Looks like this the reporter didnt like being called out on his biased reporting. Here is his response and my comments below. I point out that this is the very first time I have EVER requested he always tape our conversations to keep a record. In all my years on the Council I have never made this request of a reporter. Check out his personal tone and allegations too: Dustin Gardiner-Arizona Republic reporter Sal DiCiccio keeps repeating his claim that we’ve deliberately misled residents on Prop. 487. A couple of important facts to keep in mind when sorting through all the hot air: --We have reported on the death and disability claim numerous times and quite prominently. Our first article outlining how state law would likely prevent Prop. 487 from impacting the police and fire pension system and thus death and disability benefits ran on Sept. 24, long before his accusations started. The “Yes” campaign even posted our article on their website, and we’ve since repeated the information in at least five articles. Ironically, Sal posted my follow-up article on that very subject just last week. He proclaimed: “Govt. Unions Exposed for Misleading Voters. 487:Police/Fire Clearly Excluded.” One week, I’ve EXPOSED the unions. The next, I’ve purposefully misled the public? Stories: azcentral/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/09/23/phoenix-pension-reform-state-law-block/16136531/ azcentral/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/26/phoenix-prop-487-pensions-police-fire-public-safety/17951515/ azcentral/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/06/phoenix-officials-accused-showing-bias-pension-initiative/16841647/ --One of the more interesting aspects of all this: Sal was one of the first people to tell me he wasn’t sure if public safety was exempt from the initiative. When the pro-reform campaign submitted its signatures in March, Sal said he didn’t know if he could support it given his concerns about public safety (see story below). In fact, Sal felt so strongly about the issue that he called me the day signatures were filed to talk about it. azcentral/community/phoenix/articles/20140311phoenix-pension-system-voters-may-decide.html Prior to sharing his concerns about public safety, Sal had supported the initiative. Sources close to the “Yes” campaign told me Sal’s hesitance came after he had a major falling out with political consultant Max Fose, who ran Sal’s council campaign last year. I’m told Max didn’t want Sal to be the spokesman for the initiative given his personal polling numbers. Sal later voiced his support for Prop. 487, saying it didn’t include police and fire. If you’re following, Sal was for the initiative in late 2013; not sure if he would support it in March 2014; and now, he’s for it again. --The “Yes” campaign did not exhaust all of its legal remedies to challenge the city’s ballot language stating Prop. 487 would impact public-safety pensions. They could have sued and possibly won (we also reported extensively about the dispute over ballot language). Scot Mussi, chair of the pro-reform campaign, said voters would see through the public-safety claim. Now, the media is to blame if voters are “confused” by ballot language the “Yes” campaign didn’t bother to challenge? azcentral/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/07/03/phoenix-pension-reform-ballot-dispute-head-court/12124929/ In the end, I wonder why is Sal so upset about our coverage in particular? Numerous TV reporters have talked about the public-safety claim without ever exploring the bit about state law, but Sal hasn’t talked much about them. The timing of it all is interesting: azcentral/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/07/phoenix-councilman-diciccio-called-hypocritical-pension/16866867/ Sal DiCiccio-my response: On Sept 13, 10:15 am Dustin Gardiner wrote in a text to me: “ Good to know I spoke with Rick and he was very clear that staff isn’t saying that with any certainty. No campaign has really overstated city’ position” Then an article appears highlighting the death/disability issue. Then there were 3 other stories on this issue-a non-issue that will never happen. Repeatedly I asked for a fact check just to get it straightened out before people started voting. The death/disability issue turned out to be the number one issue in this campaign. It does a disservice to the public to leave that issue hanging. Dustin is correct, I did take time to make sure police and fire were excluded. I had several discussions with the attorney’s and I even met with the police union telling them I wanted to make sure they were left off. This was only done to be completely sure there would be no way they could be included. I am not sure how he can allege I am wavering when I was just being thorough. I am not sure about these “unidentified sources” in the Yes campaign. But, clearly they have been using me for emails, robo-calls and tv interviews. Doesn’t look like they worked too hard to keep me out of the campaign as this reporter alleges. Campaigns by there nature are always heated and if someone inside said that venting it surely did not show in the election. The tone of this response from the reporter shows clearly a bias. Sal DiCiccio Dustin, you may also want to mention that I have officially requested to your editor all conversation be taped by you when interviewing me. I have never made that request EVER before of any reporter. Sal
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:05:45 +0000