Fourth Estate on the skids: News and Tribune's incomprehension about Jeff Gahan's hostile takeover of public housing remains mind boggling.

Let's take the News and Tribune's credulous editorial board gently by the hand and lead them as a group to the sweet water of genuine fact, hopeful they'll be able to drink deeply and perhaps as yet make some semblance of a contribution to what we're experiencing in New Albany as Year Seven of Dear Leader's social engineering experiment dawns.

I repeat:

For quite some time, former New Albany Housing Authority chief Bob Lane and his staff had a plan -- a genuine, real, written design -- to revamp public housing in New Albany on a 1-to-1 demolish/rebuild unit basis.

For Lane to achieve this plan, Mayor Jeff Gahan and certain of his vapid minions had to sign a few documents -- and they refused.

In fact, Gahan purposefully neglected to replace housing board members, and in most significant respects, the mayor did what he could whenever he could to thwart Lane's plans.

It's about a "C-minus" student's adoration of mythology, but more on this in a moment.

Gahan then seized control of NAHA, fired Lane, purged the board by replacing its members with reliably servile bootlickers and sycophants, and solved a huge 3rd-floor etiquette problem by shifting the completely unqualified and soon-to-be-divorced David Duggins a long mile away from HWC Engineering's branch squatter's office of municipal government.

This cherry-picked new public housing regime promptly promised to demolish half the existing units, to be replaced with vouchers, the utility of which is contradicted by every prevailing academic study -- but what does this mean to those among us who don't ever bother reading?

Except for the mythology, of course.

This abrupt putsch had the predictable effect of creating opposition; naturally, with no specific plan apart from the vague voucher bauble, and with the fix so very obviously in, thoughtful housing residents and community members viewed Gahan's actions in precisely the proper context: a hostile takeover of NAHA to facilitate social engineering according to the "vision" of a typical veneer salesman's lifelong prejudices.

So far, these verbal assurances to residents and the community have taken the form of veiled threats and strong-arm tactics, which are sure to become more prevalent when the new police sub-station is up and running; ironically, it isn't about the crime, it's about "boy, do you really need to be signing a petition when Pappy Gahan disapproves?"

Is the police chief capable of shame or embarrassment at this point?

Years of Gahan's conniving over Bud Light Limes at the Roadhouse, followed by ten months of pure bungling by people who can't even lie very well, and only on December 12 did the handpicked board of demolition coordinators bother to release an official statement of purported calming, the tone of which was immediately contradicted by an increasingly strident and intemperate Duggins, who denounced freedom of expression while pointing a paranoid finger at the emerging conspiracy against his selfless band of heroes.

It's an absolute and expanding mess of the anchor-weighted Gahan's own making. He is frantically scratching the most irresistible generational and mythological itch of all, this being his earnest and impeccably crackpot theory that honest DINOs can't ever get what they really deserve in this town until public housing is scourged and the unsightly poor dispersed.

Carbohydrates don't matter as much as plausible deniability, and Gahan's loading up on the latter, importing a red-faced bag man from Clark County to do the dirty work.

Gahan probably believes he's in the clear, but actually his ongoing public housing putsch reveals the fathomless depths of a moral and ethical void. Not only is the stain uncontained, it's spreading. The monetizing vandals at Team Gahan finally are getting worried, and their poise is fast eroding.

With the next coronation due in 2019, and so many beaks to keep wetted, things are about to become even dirtier.

Perhaps even a newspaper might be interested in such matters, although yesterday (December 31) the newspaper's editorial board saw fit to gloss over every bit of the preceding back story, somehow managing to cram a single uncomprehending reference to New Albany (overall) amid the predictably Clark-centic year's end pronouncements.

As a public service, using Google Map and a bottle of Amontillado, I've managed to confirm the editorial board's relative position in the local cosmos.

Those folks must be dehydrated. Too bad. We sure could use a newspaper right about now.

OUR OPINION: These news stories will carry over into the new year

Now it’s time to turn our attention to 2018. You don’t need a crystal ball to predict what some of the news narratives will be in 2018 …

• Public housing problems pile up

... New Albany has a plan, but can’t convince public housing residents — or even the public at large — that it’s acting in the best interests of all concerned by repairing what can be fixed and razing what can’t. Promises of housing vouchers for those who must move, and reassurances that no one will be left homeless, are being questioned due to limited residential housing. New Albany may have a good plan — at least this city is doing something — but until people’s concerns are assuaged, the powers that be will get little support.

