Victims of the recent purge at the Washington Times have walked away with a shell-shocked sensation. As in, What the hell just happened here?

Consider: After riding out some really bad times, the paper all of a sudden ousts its visionary top management and then announces layoffs as deep as 40 percent. And when it comes time to hand out the pink slips, the cuts end up slashing the newsroom more deeply, by about 60 percent.

Thanks to the tremendous reporting of TPM LiveWire, we know that the cuts at the Washington Times followed a fascinating struggle within the reigning family of the Unification Church. According to TPM, Hyun-jin Moon—aka Preston Moon, the polished, MBA-holding son of church leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon—"acted without his father's blessing" in gutting the newspaper. Preston Moon had reportedly lost out to his brother, the similarly named Hyung-jin Moon, in the quest to succeed Sun Myung Moon as the church's top leader; he took "unilateral action" with regard to the Washington Times, reports TPM.

Richard A. Steinbronn is adding a bit more detail to that narrative. A lawyer who resides in Herndon, Steinbronn would appear an unlikely route to enlightenment on the inner workings of the Unification Church and its business holdings. Yet he served as secretary and in-house legal counsel for Unification Church International (UCI) from the mid-1990s until September 2008.

At which point, he claims, he was wrongfully terminated. That's according to a suit he filed last month in D.C. Superior Court—a nearly 50-page complaint that spans 343 enumerated paragraphs and features more specifics on the activities of Moon family-related entities than you could ever want, let alone understand.

It's long been known that the Washington Times has lived off of subsidies provided by various business entities connected to the Unification Church. Several years back, media accounts placed the amount of the subsidy at $1 billion; recently, the estimates have risen as high as $2 billion.

Whatever the amounts, we've always known the core reality of Washington Times budgeting: As soon as someone decided to turn off the spigot, the paper would wither.

As Steinbronn's filing outlines, the Washington Times' evisceration essentially began in the summer of 2009. That's when, in the words of the complaint, "UCI's founder suggested that two more directors be considered for positions on the UCI board." And when "UCI's founder" offered such "suggestions," the document notes, they were viewed as "having paramount significance." In other words, no one messes with Sun Myung Moon.

The complaint continues: Two UCI directors, Douglas Joo and Peter H. Kim, then called for a special meeting on July 12, 2009, to elect the directors suggested by the founder. Joo and Kim got their meeting all right, but they were the only ones there. Preston Moon and two others didn't show, and the session adjourned for a lack of a quorum.

Weeks later, on Aug. 2, the board held a meeting and ousted Joo and Kim. Straight from the filing: "On August 3, 2009, the day after Mr. Joo and Mr. Kim were removed from the UCI board, News World Communications LLC notified its subsidiary, The Washington Times LLC (TWT), of new restrictions on TWT's ability to seek financing and funding, and new restrictions prohibiting TWT from engaging legal counsel without prior written OK from NWC LLC's legal counsel....In the following weeks, various other actions were taken at TWT, including amending TWT's operating agreement in ways that increased the control NWC LLC had over day to day operations at TWT."

More stuff on the Washington Times, as alleged by Steinbronn:

• In mid-August 2009, Washington Times Publisher Thomas McDevitt, the guy who had ushered in an era of optimism at the paper coinciding with the hiring of editor John Solomon, was removed from the paper's board.
• Sometime in the fall of 2009, Jonathan Slevin, the current publisher of the Washington Times, became the "sole director" of News World Communications.
• The changes at Washington Times came at the direction of Preston Moon and others.

And, finally, Steinbronn's takeaway: "On information and belief, these actions taken at TWT at the direction of Mr. Slevin and UCI management are damaging the business reputation and value of TWT as a historic, strategic asset of the UCI group."

Now there's a matter for moot court. Given the (unchallenged) estimates about how much cash the paper has gobbled up in its nearly 30-year history, calling it an "asset" of any sort is a stretch. And calling it a "historic" asset presupposes that the good old days of Wes Pruden's Washington Times, the days when the choice of news stories screamed of ideological bias, the days of scare quotes around "gay marriage," and the days of a petulant refusal to print the word "gay" in constant favor of "homosexual"—carried social and financial value.

