At 9pm tonite on WBT Tara Servatius will shovel the first spade of dirt on the old order in Charlotte. More shovels will follow in quick succession.

In sum, there is now definitive proof that powerful defenders of the status quo, starting in early March, conspired to develop a propaganda campaign utilizing taxpayer dollars in order to derail the half-cent transit tax repeal effort.

At the campaign’s heart is the UNCC Center for Transportation Policy Studies study defending CATS. Immediately upon its release in early May, CATS’ defenders seized on the study as proof that CATS’ critics were mistaken. Despite glaring errors of fact, as recently as last Thursday CATS chief Ron Tober pointed citizens to the study as source of unbiased analysis of CATS’ performance.

But what was portrayed repeatedly as an unbiased academic report was in fact a document built to fit the specifications of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, a major light rail booster since 1998.

Emails obtained from UNCC show that Chamber president Bob Morgan requested a study on the topic of repeal from UNCC Chancellor Phil Dubois on March 14th. A list of 23 questions from Morgan formed the basis for the UNCC report. They ranged from the obvious, “Will current levels of bus service be affected and how?” to the bizarre, “If I signed a petition to force a referendum to eliminate the half cent sales tax for transit, but do not support that effort and would like to have my name removed from the petition, what can I do?”

On March 16th Chancellor Dubois, who has has repeatedly advocated the construction of the $750 million Northeast line from Uptown to the UNCC campus, replied to Morgan that he would have to consult with counsel “about what we can do as a public institution.” This indicates awareness of the issue of using public funds to take sides in a political debate.

Evidently after receiving guidance on this point, Dubois told Morgan on March 21st that, “I think we’re clear to do this.”

On cue the next day, Dennis Rash, a longtime Uptown fixture and retired Bank of America executive who holds the title of Executive in Residence at UNCC’s Transportation Center, emailed Dubois and copied Edd Hauser, the director of the Center, state employee, and ultimate author of the pro-CATS report.

Quoting Rash:

Phil:

Edd and I have talked about this matter, and he is willing to take the lead in this research himself. … Edd and I also agree that I should not be a spokesman for the Center in answering these questions. I have too much history as an advocate to be able to function now as an independent analyst. … We will keep you informed of the progress, and provide a copy of the final results before we send the final draft on to the Chamber.

An hour later Dubois replies: “Perfect. Thanks.”

This email indicates several things. One, by March 22nd Edd Hauser was aware of the Chamber’s request and had committed to do the study as outlined by Morgan’s questions. Two, Rash was eager to obscure his role in the study as the study’s effect on public opinion was of manifest — perhaps singular — importance. Three, Dubois was kept in-the-loop as the report was written, underscoring his role as sponsor of the report. And finally, the Chamber evidently had some sort of final say on the content of the report or the decision to send a final draft to the Chamber makes no sense.

It is not clear if the Chamber requested or received any changes to the report.

At this writing both Dubois and Morgan have not responded to email queries asking for clarification of their roles in the drafting of the report.

However, a larger problem for the report’s author looms. Edd Hauser’s previous accounts of how the report came to be cannot be squared with the emails.

Recall that by March 22nd Hauser had committed to do the report. Contrast this with the Observer’s Mary Newsom announcing the report to the world on May 7th on her blog:

So says a new research report from Edd Hauser. Hauser is founding director of UNC Charlotte’s Center for Transportation Policy Studies, and he has a lengthy and impressive pedigree in transportation engineering and planning, including master’s and Ph.D. degrees from N.C. State in transportation engineering and a master’s in regional planning from UNC. He helped found the Institute of Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at UNC, was an assistant state highway administrator at the N.C. Department of Transportation and worked in the private sector for almost a decade, with Kimley-Horn and Associates.

He happened to see a March 26 City Council meeting at which Charlotte Area Transit System chief Ron Tober and City Manager Pam Syfert gave their version of the effect on city taxes and CATS if a proposal to eliminate the county’s half cent sales tax for transit succeeds.

“Emotions are running amok in this. I wanted to start looking at the data,” Hauser told me today. He and colleagues at the CRPS started looking at the numbers. “Our objective was to layout relevant data. I had no idea what it would look like when I started.”

He happened to see a March 26 City Council meeting. No. Not at all.

Hauser’s account of the study’s origin on the May 21st edition of Charlotte Talks on WFAE is also at odds with the email record.

In sum, local residents have been the victims of a massive fraud. There are many more connections to be exposed. They will be.

This will not happen again.

Update: True to her reporter roots, Tara backs up last night’s revelations on the air with some more documentation.

Most valuable is the quote from Edd Hauser during his WFAE slot. This saves you — and me — the painful chore of listening to that agit-prop nightmare again:

“But no one came to you, you picked this as a topic to study,” Mike Collins asked Hauser in a fawning interview on May 21 on Charlotte Talks on WFAE in which the two intermittently trashed the statistics used by transit tax repeal supporters.

“Oh right,” Hauser answered, stumbling on his words and then regaining his footing.

Oh, hell.