It is heartwarming to read that former state Sen. Gib Armstrong is begging for money to defend his pal, Art Morris, in his defense against former County Commissioner Molly Henderson.
The libel lawsuit Henderson has filed against Lancaster Newspapers and some of its staff is a rare opportunity to hold up the United States Constitution to the light of its fundamental principles.
The most important First Amendment case in libel law pertaining to a “public figure” such as Ms. Henderson, is the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan action. This is the case that established the “actual malice” standard for libeling a public figure. The United States Supreme Court said in that landmark decision that a public figure had to prove that the publication charged either knew what they were publishing was false; or recklessly disregarded the truth about that which they were publishing.
Molly Henderson, an ex-Lancaster County commissioner, has filed a lawsuit claiming that there was not one, but several specific examples of defamatory “actual malice” statements made against her published in Lancaster Newspapers during her term as county commissioner.
One of those defendants is Arthur E. “Art” Morris, a regular columnist for the Lancaster Sunday News. Previous to writing his column, Morris served two and a half terms as mayor of the city of Lancaster in the 1970s and 1980s. Morris has also been a ‘day-one,’ very supportive, very public cheerleader of the hotel tax and convention center project since it was first introduced.
The basis of the Henderson suit against Morris is that he wrote specific articles and letters that he either knew were false, or took minimally professional steps to confirm the truth of his published statements.
The intent, argues Henderson, was to force her to resign from office, or push her to decide not to run for re-election, or to severely damage her re-election prospects in order to get the convention center project built, a project in which Lancaster Newspapers was a 50 percent private shareholder.
Art Morris is not an ordinary citizen. Morris was mayor of Lancaster for a decade, and active in city and county politics. His stature as former mayor and columnist for the Sunday News made him far from the “average” citizen. A letter to the editor, one of which Henderson alleges is libelous, is a case of a well-known public figure launching knowingly false attacks at another.
Here are the specific charges Henderson is alleging against Morris:
- After the Grand Jury Report, released January, 2007, Morris wrote that Henderson knew that Heinke had lied on his job application before voting to hire him. The Grand Jury Report concludes Henderson had no such knowledge. The lawsuit argue that Morris claimed to have read the report;
- That Morris wrote that Henderson, knowing that Heinke was unqualified for the position, voted to hire him. The grand jury report again concluded Henderson had no such knowledge.
Art Morris is a charming, affable, very bright man. After the convention center deal was a done deal, he opened up the meetings and the books. But for what he did to Molly Henderson, he should be held accountable. I, for one, am shedding no tears for this servant of the establishment. How appropriate Gib Armstrong is doing his bidding.
Did Morris write these things? Where? Are you going to do any investigating; are you going to give Mr. Morris an opportunity to respond, or are you just going to act as a mouthpiece for Henderson?
The Grand Jury report does not say that Henderson didn’t know that Heinke lied.
“On the two-page application itself, Mr. Heinke listed the position’s job title as “Assistant Superintendent”. In the resume submitted contemporaneously with that application, Mr. Heinke listed the position’s full job description as “Assistant Superintendent [with] Pillager School District 116. Post Graduate Administrative Internship”, which acknowledged that the position was an internship. “Both the county’s Human Resources Department and all three county commissioners were aware of the discrepancy before Mr. Heinke’s interview and found it to be of no weight during the hiring process.” (p. 16)
“Mr. Heinke’s hiring as the county’s Chief Services Officer was biased by the hidden agenda of Commissioners Shellenberger and Shaub and based on factors other than merit.” (p. 37)
Lancaster Newspapers was not a 50% partner in the convention center project. Its legal affiliate was 50% of Penn Square Partners, which was roughly 50% of the joint public-private venture.
If Mrs. Henderson would have had information available to her at the time suggesting that Heinke lied or was otherwise unqualified, then Morris’s accusation is fine. Whether someone is qualified or how much you can stretch the truth before it’s lying is not a matter of fact. It’s a matter of opinion.
Wow…. Quite the pickle! There are many opponents of the convention center project that were not fans of Mr. Morris for his brash demeanor. Quick frankly, we did not care for him personally whatsoever. Yet, we respected him for his unwavering pursuit of absolute transparency when conducting public business.
He first made an impression when he volunteered to take the helm of the convention authority board as Chairman for $1 for services rendered amid chaos from the past executive director and team of inexperienced consultants. He maintained a very impartial stance on all issues presented and allowed all concerned taxpayers the opportunity to speak appropriately at each public meeting. If professional character is in question, I would have to say he is very solid professional despite my own personal feelings.
As for Molly Henderson, I do not believe she has served the public as impartially as Mr. Morris and for the greater benefit for all. I am sure the archives will soon prevail if this claim has any validity. I would certainly not be surprised because Mr. Morris’s temper got the best of him from time-to-time.