The Newsroom

In an earlier posting, commenter Joseph Turner asks about the editorial-board process - specifically, how we decide which position we will take on an issue and how dissenting voices are treated. Good question.
Over the years, the process has evolved - here and at a lot of papers - from something closely held to one that's far more collaborative.
A few years back at The Sun, we opened up our board to a couple of community members, who had participated in another outreach program of ours, the Reader Advisory Board. A year ago, we wanted to expand that effort and put a call out for volunteers. Out of that, we added two community members (giving us four altogether) plus a non-newsroom member of our staff.
Those five, along with Publisher Fred Hamilton, Assistant Editorial Page Editor Jessica Keating and myself make up the editorial board. Mike Brossart, who serves a dual role as senior editor of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and editorial page editor of The Sun and Bulletin, participates too, though his focus is on topics on the west end of the county.
The Sun's board meets every other week, during which the community members are asked to suggest ideas for editorials. The ensuing discussions can be spirited, ending with a vote. Typically, the majority rules here, which means, yes, we do publish editorials that I, as editor, or Fred, as publisher, might personally disagree with.
At the same time, we're very aware that an editorial is the voice of the newspaper and must reflect that. Part of my job is to make sure we don't forget it, that we recognize our leadership role in the community and that we don't let a flavor, or mood, of the day get in the way of making the most sound, reasoned argument on behalf of the paper.
There are also any number of times in the two-week gap between meetings in which we will write editorials that don't involve consultation with the board. This is often dictated by breaking news.
In any event, dissenting voices are very import to the process. At the end of the day, there are no right or wrong answers to the many of the issues we're weighing in on. Ours is an opinion, and in order to make the best argument possible, we need to weigh all sides and be prepared to answer the concerns of those who disagree.
As Mr. Turner points out, our view of Operation Phoenix has evolved during the past two years. As a board, we're near unanimous in believing the program's foundation - prevention, intervention, suppression - is a solid one. What we've come to see, however, is a huge failure in execution. Most board members still want to see the program succeed, but the skepticism is growing. If, at some point, we see the program's downside as too difficult to overcome, we will say so, regardless of our support in the past.