The Vanguard published an afternoon piece on Wednesday showing that Jeff Reisig had not originally written large segments of his op-ed that was released the previous week in the Woodland Daily Democrat.
While many readers drew inferences from the article, the article itself only reported what we knew at the time. It did not make accusations.
The Vanguard had already noted a number of errors within the original op-ed – notably comments about a RAND report that purports to refute the impact of the death penalty on the state’s fiscal condition. That report is contradicted by two subsequent studies by Judge Alarcon and the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
We note that people’s responses to the op-ed and the usage of material from Sacramento DA Jan Scully’s op-ed is largely dependent upon their feelings about the DA. Those critical of the DA are more critical of his utilization of Jan Scully’s material. Those more favorable questioned the importance of the report.
Some have suggested that the ethics of the situation depend on whether the DA is making use of talking points from the California DA Association, or related organization. They note that the utilization of such templates is relatively common.
The question for some is whether the use of templates is appropriate and whether DA’s and others should not publish op-eds unless they are original material.
The problem at this point is that we simply do not know what happened. As of now there are two op-eds. One written back in April by Jan Scully. One nearly exactly three months later by Jeff Reisig, coincidentally the day before anti-death penalty leaders from across the state appeared in Woodland for the Vanguard‘s event.
There is thus no evidence at this point to suggest that there is some sort of template op-ed for DA’s to sign onto. We certainly have no reason to believe that the DA used the material without Jan Scully’s permission, but we also have no reason to believe that it was not Jan Scully’s original work.
Does any of this really matter? In several respects it does. First, there is the basic concept that we are led to believe that the DA wrote this article. That means he is accountable for the claims it makes, mistakes it makes, the attack on the ACLU, among other things.
The Sacramento News and Review‘s Cosmo Garvin is a long-time journalist, and his first reaction on the Vanguard‘s Facebook page was to call it “plagiarism.” That is not a word that the Vanguard used, but that is a journalist’s honest reaction.
Coincidentally, appearing in today’s News and Review is an article written by Mr. Garvin entitled, “Yolo DA accuses ACLU.”
In it he writes, “Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig hates criminals and crime. He’s also no fan of the American Civil Liberties Union and launched an unusual attack on the 92-year-old civil-rights organization last week.”
Now we know that while the DA is probably no fan of the civil liberties organization, he did not write the attack – as all of the references to the ACLU appeared in the Jan Scully article.
Mr. Garvin writes that Mr. Reisig complained that “the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies have waged a relentless attack on public safety for decades.”
While Mr. Reisig’s op-ed defends California’s death penalty, Mr. Garvin writes, “But Reisig seemed equally concerned with getting in some digs at the ACLU.”
He quotes Mr. Reisig’s piece: “The ACLU and its agents are responsible for endless delays in the criminal justice system, frivolous appeals and a mountain of misinformation. And now, they claim the death penalty is irrevocably broken and costly and should be repealed.”
He parenthetically notes: “There’s no law against hyperbole, it seems.”
He concludes, “Someone else who claims the death penalty is broken: The guy who wrote it. Former prosecutor and Sacramento attorney Donald Heller has since become a vocal opponent of killings by the state and a supporter of Prop. 34.”
So the question is whether it really matters whether Mr. Reisig launched the attack on the ACLU, and whether Mr. Reisig conducted his own faulty research or relied on the faulty research of others without checking.
I suppose, in the scheme of things, it does not.
But at the same time, it would be nice if we could trust that when public officials put their name to a piece of writing that they are in fact telling us that these are their words and if they wish to borrow from others, they quote. If Mayor Joe Krovoza wrote in the Davis Enterprise something that Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson wrote in the Sacramento Bee and passed it off as his own, would these people be as forgiving?
On the other hand, Public Defender Tracie Olson’s column has been re-published, not only in the local newspapers, but also it has been picked up by national publications like the Death Penalty Information Center and the Innocence Blog, published by the Innocence Project.
The nice thing about her piece is that she wrote it personally, in response to Jeff Reisig’s piece.