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Susan Duncan, Assistant Editor Chris Morris, Assistant Editor Jason Thomas and Digital Editor Elizabeth DePompei.

Jeffersonville newspaper plucks the low hanging fruit: "Driving demands our full attention."

I remember back in 2016 when the Jeffersonville newspaper's editorial board applied the same level of safe-driving scrutiny to Chloe Allen's death.

Wait -- no I don't.

After all, the editorial board was silent when Mrs. Allen was killed by a driver while in the act of trying to cross Spring Street. City Hall joined in the complicity of silence, and I don't intend to let either of them forget it.

This said, the board's most recent utterance is solid, although "put your goddamned cell phone down and pay attention" might have been made more explicit.

Here's the big takeaway: Having properly used the word "driver" in the editorial rather than car, truck or vehicle, are we to surmise a long overdue change in editorial policy?

In short, no more, "Car hits pedestrian," right?

Yes, it may be Autocentrica USA, but we're never going to get traffic safety right until drivers are held responsible for control of their cars (not the other way around). How we conceptualize a problem plays a large role in resolving it.

Just saying.

Our Opinion: Driving demands our full attention

Crashes can happen in an instant. Stories of drivers becoming distracted — reasons vary from spilled drinks to dropped items, from crying kids to ringing cell phones — are plentiful.

Sometimes drivers make poor judgment calls, passing in heavy traffic, hopping lanes when in a hurry, consuming a beer or two before getting behind the wheel ...

 ... The tragedy serves as a reminder of the dangers of driving. Jumping in the car or pickup truck is a part of our daily lives. It’s so routine that it’s easy to forget the basic tenants of safety.

'Bune savages Floyd County non-government: "You’ve used that line before."

Dear newspaper folks,

I didn't steal it. It wasn't me. And anyway, the Democrats stole it first. I just borrowed the text from them. That's not stealing. I'd append the damned link to the full site like I used to do, when I was steering traffic your way, but now I can't get through the door ... just like the last time I tried to crash a Bicentennial function. Jesus, folks around here just don't have a sense of humor. 

But you already knew that.

Yours in relative localitivity,

Roger

PS -- Pretty good editorial. Chris Morris couldn't have written it; he's far too deferential toward his elders, although now that Ted Heavrin's gone, there's one less bell to answer. Must have been Shea Van Hoy. Thumbs up. Just think if questions pertaining to these issues had been asked by reporters all along ... but hey, that's just stenography under the bridge. 

Cheers.

---

OUR OPINION: You’ve used that line before

The reasons many Floyd County elected officials used to explain how a $3.6 million shortfall came about are all too familiar.

It was the former auditor’s fault. Murder trials are expensive. It hit us out of the blue.

Yes, we’ve heard all of that before.

In fact, aside from the auditor scapegoat, those were some of the same reasons given by the county for short-changing the former New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department to the tune of about $4 million.
Maybe these situations really are unique. Perhaps the county has had to fund more than its fair share of murder trials. Maybe there was no proverbial “writing on the wall” for the county to see it was stacking up bills that it couldn’t pay. Maybe the auditor — who resigned earlier this year — was lousy at the job Floyd County residents elected him to do.

But maybe Floyd County has been failed again by its leadership.

Elected positions aren’t forced on people. But serving the public isn’t just about garnering the most ballots, it’s about making tough and informed, common sense decisions.

When the news came that the county had failed to live up to its funding obligations for the joint parks system, many officials said they were unaware the situation had gotten so out of hand.

Similar comments were made by multiple Floyd County Council members Thursday as they tried to explain to a roomful of angry employees why they were discussing county layoffs to bridge the funding gap.

Officials can only play the dumb card so long before people will assume that they’re just not qualified to lead.

With seven council members, three commissioners and several administrative workers in high-ranking positions, there’s no way this shortfall should have been kicked down the road to the point where the county’s back is to the wall.

