H-E-B Center at Cedar Park
'Chronicle' Headline on Patterson Misleading
RECEIVED Tue., March 23, 2010
Dear Editor,
As a longtime fan of The Austin Chronicle, I was distressed to see the misleading headline you used for the story reporting that 3rd Court of Appeals Justice Jan Patterson had been cleared of Glen Maxey's complaints to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Your headline said, "Patterson Partly Cleared" ["Primary Post-Mortem," News, March 12]. In fact, Jan Patterson was entirely cleared. After reviewing Maxey's allegations for more than two months, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that there was "no evidence" to support his accusations.
Unfortunately, it took more than three months from the time the allegations were made before the Chronicle got around to reporting that they had been dismissed, and then you did it with a misleading headline.
After the dismissal, Maxey filed yet another complaint, this time claiming that Jan Patterson had failed to remove the names of people who had changed their minds and no longer wished to be listed as her supporters. Since Patterson did, in fact, remove such names, I'm confident that this complaint, too, will be dismissed. But you should have put a separate heading on this story.
As a longtime fan of The Austin Chronicle, I was distressed to see the misleading headline you used for the story reporting that 3rd Court of Appeals Justice Jan Patterson had been cleared of Glen Maxey's complaints to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Your headline said, "Patterson Partly Cleared" ["Primary Post-Mortem," News, March 12]. In fact, Jan Patterson was entirely cleared. After reviewing Maxey's allegations for more than two months, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that there was "no evidence" to support his accusations.
Unfortunately, it took more than three months from the time the allegations were made before the Chronicle got around to reporting that they had been dismissed, and then you did it with a misleading headline.
After the dismissal, Maxey filed yet another complaint, this time claiming that Jan Patterson had failed to remove the names of people who had changed their minds and no longer wished to be listed as her supporters. Since Patterson did, in fact, remove such names, I'm confident that this complaint, too, will be dismissed. But you should have put a separate heading on this story.
Sincerely,
Anne C. McAfee
Anne C. McAfee
[News Editor Michael King responds: As the story reports, the Chronicle did not learn of the dismissal of the initial complaint against Judge Patterson until the night of the election, March 2; we received a copy of the confidential dismissal letter (dated Feb. 18) on March 5. Specifically, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct found "no evidence … that the judge attempted to trade public office for her personal gain." The ruling was less conclusive on Patterson's interactions with Gov. Perry's office or with "individuals … purporting to act on [Perry's] behalf" and on Patterson's statements to the media concerning those interactions.]
