Reporter responds to blogger saying her Humpfer coverage is unbalanced

I have taken heat this week over my coverage of Carpentersville Trustee Paul Humpfer's conviction and the ensuing actions of Village President Bill Sarto.

It's time that I defended myself and the publication for which I work.

It should be said that much of the criticism comes from an anonymous blogger who refuses to reveal his or her identity.

Attacking my work is all well and good, but at least give me the respect of letting me know who you are and what your agenda is.

Making sweeping statements behind an alias -- Chrysippus, the godfather of logic and ethics -- is safe.

I don't appreciate receiving e-mails with a subject line of "Defending a wife beater?"

Anyway.

I do not support Carpentersville Trustee Paul Humpfer, nor do my stories slant in his favor. For the readers who do read articles as slanted, explain how you can construe bias from reading the articles that have run in the past few days.

For the past week or so since Humpfer was convicted on four counts of domestic battery, I have covered the reactions of Village President Bill Sarto. He determined Humpfer was off the board.

Sarto then asked the state's attorney and the attorney general to step in to take action against Humpfer.

Apparently a story about Sarto requesting a quo warranto (a hearing to determine by what authority someone holds an office, franchise or liberty) from both the state's attorney's office and the attorney general's office is biased in favor of Humpfer.

Where in the article does it suggest that I, or the Daily Herald, back Humpfer?

The lead was funny, and some might say sarcastic. Either was, it's a truthful statement.

It was a year ago that Sarto sent a letter to the state's attorney asking for an investigation into allegations that Humpfer physically and emotionally abused his wife in 2005.

State's Attorney John Barsanti deemed that no charges were warranted and no charges were ever filed.

That's a fact. It's not my opinion that the request for an investigation was denied.

It's also true that the allegations were brought up within weeks of the April 2007 village board elections, in which Humpfer was running.

How does that support Humpfer?

Also, reporting that an elected official convicted of a misdemeanor is not legally required by state law to step down does not trivialize the crime. It's the law.

Richard Flood, a municipal attorney for a law firm in Crystal Lake that represents villages of Algonquin, Lake in the Hills and McHenry, opined that "since domestic battery is a misdemeanor and not a crime of dishonesty, it should not be a basis for Trustee Humpfer's removal from elective office."

Those are not my words; they come from a municipal attorney well versed in the area of municipal law.

How does that support Humpfer?

Also, can someone explain to me how the story telling how four of the trustees disagree with the village president's actions, is badly slanted?

There were four trustees who didn't like how Sarto was going about things.

Their words. Not mine.