Steinbronn can be excused for overvaluing a property for which he worked more than a decade. As to whether the pro se plaintiff, a Unification Church member, has accurately described the internal moves that led up to the debasement of the Washington Times, well, that's a tricky question.

Steinbronn did not respond to two calls for comment on his complaint. A lawyer for one of the defendants did not immediately return a call for comment.

Regardless of whether the Unification Church establishment refutes Steinbronn's narrative, it sure does appear concerned that his allegations will leak into the public realm. In a Dec. 22 filing, two weeks after Steinbronn's complaint, defendant Times Aerospace USA LLC (TA USA), one of the church-related entities housed in the Washington Times building on New York Avenue NE, appealed to the court to seal Steinbronn's complaint. The motion reads, "Plaintiff's Complaint contains numerous allegations derived in whole or part from his having acted as the in-house counsel for TA USA and UCI and reveals the confidences and secrets of his former clients." Steinbronn, according to the motion, has raised no objection to sealing his complaint.

Hell, the Unification people even detailed the parts of the Steinbronn complaint that they are most worried about becoming public. Just so the public can have a reasonable discussion of whether the court should seal these portions, let's provide a capsule summary of them:

• "Secrets and confidences related to defendant Huyn Jin Moon's election as UCI Director and President."

OK, in this part of the complaint that so scares the church, Steinbronn alleges that in April 2006, Preston Moon was elected as UCI chairman, president, and CEO. It also says that he was the first UCI president to receive a salary "as UCI president." The complaint later notes that a section of the District's nonprofit law "prohibits the payment of dividends and distributions of income to directors and officers."

• "Secrets and confidences related to changes of the UCI board in 2009."

OK, in this part of the complaint that so scares the church, Steinbronn runs through the narrative that precedes the dismantling of the Washington Times, as abridged above.

• "Secrets and confidences related to business strategy of UCI subsidiaries."

OK, in this part of the complaint that so scares the church, Steinbronn discusses personnel changes at the Washington Times board and at that of its parent company, News World Communications, not to mention key happenings at an entity called Times Aerospace International LLC, not to be confused with Times Aerospace USA LLC (note the absence of "International" in that one!), or with Washington Times Aviation LLC, or with Washington Times Aviation USA LLC, or with Times Aviation USA LLC. Not that anyone ever would!

• "Secrets and confidences related to UCI board governance and sales of UCI assets."

OK, in this part of the complaint that so scares the church, Steinbronn talks about a whole bunch of UCI biz, including the possibility that UCI upper management "may be planning to sell certain rural property held by New Hope Farm in West Virginia and Virginia, and other properties held in the UCI group." Wouldn't want the public to know about the possible sale of cow pastures!

Through all of his exacting allegations about Unificationia, Steinbronn sounds pissed. The complaint alleges that on Aug. 18, 2009, he was called to a meeting in New York state. He went. When he got back, he found that the locks of his Falls Church office had been changed. A struggle for files—both personal and professional—ensued.

The suit asks for all kinds of damages, monetary and otherwise, including "an accounting of UCI and all subsidiaries, to determine the extent of any improper use or expenditure of funds or property."

Photograph by Darrow Montgomery

The Washington Times, in other words, could be nearing its end.

That's a bad thing not only for Washington Times employees and conservative journalism, but also for those who write about the paper. Every effort must be made to preserve what has become one of America's greatest hatcheries of workplace weirdness. When it comes to internal strife, no one does it like the Washington Times.

Washington Times weirdness takes on a starring role in the lawsuit filed in December by former Washington Times Editorial Page Editor Richard Miniter. In his complaint, Miniter made a number of damning claims against the paper, including the charge that he was essentially required to trek to Manhattan for a "peace festival" and a religious service of the Washington Times-connected Unification Church.

