Our Response to Channel 8 Story Hits Street Today

This has been one of the most difficult weeks I’ve had in my 2.5 years at Park Cities People.

As anybody who reads this blog regularly knows by now, Merritt Patterson — a freelance columnist and blogger for us since 2005 — was the target of a Channel 8 report that aired on Valentine’s Day. Brett Shipp looked into the finances of Surrogate Parenting Center of Texas, a business that Merritt owned for 15 years and closed last October.

Shipp interviewed at least two egg donors and at least three infertile couples, all of whom had beefs with Merritt over money they say she owed them. Given Merritt’s longtime penchant for calling people out on their drama, plus her recent hounding of the HPISD over its finances, I felt the only appropriate response would be for us to do our own story — a more complete, balanced story — on Surrogate Parenting Center of Texas. That story, written by Bradford Pearson, is in the papers that will be hitting Park Cities lawns this afternoon.

When I announced last week that we would be publishing this story, I got up on my high horse and said that, unlike Shipp, we would name our sources. Well, none of the people featured in Shipp’s report would talk to us on the record. And even some people who spoke highly of Surrogate Parenting Center of Texas didn’t want their names used, because they, understandably, don’t want people to know they needed its services. So, if you want to take me to task over that, the comments are on.

Nonetheless, Brad did a great job with the story. Will the Merritt haters have problems with it? Of course. Will Merritt herself have problems with it? Most certainly. But that’s the mark of a balanced story; neither side will be completely satisfied.

79 thoughts on “Our Response to Channel 8 Story Hits Street Today

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:22 am
    Permalink

    I haven’t read the story, and reading it may answer this question but I’m asking any way. Is Merritt gone from your employ, or is she returning to write for you again?

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:36 am
    Permalink

    Ditto kmom’s question. Also, if I’m not a subscriber, how would I get a hold of this story?

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Permalink

    Look forward to reading it. Karma is a bitch.

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:46 am
    Permalink

    Googler: Regarding that story you posted: Merritt claims that she has run SPCT for “15 years and has helped 1,500 couples.” But the years don’t add up if you look at the story. Plus, in one of her recent PCP podcasts she talks about how she recently turned 40, which meas she opened SPCT when she was 25 years old? Egg donation/surrogacy is a very serious, intense business. Is it even plausible that she at 25 years old could have opened up this business? Hmmmmm….

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:51 am
    Permalink

    “Back in Black?”

  • February 24, 2011 at 11:19 am
    Permalink

    “Burst The Bubble” by Austin’s now defunct Cruiserweight?

  • February 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    Permalink

    Lady Gaga’s Birn This Way?

  • February 24, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    Permalink

    Meant Born This Way

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    Permalink

    As a very old friend and supporter of Merritt’s, I must admit I’m bummed I’ll not have the opportunity to read a balanced account of what transpired. (800+ miles is a long drive for a newsstand.) However, I’m proud to say I don’t need a paper to tell me that while mistakes may have been made and people may have been hurt, I know with absolute certainty that there was no ill intent behind it.

    I haven’t spent quality time with her in several years, but I spent a lot of time with her during our, we’ll call them “formative years.” I know where she comes from and what made her. PSP, you made the right call.

    Mer, I say use the theme from Rocky when he came out to fight that big, huge, Russian. It fits!

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    Permalink

    Back in black… perfect.

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    Permalink

    TO “QUESTIONABLE”: Yes, my daughter started SPCT at the age of 25. I remember sitting with her a few times discussing how and what to do to get the practice up and running. My daughter is a good person. She meant no ill will to anyone. I know that.

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    Permalink

    I Will Survive. I think by Gloria Gaynor 🙂

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    Permalink

    That’s life, Sinatra version

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    Permalink

    @MileHi – Give me a call in the circ department. I’ll be happy to start you a subscription or send you a paper.
    214-361-9736.

  • February 24, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Permalink

    PS: Why isn’t the article online? Is it because PCP wants only their subscribers, thus Ms. Patterson’s built in audience, to read this article? A shame it’s not more public, as Mr. Koller made it seem like everyone would be able to read this ‘fair and balanced’ report.

  • February 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    Permalink

    missed you.

  • February 24, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    Permalink

    missed you. a good theme song is important….LMK what you choose.

