Call it the Cool Hand Luke problem
North Carolina’s secretary of transportation says we can relax. Despite original appearances, the Department of Transportation isn’t committing the state to $50 million in debt to finish an interstate loop around Charlotte — a move that would have exceeded the agency’s authority. It’s a simple misunderstanding, secretary Gene Conti told the News & Observer:
The plan calls for the contractor to front $50 million of the $340 million cost. Conti emphasized that, if the contractor borrows its $50 million from a bank, the state will not back that loan.
Conti also said that the state will pay the contractor its $50 million over ten years with no interest - “an extended payment plan,” Conti said in a meeting today with reporters and editors from the News & Observer and Charlotte Observer.
Conti emphasized those points in the aftermath of questions raised by State Treasurer Janet Cowell over whether the Transportation Department has the authority to add to the state’s debt load.
“We just haven’t communicated very well,” Conti said.
“Haven’t communicated very well”? Ahem. You may recall this WAW item from April:
A couple of months ago, the state Department of Transportation hired long-time News & Observer editor Ted Vaden as its deputy secretary for communications, at an annual salary of $117,000. Last week, the DOT hired local public relations consultant Greer Beaty as communications director, at an annual salary of $71,000. Add those salaries together, and you realize the DOT is perilously close to spending $200,000 a year on a pair of people to supervise its public relations efforts — even as it cuts other jobs. How many PR chiefs does this operation need?
I guess we now know the answer to that question. Two highly paid PR experts aren’t enough to communicate very well. Clearly, more are needed.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This is a pretty interesting topic Dan. But do you ever wonder about stuff?
I often wonder what it would be like to be a fly on the wall in the dressing room at the Miss America pageant. As a heterosexual male homosapien, I’d find the sight of all that pulchritudenous flesh mighty tittilating. But if I was a fly, would I give a durn? Maybe I’d be happier hovering over a trash can full of spoiled food or an unflushed toilet bowl.
And what if there really was a Superman and I was President? I think I’d order the Man of Steel to fly over to Iran to grab that little, beady-eyed, Ahmadinejad twerp by the scruff of his neck, then squeeze his big old head until it exploded like an over-ripe watermelon. That’d be pretty cool if you ask me.
Do you ever think about stuff like that?
December 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
GD, I would genuinely be interested in your opinion, since you have seen the sausage made. What I always wonder, when I read stories like this (theories on political bias and its assorted deviant cousins aside), is how is it that the reporter could possibly be so oblivious to asking the type of questions that would be generated by the observations you put forth? It can’t be ignorance. I could presuppose a variety of possibilities (much along the lines of what the N&O got for Easily, vs. the position due to “investigative journalism” that he finds himself in now), but that would be to Easley a bait of NTI). So, honestly, how does this come about and what do it say about “journalism”?
December 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Actually, I like John’s question better.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
But what do you expect? DOT is into building good roads, not spinning PR about complex stuff like bank loans and payment plans.
Oh wait, they don’t make good roads either. (see http://www.roadsbridges.com/NCDOT-caught-in-another-paving-mistake-NewsPiece19674)
Never mind.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Though you indicate a genuine interest in GD’s opinion, I suspect you are really only interested in his opinion so far as it agrees with your own preconceived conclusions. How is it that you’re certain questions along these lines went unasked? Unlike an opinion piece or a blog posting, a reporter has a duty to ensure the contents of their articles can be substantiated rather than connecting point A to point B because it occurred to them there must be some relation.
I honestly have no idea what happened in this case and, frankly, I would like to know what DOT is getting for Vaden’s salary (full disclosure — I know Ted and consider him a very likable guy but that’s a big tax payer funded salary I would hope is justified). However, I also don’t know if an investigative reporter is/is not working on examining the value of these positions and what was/was not communicated right now. I’m quite certain, no matter what questions were asked, that nothing would be published until facts or sources were uncovered which could substantiate any incompetence or efforts to conceal information from the state.
As for Easley, as I pointed out before, many facts needed to publish stories were shielded from reporters while Easley was in office. You obviously still believe otherwise.
Finally, for the record, we agree on something. I prefer John’s questions as well. His contributions are always more entertaining than anything I have ever contributed.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“Though you indicate a genuine interest in GD’s opinion, I suspect you are really only interested in his opinion so far as it agrees with your own preconceived conclusions.”
Sadly, NIT, you are wrong (again). Your suspecions not withstanding, I know the fact, which was my genuine interest in GD’s opinion. Since none was forthcoming however, I suspect he either agrees with you (a dubious but not altogether impossible conceit), or feels it’s too irrelevent to consider.
Either way, NIT, your obsessive compulsion wins out over my reasoned analysis.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Sorry, ITA. It was an earnest question, and I let it slip through the cracks. I don’t know that the reporter didn’t ask the DOT chief what he is getting for his spokesperson dollars. Maybe he/she did, and the answer was vague, uninteresting or unrevealing. Still, it’s an obvious line of questioning, and it would have been nice to know that somebody at the N&O had drilled in when Conti talked about DOT’s lapses in communication.
Then again, maybe the reporter simply didn’t think to ask. If that’s the case, I’m gratified. It left the field open to me.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Well since I didn’t really offer any opinion (I stated that I didn’t know what happened), not certain what he would have to dubiously agree with. If you meant the substantiation component, I would think GD would concede that, in his capacity as an editor at the N&O, he wouldn’t have let a reporter write what he wrote here without doing some background/fact checking on what those positions actually do or whether they have any responsibility for this particular channel of communication. In his capacity as a columnist or WAW blogger, it’s fine to throw those statements out there and let the reader decide if there is any relevance.
“how… the reporter could possibly be so oblivious to asking the type of questions that would be generated by the observations you put forth?”
Is this your “reasoned analysis?” Sounds a little judgmental and inflammatory if you asked me. Of course you obsessively believe I’m wrong so I guess it doesn’t matter.