That's good and weird, for sure. But if you dig into the Miniter complaint, and the response that the Washington Times filed on Dec. 30, there's plenty more.

1) Contractual Weirdness: Since when does an editorial page editor get a commission?

The first count of the Miniter lawsuit alleges that the Washington Times et al. "breached their contractual commitments to Miniter, causing actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial."

In its response, the Washington Times slaps back. The filing says, in so many words: How can Miniter claim breach of contract if he had no contract to begin with? Reads the motion: "[Miniter] does not provide a copy of the alleged contract or quote a single line from it. Indeed, he cannot, because he refused to accept or sign the contract he was offered." (Emphasis in the original).

The Times sprinkles the court docket with all kinds of exhibits documenting Miniter's contractlessness. And if you accept the Washington Times' version of events, it's hard to see why the two sides didn't manage to sign on the bottom line. After all, the Washington Times was proposing a pretty nice deal, especially in light of ongoing misery in the media industry. Here's the offer Miniter was mulling as of March of this year: Annual pay of $225,000, with a $5,000 signing bonus and 3 percent annual raises. The contract had a one-year term and a good set of benefits.

Miniter wanted more, according to the Washington Times' court filing. Months after receiving the contract offer, he came back with his demands, asking for a 5 percent annual raise and a five-year contract term, not to mention much more cushy exit packages in case he was ever fired from the paper.

So far, so reasonable. But now cue the Washington Times weirdness. There was one demand in Miniter's July 2009 proposed contract that makes little sense, at least for a guy who was in charge of an editorial page. Miniter, according to the Washington Times filing, was seeking a cut of revenues. Word for word, here is the language that he allegedly tried to get inserted in his employment contract:

Commission: In addition to the above salary, you will be entitled to a commission of not less than 10% of all gross revenue directly generated by you. This includes any advertising revenue over $100,000 by a single entity, real estate transactions, events organized or planned, new revenue-producing products or new revenue-producing services created for the Company, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and/or successors. Payments under this provision shall be made within 15 business days of the Company's receipt of funds for the related event, transaction, sale or advertising. Payment will be made by electronic funds transfer of the total amount due (less any lawful withholding) to an account identified by Miniter for purposes of this clause.

How many journos out there are gathering commissions? Certainly not the chief of the Washington Post editorial page. "I do not get any compensation based on sales," says the Post's Fred Hiatt.

Now, the court filings leave unexplained just how that commission request landed in Miniter's proposed contract. Perhaps someone at the Washington Times told him he'd have to start generating some income. Such a request could well have prompted Miniter to propose a commission clause in his compensation arrangement.

Larry Klayman, the rabble-rousing attorney who's representing Miniter, declined to comment on the provenance of the clause.

A couple of months after Miniter put that commission thingie in his proposed contract, the Washington Times did allegedly try to get him involved in sales, according to Miniter's original complaint. It states that in September 2009, the Washington Times slimed Miniter with the "'responsibilities' for finding advertisers for The Washington Times, which was completely incongruent with his career goals and expertise. While Miniter is an award-winning journalist and best-selling author, he has no experience in advertising and has not worked in that capacity as a professional."

2) Telecommuting Weirdness: How many editorial page editors work from home?

One of the more memorable sequences of the Miniter complaint involves a series of Washington Times investigations into his management practices. In June 2009, according to the complaint, a Washington Times HR director told Miniter that she was bringing in an outside consultant to carry out a so-called "360," or a complete audit of employee happiness with Miniter. The results of the review, according to Miniter's complaint, were favorable.

Then things took a turn toward the really bizarre, according to the complaint: Two weeks later, the Washington Times launched a second investigation into Miniter's department. Henceforth, Miniter was ordered to work from home.

On the question of whom Miniter-the-editorial-page-editor could contact from his home office, there's a discrepancy between the two sides. Miniter & Co. say he was "told not to contact any of the employees in his department." The Washington Times, on the other hand, says that Miniter "was told to remain at home and not contact staff members except on matters that were directly work-related." So no recipe-sharing calls.

