Reclaim Democracy!

How to Arrange an Editorial Board Meeting

by

(and Why You Should)

Editorial Board Meeting

Editorial boards are commentaries that reflect the official position of a newspaper. Generally, the board assigns an editorial to be written by the board member with the most expertise in the topic. Other members offer input on the editorial, which is often published unsigned.

Why request a meeting with the editorial board?
Editorials boards in your local and regional newspapers can make a big impact on the community. Because editorials reach many people, it’s worth investing time to build a relationship with your local editors and informing them of your position, concerns, and expertise. 

You can request a meeting with an editorial board to introduce yourself or your organization or ask them to write about an issue. One value of arranging an editorial board meeting is to make them aware that you’re a credible and knowledgeable local resource for future coverage. A face-to-face meeting (even virtually) can positively define you, your local group, and your work.

When preparing for your meeting with an editorial board, practice these useful tips for a meaningful and productive meeting:

  • Role play the meeting. Ask your group to brainstorm the toughest questions you may be asked on the subject, and challenge the meeting participants until they can provide concise, confident, and accurate answers. In advance, identify who will tackle which topics.
  • Bring two or three people. Or more, if warranted. Bring a diverse group representing a range of stakeholders in your community. If bringing someone who advertises with the paper and is also an expert in the area, DO NOT mention them as an advertiser.
  • Learn the players. Learn the board members, as well as what editorial position they may have taken about your issue. Be ready to build on or gently pivot from their beliefs; avoid clashing. The publisher, news editors, and relevant reporters may also participate. You can request a specific reporter’s coverage.
  • Learn the jargon. Familiarize yourself with the frequently used terms and the different types of newspaper pieces. Be ready to discuss the most-appropriate outlet for your message.
  • State exactly what you want. This may include a specific editorial (often a primary reason for the visit), asking for more coverage on issues, and let them know your expertise on the issues and why your perspective assists with thorough reporting.
  • Present your key points in 30 minutes. You’ll rarely have more than an hour, so present your key points early. You never know when an editor may be pulled away from the meeting.
  • Send key information before the meeting AND bring printed copies for all members. Most meetings will be virtual, but a background primer allows all attendees to focus more on key points. Limit backgrounders or fact sheets to 2-3 pages. Send sheets as a PDF.
  • Be credible. Do not overstate your case. Don’t try to answer questions that you can’t answer confidently. Admit you need time to check facts and get them an answer the same day.
  • Summarize your key points to close the meeting and make your request, again. Reiterate your key points; repeat your ask.
  • Send a thank you note, promptly. Thank all attendees for their time. Also use this opportunity to put in-writing any information that you lacked, including any fact-checked information.
  • If you don’t get the results you want, recognize that building long-term relationships is more important than a single story. You can always request the opportunity to submit an opinion piece (see our guide to op-ed writing and ask us for suggestions). If an factual error occurs, politely request a correction.
  • Make use of outside experts and “celebrities”. A prominent speaker, expert, or local “celebrity” can help you get in the door. If you have someone willing, take advantage of the opportunity and request a meeting. This tactic is especially useful for larger publications.

While this resource is geared toward newspaper editorial boards, you can also use these tips when meeting with a local TV or radio station. We also have a useful guide for calling into local talk radio shows.

Frequently Used Terms

Columnists usually are newspaper staff, writing to express their personal perspective.

Editorials are the collectively published opinions of the publication’s editors.

Letters to the editor (or LTEs) range from 100 – 300 words and are best for making a single point or responding to an article, op-ed, or editorial. Be sure to see our guide to writing effective LTEs.

Opinion editorials (or Op-eds) are commentaries from community members, freelance writers, or other columnists that usually range from 550-750 words. See our op-ed writing tips.

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to Free Democracy From Corporate Control

by

Passed by Albany City Council February 6, 2012

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-8

A RESOLUTION OF THE ALBANY CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO FREE DEMOCRACY FROM CORPORATE CONTROL

WHEREAS , the U.S. Supreme Court has granted corporations personhood status, free speech and other protections guaranteed to living humans by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, yet historically corporations were created as artificial entities that were subordinate to our democracy, the City of Albany, California asserts that corporations are not natural persons with human rights but artificial entities created by our government; and

WHEREAS , although corporations have made important contributions to society, they may exist simultaneously in many nations, use court granted “corporate rights” to get laws and regulations that protect people weakened or overturned, put profit ahead of any other concern, and use money derived from consumers and employees to lobby for statutes that endanger democracy, human values, and ecological survival; and

