Counselor Didn’t Deserve S-R’S Character Assassination

Editor’s note: A former student has accused Coeur d’Alene High School counselor Steve Milionis of having an affair with her while he worked in the Wallace school district. The accusation is the subject of a civil lawsuit, reported by The Spokesman-Review in its May 28 edition.

I am writing to express my extreme disappointment with The Spokesman-Review. I have, in the past, considered your newspaper the best regional paper around. Objectivity, well-labeled opinions, and wellresearched and documented facts have been the rule. A recent “expose” in your paper concerning an individual and an institution, both of which I am intimately familiar with, have convinced me that, in this case, The Spokesman-Review has stepped far beyond the boundaries of responsible journalism. I would like to know what the justification is for a reputable newspaper to be used as a vehicle for character and professional assassination?

I have known Steve Milionis for several years. He is my friend and a professional colleague as well. I do not understand the treatment of him in your paper.

I expect to elicit no empathy from you by recounting the numerous professional and personal contributions Steve has made to his friends, family, colleagues and students. If I am to witness his public execution I do expect to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he deserves to be executed. The information presented in your expose did nothing to convince me of any wrongdoing.

The “facts” presented in your article were one-sided, extremely misleading and unsubstantiated. Pressing onward, the reporters questioned the integrity of not one but three very well-respected school superintendents. I am not suggesting that questioning the integrity of school officials is unusual. I am suggesting that the reporters are unaware of, or chose to ignore, the workings of the bureaucracy surrounding public education. Especially in the super visible environment of today.

Do the reporters actually want the reader to believe that not one, but three school superintendents would conspire to cover up the existence of an employee whose behavior could cost them their job? I think not.

What are the facts here? All three school districts in which Steve was, or is, employed ran extensive investigations within their respective districts to determine whether there was any truth to the allegations. All three found nothing. No evidence, no confirmation from anything or anyone that would indicate Steve had done anything but an exemplary job, as a teacher, as a counselor, as a coach.

My opinion is that the ethics of your profession should demand that if a reporter, or paper, is going to play judge, jury and executioner for their readers, then they should deal in facts, not opinions.

What is the difference between the individual responsibility of a reporter and the collective responsibility of a newspaper? Are one or both exempt from the responsibility to respect the rights of the accused?

If so, I would hope that at least your conscience, or collective conscience, would dictate to you the importance of verifying your sources, substantiating your facts. If you’re going to destroy someone’s life, you should at least make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. If Steve is exonerated by a real court of law, how will you justify your actions? Maybe you don’t have to justify anything, maybe you are answerable only to yourselves. Maybe it won’t matter.

Sleep well.

xxxx