After all this, the Washington Times, by its own account, offered Miniter a new contract in mid-September 2009. Miniter didn't go for it, and discussions betweens the two sides broke down; he was officially advised of his dismissal on Oct. 22.

3) Titular Weirdness: Fired editor finds long-term foothold on masthead.

Consider these dates:

• In July, Miniter was exiled to work-from-home duty.
• In late September, the Washington Times stopped paying him.
• On Oct. 22, he was notified of his termination.

YET! Miniter remained on the Washington Times masthead through Nov. 25.

Why?

Washington Times' take on Miniter masthead retention: That's what Miniter wanted. A Times filing says that in e-mails dated Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, Miniter made this request. And the HR director, Sonya Jenkins, claims in an affidavit appended to the Dec. 30 filing that Miniter told her on Nov. 16 to keep his name up there.

Klayman's take on Miniter masthead retention: "They said they fired Richard, so how can they put him on the masthead? They can't do that because it would be a fraud on the public."

That's some fiery rhetoric. But really, how many people read the Washington Times masthead?

The Sports Desk—the whole, entire Sports Desk—is no more, a casualty of the massacre going on over at the Times newsroom. But the Sports Desk tweets live on!

The released staff writers are still in control of the Twitter account, for now at least, and they've been offering up some juicy stuff.

-RT @coreymull: As good as @TWTSports was, remember that it was just a loss leader for garbage like this: http://bit.ly/3OFuQq

-Maryland played awful tonight because they were saddened to learn of @D1scourse no longer working at @TWTSports.

-Teams that won: Unification Church RT @dcsportsbog Teams that lost their last home game with TWT beat writer: Skins, Caps, Wiz, Terps BB, FB

-Also, again want to encourage everyone to pick up Friday's section. We didn't need to put this much effort in but decided to anyway.

-Now that @TWTSports is no more, we're soliciting suggestions on what to do with the account. Fire away *get it?*.

So: Who says revenge isn't sweet?

Notes former City Paper intern Ryan Reilly, also via Twitter: "If you're going to kill an entire section of a newspaper, it's probably a good idea to get Twitter password."

Management sent around an e-mail around mid-afternoon informing everyone of a mandatory staff meeting in the auditorium. Acting Publisher Jonathan Slevin addressed the people who assembled, spewing standard lines about how it's such a hard thing to lay people off.

Then came the HR honcho, Sonya Jenkins. She said that there are a bunch of layoffs going down. Some people would be retained; others wouldn't. People would be notified at the end of the meeting with a letter.

And so the individuals hustled with great dread to a couple of tables where lots of letters were waiting. People walked away carrying word of their fate. Those that are getting laid off are being asked to finish up their shift tomorrow and then depart. The letters come with a list of open positions at the paper, just in case the departed want to try their luck with a different department.

So that's how it went.

But one thing: Why lay off a bunch of people when a bunch of people are out of the office on holiday vacations? Is the paper going to raise those individuals on their cell phones and say, Hey, come back from Vail and pick up your letter to find out whether you've been sacked or saved?

Classic Washington Times management.

City Desk is working on compiling a list of the dismissed, which reportedly includes at least one big industry name.

Meanwhile, one question looms: Are these layoffs? Or just strategic reductions aimed at redundant positions, as Post management would have us believe?

Consider the case of one dismissed employee. This individual was told that the "numbers have been bad on the digital side and because of that, that's why they're doing it."

Another victim of the reduction-in-force reports that the motivation is that the Post is moving to streamline its operations.

Updates to come.

Will you, dear reader, beg to pay us for our online journalism?

*photo courtesy of mediabistro.

Penn Quarter Living debuts a new column called High Rise Life. The first one is on elevator etiquette. It's not so much a column as bad comment bait of which I am sometimes guilty of. Here's a sampling from PQL's rookie effort on sharing an elevator: "Fob in and offer to push buttons or don’t offer and make sure others belong in the building? Remind neighbors that bicycles and their owners usually ride the freight elevator or zip it? Heel your dog or let him/her sniff around and be friendly? What is good neighborly elevator etiquette?" Fascinating.