WHEREAS , the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission further threatens our democracy by rolling back limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns, allowing corporate money to drown out the voices of “We the People”; and

WHEREAS , U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy stated that the ruling “will allow major corporations – who should have law written to control their effect on America – to instead control America;” and former Republican senator Warren Rudman wrote, “Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding, corporations are not defined as people under the Constitution, and free speech can hardly be called free when only the rich are heard;” and former Senator Chris Dodd pointed out that “money is not speech,” that “corporations are not people” and that “a constitutional amendment is necessary to fully restore the trust and voice of the American people.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Albany City Council calls for freeing democracy from corporate control by calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish that: 1. Money is not speech, and 2. Corporations are not natural persons and not entitled to constitutional rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Albany City Council requests that our appropriate elected representatives introduce and/or support a constitutional amendment that contains both of these principles, or introduce motions to include these principles in related constitutional amendments.

Bozeman Resolution on Coal Trains

by

Posted July 2, 2012

A resolution of the Bozeman City Commission to request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold a public hearing in Bozeman, Montana, and that it prepare a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the cumulative impacts of new and expanded coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon, as Bozeman will be significantly impacted by the transport of coal by rail from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming to terminals along the Pacific Coast.

WHEREAS, currently, there are four coal-export terminal projects pending before the Corps: the Gateway Pacific Terminals (“GTP”) site at Cherry Point, Washington; the Millennium Bulk Logistics (“MBL”) site at Longview, Washington; the Oregon Gateway Terminal at the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon; and the Coyote Island Terminal site at the Port of Morrow, Oregon. Additional permit applications are anticipated for the Kinder Morgan project at the Port of St. Helens, Oregon, and the RailAmerica proposal at the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington. Additionally, existing export terminals at port facilities in British Columbia that are already receiving coal shipments are considering expansions.

WHEREAS, taken together, the announced capacity of the planned U.S. projects is approximately 150 million tons of coal per year. Operating at full capacity, these plans would mean approximately 60 coal trains—each about a mile and a half long—moving through Montana , Idaho , and the Pacific Northwest everyday. These trains will pass through Bozeman , Montana , and will potentially result in a significant adverse effect on our community that should be considered in any environmental review of these proposals.

WHEREAS, to ensure each individual permitting action accounts for the significant cumulative impacts of multiple proposed Northwest coal export terminals, the Army Corps of Engineers must first prepare a PEIS that carefully analyzes the combined impacts of multiple, similar coal export terminal proposals.

WHEREAS, such analysis is allowed for, and most likely required, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under Section 1508.25(a)(1) and (2) of the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations, this environmental review must collect, analyze, and consider connected and cumulative actions for any federally supported project. Further, “cumulative” and “similar” actions should be discussed within a single environmental impact statement, necessitating the development of a PEIS.

WHEREAS, the railroad tracks in Bozeman bisect a significant portion of the city’s residential, commercial, and industrial activities, and the crossings at North Rouse Avenue, Wallace Avenue, Griffin Avenue, and Story Hill Road restrict access to Kelly Canyon, Bridger Canyon, and the Bridger and Bangtail Mountain ranges for residential, commercial, and recreational access. Additionally, the response time of emergency services, including law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services, will be increased to the aforementioned areas, resulting in potentially life-threatening delays.

WHEREAS, the increased noise, air pollution, and inconvenience could lead to significant reductions in property values; and an increase in response times for emergency services could lead to increased property insurance and health care costs.

WHEREAS, increased train traffic, whether by an increased number of trains or cars per train, will cause significant increases in diesel exhaust, coal dust emissions, and noise pollution; and the longer and more frequent delays in vehicle traffic will result in increased emissions of air pollution from numerous cars idling for additional hours per day. These increases in pollution can reasonably be expected to have negative health impacts.

WHEREAS, increased diesel emissions and coal dust will negatively affect the agricultural sector of the Greater Bozeman area, especially farms and ranches adjacent to the rail line. This could cause significant negative impacts in local agricultural production, as farms and ranches may need to relocate to avoid contamination of their fields and pastures.

WHEREAS, Bozeman’s large and growing high-tech sector is a major factor in the economic vigor of our city, and the location of high-tech businesses in Bozeman is closely related to quality of life, which will be negatively impacted by increased train traffic. This could lead to a loss of new businesses locating in Bozeman, the exodus of existing businesses, a reduction in construction jobs and all the supporting businesses and services needed to support these businesses and their employees.

