One of the least-flattering details in last Sunday's article about Greensboro College was the bit about Craven Williams charging his wife's sessions with a personal trainer to the cash-strapped school. Today two letters dispute that claim, and the N&R has appended a correction to the online version of the article. Let's hope a visibly-placed print correction is on the way.

But is GC really just facing "the same economic headwinds that confront every college in the country today," as its restructuring consultants claim in their letter? Or is it facing those circumstances, which are real and painful, along with others more particular to its own situation?

Comments

[Fran]

The Thursday print edition of the N&R had this correction in it's Getting it Right note on page 2.

[Roch101]

They scrubbed the online version.

[Roch101]

As I note in a postscript to my post, I don't see why this is handled as an error and certainly not of the kind that would inspire one to scrub reporting from the original story. The original reporting may have created a false impression in its incompleteness, but was it wrong?

On what basis are the editor's acting to justify the the scrubbing and corrections? The statements of individual who assert that Williams paid this bill directly or, depending on who's writing, reimbursed the college for it?

What would be most satisfying and, I'm no expert, but in my humble opinion, most journalist-like, would be a followup where the reporter examines records to confirm (or not) that Williams did, in fact, in one way or another, pay these bills.

[jc]

with the salary he is reportedly receiving($400,000) and the perks such as a IP house to live in, a maid to clean it, and a yard service to keep it looking good, a 700 series Bimmer to drive, and a GCC membership where his meals and dues are paid for by the college, he has got to have one of the cushiest jobs in G'boro.

The only thing he is missing out on is a private jet.

How does his salary and perks compare to the other college presidents here in Greensboro?

[Ed Cone]

Roch, I disagree that the burden of proof is now on Williams, although if he has records supporting his side of the story it would be a pretty boss move to show them.

[Roch101]

Ahearn reported that a bill to the college included charges for Mrs. Williams' personal trainer. That's all she reported. She did not report that the school paid the charges for Williams.

Williams' defenders, including paid consultants, claimed that the Williams paid those personally, although accounts vary whether she did directly or he did as reimbursements to the college.

The question is not what Williams should have to prove or not, but what standards the N&R has for issuing a correction and deleting information from a story.

The correction from an anonymous editor says that the information from an anonymous source was incorrect, but offers no substantiation that it was. Indeed, none of the complainants disputed it, they merely said that the charges reported, were paid by the Williams.

So it is just very odd that the N&R would "correct" and delete something that nobody claimed was wrong and nobody substantiated to be wrong. Rather than report and substantiate that the Williams paid the personal portion of the bill submitted to the college, which would be the next professional step, they just tried to reel the original reporting back in; tried to "take it back" by obliterating it.

Why does it matter?

1. As a general commentary on the professionalism of our only daily newspaper.

2. Because the matter remains unresolved, with third parties, including hired guns, making assertions of fact that remain unverified, but which have the N&R backing away as if those assertions trump all else.

3. Because, having condemned gross reporting mistakes made by Ahearn in the past I feel an obligation to condemn what, in this case, appear to be lazy editorial decisions that hang this, unjustifiably, on Ahearn.

[Laurie]

Okay, he reimbursed the personal training. So what.

The rest of the story is so egregious on his part that this little detail is just blowing smoke.

[Danny Wright]

Curious as to whether there were any mid-year budget revisions (say, December, January-ish) on the expense side when it must have been quite apparent that the endowment draw line-item was going to be far less than what was probably anticipated in the spring of 2008, when the 08-09 budget would have been approved. It's odd that these problems presented themselves in the final month of the fiscal year only. That certainly suggests a lack of foresight in the months prior.

[Thomas]

Danny - It's worse than that. Faculty and staff got raises in January '09, then 3 ro 4 months later a 20% cut. That's why there was so much surprise on campus.