Frozen Tropics reports on the breaking news last night concerning the pedestrian hit by a Metrobus in Trinidad. The Post is reporting that the woman has suffered life threatening injuries:

"In Monday's incident, the woman had just gotten off the D-8 Metrobus on Mount Olivet Avenue NE, between Trinidad and Montello avenues. She apparently crossed in front of that bus and then was struck about 6:30 p.m. by another Metrobus traveling in the same direction, Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel said.

Two men who said they witnessed the incident told television stations that the woman was thrown a distance down the street, and appeared to be unconscious after being struck. One of the men said that after the woman was hit, the driver of one of the buses 'got down' and prayed."

The Georgetown Metropolitan answers the question: Just what are Georgetown's boundaries?

Do you want to see pictures of people buying records? Someone posted a bunch of pictures from the DC Record Fair held this past Sunday. We wish we could have been there. Meanwhile....Fair sponsor The Vinyl District is giving away tickets to this week's Gossip show at the 9:30 Club.

The New Teacher On the Block offers their take on the hundreds of teachers laid off last week. In the Rhee vs. Gray fight, the blogger sides with Gray:

"Now, of course, this has resulted in finger-pointing, name calling, and a complete lack of transparency on many people's parts (Standard Operating Procedure for DCPS, really). Rhee blames the City Council for not providing the money required to allow all of these teachers to keep their jobs. City Council member Vincent Gray the DC City Council fired back with a press release accusing Rhee of using the council as a scapegoat in executing her master plan of getting rid of large numbers of DCPS teachers.

In this case, I'm in Gray's corner. The numbers just don't lie. It's just another example of the lack of transparency Rhee feels she is entitled to. When I came here, I thought I liked her: I am among the legions of teachers she's supposedly replacing the entire DC teaching force with and I support a lot of the ideas she proposes. But both her behavior and her attitude are counterproductive and arrogant; since I have been here, she has done nothing but alienate, obfuscate, and out and out lie."

So how will the layoffs go down?

According to the memo, principals have already identified on a "Budget Reduction Worksheet" the positions they plan to eliminate; this week, they're going through the elaborate – and time-consuming – process of rating each person who holds one of those positions (not all of them will be let go). Principals do this at a previously scheduled appointment at the Office of Human Resources, where they are given a laptop and encouraged to rely on notes and "supporting documentation."

Using a scale of zero to 10, principals must rate each potential RIF employee according to the following criteria: 1. "Office or school needs" (75 percent of the total score) 2. "Significant relevant contributions, accomplishments or performance" (10 percent) and 3. "Relevant supplemental experience demonstrated on the job" (10 percent). Human Resources adds a "Length of service" calculation as well (5 percent).

Principals then prepare a detailed narrative to support the scores. (A sample narrative for Jane Doe: "Doe has consistently underperformed for the five years she has worked at Gibbs Elementary and does not address the needs of our school. While I expected to have a fresh start with her this school year, she immediately began the school year with a very negative attitude. Ms. Doe arrived late for three of the five days of the teacher training week.")

Here's the "Notifying staff members who are being separated" part:

• Human Resources will use your ratings, add the length of service calculation, and then issue a final ranking for all employees within the competitive level being reduced or eliminated
• Based on this final ranking, Human Resources will generate a notice for each employee being separated
• Human Resources will deliver these notices to you one business day before you are to deliver them to the employees
• On the date printed on the notice, you should call the employee to your office after school, hand them the notice, and ask them to sign for it on the signature line that Human Resources will provide to you
• Return signed signature pages to your staffing specialist
• Please feel free to contact the Director of School Operations if there are unique security issues that you believe need to be addressed
• Human Resources will also FedEx the notice to the impacted employees

Teachers are protesting the layoffs (and the evaluation system) at a 4:30 p.m. rally today outside DCPS central offices.