One solution that has been proposed is raising taxes to generate about $2 million in additional revenue annually. That’s about $500,000 more than the county paid to purchase its Pineview Government Center from the New Albany-Floyd County School Corp.

To add fuel to the fire, it’s not really a center, as many county offices are still located in the City-County Building in downtown New Albany.

So basically the ideas that our elected leaders have proposed to rid the county of its ugly mess are employee layoffs, increasing taxes or asking the Horseshoe Foundation of Floyd County for a loan.
Two of those options are essentially bailouts for the council, as they would either be placing the burden of crawling out of the county’s fiscal hole on taxpayers or employees.

The third option — borrowing from the Horseshoe Foundation — seems highly unlikely, as it doesn’t appear the organization has interest in loaning money to an entity that over the past five years has failed to meet its obligation on joint parks and animal shelter agreements, and has a $3.6 million budget shortfall on its résumé.

If the typical $12.3 million budget for the county isn’t enough, during an average year, to foot services then yes, a tax hike might be a worthy discussion to have.

But a tax hike hard to justify when money has already spent on the Pine View center and land for a proposed Little League Park. The money spent there would have made a big dent in the deficit.
Taxes are for services for the people foremost. If there’s money left over and everything is in good standing, sure, upgrading a facility might be a feasible venture.

But to spend money on property and buildings while you have murder trials staring you in the face and you haven’t given most county employees a raise in eight years is bad fiscal management.

Maybe a fair offer would be for the county to figure out a way to address the current deficit without layoffs and then revisit a tax increase in 2015 when hopefully the holes inside the sinking ship have been patched.

Let this serve as another example to the public as well. Choose your leaders wisely. Just because someone is a nice person doesn’t mean he or she is qualified to oversee millions of dollars.

We hope the county has a better plan in place than trotting out the same tired excuses when the council meets Thursday night. We’ve elected them to lead and be responsible stewards of the public’s money.
Is that too much to ask?

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy, Assistant Editor Chris Morris and Assistant Editor Jason Thomas. Responses can be sent to shea.vanhoy@newsandtribune.com

'Bune's editorial board gets close, but loses scent in comments on Horseshoegate.

Yo: The News and 'Bune’s editorial board, composed of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham, musters a rare editorial.

Rarer still, the Jeffersonville-based board gets the overall conclusion right, albeit mostly for the wrong reasons.

OUR OPINION: Horseshoe plays losing hand with (Scott) Blair snub

If the Horseshoe Foundation isn’t a political entity, then it really shouldn’t base board member selection on party affiliation. If the board doesn’t want to change its spending policy, then it should handle that argument in a fair setting and allow the city council to be represented as its leader chooses.

The belly laughs begin with the notion that the Horseshoe Foundation is an apolitical entity, but let’s dry our eyes and soldier forward to the real reason why Blair’s selection so upsets the Foundation’s ideological apple cart: Politics, Seabrook-style.

Even people in North Korea, otherwise hermetically shielded from world events, intuitively grasp that when Blair contested the GOP’s anointment of Matt Oakley by running in the 6th council district as an independent and winning the seat handily, there’d be some variety of hell to pay from what passes for a Republican hierarchy hereabouts.

Note that party chairman Dave Matthews does not appear on this short list of GOP luminaries, which is topped by state representative Ed Clere and … wait for it … Mark Seabrook.

That’s right, it’s the very same, relentlessly partisan Mark Seabrook who controls the Republican majority on the board of county commissioners, and who also serves as majordomo of the Horseshoe Foundation board.

There isn’t enough concentrated gullibility on special at Wal-Mart for me to believe that Blair’s snub is a coincidence with Seabrook at the helm, calling the Foundation shots, although I’m absolutely certain that city council president Pat McLaughlin and the body's éminence grise, Dan Coffey, knew exactly what they were doing by lobbing Blair’s name to within range of Seabrook’s reach.

After this, Develop New Albany's strategy of stocking its board with non-profit functionaries should be even more frightening.

Anyway, nice try, 'Bune editorial board. You got at least some of it right. Now it’s back to the daily bible proverb listings.

Amid universal nods of resignation, the 'Bune editorial board botches parks secession opinion.