Writes the Innocence Blog: “In “The Truth about the Death Penalty,” an op-ed that appeared in Sunday’s edition of Woodland’s Daily Democrat, Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson urges California to abolish the death penalty, citing wrongful convictions among other reasons.”
They add, “Olson’s piece was a response to an earlier op-ed by District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who supports preserving the death penalty and shortening the appeals process, which he calls ‘frivolous.’ Of the 297 DNA exonerations, 17 served time on death row and an additional 15 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.”
Tracie Olson references the National Registry of Exonerations when she writes that it “has recorded over 920 exonerations across the United States since 1989, more than 100 of which had been sentenced to death.”
Ms. Olson argues, “I doubt anyone could defend the notion that the long legal processes that freed these innocent people were frivolous.”
In the end, Mr. Reisig’s arguments, whether his own or someone else’s, need to be judged on the truth of their words and the ideas that he represents.
Launching this as an attack on the ACLU heightens the importance when people like Don Heller, Ron Briggs and Jeanne Woodford are at the forefront of the movement to repeal the death penalty.
Failing to check the facts – whether written by his staffer or the Sacramento DA, reflects poorly on Mr. Reisig – whether he copied the material off someone else’s paper or used someone’s talking points.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The following quote is from my response to the issues raised about whether the article by DA Reisig represented plagiarism. I am repeating it here because I think it is relevant in view of some of the specific content of his criticism of the ACLU.
[quote]For me this is not a question of what is strictly legal. It is a question of intellectual honesty. My hope would be that community leaders and elected officials would choose to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior that what is expected from the general populace. As leaders, I expect that they will lead not only in word, but also in deed. While it may not be illegal, I certainly do not believe that it is exemplary behavior to pass off the work of another as one’s own without attribution.[/quote]
So in applying the principle of intellectual honesty, I looked at one of the DAs statements.
[quote]”the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies have waged a relentless attack on public safety for decades.”[/quote]
I find this statement very ironic. If the wrong person is incarcerated for a crime ( the basic premise behind much of the work of the ACLU and certainly of the Innocence Project) this would mean that the true perpetrator is not. It would seem that we could at least all agree that having the true criminal incarcerated is desirable. Seen in this light, it would seem that the work of the ACLU and Innocence Project is actually a strong support for public safety. I find it highly intellectually dishonest to claim that the ACLU is against public safety and yet that is the claim being made.
Finally a truly intellectually honest piece would have included, as David has noted, that there is opposition to the death penalty not only from the disparaged group, the ACLU, but also from former sponsors and those charged with implementation including the warden who oversaw a number of executions and so has had a first hand view of the futility of capital punishment, as well as the bills original author. This would be the kind of balanced statement I would expect from a public official.
[quote]The Vanguard had already noted a number of errors within the original op-ed – notably comments about a RAND report that purports to refute the impact of the death penalty on the state’s fiscal condition. That report is contradicted by two subsequent studies by Judge Alarcon and the Legislative Analyst’s Office.[/quote]
Errors? Or a difference of opinion?
[quote]We note that people’s responses to the op-ed and the usage of material from Sacramento DA Jan Scully’s op-ed is largely dependent upon their feelings about the DA. Those critical of the DA are more critical of his utilization of Jan Scully’s material. Those more favorable questioned the importance of the report.[/quote]
A person’s response may have had absolutely nothing to do w how they may or may not have felt about the DA.
[quote]So the question is whether it really matters whether Mr. Reisig launched the attack on the ACLU, and whether Mr. Reisig conducted his own faulty research or relied on the faulty research of others without checking.
I suppose, in the scheme of things, it does not.[/quote]
IN other words this was a nonstory that highlights the Vnaguard’s bitter animosity toward the local DA…
“IN other words this was a nonstory that highlights[i][b] the Vnaguard’s bitter animosity toward the local DA[/b][/i]…”
Elaine having read your posts for some time now, I wonder if this isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It seems that you have some unexplained bitter animosity towards the Vanguard.
I would add, that most of your comments do not really add to the discussion either. But that’s just my personal observation.