  • February 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    Permalink

    @ Don’t Believe: We don’t put any of our articles online. We’re a business. Go buy a newspaper.

  • February 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm
    Permalink

    Mr. Koller- I do not live in Dallas. My family has been touched by SPCT and am quite interested in this story. I know for a fact my family member contacted PCP years ago about Ms Patterson’s ethics, however you turned a deaf ear. Additionally, many newspapers have their articles online. I would think something as important as this would be made available to the widest audience, but I understand that you need to vindicate her to your subscribers/restore her “credibility”, as she is (I assume) PCP’s major source of income. Money on other’s pain when she gossips about her fellow Texans, it looks like. Please do not delete this comment, as I know you want to show all sides.

  • February 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Permalink

    Please bring Merritt back now. We must hear her thoughts on Drybar and their blowouts!

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    Permalink

    @Don’t Believe – Give me a call in the circ department. I’ll be happy to start you a subscription or send you a paper. 214-523-5248.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Permalink

    It seems any critical or questioning comments are being deleted. That’s unfortunate. So much for fair and balanced Mr. Koller.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    Permalink

    @ Don’t Believe: If you call our circulation director, Dorothy Wood, who put her phone number in the comments already, she’ll get you a paper.

    And Merritt is not a major source of income for us. Advertisers are.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    Permalink

    @golfdfw71 – why shame on park cities people? Because they printed the article? because it’s not online? They took the paper offline a couple of years ago. Because they didn’t fire Merritt? Why the anger?

    @dan – a bit abrupt with Dont believe don’t you think?

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    Permalink

    @bcrmom: I’m not deleting comments because they are critical. I’m deleting comments that are slanderous, i.e. people presenting their opinions as facts. If we wouldn’t print it in the paper, then I’m not going to allow it to be posted here.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    Permalink

    In fairness, the tv story ran and I do not think the donors or couples had complaints then. Just because another story is written is seeming to irk the couples.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Permalink

    Hey @don’t believe, of all the news that’s printed in the paper, you say “something as important as this” – a little self centered there aren’t you? I don’t think this is breaking news that’s life or death here, like a raging mass murderer, killing through our neighborhoods. If we had that, they’d put the details right here on the online blog. It’s a newsPAPER – so BUY A PAPER, ya tightwad.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    Permalink

    @Dan –
    I applaud your efforts at fair and balanced reporting and your attempt to not be hypocritical (your word – from your first post). You’re addressing the issue “because Merritt would” if it were a story about another PC resident. However – if it were her story:
    – comments (in the first post) would not have been turned off
    – a link to the story would have been provided
    – comments where opinion is offered as fact are commonplace, and definitely not deleted
    I don’t really see how you can print an unbiased story about one of your own. It’s kind of like asking a mom to give you an unbiased assessment of one of her children. Doesn’t happen. If you really wanted full disclosure and unbiased reporting, it seems you would have asked a 3rd party to investigate and report and agreed in advance to print their findings.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    Permalink

    koller – do you mean libelous? any good newspaper editor should know slander is spoken and libel is written.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    Permalink

    My comment was neither slanderous nor critical. Yet, it was deleted.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    Permalink

    To be upset that the story isn’t online and free is rediculous.

  • February 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm
    Permalink

    @B- have you read the story?

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    Permalink

    @Gringo Bling: Agreed. I restored your comment from this morning.

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm
    Permalink

    why are her fathers comments not deleted?? That is fine he thinks she is a good person but that has nothing to do with this story. Almost every parent of any criminal, even serial killers claims inside they are “good people”

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    I’m happy she is not my daughter.

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    Permalink

    @fitch.
    Dan said, “I’m deleting comments that are slanderous.”
    Miles didn’t disparage anyone. And he answered a question.
    You, on the other hand, bring in a serial killer analogy…

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    Permalink

    Its not about people being “tightwads” or wanting something for free.. Its about the story being accessible to the public, not just paying readers. Agreed to B above, a third party should have taken on this story, not the subject’s co-worker. Major conflict of interest.