Apart from Keith Olbermann and Charles P. Pierce, it's generally a bad idea to entrust political commentary to career sportwriters. That said, let's lower ourselves into the abyss of the newspaper editorial board's opinion on the evolving NA-FC parks split. Their text appears in normal formatting, and my replies as quotes.

---

OUR OPINION: Plenty of problems to share for parks split

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s justification for wanting to form a separate New Albany parks system is legitimate.

Over an eight year period, Floyd County shortchanged the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department by about $4 million. This summer, the Floyd County Commissioners declined to vote on forming a cumulative capital fund to aid in expenses with the park, though city taxpayers have been footing the additional levy for years.

The reasons for not living up to their end of the bargain have changed numerous times for Floyd County officials. We’ve been told the money had to be used for murder trials, the county didn’t realize the taxes weren’t going to the parks department and even that the state cut the levy rate.

Those aren’t exactly the practices of an entity most would consider partnering with for any matter that has financial implications.

No, they’re not, are they? The ‘Bune’s editorial board clearly understands the magnitude of the county’s serial “deadbeat dad” approach to governance. But you just know it can't last …

However, the parks situation is much larger than a simple yes or no vote. Jobs, property and future collaboration with the county must be considered by the city before moving ahead with the divide of the parks system. The New Albany council voted 6-3 to do just that Thursday night, but finalizing the move will require one more vote.

Ah, I see. It is “much larger.” What does this mean, and why is it true? Yes, jobs, properties and “future collaborations” (Really? You wanna go out with that guy again after he dined and dashed before the check came due and made you go Dutch Treat?) are considerations, to be sure; as I noted last week, these also were presumed factors in seeking to avid the split of an entire Central European country, and Czechs and Slovaks somehow managed to work them out.

Frankly, Gahan hasn’t been forthcoming with the NA-FC Parks Board about his intentions, at least not in an official capacity. Gahan was one of the few city or county officials who skipped at least one of the joint meetings hosted by the parks board to try to mediate past woes between the entities. Also, no one from the Gahan administration addressed the parks board about the split prior to the measures being placed on the New Albany City Council’s agenda Thursday.

On one hand, county officials never came before the city to announce they wouldn’t be adequately funding the parks department. But the county’s mistake should be a lesson, not a reason to keep the parks board in the dark about what may transpire.

Two things here. First, what is it about the parks in general, and the parks board in particular, that cloaks them in a perpetual above-the-fray holiness, more so than other local administrative entities? Personally I believe parks are very important, but I can see numerous potential models of governance. Since when did this one become sacrosanct, unimpeachable and shielded from scrutiny? In addition, why does Mayor Gahan have a greater responsibility to be loquacious than county government? Gahan gets scalded for non-transparence, but the county’s years of similar mute funding behavior is merely a lesson. What of the parks board’s own non-transparence in conducting its affairs, as when it sought to engineer a state legislature-mandated tax hoarding without notifying the county or the city? Why wasn't that considered non-transparent?

The parks board oversees several employees, some of whom have served this community for 40 years. Gahan owed an explanation to those volunteer board members — whether they agreed with his choice or not — so they could, in turn, inform parks employees.

Subsequent news items suggest he has done so.

If he believes in the split, he should stand up for it and look parks board members in the eye. Not to mention it’s October, and if there’s going to be a city parks system in place by Jan. 1, there’s a tremendous amount of preparation and planning that will be needed.

Again, why is it that Gahan alone bears the solemn quasi-Old Testament obligation to look parks board members "in the eye"? Were these board members appointed by “god” herself? Why this disproportionate requirement of Gahan, while serial fiscal negligence on the part of county government gets little more than an affectionate butt slap -- hey, cool, you'll do better next eight year stretch, right?

What is the rush? Why not release a plan, get people on board and proceed in 2014. There seem to be too many questions that need answers before the split occurs.

Now I’m confused. The parks split is acceptable, and there are compelling reasons for it? If so, given that the editorial board can see that county government is culpable even if the board shrinks from learning its own lessons from the experience, why tolerate another year of county under-funding guesswork? Why not act swiftly? 

Here are some other questions to consider:

• What would such a divide really mean for the residents of New Albany? Sam Peden Community Park is the city’s largest and most frequented outdoor recreational facility. But the land is owned by the county, so if the split ultimately happens, it will solely be in charge of the park’s upkeep.