It reads in part:

"While this reorganization has many positive elements, there is also an unfortunate consequence of this assessment, and that is the elimination of 44 editorial positions, spread across all newsrooms. These decisions, along with our earlier commercial changes, have been extremely difficult to make, and are now made only after a nearly two-month painstaking effort to review our editorial teams and determine our needs going forward. But we are happy to now say that our restructure is complete, and no further personnel reductions of this nature are forthcoming."

We know what these things are like. Our hearts go out to those staffers cut. Politico has a small item on the cuts.

One word not used: "layoffs."

In the same spirit of linguistic transparency, City Desk offers this handy guide to layoff euphemisms, care of Bob Sutton (author of The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn't) and one of his old blog posts at Work Matters. Consider including some of these next time!

Adjusting to shifts in demand
Corporate outplacing
Cost improvement plans
Fitness plan
"He got the box"
Made redundant
"Non-essential" employees
Offboarded
Rationalizing
Rebalancing  the level of human capital
Re-engineering plan
Simplified
Smartsizing
Special forces philosophy
Streamlining
Synergy-related headcount restructuring
"We've decided to go in another direction"

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman offers another: "amortizing the work force."

"Good morning,

Please remain in our space until further notice. Metropolitan Police Department are currently responding to an unconscious male with a gunshot wound to the head on the 11th floor of Kilpatrick & Stockton. We are contacting building management to determine further information.

We will keep you posted.

Thank you."

Legal Times is reporting that it was a suicide. It has the full story and the identity of the victim. The victim, as reported, is Mark Levy. Here is part of his bio from the firm's website:

"Mark Levy is counsel in the Washington, D.C. office and chairs the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Practice. A graduate of Yale Law School, he served for five years in the Office of the Solicitor General and also was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Appellate in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Among other appellate-related activities and organizations, Mr. Levy is a member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and a former member of the D.C. Circuit Advisory Committee on Procedures, a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and a Master in the Edward Coke Appellate American Inn of Court. He also is a member of the adjunct faculty at the University of Virginia School of Law and teaches a seminar on appellate litigation."

Apparently, Above the Law notes, Levy was one of the attorneys laid off on Tuesday.

This morning, LL was all over Fenty's announced District gov job cuts. Our aggressive political scribe reported: "Of the remaining 776 employees the mayor is proposing to lay off, 250 are in DCPS—mostly teachers aides and support staff, Tangherlini says." This may not seem like scary news, but it is.

I know what your thinking: teachers aides and support staff seem like easy cuts. What the hell do teacher aides do? What does support staff mean? Let me guess what they do: they help handle over-crowded classrooms, offer tutoring, lesson planning and generally help teachers get through the day. I'm not sure about support staff. But it could mean social workers, guidance counselors, secretaries, and librarians.

Do we really want to cut funding for these jobs? These cuts are coming on the heels of all those school closures last year. Catania made the argument today on the Politics Hour that enrollment is down at DCPS and that more and more kids are going into charter schools. But for every successful charter school, there are stories like City Lights Public Charter which recently had to close its doors before the school year even finished.

It seems like every other week, Colbert King is documenting another screwup with juveniles at DYRS (that few officials care about). If Fenty chooses to make these cuts at DCPS, the safety net for kids will get that much weaker. Do we really want to layoff social workers? Do we really want to cut school personnel that much more? I have met some of these school-based social workers and nobody works harder than they do. Nobody.

Which department should feel some hurt? I think DCPS should be saved from cuts as well as the DMV. Everything else should be on the table.

5:16 p.m. Update: Dena Iverson, press secretary for DCPS, writes in an e-mail: "I just wanted to make a quick but I think important clarification to your post on City Desk about the DCPS reduction of 250 positions.  The reduction in positions is so that we can align staff to lower enrollment.  We expect that the change in the number of staff will happen though staff retirement and attrition." That must be a lot of teacher aids that are retiring.

*photo of Fenty by Darrow Montgomery.