PART 4: THE AUDIT Sections I-III

By Jimmie L. Clayton Jr., Wabash Watchdog

You should read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 before proceeding with the audit that follows:

I. What This Section Is — and Is Not

When I said I would leave nothing out, I meant exactly that. Nothing in this story has been erased, minimized, or quietly set aside for convenience. Everything that happened has been documented, preserved, and retained.

This section is not an attempt to introduce new allegations, assign criminal guilt, or speculate about motives. It is also not a personal reckoning or a demand for outcomes. It exists for a simpler reason: to place the full scope of what occurred into a clear public record, including what was addressed, what was ignored, and what was never explained.

In situations involving serious allegations, there are predictable institutional responses. Reviews are initiated. Clarifications are issued. Reporting continues, even if only to refute or contextualize claims. Silence, when it occurs, is usually brief and followed by explanation.

What follows is not an argument, but a comparison. This section outlines what normally happens in comparable circumstances and what happened here instead. The absence of action, the lack of follow-up, and the sudden quiet that replaced public engagement are themselves factual events, and they warrant examination.

This record is being made public not to inflame, but to preserve. Some material requires context to be understood accurately, and that context matters. What is presented here reflects what can be stated plainly, supported by documentation, and examined without distortion.

Nothing has been held back. This is not an ending. It is an accounting.

II. Standard Institutional Responses in Comparable Situations

The following reflects commonly observed practices when allegations involve potential misconduct by senior personnel within local media organizations or related public-facing institutions:

• Conflict Management:
  When an editor or senior decision-maker becomes the subject of a serious complaint, standard practice includes disclosure of the conflict, reassignment of coverage, or temporary withdrawal from editorial decision-making related to the matter.
• Internal Review or Clarification:
  News organizations customarily initiate an internal review or issue a public clarification addressing the existence of the complaint, even where allegations are denied or disputed.
• Continuity of Reporting:
  Controversy typically results in continued reporting, including follow-up articles, denials, corrections, or explanatory coverage, rather than the cessation of public discussion.
• Law-Enforcement Documentation:
  Formal complaints alleging false reporting, evidence handling irregularities, or misuse of authority are ordinarily logged and documented. When no charges are pursued, agencies commonly acknowledge the complaint and, where appropriate, state that it was reviewed.
• Transparency Safeguards:
  These steps function as routine safeguards intended to preserve institutional credibility, reduce conflicts of interest, and maintain public trust. They are procedural in nature and do not constitute findings of guilt or fault.

These practices establish a baseline for evaluating subsequent actions or omissions. Without such a baseline, deviations cannot be assessed.

III. Observed Deviations From Standard Practice

Based on publicly available records, published coverage, and observable institutional actions, the following departures from standard practices were noted:

• Conflict Management:
  No public disclosure of a potential conflict of interest was made. No reassignment of coverage, editorial recusal, or temporary withdrawal from decision-making authority was publicly acknowledged.
• Internal Review or Clarification:
  No internal review was publicly disclosed. No clarification, denial, correction, or explanatory statement addressing the allegations was published.
• Continuity of Reporting:
  Coverage related to the matter ceased. No follow-up articles, investigative reporting, or contextual explanations appeared addressing the allegations or their disposition.
• Law-Enforcement Documentation:
  No public acknowledgment was issued confirming receipt, review, or disposition of related complaints. No general statement explaining whether allegations were evaluated or dismissed was made available.
• Transparency Safeguards:
  No corrective measures, disclosures, or transparency steps were publicly implemented to address unresolved questions or preserve public trust.

Taken together, these omissions represent a departure from the routine safeguards described in Section II. They do not establish intent, motive, or fault. They document the absence of actions that ordinarily accompany matters of comparable seriousness.