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    Permalink

    DemBones, he answered a question that may or maynot be fact. According to Dan, only facts and not opinions would be allowed. Just printing it because her dad stated as so is not fair. Personally, If she started a business at 20, even in this nature, that is not a problem . The truth is 15 years is a long time for any business to run its course. In that sense she should be proud.

    Merritt is clearly not a serial killer btw. The analogy was meant more to say even if a minor violation was committed a parent will protect, let alone more serious

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm
    Permalink

    Let’s get something straight about blog comments, because I’m a little tired of the entitled whining from people that don’t have the guts to put a real name behind their words.

    Yes, we have freedom of speech in this country. But no, I am not limiting your freedom of speech by not posting your comments on my blog.

    Make no mistake: This is my blog. You can say whatever you want about Merritt on your Facebook page, your own blog, or a random street corner. But you’re not going to say anything you want about her here.

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm
    Permalink

    marjorie while the argument is solid, every business has a right and duty to cover expenses. The truth is that the wfaa story did mention this paper and the paper has a right to defend even if it’s not balanced. Frankly, they can do what they want. The recipients and donors had their story aired

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Permalink

    @Marjorie 5 – it is accessible to the public. I can send you a paper anywhere in the world. 214-523-5248.

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    Permalink

    @B and Marjorie: I think it’s fair to say we all sympathize with any experience a donor or couple had that was not positive. There is truth that Dan is saying in that while we respect the right to be annonymous asking for free papers, not liking who writes the article is just plain ignorance. There are legal options, a report was on tv, what else needs to happen??? Complaining just for the sake of complaining is not worthy

  • February 24, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    Permalink

    Did I miss the apology to Brett Shipp for impugning his journalistic integrity?

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm
    Permalink

    You can bet it is all over my Facebook page-even got some new friends over it!

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    Permalink

    To get on your high horse and criticize another news source for not revealing sources… Promising to reveal sources in your own forthcoming story..and then not doing so…having an employee and co-worker of the individual in question write the story .. And then moderating comments on the story, because you do not personally approve of them.. AND..not providing a link to the story, and only providing the story upon individual request, all seem highly questionable.

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm
    Permalink

    @Rico; regarding Brett Shipp and his “journalistic integrity”…it is obvious to anyone who watched that his report on Merritt Patterson was a rush to judgement and a ratings ploy for sweeps week (when it aired). The fact that he did not present an opinion from even one of the hundreds of successful SPCT clients who became parents or one of the many surrogates/egg donors who repeatedly conducted business with Merritt’s company because their experience was nothing but positive shows Mr. Shipp’s disregard for presenting a balanced, thoroughly researched profile of Merritt’s business. I know personally what journalistic integrity means; my father was an award-winning writer for the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, the Galveston News and the Houston Post. He would have kicked Brett Shipp to the curb for such shoddy reporting.

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    Permalink

    Your paper, comments, and blogs remind me of petty exchanges between 12-year-old beauty pageant contestants. They make me ashamed of Dallas and the Park Cities. The judgments against Ms. Patterson speak volumes!!!

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm
    Permalink

    @puzzled-I could really care less who wrote the article. Being produced by the PCP, it will have a certain bias — we all know that. I just find Dan’s claims of unbiased reporting and not being hypocritical (treating Merritt no different than any other PC resident they blog about) humorous.

  • February 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t know Merritt, have never met her, didn’t even see the report on TV. Just commenting on the comments:

    * Her father identified himself, which provides the proper context in which one can view his comments.
    * @Don’t Believe meanwhile, cast aspersions on Merritt, her business, this blog without proof of any kind or without identifying himself. Basically a nameless, faceless accusation without facts or the opportunity to defend onesself. I’m not sure why that comment stays.
    * I always laugh when people question why a business enterprise doesn’t give away it’s product for free. If it’s that important, pay for it.

  • February 24, 2011 at 6:10 pm
    Permalink

    Did I just see “Brett Shipp” and “journalistic integrity” in the same sentence? Are you talking about the man who jumps out of bushes with a camera crew to catch his subject unaware? That Brett Shipp?

    He’s lucky he hasn’t been maced, or worse.

  • February 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm
    Permalink

    It is a testament to the quality of Merritt’s writing style that so many people have voiced their opinion on this matter. She is truly a gifted writer whose work is both provoking and entertaining – something that can not be said of most columnist.

