Over the weekend, I got the chance to write a story about the petition to repeal the smoking ban. By the end of the weekend, the story was already the second most-read on the Missourian Web site. The issue is a hot topic, and people seem very interested in reading about new developments. I followed up the story with a brief, reporting that City Clerk Sheela Amin is hoping to get the petition certified (or rejected) by this weekend.
Then, I looked for the next big story. Obviously, this was a big issue. There had to be something else to report. But after consulting with my very wise editor, Scott Swafford, we were at a loss for a follow-up story. Why?
The arguments have remained unchanged. We’ve reported on the people who believe the ordinance is a breach of their rights. We’ve reported on the people who believe the dangers of second-hand smoke outweigh those rights.
We’ve also reported on the business owners who say they’ve lost business since the ban was instituted. And we’ve reported on what has happened to those businesses which do not comply with the ban.
So now, our question is: What more would you like to see? Is there something else you’d like to know? After all, the ban could come up for a public vote in April. So, we want to make sure you are as informed as possible. That’s our job, and we want to do it well.
Filed under: 1st Ward, 2nd Ward, 3rd Ward, 4th Ward, 5th Ward, 6th Ward, City Council, City Government, County Government, Reporter's Notebook, Uncategorized | Tagged: City Clerk, Laura Latzko, petition, repeal, Scott Swafford, Sheela Amin, smoking ban
An angle I haven’t really seen in the media is the Missouri Foundation for Health grant that was made to (I believe) the Family and Community Medicine department at the University Hospital and how that money may be used by supporters of the ban and their umbrella groups (CASE, PASS, SAFE, etc.) to electioneer for the ban. A little Googling should pull up the press release and the dollar figure - nearly $2 million if my memory is correct. At least this time, citizens will have a better sense of the money spent by those at the University and in government to support the ban, unlike the non-reported expenditures preceding the ban (DHSS running ads against smoking in the Columbia market for the Boone County Coalition on Tobacco Concerns, money spent by the Wellness Center and Student Health to support the working leading up to the ban, and so forth).
Excellent suggestions, John. Because this matter seems destined for a public vote, the fund-raising that happens on either side of the issue will clearly be a matter of public record. We’ll be sure to keep tabs on that. Thanks for your input.