EDITORIAL

Today the Intelligencer Journal finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being a participant in a news story. Frankly, we much prefer to report about others.

But, because of the serious nature of the matter in which the Intell finds itself embroiled, we're taking this extraordinary step of running our editorial comments on the situation in this space, on page one.

First, we strongly believe neither the newspaper nor any of its staff members knowingly violated any laws, company policies or ethical standards in relation to Lancaster County Coroner Dr. Gary Kirchner and the county's 911 system Web site.

Kirchner was charged Monday by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office with two felony counts alleging he illegally violated the security of the Web site by providing Intell reporters with access to it.

The grand jury, which conducted the investigation, said in its report that several members of the Intell staff "abused" the Web site by entering it. We were so-called conspirators.

But, after a probe lasting more than 18 months and consisting of repeated subpoenas for computer hardware and software used by Intell staff members and repeated subpoenas to compel testimony by staff members of the Intell, no criminal charges were lodged against the newspaper or any of its staff.

This can only be taken as a clear indication that no criminal activity was engaged in by the staff members. That's an important fact to keep in mind.

Despite this, however, we believe the attorney general, in his public comments, and the grand jury, in its report, cast an unwarranted shadow over this newspaper and its staff. We cannot allow this situation to remain unchallenged.

Here are a number of matters relating to this case that deserve explanation and comment:

• Kirchner freely provided his password to the coroner's section of the 911 Web site to an Intell staff member. He clearly was aware several staff members then accessed the site over a period of many months.
• There was no agreement of confidentiality with Kirchner in this matter and, indeed, the Intell had no knowledge whether Kirchner had provided the password to other news media.
• The Intell staff members believed Kirchner, as the elected coroner — a high-ranking county law enforcement official — had the authority to allow the newspaper to enter this Web site and, as such, reporters were authorized users.
• The Intell used the Web site as a routine reportorial tool to obtain information Kirchner ordinarily provided, if he was available, in phone calls and other contacts.
• The Intell had access to the section of the Web site that included coroner's calls and information, but did not have access to the section containing police and prosecutorial data.
• The Intell's use of the Web site did not impede or damage any criminal investigation or prosecution, nor did the attorney general present any evidence to even suggest this.

When access to the Web site was denied to Intell reporters in August 2005, they contacted Kirchner — the official who originally authorized their use of it — in an effort to re-establish contact. He did not provide the necessary information, and no Intell staff member has accessed the Web site since then.

When the attorney general began the grand jury investigation in the fall of 2005, subpoenas were issued for e-mails between the Intell and an e-mail address used by Kirchner and for computer hard drives from units used by reporters.

The newspaper complied with the request for the e-mails. But it objected to the broad nature of the subpoenas for the computers, which might contain the names of confidential sources and other information protected by the First Amendment and the Pennsylvania Shield Law.

The newspaper filed repeated challenges to these subpoenas and eventually won an important precedent from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requiring that only an outside examiner — not a member of the attorney general's staff — examine the computers and only for very specific information.

Subpoenas also were issued to compel grand jury testimony from several members of the Intell reporting staff. Although newspaper counsel attempted to identify information sought by the grand jury and provide it in an informal manner, the attorney general insisted that the staff members appear before the grand jury.

On the strong direction of counsel, specifically because the nature of the grand jury investigation was unclear, these staff members exercised their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and declined to testify.

Later, new subpoenas were issued. When these staff members appeared before the grand jury, they were issued grants of immunity, a decision made unilaterally by the attorney general's office, to compel their testimony over their assertion of their Fifth Amendment rights. There was no immunity "deal."

These staff members complied with their legal responsibilities to testify. But they were prepared to exercise their rights under the Pennsylvania Shield Law and not identify information or sources considered to be confidential. This did not prove necessary and all confidential news relationships have been maintained.

Until now, the Intell, respecting the secrecy of the grand jury process, has abided by the constraints on what it can say about the investigation in which it has played an unwilling part.

We hope this editorial explains some of what we've been going through over the past year. At all times we've worked to maintain our credibility and trust as a news provider to this community and will continue to do so.

However, the attorney general has indicated that his investigation may be ongoing. If that is the case, and being aware that Kirchner is now a defendant in a criminal case, we may have to be careful about what we say in the future.

Some of the comments we can make may have to come from our legal counsel. We're not hiding behind our lawyer; we just want to make sure everyone — ourselves included — gets a fair shake.