    As for the issue at hand, a couple of points…

    First, I like many others hope that the clients of Merritt’s closed business find some form of restitution. This was not easy for them and some form of closure would be welcomed.

    Second, from what has been reported, it would appear that Merritt is resolving the issues related to her business. Not many failed businesses can claim this and from all appearances, she is working to do the right thing.

    Third, a failing business produces huge emotional strains on all involved and is never easy to manage. No one walks away from a failing business saying “that was fun, let’s do it again”. This is not to say that Merritt is without fault – but she has NOT shied away from it and is trying to resolve it to the extent possible.

    Finally, and this is most important, Merritt’s personal and professional circumstance are on display for the public to see. How many of us would want to share in this position – especially given the close community of the Park Cities.

    You may, like me, be disappointed and shocked about the report on TV and interested to read more details about this – something only a paper can provide without the sensationalism and brevity of a visual medium.

    I do not know Merritt personally (though I have met her while eating sushi and threw a headline her way) but as a UP resident I feel her voice is important in the ecosystem of the Park Cities. This is why I subscribe to the paper.

    It will be great to read her work once again – bringing color, insight and provocation to the pages of PCP.

  • February 24, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    Permalink

    I was “interviewed” by Brad during his “research” for this story. My son, our 3rd child, was conceived via egg donation. I chose to look at SPCT because of Merritt’s affiliation with the “D Empire”. I am, after all, a lifelong Dallasite and a subscriber to both D and D Home. After speaking with Merritt on several occasions I came to the conclusion that she was not knowledgeable enough about the process (nor had she any first hand experience with infertility) and chose another source for my donor. My sister in law, however, did pay Merritt a “deposit” but also went with ended up using another agency. Her deposit was never returned. My SIL chose NOT to be interviewed for the story as they have chosen to keep their infertility issues private. Sadly, by posting my own name (which seems to be the only way to get credibility around here) jeopardizes my own family’s confidentiality. But I think someone should hold Merritt accountable. I can only confirm what was done to my family. But *if* the other allegations are true… so I digress. Do I think Merritt used her “celebrity status” to get attract intended parents and donors? Yes! Do I think the entire process should be regulated? Absolutely! But, my real issue tonight is that the story will only be seen by subscribers. HOW MANY TIMES HAS TIM OR WICK ET AL pointed out that the DMN makes viewers pay for online content? This rubs me ALL wrong. I am a HUGE fan. I read the blogs religiously (Hi Uncle Nancy! And boo hiss about losing Candy!). I have even advertised in the “print product”. But COME ON already. REALLY? I don’t live in the Bubble. I happen to live in Preston Hollow. You know all too well you would post a link to ANY other story if it was NOT your employee. Sigh. Spit. There. I am done.

  • February 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    Permalink

    As a member of a family that has had infertility I really feel for the families wanting children. It would be horrible to find out your agency was not fulfilling their side of the contract.

  • February 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    Permalink

    @hollie krantz; if your sister-in-law contracted with Merritt Patterson for infertility treatment, then changed her mind at some point during the process to go elsewhere, why would she expect her deposit back? To me, it’s the same thing as losing your earnest money in a real estate transaction. If you sign a legal document stating the the deposit/earnest money isn’t refundable if you change your mind, then you lose your money. I fail to see what Merritt has “done to your family”. I don’t wish to sound disrespectful, but choosing something as important as a egg donor/surrogacy professional because of their ‘affiliation with the D Empire” seems strange to me. I enjoy Merritt’s columns, but I wouldn’t let her give me a quadruple bypass, you know?

  • February 24, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    Permalink

    Outcry over a local investigative blogger’s fradulent business practices is a “testament to the quality of Merritt’s writing style?” Give me a break.

  • February 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm
    Permalink

    How embarassing for Mrs. Patterson to respond to such devastating and serious claims with …”I need a theme song.” What a blow to those poor people and to your community. This is just a shame all the way around.

