When Good Reporters Go Bad

I read the exposé about the Sacramento Child Protective Services provided in the Sacramento Bee my last visit to California. As a member of the unsophisticated Midwest, I couldn't believe what I was reading so I did a bit of my own investigation in the matter. Obviously, the woman that wrote the article was at one time a top journalist because the paper touted that she once won a Pulitzer Prize. After reading the articles I questioned whether this was Pulitzer Prize winning material or in line for the Pullet Surprise that involves a chicken and a rooster, with the lowly CPS worker being the chickens. I also know that sometimes people reach deeply to regain the glory they once had, and perhaps these series of articles were just that, a lame attempt to regain glory. It doesn't work, Marjie. I know, I was a beauty queen at one time but no matter how desperately I try to pull the wrinkles out of my face, that time is gone.

The first in the series of articles was sharply critical because of the number of children's deaths rose from parental abuse. I agree that no child deserves abuse, not even a little. The article blamed the deaths on the CPS workers. Wait a second. Weren't there others involved in this too? What about the prosecuting attorneys, the judges, law enforcement and most of all the parents that killed the child with either their own hands or their silence. Did they not also have a part in the death?

What the Sacramento Bee, Marjie Lundstrum and Sam Stanton did next was unforgivable. The names and salaries of the workers in Sacramento's Child Protective Service is public record. They pulled all the records for anyone that had the same name and then found birthdays for those that had any arrest record or criminal history. Some of the arrest history might go back as far as 20 years and was unfounded and dismissed because of that, but it didn't matter. She then created a list with the names of the employees and the birth dates of those with anything from a minor traffic violation to a neighborhood disagreement, and my favorite, malicious use of a laser light. She and Sam sent the list with the names and birth dates to the county and asked for the income and date of hire of the employees, which is public record, to see if they were indeed the same. They also let the management know this was regarding their criminal history hits and stating that these employee's names might appear in the news. Now, the managers had to tell employees. They didn't know whether there were drunk driving charges, criminal convictions or even false charges that were dropped, they just knew there was something criminal about this person.

SHAME ON YOU MARJIE LUNDSTRUM. Is getting a sensational story more important than the civil rights of innocent people? Today social workers have to get a warrant before they dare enter a home to investigate the abuse of a child, and yet you can print anything that you want without a single worry about the civil rights of someone unjustly accused. You never bother to explain the difference between charged for a crime and convicted of that crime. One example from the article published Sunday, March 22, 2009 "A family service worker was charged in August with stealing gas from a county pump." The key word here is charged. There was no conviction and yet you used this as part of your article. Every day social workers look at the police records of families and if the word charged is behind the offense, but there's no conviction, the regulations require them to ignore the charge. This is the law, and yet you, for the sake of selling newspapers and getting "the story" choose to include charges, but never bother to explain, it wasn't a conviction. It reads so much better doesn't it, Marjie. To hell with the truth, we're out to sell papers.

SHAME ON YOU MARJIE LUNDSTRUM. You quoted a man that obviously didn't know the first thing about kinship placement and then buried the truth under his sensational quote. The quote wasn't true, but oooooooh it was so sweet you had to use it.

"A guy may have a prior marijuana conviction from 15 years ago, but he's got his act together, he's working and there's no indication of drugs in the house. And it would be a great placement for a kid," Wilson said. "And, unfortunately, that kinship placement is not available." A quote from your article published March 22, 2009 in the Sacramento Bee.

According to the California regulations that you quoted later in the article, this just isn't true. Perhaps, Mr. Wilson did have a client that didn't qualify but it wasn't because of a 15 year old drug conviction. You stated later in the article as a CYA, the truth about the qualifications for foster parents.

"In California, a person who wants to become a foster or adoptive parent cannot have any felony convictions for child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, crimes against a child, or other specific violent offenses, according to the federal government's list of non-exemptible crimes. Additionally, a foster care applicant would be rejected if he or she had a felony conviction in the last five years for physical assault, battery or drug- or alcohol-related offenses." I quote the article you wrote published March 22, 2009 in the Sacramento Bee

Abuse against a child and violent offenses quoted in the last line of your paragraph are a far distance from a 15-year-old drug conviction cited by Mr. Wilson. Only convictions for physical assault, battery and drugs or alcohol in the last 5 years prevent people from being a foster parent, and there still are exemptions. Again, the word is "convicted", not "charged".

SHAME ON YOU MARJIE LUNDSTURM for failing to mention that the caseload, as found in the report is double to triple what the caseworker should handle, according to the state regulations. Why is that? Because of money. Money the county spent on a report that cost $100,000. I would have told them there's trouble and the reason is frustration. If you have double the work that NEVER ends, you get frustrated and your morale is low. What they didn't need was to spend the $100,000 to find that fact. The money could pay another social worker to relieve the burden.

You, in your effort to get the hot story, have destroyed the credibility of the workers in the field. You've created more animosity against social workers and CPS. For what? A good juicy bit of print gossip? Shame on you Marjie Lundstrom, I think you may have been a good reporter, but I'm sorry to say, you've gone bad.