'Do not call me back at any time, for any reason'

Austin P-B reporter Kay Fate called interim Lyle Schools Superintendent Jim Dusso (on his cellphone) a few days ago and this is how the conversation went:

Dusso: This is Jim.

Fate: Hi, Jim, this is Kay Fate calling from the Austin Post-Bulletin. I was wondering, I just received today, someone faxed me a copy of the no confidence letter and said that...

Dusso: Kay, Kay, I can save both of us a problem, OK?

Fate: OK...

Dusso: I prefer you didn't call me, I find much of what you're doing harassment, I'm not going to respond to anything, so I'm just not going to respond, and please do not call me back at any time, for any reason. Thank you.

Then he hung up.

Again, Dusso is the superintendent of schools in Lyle, on an interim basis, as well as the high school principal.

I understand that Dusso and others are frustrated with the situation in Lyle, but for the top official in a public school district to accuse a reporter of harassing him with routine calls for comment, to say "do not call me back at any time, for any reason," and then to hang up is unprofessional and, for Lyle residents, not helpful.

We're doing our best to report the Lyle story as fully as possible, but it's pretty hard to do when the superintendent and just about all board members have circled the wagons and won't respond to phone calls for information and comment.

 

Comments

[Jay Furst]

Your "logic" is wrong, regarding public officials. They expect to get an occasional call after hours from reporters because it goes with the territory -- and generally, they'd rather have a chance to comment than not. I don't hear this complaint from any other public official -- and it's not the privacy that Dusso is upset about, he just doesn't want to respond to us, period, whether during office hours or not. And I'll repeat the earlier note, that I'm not certain it's his personal cell...could be his official cell, in which case your concerns about his privacy would likely be unfounded. Until he and I actually talk, I can't confirm that point.

[elguapo]

Mr. Furst, using your logic, any person who buys your newspaper has a right to call you on your personal cellphone (at your expense) because they pay your wages via their purchase.

They fact that you call public officials on their personal cell phones DAILY doesn't make it RIGHT. It means you have no conscience about other peoples privacy or their right to it.

I own a business. Unless it is an emergency, I expect my employees to allow me a modicum of privacy at days end. That includes my personal cell phone. I return the favor.

[Jay Furst]

Nine out of 10 school superintendents, mayors, county board chairmen, etc., would disagree with you, Simon, and most taxpayers, who would say that a guy making one of the top public salaries in Mower County should 1) respond to requests for comment from the media about issues large and small, and 2) generally be available on a personal phone, which in this case is probably paid for by the public. We call public officials on personal phones, at home or wherever DAILY.

[SimonBarSinister]

Simon says, "Don't call him on his personal cell phone. He gets dinged for it. If you are not sure, THEN DO THE RIGHT THING AND CALL HIS OFFICE AND LEAVE A MESSAGE.

What it was was out-right discourtesy on the PB's part. Dusso should have just hung up the same way you would hang up on a telemarketer."

Simons says, "What was once a news story has become a farce because the newsmedia has inserted themselves into the storyline."

Thus Spake Simon!

[Jay Furst]

I'm not sure it was a personal cellphone -- maybe you are, Elizabeth -- but nonetheless, top public officials, whose salaries (and often cellphones) are being paid for by taxpayers, are expected to communicate with media and the public. The reporter was professional and respectful; Mr. Dusso was not.

[elizabeth]

Maybe you shouldn't be calling him on his personal cell phone. Try being professional and respectful.