WHEREAS, increased noise and air pollution may negatively affect tourism, as most of the city’s hotels and many other tourist facilities are located close to the railroad tracks. Shortened stays due to these impacts would significantly reduce income among this critical economic sector in our area.

WHEREAS, the citizens of Bozeman would bear the costs to upgrade several railroad crossings and build new infrastructure to mitigate traffic delays and safety concerns, resulting in increased taxes.

WHEREAS, mounting evidence demonstrates the negative health impacts of coal mining, process, transport, and combustion.

WHEREAS, studies show living near major transportation routes and industrial areas correlates with higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, due to diesel emissions, coal dust particles, and exhaust from idling automobiles.

WHEREAS, increased train traffic through the northern portion of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and through the I-90 corridor may have a detrimental effect on the waterways, wildlife populations, and health of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. As tourism and outdoor recreation is integral to Bozeman ‘s economy, the ecological and economic effects of increased coal transport through the northern portion of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem must be analyzed.

WHEREAS, any environmental analysis of these proposals must consider the negative long-term effects of burning huge volumes of sub-bituminous coal. Domestic demand for sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin has been rapidly declining due to more stringent emissions standards and access to cheaper and cleaner fuels. Coal exports from the Powder River Basin will permanently shape global energy markets. With access to cheap, abundant PRB coal, countries in Asia will be induced to build a new fleet of coal-fired power plants capable of burning the more corrosive, higher-alkaline coal. These new plants, with a minimum thirty-year life span, will lock in reliance on coal from the Powder River Basin and forestall the transition to cleaner energy sources in these developing markets.

WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan, adopted by the Bozeman City Commission on March 28, 2011, states: “Scientific evidence clearly tells us that the Earth is warming, and that anthropogenic (man-made) causes are influencing this trend. That was the conclusion of the second scientific assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and reinforced by the third and fourth scientific assessments by the IPCC submitted in 2001 and 2007. In 2007 the IPCC concluded, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’”

Now therefore be it resolved that the Bozeman City Commission requests that environmental reviews of these proposals consider the effects on the City of Bozeman.

Be it further resolved that the Bozeman City Commission requests that the Army Corps of Engineers conduct a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that includes an analysis of not only the direct impacts but also the indirect and cumulative environmental impacts, including the impacts on Montana communities, from all proposed coal ports in the Pacific Northwest.

Be it further resolved that the City Commission of Bozeman requests that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold a public scoping hearing in Bozeman, Montana .

Go to Montana coal train information page

Debating the Community Values Act

by

The Olympian editorial board attacks the Act; Olympia ReclaimDemocracy.org organizer responds

First published by The Olympian, Sept 13, 2005

By The Olympian Editorial board

There is a small group of people in South Sound who want cities to begin grading private businesses and close down those companies that don’t live up to community expectations. Council members in Tumwater and Olympia should give the folks from Reclaim Democracy a hearing, then promptly move on to more pressing community issues.

David Schaffert, president and chief executive officer of the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce, said his job of recruiting new businesses is hard enough without ridiculous attempts to control lawful companies.

“There are people in this community with strong opinions who want to social engineer the free enterprise system,” Schaffert said. “I think it’s a small group of people, but they tend to be very vocal. And they tend to be very good at being vocal. But they are giving our community a black eye.” Schaffert is right.

The push for a Community Values Act is offered by a core group of about 15 people under the Reclaim Democracy banner. Their goal is to have the city councils in Tumwater and Olympia adopt ordinances that would grade corporations on everything from paying a living wage to how much money they pump back into the local community.

Businesses would be scored on whether they discriminate against employees based on race, gender or age; violate overtime pay laws; don’t provide adequate medical benefits; violate environmental laws; or suppress or discourage workers from unionizing. Companies that pump at least 50 percent of their profits back into the community or turn private property into a public square would receive bonus points.

Under the proposal, those businesses that don’t measure up would have two months to leave town.

It’s a ludicrous proposal. First and foremost are the legal issues surrounding a community values ordinance. How can a company that is legally constituted under the laws of Washington state be denied a business license on something as subjective as whether it contributes enough money to employee medical benefits?

“I think when you have subjective policies that go against people’s constitutional rights, it’s not good for any community,” Schaffert said. “Our community wants to embrace diversity, yet when it comes to businesses, some people in this community want to put all businesses into ‘good’ or ‘bad’ categories based on subjective measures. How can that be legal?” Good question.

