24/05/2024
Media (JCP) asking for details and a response at the bottom to their 5/25 story AFTER having the facts: Here are just a few of the documents (images attached) showing that the PR team working with you (Johnson County Post) on your recall stories about the Mayor last year actually consisted of Shockey Consulting and its PR partner, Nancy Mays, both of whom were paid with taxpayer funds. City staff are copied on some of these emails, too. Likely without your (JCP Reporter, Julianna Garcia) knowledge, you had a front row seat to the facts underlying the current recall efforts. To the extent these same PR consultants (or any PR consultants) are working with you on your current story, it might be relevant to ask who is paying the fee—is it Mikkelson and any campaign committee he may have formed, is it the city itself, or is it some third party that has stepped in to support Mikkelson? Or are city staff actively engaged in the anti-recall effort? We would certainly like to find that out ourselves.
The recall petition does not state that there was a “public response” on June 7, 2023; rather, it states that consultants were “used” on that date for a public response. You will see that in the email chain, the mayor suggests using Shockey to craft the public response in advance, and Wes Jordan, a taxpayer-paid city employee, on that same date follows through by contacting Shockey about talking points that could be used in the response.
There may well be additional evidence backing this up, but the people with that evidence are Shockey, Wes Jordan, the mayor, and the city. They would be great sources of information. For example, are there notes of the meetings or phone calls? How about the follow-up meeting referenced for the next day, June 8? Were there discussions before this?
Various citizens have also requested that information from the city and major productions of emails have apparently been made by the city. The point is this: the city is necessarily going to be the source for all of this information, and I think these are great questions for the local media to be asking the city. Cutting through the city’s PR operation to get to the underlying facts would be a great project for reporters.
Regarding the Johnson County Post article on 5/24/24 regarding the recall: I reviewed your article this morning on the Johnson County Post website. It doesn’t report the facts and reads like a hit piece on the recall campaign.
To take just one example, it casts aspersions on the three members of the recall committee for failing to provide information themselves, rather than through me; by then refusing to report the information I quickly turned around to you on their behalf, it strongly implies that no such information exists. As you know, they referred you to me so that I could provide you information, and then, acting on that referral, I provided you that information by email very quickly. By using some of my comments but ignoring what I provided you, you left your readers with the false impression that there is no factual basis for the petitioners’ allegations. I can’t believe that this was a mere oversight. You printed the recall target’s specific denials and reasoning, but you buried the factual basis for the committee’s allegations.
In my experience in this market and around the country, it is also highly unusual for a reporter to refuse an attorney’s request to speak solely on background as an initial step. I understand that you have a professional obligation to get as much on the record as you can, but your refusal to speak on background out of the gate is out of the ordinary. I appreciated that you then stated your four questions for me so that I could have an opportunity to review them. As I suspected by the way you framed those questions, the angle of the story—the very first one on this recall—was pre-set. It was to subtly mock the petitioners and falsely imply that they were not diligent, rather than to actually report on the recall or the facts of the allegations. Had you disclosed to the readers the public records I quickly sent you establishing the basis for the allegations, it would have destroyed the narrative you were trying to build.
This conduct is disappointing. If this will be your publication’s approach to this campaign, it’s hard to recommend that anyone communicate with you in the future. If your plan is to simply work with the elected officials and their PR consultants to help them package their narrative, it will fall to other members of the media to actually investigate and report on the facts.