  • February 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Permalink

    In life no matter what our biases, the truth is what we must search for. As a couple that went through Merritt unsuccessfully(and never had deposit refunded) she is knowledgeable about the process. You are actually sterotyping her that because she didn’t have fertiltiy issues, that she doesn’t understand. Your Dr doesn’t need to have fertility issues to treat you and do an embryo transfers, yet they work all the time. So what is the truth here? Clearly, these people have some vaild claims against Merritt. I think even for the couples involved, they must realize a lot of people have a problem with just airing a story. EVen if they gave Merritt a chance for 20 minutes to respond, its against horrible accusations. She loses no matter what.
    For the staff at Park Cities, assigning someone to write a story and giving the impression that this will be the best way to be accurate, well that is comical. I def wouldn’t go to a comments section to admit to the world that there was an egg donation child just to prove to 20 people that my claim is valid.

    Merritt must understand that one of the frustrating parts was that she constantly publicy airs grievances but when she became the target, well, now it was unfair. Sorry but that is life

  • February 24, 2011 at 9:42 pm
    Permalink

    Am i to understand that we have 58 comments withOUT the article even being in print yet?
    I’ve got some hot sports opinions on both sides of this, but I think I’ll wait until I’m having my coffee tomorrow with paper in hand and can form a balanced opinion.
    Until then…screw both sides…he said grumpily.

  • February 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    Permalink

    Whoa…. Did I miss something? When did Brett Shipp get journalistic integrity?

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    Permalink

    @ Sean Jackson: “Finally, and this is most important, Merritt’s personal and professional circumstance are on display for the public to see. How many of us would want to share in this position – especially given the close community of the Park Cities.”

    That just about sums up how Jennifer Keefe and the “Drip Coffee” autism moms must have felt. God forbid that battle be resurrected, but those women were virtually savaged, in my opinion.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  • February 24, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    Permalink

    @Cooper…well, she also said one of the most upsetting things about the Shipp report was that he filmed her double chin. Really? REALLY? Whether this comment will be deleted or not, I don’t know, but it is just my opinion that she comes across as extremely crass and immature about this whole deal. I would think that this whole issue would at least deserve a respectable, mature statement from her…not some line about her comeback song or double chin. Merritt, I hope more than just your double chin bothers you about this. If i were on the fence about this, your inital response to this whole thing certainly makes me lean a little bit one way not in your favor. You give people so much grief over carpool lines and parking violations, snapping photos of their cars and posting them online. Don’t expect a lot respect if you’re found to be in the wrong here because you’ve never been known to give others that much.

  • February 24, 2011 at 11:34 pm
    Permalink

    Brett Shipp is GREAT.

  • February 25, 2011 at 7:02 am
    Permalink

    Thank you Dan for tackling this and doing so with integrity. As for a theme song Merritt, how about “Life is a Battlefield” by Pat Benatar?

  • February 25, 2011 at 8:20 am
    Permalink

    After reading the story in the paper and personally knowing one of the recipients involved… It seems the fraud arose not because of the $2500 agency fee (sometimes refunded, often not) but the $5000 donor fee often not getting refunded when no donor was found or the donor would mysteriously “back out”.

  • February 25, 2011 at 8:52 am
    Permalink

    This makes the Bradfield yearbook saga look like a walk in the park.

  • February 25, 2011 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    @MuchAdo: Savaged? More like they were called out for lying about Drip and the situation on this and other blog/websites.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:00 am
    Permalink

    Charles, ambush journalism comes in many forms. And it certainly isn’t anything new to the PCP.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:00 am
    Permalink

    I read the article, sounds like she’s admitting guilt by saying she’ll pay by March. I wonder if she would have still said that before the channel 8 story? I also think there’s a little “blame the victim” strategy going on in her rebuttal, shame shame. She said many times about “contractual” obligations. What about moral obligations? She was brokering LIFE itself. I’ve never taken Merrit for a highly moral person, but this clearly demonstrates, IMO, that morality simply never figures into her decision making. And it’s odd that this 15 year old business that she loved and was so passionate about was something she never talked about publicly, and apparently many of her friends (except for you, mk) never even knew she was a fertility egg broker. Fortunately, few people care enough about her personally to do what she would do to someone else and that is comb thru every email document, financial report, etc. etc. wanting the answers (that she claims someone is trying to hide). Let’s find another “writer” to represent the voice of the Park Cities. She’s not it.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    @puzzled: “admit to the world that there was an egg donation child”… this is exactly what is wrong with the industry today. I have NO shame that my child was born via egg donation. Nor do I have any shame that my middle child was adopted. But I am guessing that mentioning my adopted child on the blog would be OK in your eyes.

