Lost in the heated ethics debate of recent month is the fact that there are some truly remarkable people in the General Assembly. Some legislators actually go to Capitol Hill to represent their constituents. They stand up for ideals they hold dear and refuse to play the political games that so often manacle our legislative process. The media don't cover them much because their story isn't juicy or salacious. These folks patrol both sides of the political aisle and should be the pride of our state.
One such person is Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville). He was born in the Panama Canal Zone and his story only gets more interesting from there. When he's not legislating, you'll find Rep. Dunn in a tree plying his trade as an arborist. He has a beautiful family, complete with five children, that he adores. While many legislators are being wined and dined throughout Nashville, Rep. Dunn is in his office...eating peanut butter sandwiches...reading Comptroller's audits. Because he does, he can tell you about every wasted dollar in state government. His political senses are acute but he doesn't use them to game they system, only to quietly advance his cause. Rep. Dunn is not just one of the most principled, decent and honest people in the General Assembly. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world who is his peer.
Whether or not you agree with him on the issues, Bill Dunn possesses the rare combination of principle and intellect that you want in your legislator. There's not a fair-minded person who has a bad thing to say about him. Unfortunately, the Capitol Hill Press Corps is not constituted entirely of fair-minded individuals.
Rep. Dunn is the House sponsor of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as consisting of one man and one woman. An ordinary politician would send out a press release every time the bill moved from one committee to another. Bill Dunn is not ordinary and he hasn't made any political hay of the resolution. He hasn't, nor would he, campaign against the resolution's opponents. In fact, he accepted an invitation to speak at a gay right's group to give his side of the story. He feels that pushing the amendment is the right thing to do. So that's what he'll do.
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to halt the amendment on procedural grounds. Not that they need the press coverage to influence an impartial judiciary, unaffected by the ebb and flow of public opinion, but the ACLU felt it necessary to hold a press conference to announce its lawsuit. The room was packed with reporters who dutifully scribbled their talking points on their notepads because they didn't have another "dog bites man" story.
After the ACLU completed their mission, Rep. Dunn offered his side of the story to the assembled press gaggle. A few reporters asked some pointed questions as reporters are apt to do and then one crossed the line of professionalism and decency. John Commins of the Chattanooga Times Free Press apparently didn't like what Rep. Dunn had to say so Commins called him "mean and hateful."
When thinking about derogatory terms to associate with Bill Dunn, none spring to mind. Certainly, the least likely candidates would include "mean" and "hateful." I will not stoop to Commins' level and use a few words that would appropriately describe him. Bill Dunn would be disappointed in me if I did because there's not a mean or hateful bone in his body.
However, I will say that calling Bill Dunn "mean" and "hateful" is like calling Bill Gates a technophobe. It's like calling Shaquille O'Neal diminutive or Hank Aaron an average hitter. Asserting that Bill Dunn is "mean" and "hateful" is like saying John Commins is a good journalist or a fair reporter.
A reporter cannot fairly cover a beat if he is going to baselessly assail the character of those he covers. Commins' bosses should demand an apology and if he doesn't comply, they should offer him a pink slip.
UPDATE: I have received an email and a phone call from Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter John Commins in response to this post.
Neither his email or his phone call contain much information that is
fit for family reading. However, he did one make one salient point. I
should have called him for an opportunity to comment on my post.
While I stand by what I wrote because I trust the sources that gave
it to me, I do regret not giving him the courtesy of a call or the
readers the benefit of his thoughts on the matter. I invited him to
write a response that I would post unedited. He has declined but the
offer still stands any time he would like to take it up.