. [Rob] agreed that there needed to be such guidelines, but asked if he could be part of the process of creating them. (I just told him it was in the hands of Central Office at this time). I told him I wasn't sure yet what the guidelines would entail."

Friday, 1/7/05, 11:48 AM, Russell to Vinch, Wilson (D00554): It was Vinch who originally told Russell about SPJ Code of Ethics. "My own view (as you suggested in an earlier email) is that it would be productive to have the three of us sit with the whole editorial board to work through the guidelines we come up with. I would suggest that we do that after we (and our attorneys) have produced a draft, rather than starting with the students to come up with a draft. I'll be talking with them Dan Bordoni and Jodi Butler (attorneys at Bond Schoeneck and King) about this later today."

Friday, 1/7/05 12:57 PM, Wilson to Russell (D00554): "I second the notion that we would provide the first draft of the guidelines and I think that Stephanie has made an excellent start. I also suggest that we be ready-maybe to the point of having a meeting first--to say that some guidelines are NOT negotiable"

Monday, 1/10/2005 8:07 PM, Wilson to Debbie Gardner, Hess, Russell, Vinch (D00553): "Please arrange an appointment for Rob, Tattler editor, Dr. Russell, and Ms. Vinch. The agenda is Rob's views about discipline for students on the Tattler staff and the new guidelines for future publications. This can be done as soon as the guidelines are firmed up including knowing which if any are negotiable and which are not."

Wednesday, 1/12/2005, 7:49 AM, Wilson to Vinch, Russell, Pickens, Dalmida (D00552): "We need to complete the guidelines, meet with the editorial board and Dr. Russell and move forward."

Thursday, 1/13/2005, Wilson to Russell, (Exhibit 105): "ponder this hypothetical: Eileen Bach volunteers to take over The Tattler. If this transpires, and I bet that it does, we will need an advisory board." D00751 Wilson dep 134: "Q: Why did you believe that you would need an advisory board if Eileen Bach volunteered to take over The Tattler? A: In my couple of conversations with her about The Tattler, I came to the conclusion that she ran it entirely as she and the students agreed it should be run and it seemed to me that the experience with Ms. Vinch was that onestaff member with the students put too much pressure on the one staff member."

Friday, 1/14/05, 7:12 PM, Russell to Vinch, Wilson (D00548): "We are waiting for guidelines from our attorneys about the issues of concern to us … we need to move sooner rather than later in establishing some specific guidelines, and to get them in place before the publication of the next issue … the three of us should meet with Rob on Tuesday, tell him these guidelines are now in force, and that we expect them to be followed"

Monday, 1/17/05, 8:41 PM, Wilson to Vinch, Russell (D00548): "The guidelines are what we discussed, and I support them … I think the advisor should deliver the final version to the printer because the students' conduct suggests that they might submit a different version to the printer than what the adviser last saw. "

There's an untitled/undated memo that appears to be a list of questions the administrations had in preparing the guidelines: "Who 'owns' The Tattler (paper, right to publish, name)? Is it copyrighted? Can we prevent an unauthorized publication of a duplicate of the paper version? What if there are some changes (e.g. to the title)? How much change is sufficient to deem it a separate publication? Can we withdraw school sponsorship of the paper (office, computers, club status, student activity funds, stipended advisor) over this issue?" D00331.

Saturday, 1/22/05, 1:54 PM, Wilson to IPDA, et al (D00592): "We presented the guidelines for future issues. … the guidelines give us a platform from with to work with the students. The guidelines assert, most important, that the adults have the final say in what goes into the paper"