    @mk. Do you have a copy of the contract? I do. To follow your real estate anaology, have you heard of an “option fee”? Your earnest money is refunded should you terminate your contract before the option period expires. Same thing in an egg donor contract. Should you choose NOT to see egg donor profiles your deposit is refunded. As for her affiliation with D, I looked at that as a sign that she could be trusted. This is an unregualated industry and there are *many* shady people out there preying on couples. My assumption was that her affiliation with D would at the very least make her more trustworthy than those other people. I thought she would have the intergrity to hold herself to a higher standard. Doctors are regulated and held to a higher professional standard.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:05 am
    Permalink

    “Merritt Patterson — a freelance columnist and blogger for us since 2005 — was the target of a Channel 8 report” how about “A channel 8 report covered contreversy over the closing of Merrit Patterson’s fertility clinic.”
    This paper and blog has shown quite a bit of bias in covering this story, always presenting Merritt as the persecuted one. Choosing to only use named sources is going to guarantee an inaccurate story. People don’t want their infertility issues broadcast to their community. And egg donors, who cherish their anonymity in the process, would be exposed to the families and possibly tracked by offspring. The story should be left to unaffiliated news sources.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:28 am
    Permalink

    After reading the PCP version of the story, it is outright comical that all of the Merritt apologists continue to attack Brett Shipp and his “journalistic integrity” without coming to the realization that his story is accurate. The PCP version of the story primarily relies on testimony from Merritt herself. In fact, besides the attorney’s name for the Preston Hollow couple that got screwed by her, hers is pretty much the only named source in the article. In Shipp’s story, I have yet to read anything that can be construed as inaccurate or false. The only one disputing anything is Patterson…and she doesn’t seem to dispute much of anything that Shipp reported.

    Couple of things in the story I observed:

    –She says her company’s troubles began in 2008. Yet, she had already lost a lawsuit in 2007.

    –She assesses blame to the Better Business Bureau for numerous complaints her business received. Not taking responsibility for not fulfilling her end of the obligations and blaming it on the BBB is bizarre and quite immature. When a client has been wronged, they have every right to file a complaint with the BBB or voice their story on some sort of forum to prevent the same thing from happening to others.

    –She says that everyone will be paid by the end of March. I’d be interested in a follow up at the beginning of April to see if this actually happens. Even if the reimbursable amounts were paid back, she already insinuated in the article that none of the $2500 agency fee will be paid back. And collecting that agency fee + an additional $5500 from a local couple days before she knew full well that she would be closing up shop is highly immoral.

    –Blaming her financial issues on donors wanting to renegotiate fees for more money, she claims that 40% of donors had signed contracts and then essentially demanded more money. I think it would have been astute of Bradford Pearson to further investigate the accuracy of that statement. 40% seems inflated.

    Finally, @Sean Jackson: “Finally, and this is most important, Merritt’s personal and professional circumstance are on display for the public to see. How many of us would want to share in this position – especially given the close community of the Park Cities.” You have got to be kidding. She takes great pleasure in calling out people without giving them a chance to defend themselves when in many instances they were doing nothing wrong.

  • February 25, 2011 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    I’m glad at least to see the original reaction characterized as being on a “high horse.” A posting on Frontburner took Channel 8 to task for “ambushing” Merritt Patterson. ANY new reporter would prefer to have an actual interview. They only resort to ambushing when the subject refuses to cooperate. The original posting was obviously emotional and uninformed.

  • February 25, 2011 at 11:16 am
    Permalink

    @mk – If the contact signed indicated that the customer would receive a deposit back, it is certainly appropriate to raise the issue when it is not returned.

  • February 25, 2011 at 11:27 am
    Permalink

    After nearly 80 comments and more than 24 hours, I think we’re about finished here. I’m shutting down this post because:

    A. It’s apparent that a few people are posting comments under several aliases. Once any individual commenter starts having a conversation with herself, it’s time to turn it off.

    B. I’m about to take my staff out for a well-deserved lunch, so I don’t have time to keep refereeing this brouhaha.

Comments are closed.