Chambergate: UNCC Busted, But What About Ron Tober?
In an article in today's Charlotte Observer, the public gets one of those rare glimpses of how stuff really gets done behind the scenes around here. In it, it's pretty clear that the Charlotte Chamber is flat-busted on this one. But what about Ron Tober?
Another batch of emails I published last Wednesday that didn't make the Observer's cut this morning showed that Tober, the CEO of Charlotte Area Transit System, was knee-deep in Chambergate from the beginning. Tober swapped multiple emails with UNCC Chancellor Phil Dubois, Charlotte Chamber President Bob Morgan and the oh-so-independent Edd Hauser, Director of the Center for Transportation Policy Studies at UNC-Charlotte. In them, Tober talks politics, nurtures along a UNCC study he refers to as the Chamber's and even plots how to counter transit tax opponents. All of it is done in support of the Charlotte Chamber's campaign to combat the repeal of the half-cent sales tax for mass transit on the November ballot.
According to the city's policies on public campaign involvement by city bureaucrats, that's a major no-no. A memo from the City Attorney Mac McCarley and former Charlotte City Manager Pam Syfert spelled those policies out.
"Staff may answer questions and provide information to the Mayor and City Council, citizens, and the media in normal and appropriate ways," the memo says. "Staff shall not, however, engage in the development or implementation of referendum/campaign strategy."
But that's exactly what it appears that Tober has been doing for months (again see these emails).
Here's a few of the more obnoxious Tober pro-transit campaign highlights. In one email, Morgan and Tober plot how to counter transit critic and retired UNCC professor David Hartgen when Hartgen spoke at public meetings. In the email, a group of chamber and city employees try to sort out who will contact the group Hartgen is speaking to and who should "defend the city's transit/land use strategy."
"You folks should consider carefully if you want to use Edd Hauser to counter Hartgen in such forums or if it should be myself or Jim Humphrey that defends the (sic) the City's transit/land use strategy," Tober wrote to Morgan in June.
In another email, Morgan and Tober discuss what Tober should distribute to the Charlotte City Council, Tober's status on manipulating various politicians and how to handle to fallout related to various transit decisions those politicians might make.
All of which leads to a few inevitable questions. Who is running the Charlotte Area Transit System? The people or the Charlotte Chamber? And when will the sheep on the Charlotte City Council rein in Tober?
As a person that still wants to be alive after 2012, and still living in Charlotte--I hope we will eventually have a light-rail transit system running from Statesville to Rock Hill, University City to uptown, and from Shelby. out toward Anson County along US 74.
I am in favor of Mag-Lev high speed trains from Atlanta to Washington DC along I-85 as a vision of the future.
If a few back room deals are brought to us from darkness to light, I hope the knee-jerk reaction crowd will not decide to drown the baby with the bath water.
We will still need mass transit-- no matter by what process it is produced.
Reply to this
We will still need mass transit-- no matter by what process it is produced.
No matter by what process? Unreal.
Replace mass transit with any other "public good" in this statement and you have the reason why this city / state / country is in its current condition.
It is bad enough when politicians take the no matter by what process approach but when citizens start to agree watch out.
Reply to this
Note from the blog author: When Professor David Hartgen works for or with the pro-transit tax group SCAT to produce a study, I'll be certain to scrutinize it. So far that hasn't happened. When I wrote about Hartgen's last study on this blog (see here ) I noted that he performed it for the Reason Foundation in the first line of the blog entry.
Unlike UNCC's study of mass transit here, Hartgen's study was a national study that was in no way Charlotte-based. In his study, Hartgen did a state-by-state comparison of road quality that had nothing to do with mass transit in Mecklenburg. A national article database search shows most major daily newspapers ran an article on Hartgen's study because it looked at how their state's roads stack up to other state's roads. I'm not sure what that has to do with the Chamber, SCAT or the light rail debate here.
As for CATS CEO Ron Tober, he defends the city's transit/land use strategy every day and I take no issue with that. It's his job. I do take issue with Tober corresponding with the head of the Charlotte Chamber -- which is running a pro-transit tax campaign right now -- on matters related to that campaign. Tober has no business planning campaign and propaganda stops with Chamber President Bob Morgan. Again, the city's own policy says, "Staff may answer questions and provide information to the Mayor and City Council, citizens, and the media in normal and appropriate ways. Staff shall not, however, engage in the development or implementation of referendum/campaign strategy."
You have mixed many unrelated things in an attempt to be provocative. You have succeeded in sullying things, which seems to be your goal, but failed to provide any substance. Let's take this doozy, for instance: Tober is talking about who should "defend the city's transit/land use strategy." Well, he is the head of CATS, isn't he? Should he be out apologizing for the transity strategy? That would make no sense.
Are you suggesting that Hartgen's work is 100% factual and unbiased (given the funding source? If interest groups are out there lobbying and presenting data and/or misinformation, I find it proper for those being villified to present their data and side of the story. The problem is, the SCAT folks and the anti-rail lobby only want their biased studies covered in the news. From what I've read, the UNCC study was not a 100% endorsement of light rail. It was an analysis of data. Some rail advocates unfortunately made more of the study than was merited, providing fodder for those whose intent is to muddy and raise suspicion.
This whole brouhaha is mostly political, pitting the libertarians versus the mainstream. I congratulate you on an excellent job of poop flinging on behalf of the libertarians. When you apply an equal amount of energy to scrutinizing the studies and tactics of the other side, your legitimacy will be less in question.
Reply to this
Tara, please, please, keep doing what you're doing! You are the greatest, and I thank you very, very much for pushing me in getting a little involved, as per the immagration bill. I did my first protest at Senator Burr's Winston Salem office. There was about 35 people there, and it felt so good to do this. I live in Randleman, NC which is about 15 miles due south of Greensboro. I pick you up every night at 9:00 PM, and think you have the best talk show on radio! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Keep on keep'en on! Ed Shropshire
Reply to this
i look forward to UNCC putting some money in the light rail and for tobor to be fire for conflict of interest and betraying the public trust
Reply to this
Now they are complaining about turning over "their" emails on "their" computers. The computers belong to the people. Another thing folks, the emails are maintained on the email server, not the PC! Next they complain about the cost of trying to find the emails. I can find them in a day. Simple script to write. These people are just trying to disguise the issue.
Reply to this