I missed the string from yesterday but feel a comment about ‘lifting’ text from another source verbatim without acknowledgment is unworthy of most of us, especially elected officials. As a healthcare professional who was raised on the premise that facts should be referenced, that spreads into the tactic that allegedly was used.
Not to defend, but I think in this age of forwarding emails around the globe, we as a society have become lazy in giving ‘credit’ where credit is due. How many times have you gotten something in an email that was purported to be orginial from the sender, but was just a forwarded item?
My guess? The op-ed was almost certainly written by the opposition campaign to Prop 34. In April, they asked Scully to sign it. Then, they repurposed it and asked Reisig to sign it. Many op-eds are not actually written by the people whose name is at the bottom. Ghost writers abound in political campaigns. The biggest crime is that whoever wrote this op-ed was incredibly lazy and didn’t actually create new content using the same talking points. Unfortunately, most people won’t ever know…or care.
08/02/12 – 11:45 AM… (By Siegel in response to Attorney Musser’s comments)
“….I would add, that most of your comments do not really add to the discussion either. But that’s just my personal observation….”
Since when is an inquiring, open-minded, objective, solution- oriented perspective not welcomed in any discussion!?!
“Since when is an inquiring, open-minded, objective, solution- oriented perspective not welcomed in any discussion!?! “
How is attacking the Vanguard at every turn tantamount to your string of adjectives, mix in a few bingos and exactly’s and you have 80% of ERM’s posts.
Thank you for your emotional, close-minded, and problem aggravating response. Get a life!
Explain to me Mr. Hayes, how this post by Elaine adds to this discussion: “IN other words this was a nonstory that highlights the Vnaguard’s bitter animosity toward the local DA… “
Is that nothing but an attack on David’s hard work?
“Is that nothing but an attack on David’s hard work?”
Actually Seagull, it ‘s you that adds nothing to this blog but an incessant drumbeat of approval to the Vanguard’s stories. Maybe you should consider changing your moniker to Parrot.
ERM always is quite eloquent and thoughtful in her posts and often agrees with David. Speaking of animosity, what I’ve often seen on here is you displaying it towards posters you don’t happen to agree with. But that’s just my personal observation.
That’s clever, Seagull, what are we in kindergarten here?
Like I said, you add nothing.
Please return to discussion of the op-ed, not of other blog participants.
Thanks.
My guess? The op-ed was almost certainly written by the opposition campaign to Prop 34. In April, they asked Scully to sign it. Then, they repurposed it and asked Reisig to sign it. Many op-eds are not actually written by the people whose name is at the bottom. Ghost writers abound in political campaigns. The biggest crime is that whoever wrote this op-ed was incredibly lazy and didn’t actually create new content using the same talking points. Unfortunately, most people won’t ever know…or care.
[quote][/quote]
It’s not a Prop 34 campaign piece nor coordinated effort. Google the contents of Scully’s opinion piece and only Reisig’s piece comes up–no other DA and no other public official. Reisig is the only person to have stolen from Scully.
Davislaw: Thanks for googling/checking whether this was coordinated.
It’s disturbing that an attorney, a prosecutor, someone sworn to uphold the law, hates civil rights, hates the Bill of Rights.
Does anyone really care besides the haters?
Has the Vanguard contacted the CA DA Association or other organizations opposed to Prop 34 about a possible template?
[i]But at the same time, it would be nice if we could trust that when public officials put their name to a piece of writing that they are in fact telling us that these are their words and if they wish to borrow from others, they quote. If Mayor Joe Krovoza wrote in the Davis Enterprise something that Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson wrote in the Sacramento Bee and passed it off as his own, would these people be as forgiving?[/i]
I suspect most don’t think it’s a big deal and forgive the use of DA Scully’s work or a template. People will most likely think anything that frees up time for a short staffed DA’s office so they can prosecute cases and focus on public safety is acceptable.
I think many elected officials rely on their staff to draft, rework and finalize speeches, op-eds and so on. I’m not suggesting that’s identical to the DA op-ed, but still, often times elected officials, executives, directors, etc. rely heavily on the work of others.
