Slats Murphy, Senior SCW columnist

It has been a tough week for the Orlando Sentinel editorial board, both in Seminole and at the main offices downtown.

On Sunday, the paper's Seminole staff completely missed the call on the early voting issue in municipalites across the county, including Longwood, Altamonte Springs and Lake Mary. The paper's views were presented as a muddling and contradictory mess that made two clear impressions.

The first was that the Sentinel's Seminole editors were as confused about the issue as were readers of their editorial.

The second was that they offered their opinions without having had anyone actually at the commission meetings that were referenced.

That's the problem when media outlets are corporate entities first, and media outlets second. They try to do too much with not enough, covering news and events that place demands beyond the resources. Profits come before coverage.  Staff gets reduced, and so does the quality of the product.

Feeling the need to have an opinion on issues, they offer one, whether informed or not. Beyond that, coverage is broadened to make it palatable to all areas, generalizing enough so that the impression can be given that the focus is still local, wherever "local" may be.

That is what seems to have happened on Monday, when the Sentinel's main editorial staff ran a piece in all editions that addressed public school rezoning.

In their editorial entitled "A smart balance," the Sentinel's editors generalized the issues, trying to include rezoning issues currently in the news in both Orange and Seminole, painting both with the same large brush, and leaving their stance inconsistent with the facts, at least as they apply to Seminole.

A couple of examples easily demonstrate.  In taking the position that parents are not capable of devising rezoning plans, the Sentinel wrote that "parents write plans that frequently violate state rules about school capacity or court orders on racial integration." 

Whether the Sentinel felt such was the case in Seminole is not clear, but if so, they are wrong.  If not, their editorial is written broadly enough that it could easily be interpreted as describing the case in Seminole.

School Board attorney Ned Julian has confirmed all plans drawn by the core committees, which included parents as members, met the criteria of the consent decree imposed upon the School District by the Department of Justice, regulating racial integration.  Julian's confirmation of such was presented as part of the administrative hearing on the issue several months ago.

Furthermore, parents have performed their own statistical study of the integration issue, coming up with some pretty convincing evidence that the plan favored by the School Board actually moves further away from satsifying the consent degree than the plan the parents support.  They make this point using actual numbers from the School Board, and make a very convincing case.

On this point, the Sentinel was way off base, at least regarding the fact circumstances of the situation in Seminole.  Whether it was the result of a failure to do the proper homework or trying to satisfy readers in too many counties is irrelevant.  The paper was wrong, espcially if they were not speaking of Seminole but allowed the impression they were.

The same is true with their other main point.  "Because they don't have to consider the needs of the district as a whole," the Sentinel's editorial board said, "parent committees often suggest plans that benefit their own neighborhood at the expense of others.  They shrug off increased costs, such as transportation."

Again, as it applies to Seminole, they have it backwards.  It is the School Board plan that actually increases the transportation costs as students are bused across the county from west to east in a cascading effect of falling dominoes.

The plan favored by the School Board involves busing an additional 2,000 students throughout the county over the plan supported by the parents.  The School Board plan also buses students who are in a walk zone, meaning buses and transportation costs are added when none should be incurred.

As one example cites, if there are 64 students in a walk zone, you are now adding costs of one extra bus, one extra driver and extensive fuel costs for driving the students seven miles each way, as compared to letting them walk to a school within two miles of their home.  The plan supported by the parents does the latter.

The Sentinel editorial concluded that "options on rezoning are best drawn up by planners who can be objective.  Decisions are best left to School Board members who are elected to make them."

That may be the case in Orange, Osceola, Lake, Volusia, Brevard and other areas of central Florida served by the Sentinel.  It is definitely not the case in Seminole.

The Sentinel asserts that School Board members are better equipped to make rezoning decisions than parents, yet each argument they present actually supports the performance of the parents involved in the Seminole high school rezoning effort while undercutting the legitimacy of what the School Board has done.

In attempting to make their case, the Sentinel editors have actually made the parents' case.  Sadly, the personal interests and priorities the Sentinel ascribes in general to parents are specifically applicable to the Seminole County School Board and its superintendent.

Whether the product of poor preparation, laziness, corporate budget cuts, or a combination of any or all of those factors, the Sentinel in the end has shown itself grossly irresponsible in its portrayal of the  rezoning issue.

The parents involved in the Seminole high school rezoning effort worked diligently to produce plans that were equitable and responsible.  The School Board tossed their months of effort aside for a plan of their own that was devised in a short period of time.

The parents have earned the right to be treated much better than they have been, by both the School Board and the Orlando Sentinel.

Send an email to Slats Murphy

Check out Slats' Slants, Slats Murphy's daily blog