After what has taken place in the past, how much do you trust the county to maintain the city’s most sizable park? Floyd County Commissioners President Steve Bush said recently he would not be in favor of selling any of the park land for commercial use, but he’s only one vote.

What if the county decides one day to develop Community Park? New Albany would have very few options to stop the greenspace from being covered with asphalt and residential or commercial buildings if that were to transpire.

New Albanians are grateful the newspaper's editorial board seems to grasp that when it comes to the future of Community Park, county government can be trusted only as far as I can throw a keg filled with 12% beer. Naturally, the board cites this legitimate mistrust of county government’s ultimate aims as evidence that city residents should live in fear of the bully. Uh, right.

• Also, in a time where taxpayers are calling for condensed government, how will Floyd County and New Albany be affected when footing two parks departments?

New Albany taxpayers have already shouldered the biggest part of the parks funding load, but that won’t change when the split happens. Unless New Albany plans to secede from Floyd County, city taxpayers will still be paying for the bulk of parks operations. New Albany residents will be paying for city parks on their own, as well as taxes that will likely help foot a new and separate county recreation system.

The showdown over this issue has spilled over into other arenas as well. The city and county are now in the midst of a legal battle over planning control of the fringe area, and New Albany declined to merge its 911 dispatch operation with Floyd County. The county is the second-smallest county in the state in terms of land area, so shouldn’t we be coming together to cut out duplicated services and costs?

The Alabama-based N and T parent company eliminated duplication in 2011, didn't it, and look where THAT got us. But I digress. These bellicose taxpayers presumably are the very same ones who’d be among the first to demand that all parties involved pay their fair share into the parks just like the taxpayers themselves have been doing all along. Would taxpayers genuinely interested in fairness be willing to forgive and forget the county’s serial underpayment of parks monies? Or do we merely fluff taxpayers in a sort of ritualistic abnegation without exploring the nuances of what they're demanding this week? Sadly, nowadays, yes, but it’s also worth noting that if one is to follow this incredibly tired “duplicated services and costs” to its logical conclusion, we’d have only one government nationwide, obtaining the very best rates for bulk purchasing and distribution … wait, sorry; that’s the socialist bogeyman, isn’t it?

At some point, the city and the county are going to have to cooperate for the good of the residents.

When all is considered, New Albany may have a better chance of garnering a new outdoor pool and a Little League facility on its own. But such a big move as splitting a parks department shouldn’t be rushed into a special meeting with little notice.

Parks are one of the assets companies review before deciding to locate to a community. Just thinking about a warm sunny day in a park with family and friends stirs positive emotions in our minds and souls.

But this whole issue has been anything but warm and fuzzy. It shows incompetence by the county and lack of respect by the Gahan administration for the employees and board members who have served the parks system.

So, why isn't the editorial board asking the single most obvious question posed by this discussion: How do we compel county government to cooperate? To make this point again: If the newspaper is interested in clarity, mustn’t it explain why a simple, subjective and highly debatable “lack of respect” from Jeff Gahan is to be considered commensurate with a county government so objectively “incompetent” as to fail to honor its side of a money deal not merely for the brief tenure of Gahan’s term, but for a period of years? How are these failures equal, editorial board? And what on earth do warm fuzzies have to do with any of it?

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

Perhaps it is, but since the managing editor freely acknowledges that 3/4 of this quartet rarely venture out of HQ in Jeffersonville, I believe we know who wrote it, don't we? And that explains a lot, doesn't it?

Newspaper editorial board: Let's hold hands, drink lemonade and sing happy songs about parks funding.

Let’s see if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.

The newspaper’s long-dormant editorial board truthfully concedes the extent of county government’s abject and cynical failure to equally fund parks within the city limits, but concludes that all should be smilingly forgiven in a joyous circle jerk of suspect future unity; we need only “trust” the same entities who’ve pulled away the football countless times before, relax, and enjoy the anticipation of the next time (and there’ll be a next time) we’ll have to laboriously formulate a whole new convoluted Band-Aid of a fiscal plan to celebrate county government’s fresh new resolve to do what it was supposed to do all along, but did not, because it never was held accountable for the previous time.

