I considered responding yesterday after reading this “Under The Dome” item, but additional reports from the Capitol Press Corps actually convinced me that a clarification might be in order.
It’s no surprise that reporters would latch on to this item from Don Carrington’s Carolina Journal article Monday:
Decker said he was in Black?s office when Black asked Easley about a
future job. ?The day the co-speaker arrangement passed in 2003, Black
used his cell phone to call Gov. Easley. I only heard Black?s end of
the conversation. Black said something like he may need a job when this
is over,? Decker said.Then after Black handed him the phone, Decker spoke directly to Easley.
Decker said Easley did not discuss a job with him, but basically said,
?Thank you for supporting Jim Black.?
Having read the article and having now listened to the governor’s response to a reporter’s question about the alleged phone call, I’m not sure that the governor’s response constitutes a denial.
Easley denies that Black called him about Decker. He also denies that Black called him about a job for Decker. Fine. Decker made neither claim.
My interpretation of Decker’s statement is that Black called Easley on the day in early 2003 when the co-speaker arrangement was finalized. If that call took place, I’m guessing the co-speaker deal was the likely topic of conversation. (Here’s the historical novel version. Black: “Governor, great news. We finally reached agreement on a speaker deal.” Easley: “Good. Now you can finally get to work.”)
Decker contends that as part of that alleged conversation, Black made some reference to potentially needing “a job when this is over.” Decker did not say that Black mentioned a job for Decker or that Black discussed any specifics. Decker also offered no information about the governor’s response ? since he says he heard only one end of the phone conversation. Decker also contends that he spoke to the governor later in the conversation and that Easley neither said anything about nor hinted at a job.
So the governor’s statement Thursday does not refute Decker’s claim. Easley could refute the claim by saying: “I did not speak to Jim Black by phone on the day the co-speaker deal was finalized.” Or “I spoke to Jim Black that day, but he never said anything about maybe needing a job.” And/or “I did not speak to Michael Decker by phone that day.”
But here’s where I address my headline “Not quite on point.” The crux of the story is not the phone call. No one contends the phone call constituted some sort of deal.
Instead Don’s story focuses on the flawed process that led to the creation of a job for Decker two years later. Unraveling that process is the key to the story. Governor Easley says he was not part of the process. The question is: Who was part of the process? Did those participants abide by the law?
