RALEIGH – I have to admit when I’m wrong. After all, rare moments deserve to be savored.
And so I must admit that my initial take on the UNC-Charlotte transit study affair was too forgiving. For those Carolina Journal readers not in Mecklenburg County, I’ll give you a quick synopsis of the episode – and trust me, you don’t have to be from there to find the matter interesting and revealing.
The story began a few weeks ago when Professor Edd Hauser of UNCC’s Center for Transportation Policy Studies began making the media rounds to discuss the results of a study comparing the cost of Charlotte’s light-rail system to date with those of systems in other cities around the country.
Hauser claimed during press interviews that he decided to conduct the study after watching a local-government meeting. But things didn’t ring quite true. Some locals started asking questions and requesting information from UNCC – including Tara Servatius, talk-show host at WBT-AM and writer for Creative Loafing; Jeff Taylor, Carolina Journal writer and host of JLF’s Meck Deck blog; and, eventually, The Charlotte Observer.
Once the university began (grudgingly) to release documents and emails related to the Hauser study, it became crystal clear that the effort was far from an independent scholarly enterprise. The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce sent UNCC Chancellor Phil Dubois a series of questions to answer, which formed the basis of Hauser’s inquiry. Furthermore, the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), headed by Ron Tober, was an active participant in Hauser’s research, which was to be submitted to CATS for review before it was published. As Taylor put it, “in these emails Tober comes off not so much as the subject of study but the director of study.” Servatius added the disclosure that Tober had referred to it as a study “that the folks at UNCC are doing for the Charlotte Chamber.”
At this point, Observer editorial writer Mary Newsom, a strong light-rail proponent who had touted Hauser’s study upon initial release without divulging its origins (I assume she did not know them at the time), wrote a defense that included some intemperate accusations about, among others, some colleagues of mine. I felt the need to respond (scroll down), emphasizing that my concern was primarily about Hauser’s lack of candor in explaining how the study came to be rather than the mere fact that the Chamber was involved. I noted that at Meck Deck, Taylor had also made serious (and unanswered) arguments against the study’s methodology and conclusions. Hauser got some basic facts wrong, embarrassingly wrong.
But in retrospect, I was wrong, too. I was far too generous in my assessment of the situation. The news department of the Observer, finally on the case, has unearned additional emails that establish beyond a reasonable doubt not just that Hauser’s work was essentially commissioned by the Chamber, but that it was intended for use in crafting a public-opinion survey for the Chamber and a public-relations campaign in favor of the Charlotte rail system and against this fall’s voter referendum to repeal Mecklenburg’s special half-cent sales tax earmarked for transit. Furthermore, UNCC Chancellor Dubois and Dennis Rash, an “executive in residence” at the university’s Center for Transportation Studies, appear to have conspired to hide the Chamber’s role in the affair. Indeed, the emails show that Rash saw the taxpayer-funded Hauser report as part of a political spin campaign to protect the tax from voter disapproval. Here’s a key passage of the Observer piece:
On March 26, Rash e-mailed Dubois saying it was important to get data from the study quickly. “We need some of the research data in order to craft the attitude survey and then to begin the 2 1/2 (to) 3 weeks of telephoning for the surveys ASAP. We need this attitude survey to mount an effective PR campaign.”
The research data refers to the UNCC study. The “attitude survey” is the chamber’s telephone poll of voters.
On May 8, Rash gave Dubois and Hauser an update on the tax repeal effort. He said data from the UNCC study had been helpful to Charlotte-based MarketWise, which conducted the survey.
Rash wrote: “Edd’s research has given MarketWise the opportunity to present facts after the initial survey questions. With the attitude data, we will be able to see what are the `hot buttons,’ where the areas of support and opposition are, and the demographics that correlate to those. Then we can plan what the key messages need to be, when and where to send those messages. ”
When the chamber initially suggested that UNCC conduct a study, Dubois was concerned about the university using tax dollars on a politically charged issue. UNCC would benefit if the light-rail line were extended to campus. If the tax is repealed, a line to campus would be unlikely.
Dubois later decided it was OK for the university to proceed with the study.
But subsequent e-mails show that the university was debating how to present the study to the public.
In a March 22 e-mail to Dubois, Rash wrote that Bob Morgan (of the chamber) “asked my opinion about who should ask for this research to be done. We quickly agreed that it should not be CATS or the Chamber.”
In reality, Morgan had asked for the study.
Dubois replied: “Why not just have Edd announce it has an initiative of the Institute `in the public interest.’ We have an obligation to serve as a forum for the debate of important public issues, yada, yada, yada.”
Not exactly a shining moment in the history of responsible public service. Rash’s affiliation with UNCC should be terminated immediately. UNC President Erskine Bowles should ensure that the system’s announced investigation of the incident include the questionable conduct and fate of Dubois, who at the very least should be made to apologize for his shameful behavior. Taxpayers do not fund public universities so they can dabble in local politics – and then attempt to mislead the public about it.
That’ll teach me to think the best of people.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.