Then there’s the question of equity. The folks with Reclaim Democracy admit that the targets of their effort are the corporate giants such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds. They say they aren’t after the mom-and-pop operations. Isn’t that discriminatory? How can the community have one set of business values and not apply them equally to large and small companies? What happens to that small, start-up retail shop on Fourth Avenue that pays its three employees a minimum wage and doesn’t provide the three workers with a medical plan? Will that entrepreneur be forced out of business? What happens to the people who lose their jobs at the businesses that are forced to shutter their doors, and what about the customers who like shopping at Wal-Mart or prefer a McDonald’s burger and fries?

Council members should allow the proponents of the community values ordinance an opportunity to speak their mind and air their proposal. But council members should not waste staff time or city resources pursuing this feel-good measure that is unlawful, unworkable and just plain silly.

Community has a right to self-determination

By Susan Bee

Recently, The Olympian’s editorial board published an editorial “Jettison proposed ordinance,” opposing the community values ordinance proposed by ReclaimDemocracy.org’s Olympia chapter. The editorial is inaccurate and one sided; not surprising given it was written without input from Reclaim Democracy, yet repeatedly quotes local Chamber of Commerce representatives that oppose the ordinance.

The editorial asserts the community values ordinance is supported only by 15 super-vocal people. Not true. Had the board inquired, it would know the ordinance concept is supported by the Green Party of South Puget Sound, the Thurston County chapter of Amnesty International and 200 local citizens.

The editorial featured chamber complaints that attracting new businesses to town is hard without local attempts to “socially engineer the free enterprise system” in a way that violates corporations’ constitutional rights by discriminating against bad-actor corporations.

Let’s discuss this loaded and inaccurate statement.

Socially engineer: I suppose the chamber would say the New Deal imposed a socialist economic order on America. The New Deal did, after all, socially engineer the free market. New Deal programs, like Social Security, are with us today because Americans rejected pure capitalism and market populism. They want a market-based system infused with humanity and they want a democracy that is citizen-based, not corporate based. That is what the community values ordinance is about — beginning to level the playing field between big corporations, like Wal-Mart, and small local businesses that are driven under by Wal-Mart and abandoned by the chamber.

The chamber’s abandonment of local business — and local citizens — is clear. The chamber advocates for multinational businesses interests before all branches and levels of government. It’s lobbied for NAFTA and CAFTA, which hurt small businesses and send good U.S. jobs overseas. In a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the chamber filed a legal brief opposing certification of a class of 1.5 million plaintiffs, arguing the certification “risks summarily stripping businesses of their right to defend themselves.”

Because the chamber’s record is one of siding with big business over small business and citizens, the board should have interviewed local citizens and local small business associations before criticizing the community values ordinance and Reclaim Democracy as being “silly” and “ludicrous.”

Free market: In the context of dealing with companies like Wal-Mart, the chamber’s free-market advocacy seems disingenuous. Reclaim Democracy supports the free market and a citizen-based government. Wal-Mart fears both. To out-compete small businesses by rolling back prices, many large companies also roll back workers rights by implementing zero-tolerance union policies, paying sub-living wages, illegally cheating employees out of overtime pay and using child labor.

To boot, Wal-Mart gets huge government subsidies, receiving $1 billion from state and local governments since 1980.

Free market? What local company gets this perk while delivering nothing more than poverty-wage, part-time, and no-health care jobs? While wealthy corporations preach the free market, they don’t practice it themselves.

The editorial states the community values ordinance is too subjective. But, the ordinance uses objective, concrete criteria and a structured point system: A set number of points deducted for (1) frequency of violating the nation’s labor and environmental laws and (2) percentage of employees on welfare with no health care.

Similarly, it allocates a set number of bonus points for (1) allowing leafleting on company property and (2) pumping 50 percent of profits to the local economy by hiring local employees, investing and banking locally, and purchasing locally manufactured goods. The company either does these things, objectively, or not.

Determining whether covered corporations act consistently with our community values will be straight forward using these objective criteria and the structured scoring system.

The only legitimate point made is that covered corporations with substandard scores (in the annual reapplication process) get six months to reform or must move two months later. As this could be harsh to employees, creatively rewriting this portion is pragmatic.

As the editorial points out, this is an issue of equity. In America, we value equity — if you work hard, play by the rules, and serve your family and community, your community will support you — economically and otherwise. In 50 years, Reclaim Democracy wants a community of supported and economically prospering citizens who stood up for their right of self-determination and who prevented the community’s wealth from being vacuumed out and sent to silk-lined executive pockets in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Susan Bee was the president of ReclaimDemocracy.org Olympia Chapter, sponsors of the proposed Community Values Act, at the time of writing.