Clark's reporting on Fire Suppression all wet

April 21 Ray Clark wrote:
Example #1:
[Council voted] to accept Order #77, which forbids requiring developers to provide certain water-related fire safety provisions, despite the pleas of several members of the Planning Board. Don Hutchings, of the Planning Board, pointed out that the present Ordinance requires builders to provide water sufficient for fire suppression; he named the specific section of the Ordinance, and asked Councilor Andy Upham to read it aloud. For unknown reasons, Upham chose to read several extraneous sections.

BiasBust #1: Don Hutchings cited only a small excerpt of the ordinance. The ordinance under discussion is Subdivision regulations, Article 10, Section401.34 - Water Supply and it goes from A-H. Mr. Upham noted that the pertinent sections discuss public water supply and all the subsections have to be taken into account, not cherry picked out of context. The Planning Board relies on only part C, but in effect, if read as a whole from A-H the picture becomes clear.

BiasBust#2:The last sentence is false. Mr. Upham clearly stated his reasons for reading the other sections. Several times, as a matter of fact. He said it was for purposes of context as stated above.

BiasBust#3: Using words like “for unknown reasons” is inappropriate. If the reasons are stated, reporters should put them in the article. If the reasons are not stated, reporters should ask and then put the answer in the article.

BiasBust#4: Mr. Clark should actually go to the meetings that he reports on.

To read the section of ordinance:
Subdivision Regulations