Jack Franks not to testify?

One of the governor's most vocal, local critics has been McHenry County's own Rep. Jack Franks (D-63rd). And for good reason.

However, this morning's Northwest Herald carries, in my opinion, an inaccurate explanation of the reason he will most likely not testify.

Reporter Amber Krosel wrote a short sidebar that got a front-page position. Jack is reported as saying his decision to testify will now depend on the length of the trial. Like it's his decision. Jack is quoted as saying that his testimony might not be necessary "seeing as the governor isn't showing up."

I didn't watch the entire opening day's proceedings, but I did see the part when House prosecutor David Ellis said he would present numerous motions to the Senate and, if they were accepted, then the testimony of many would not be needed. And the testimony of Jack Franks was named as one that would not be needed.

So, my question is, is Jack's explanation accurate? What is his reason for phrasing it as he did? And why didn't an editor catch it? Surely editors must have been glued to the online video streaming of the proceedings.