Judge calls testimony irrelevant

BY ERIC LINDBERG
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

It appears that more testimony will be removed from evidence than was heard during yesterday’s proceedings in the federal hearing on alleged labor law violations at the Santa Barbara News-Press.
A line of questioning News-Press attorney Barry Cappello directed toward many of the previous witnesses concerned whether a group of reporters had actually affixed two “Cancel Your Newspaper Today!” banners to a footbridge over Highway 101 or just held them against the fencing.

Cappello explained to the judge after objections from federal and union attorneys as to the relevance of this seemingly inconsequential detail that the matter related to reinstatement rights for six employees fired for the activity on that bridge. He argued that attaching the banners to the bridge was a municipal code violation and that the newspaper would not want to hire back anyone who broke the law.
“Those are not the type of people we want at the News-Press,” Matthew Clarke, a lawyer with Cappello’s firm stated yesterday.
However, Judge William Kocol apparently misunderstood that argument and believed they would fire anyone for merely affixing a sign to a bridge, or breaking any similar municipal code.
Cappello clarified yesterday that an employee would only be fired if they coupled that violation of the law with disloyal activity toward the company, which is the News-Press’ position as to the activity on the bridge.
“We have wasted quite a bit of time here,” Judge Kocol said, explaining that he no longer sees the testimony on whether the banners had been affixed or not as relevant or pertinent to the hearing.
As far as the testimony heard yesterday, former News-Press reporter Melissa Evans took the stand to open the hearing and lead organizer Marty Keegan testified to close out the day. Attorneys also spent a great deal of time questioning News-Press community affairs writer Karna Hughes about her performance evaluation for 2006.
News-Press attorney Matthew Clarke rounded out his cross examination of Evans as the hearing got underway, focusing on her performance evaluation for last year. The News-Press is charged with illegally lowering the evaluations of pro-union employees, including Evans and Hughes.
Clarke asked Evans about an issue raised in her evaluation concerning a story that had not been published until three months after she wrote it. Evans explained that the story — about a Catholic study group — was a feature and not a “hard-hitting” story, and that she had no reason to believe the facts in the story had changed before it was published.
Clarke then shifted to language in her evaluation about her mind being on something “other than work” during 2006. Evans confirmed she had gone on medical leave to deal with something in her personal life. Clarke asked if it had affected her time at work, to which she responded affirmatively, stating that she had not been in the office or working while on leave.
Judge Kocol, seeking clarification, asked if any editors suggested her personal issue had affected her work performance. Evans said it had never affected her performance and that it had never been discussed with any of her editors.
As Karna Hughes took Evans’ place on the stand, National Labor Relations Board attorney Steve Wyllie asked about her responsibilities at the News-Press in 2006. Hughes explained that she compiled the “Public Square” section — which contains light local news often dealing with nonprofit organizations or awards — and did some writing for the Life section.
Hughes later clarified that the Public Square ran Monday through Friday and appeared in a shortened form on Saturday for the first half of 2006, and then was reduced to four days a week during the latter half of the year.
Wyllie questioned Hughes about a meeting between her and associate editor Scott Steepleton in which they discussed the evaluation. Hughes said she took issue with one part in which Steepleton wrote that the Public Square was not done two days in advance of publication.
Hughes said her understanding since she started at the News-Press was that turning in her Public Square material two days in advance was only a suggestion and the requirement was the standard 5 p.m. deadline the day before publication. She said prior editors had only raised it as a suggested goal.
She also took issue with Steepleton writing that she “can be antagonistic” when asked to do tasks she didn’t find appealing. Hughes said the only issue Steepleton raised during their meeting was when he asked for a photo to run in Public Square and she discussed putting it in the Travel section instead.
“I thought it wasn’t appropriate for my section,” Hughes said, adding that the photo eventually ran in Travel.
Steepleton testified that those issues among others had resulted in the lowering of Hughes’ evaluation score, making her ineligible for an annual bonus.
Clarke focused his questions during cross examination on whether Hughes approached Steepleton about taking on additional responsibilities to help out in a short-staffed newsroom following resignations in July 2006. Hughes said she never approached Steepleton, but that she did ask her editor, Andrea Huebner, if she could help out with anything.
Clarke also questioned Hughes about two e-mails from former reporter Tom Schultz now known in the courtroom as the “peeps” e-mail and the “blitzkrieg” e-mail. Hughes said she regularly deleted e-mails, explaining why she didn’t turn those documents over pursuant to a subpoena from the News-Press.
Lead union organizer Marty Keegan took the stand to round out yesterday’s testimony. Wyllie led him through the details of the subscription cancellation campaign put on by the unionizing employees, which Keegan said included cancellation cards, rallies, press conferences and radio and print advertisements.
Cappello started his cross examination and quickly focused on a demand listed by unionizing employees in a letter sent to editorial page editor Travis Armstrong, who had been acting publisher at the time. In the demand, the employees asked the News-Press to invite back the six editors who resigned in early July.
Cappello asked if that demand had been withdrawn from the campaign. Keegan said they had removed it fairly early in their unionization effort. Cappello then asked if he had sent a formal announcement to the News-Press announcing they were withdrawing the demand. Keegan said he had not issued a formal statement or contacted anyone at the newspaper about the demand.
Keegan will resume his testimony under questioning from Cappello today at 9 a.m.