[quote]I suspect most don’t think it’s a big deal and forgive the use of DA Scully’s work or a template. People will most likely think anything that frees up time for a short staffed DA’s office so they can prosecute cases and focus on public safety is acceptable.
I think many elected officials rely on their staff to draft, rework and finalize speeches, op-eds and so on. I’m not suggesting that’s identical to the DA op-ed, but still, often times elected officials, executives, directors, etc. rely heavily on the work of others. [/quote]
Since DA Reisig doesn’t have a case load and is not in court, so he should have plenty of time to craft his own opinion. I know Reisig, he’s not a scholar. I’ve known him to plagiarize before and it doesn’t surprise me one bit that he plagiarized Scully in this case.
But let us not lose track of the content itself, which was hateful and sloppy.
Overseeing an office, its budget, realignment, etc. is not time consuming?
[quote]Overseeing an office, its budget, realignment, etc. is not time consuming?
Budget work is done until next year. Not sure what you mean by realignment. Re overseeing an office, Reisig’s counterpart, Tracie Olsen wrote an opinion on the same subject, without plagiarizing, and it was well written. Quit offering excuses.
AB109. There aren’t ongoing budget issues throughout the fiscal year? I’m not offering excuses, but possible explanations. My comment was also based on what I think the majority of the public would think about this, by the way. I just am not convinced this is an ethics concern. Whether or not he was trying to find a shortcut when putting together an op-ed is not necessarily a career ender.
[quote]I just am not convinced this is an ethics concern. Whether or not he was trying to find a shortcut when putting together an op-ed is not necessarily a career ender. [/quote]
An ethics issue for sure–it’s plagiarism. I agree it’s not a career ender, though.
[quote]I just am not convinced this is an ethics concern[/quote]
If we do not expect intellectual honesty from our leaders, how can we expect if from those they are supposed to be setting examples for ? If you really do not care if our leaders pass off the work of others as their own,
why would you care if your children google their school work or if an author steals the work of another author. Do we really only care about the strict legality of an issue, or do we also care about the underlying honesty or lack thereof ?
medwoman,
I think, with permission, be it a template from a group or whomever, it is acceptable to use someone’s work. Whether or not that’s good judgement is another issue. Again, many supporters of causes, on all sides, do this. If there is a cause you strongly believe in, I’m sure you can find material that an organization makes available for others to use in support of the cause. The most common material seems to be template letters to the editor.
Superfluous Man
[quote]I think, with permission, be it a template from a group or whomever, it is acceptable to use someone’s work. Whether or not that’s good judgement is another issue. Again, many supporters of causes, on all sides, do this. If there is a cause you strongly believe in, I’m sure you can find material that an organization makes available for others to use in support of the cause. The most common material seems to be template letters to the editor.[/quote]
And I agree, as long as appropriate attribution is made. Here Reisig, by incorporating the name of the victim’s sister and portraying this as a joint statement from the two of them, for me clearly crossed a boundary.
Again, how do you respond to your high school student whose submission for a class has been rejected as not being his/her own work if they can point to the DA and say, “well, Jeff Reisig did just that”? Again, I am not claiming it is illegal, I am just questioning the ethics and judgement. The fact that it is common practice does not address either of those issues.
medwoman,
I believe, with respect to this example, if the user of material is given license to use it as he sees fit by the author of the content, there are no ethical violations. In that case, I do not believe the person using the work of another is ethically obligated to give credit to the source.
It’s not a matter of it being unethical yet a common practice, based on my understanding. I believe it is an ethical and common practice. Now, whether or not a person in his position should do that is a question of judgement, which in my mind is separate all together. That said, I do not know the facts regarding who is the author and if Reisig was given permission to use their work.
Finally, what you’re referencing is a personal opinion as to Reisig’s setting a bad example for children. Surely, a child would not pick up on the distinction and that, I suppose, is a concern. I also think the rules governing academic work are different, but maybe I’m wrong.
Frankly, I see this as nothing more than talking points, much as politicians use talking points from party platforms for their campaigns. In other words, a nonstory…