Whew! Where to begin?
It has been a bizarre couple days. I learned more about Charlotte’s dysfunctions than I thought possible.
Short story: UNCC is still in denial about the serious questions about its independence raised by the Edd Hauser report on CATS and light rail.
Hauser himself, as evidenced by his statements on WFAE on Monday morning, still does not seem to grasp that his credibility has gaping holes in it as he continues to cling to notion that the idea for the study originated with him. And although to his eternal credit, WFAE’s Mike Collins refused to take UNCC’s spin at face value, the station seems to have issues with questioning the actions of its host institution.
Now the long version.
Recall that Hauser’s May 21st appearance on WFAE, when mapped to the University’s June 13th release of emails relating to the origins of Hauser’s study, raised serious questions. Hauser had insisted to Charlotte Talks host Collins and to the Observer that the March 26th city council meeting was pivotal in his decision to study the question of CATS’ efficiency.
The trouble was that emails released by UNCC indicated that Hauser had agreed to the study by March 22nd, four days before the city council meeting. Hauser offered this explanation Monday: What Dennis Rash reported as a commitment to do the study, was not in fact a commitment. Hauser went off to research resources and “reflect” on the idea of the study, while setting aside time to attend the March 26th city council meeting that would turn out to help convince him to the do the study.
This version assumes several things. One, that Rash was utterly wrong in his March 22nd email. Hauser never quite comes out and says this, but that is the only possibility. Could be an honest mistake, wire crossed. Happens all the time. So why not say so? Most of all, why hasn’t Rash stepped forward to say, “My bad” were that the case?
Two, that Hauser went to the city council meeting unsure if a study was warranted. Yet the topic of the evening — the impact on the city’s finances in the event of repeal — formed a small part of Hauser’s study. In fact, his study largely regurgitates what city officials said that night in a tacked-on fashion.
The larger topic of CATS’ performance with regard to bus and train service was not part of city’s agenda that evening. It was, however, central to the 23 questions submitted to UNCC Chancellor Phil Dubois by Charlotte Chamber of Commerce president Bob Morgan on March 14th.
Make of that what you will.
To my mind, Monday’s appearance by Hauser did absolutely nothing to clear up how the study came to be. We still have two versions, one told by the email record and backed by the university’s assistant counsel, and one told by Edd Hauser.
What did happen Monday was the unveiling of two altogether new mysteries.
Both Hauser and UNCC public affairs chief David Dunn insisted that Morgan’s 23 questions were merely part of a broader, richer milieu of community interest in a study of CATS. This is the same notion that Dunn advanced in an interview with the Observer published on Saturday, namely that Morgan was merely one among many concerned citizens who wanted a study from UNCC on CATS.
One small problem: The info released June 13th by UNCC does not include anything else besides Morgan’s emails to Dubois in the way of “community” input. Either the university missed this non-Chamber communication, this communication was entirely verbal, leaving no record behind, or it does not exist. We’ll find out shortly.
Dunn — who is quite adroit at ducking emails for someone in a communications position — has already been asked to produce such communication. Absent some record, this version of events asks you to believe that Bob Morgan, alone among all the many members of the local community who wanted a CATS study, used email to communicate this desire to the university.
Next, on the matter of Hauser omitting any mention of the Chamber’s request for the study from the CATS report after having cited Chamber involvement in a 2005 report on Charlotte-Douglas Airport, Hauser jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
There was a simple reason for the difference in treatment Hauser told Collins, the Chamber paid for the 2005 report and it was merely “common courtesy” to mention the Chamber in the report’s introduction.
Really? One would think it would be common courtesy to the readers of the report to pass along who paid for the report. That did not happen. Instead this is the sum total of the acknowledgment:
At the request of the Aviation Department of the City of Charlotte and the Airport Director’s office, the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce and UNC Charlotte conducted a study of various factors that are essential to estimate the impact of the Charlotte Douglas International Airport on the economy of the region. … Portions of the survey work were conducted by research staff of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce.
I defy anyone to read that and conclude that the Chamber paid the Center for the report. So now we have another instance of the Center obscuring the extent of the Chamber’s involvement in its research. Moreover, the information that the Chamber had paid for a previous study must now inform our view of Morgan’s request for CATS research.
The Chamber was not just another voice in the community seeking answers. It was a former paying customer and close collaborator with the University. Again, had all this been disclosed from the outset, then the broader public could make its own judgment about the significance of the relationship.
As it stands, it is difficult to discern where the Center starts and the Chamber ends.
Then there is the matter of WFAE’s reaction to all this controversy. I’ve already spun out here the actions of WFAE program director Paul Stribling in attempting limit how other outlets, including Meck Deck, linked to WFAE and reported on the Hauser interview(s).
Reading between the lines, to me this smacks of a classic management panic in response to pressure from higher ups. Stribling, a broadcasting vet who has been with the station since its inception, had to know that he could not demand that Web sites ask for “permission” to link to WFAE’s site. Yet he did so at least twice.
Did someone at the University demand that Stribling make that attempt? We’re all ears.
In the meantime, go listen to the latest interview and decide for yourself if UNCC’s reputation is in shambles.