If I were a Nigerian in need of outside assistance in transferring my funds, I’d direct my e-mails to the following eager and willing aides: Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

At the city council meeting tomorrow night (May 7), apparently there will be a rare "4th reading" of G-12-05: An Ordinance Adopting Interlocal Agreement and Ordinance and Adopting Ordinance Creating a Joint New Albany-Floyd County Park and Recreation Department, as prompted by the mayor's veto. The 3rd reading passed 5-4, as did the famously controversial smoking ordinance in 2008; the latter did not return to council for a veto-busting vote requiring a sixth "yay."

This one is coming back, and owing to the emotions shrouding the parks funding discussion -- a big bundle of undifferentiated feelings posing as facts, in the vein of the newspaper's editorial -- it's easy to imagine the amount of pressure being applied toward flipping a dissenting city council person's vote. NAC believes it would be a mistake to over-ride, because this issue only so much as hints at far larger concerns unlikely to be addressed so long as these temporary patches continue to be applied. Well-meaning is nice. Future-oriented is better, don't you think?

May 5, 2012

OUR OPINION: Mayor’s veto sends wrong message

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan decided Monday to veto an ordinance passed last month that establishes a new interlocal agreement between the city and county to fund the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department.

The mayor has the power to veto ordinances passed by the New Albany City Council. But in this case, the veto stamp should have been left in his desk drawer ...

… He’s right when he says the county had not lived up to the old agreement, initially signed in the early 1990s. According to the administration, the city has paid about $2 million more to the parks department over the past five years than the county. The matter of funding the parks came up last year after the county failed to meet its obligation under the old agreement.

So, the county definitely shoulders a lot of the blame for this ongoing soap opera. But why not cooperate instead of continuing this us vs. them mentality? Why dwell on the past when steps have been made to move forward for the betterment of the residents of the city and county? We do not need this division; we need city and county officials working together to save taxpayers money and provide the best possible living conditions for the residents.

Beyond repair?

In today's Tribune, the paper's editorial board offers an opinion on the progress (or lack thereof) of a new Floyd County Youth Shelter. Fair enough. Included in that piece, however, is the conclusion that the county's North Annex, currently utilized as the shelter, "has deteriorated beyond repair."

While I can understand suggesting that the Annex may not be the most suitable structure for a youth shelter, the above pronouncement suggests that the building retains no utility at all and should be torn down. Given that I don't remember (and can't seem to find) any Tribune report that documents any serious, "unrepairable" structural deficiencies putting the building at risk of collapse or presenting the building as an irremediable danger to the public, I find it puzzling that the board would find it necessary to make such a pronouncement as part of an argument for an alternative youth shelter location.

If anyone can point to Tribune reporting that provides evidence in support of a "beyond repair" claim, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, what gives?

City council's group temerity exercise scheduled for Monday, March 1.

Tomorrow's council agenda is light, with the money shot (if any) being delayed until the cameras roll on March 18: New Albany City Council to consider replacing trash lids, containers.

I have a work obligation on Monday night and will spare our timeservers an appearance, but I'll predict that electoral calculations and raw, primal fear of local teabaggers will be stoked by Dan Coffey's and Steve Price's customary self-serving, doom-saying caterwauling to strangle the trash lids at birth, and also to deny the body a full-time attorney.

The former matters little, and the latter might be helpful to a group forever ignorant of inconvenient legalities, but with Coffey volunteering to serve pro bono as legal bagel based on his having once watched a John Grisham movie part of the way through before falling asleep, it will be another easy cop-out for the variably principled.

Half of them want to be mayor. Made plans to leave town yet?

Meanwhile, a newly vigorous Tribune editorial board gives a light chiding to the current mayor: Sewer explanation should have come sooner.

I have a serious question: Do editorial boards at newspapers customarily include representation from the display advertising department and the business manager? No offense implied. I'm just curious. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

At a newspaper, the editorial board usually consists of the editorial page editor, and editorial writers. Some newspapers include other personnel as well.
Editorial boards for magazines may include experts in the subject area that the magazine focuses on, and larger magazines may have several editorial boards grouped by subject. An executive editorial board may oversee these subject boards, and usually includes the executive editor and representatives from the subject focus boards.