Update: Fellow Blogger/Sun Enterprise Editor Chris Scott emailed to let me know the Sun ran a clarification on the Moran story last Friday:Bold Mine
Clarification
A story in Wednesday’s paper focused on city councilors exploring if the city could recoup $33,000 it has paid in the last year to Central Parking System of Nashville, Tenn.
“as compensation for its management services.” Councilor Rodney Elliott, who raised the issue, used the phrases “incentive fee” and “incentive award” to describe the $33,000, but a review of the city’s contract with Central Parking describes those payments as “as compensation for its management services.” The Sun used the language in the contract rather than Elliott’s terminology, which both referred to the $2,750 monthly payments, totaling $33,000 in the last year. The expenditure is a line item in the city’s budget titled “Management — Fee & Incentive
In yesterday’s Sun Political Column I read this item:
CITY COUNCILOR Rodney Elliott repeatedly used the term “incentive fee” or “incentive award” on Tuesday night when talking about the $33,000 paid to Central Parking System annually in $2,750 monthly installments. Except the word “incentive” appears nowhere in the contract, which a review by City Solicitor Christine O’Connor confirmed.
Asked if he was using the word “incentive” to hint that Central Parking was getting rewarded by the administration for good performance, Elliott responded that he wasn’t playing word games.
He says he goal was to recoup the money from the line item for $33,000 in the parking budget titled “Management — Fee and Incentive.”
That $33,000 is the fee paid to Central Parking as “compensation for its management services,” known as a management fee. Elliott told The Column. City Manager Bernie Lynch told The Column Friday that to his knowledge no incentive fee has been paid to Central Parking.
Neither Lynch nor O’Connor told Elliott during the meeting that “incentive” doesn’t appear in the contract. Asked why he did not correct Elliott’s terminology, Lynch said he wanted to verify the terms of the contract.
Lynch said the “incentive” budget line was created by the city auditor in 2004 and he does not know why it was titled that way.
It struck me funny that they would mention that Sunday yet Reporter Lyle Moran who was at the meeting and wrote a story for Wednesday’s Sun never mentioned it and in fact used the proper term not the term Councilor Elliot used.
Council wants $33G parking fee recouped
By Lyle Moran
City Councilor Rodney Elliott’s motion to have Lynch examine rescinding the management fee paid to Central Parking System of Nashville, Tenn., came weeks after it was revealed a Central Parking employee allegedly stole close to $38,000 from the city’s parking kiosks last year and possibly years prior.
“We award money on a monthly basis to a company that stole money from the city of Lowell,” said Elliott. “We should pursue it and pull it back.”
So did Moran correct Elliot out of friendship or did he take part in what is apparently a new practice in journalism in which they allow the people they are interviewing to get a look at their own quotes before publication and censor them.
The New York times had a story on this new trend today and BU Prof. of Media Chris Daley has a BLOG POST on it also.
The budget line item was apparently set years ago and it included both management fees and incentives. Since the costs were listed in the line item, the councilor erroneously interpreted them as incentive awards.
The bigger issue may be the reaction to punish Central Parking, which may not be in the best interests of the City. For one thing the City, through its parking director, made some arrangements in response to the theft, so the City becomes equally culpable in how the matter was settled. Secondly, taking Central Parking out of the mix for future bids may only ensure that the bids are higher, and/or a less experienced firm would take over the responsibility. It is probably better that the City work out an arrangement with Central Parking to properly address the theft and avoid any litigation over the matter, and then going forward open up the request for bids and select the best response.
I would think that going over quotes to make sure they are correct would be good journalistic practice. Sometimes things are lost (or added) in the conversation.
As for clawing back the $33,000, that seems extreme to me, in that the firm, Central Parking, has made us whole, per the City Manager this AM on City Life. I guess one could quibble about interest, in these days of low interest rates from banks, but Central Parking fessed up, paid up and is cooperating in the investigation.
Is it all frustrating? Yes, it is, but the first bad step was our own manager of parking suggesting that Central Parking hire someone. If that isn’t a be-no in Massachusetts Commonwealth contracting, it should be.
Regards — Cliff
Gerry:
Thanks for adding Chris Scott’s “clarification” which is the equivalent of some strange nothing. It basically admits everything in your post. The cub reporter, who lets face it is busy carrying Elliotts jock strap, essentially changed the quotes and context of the discussion of the City Council meeting. What a pathetic excuse for a real newspaper. I wonder if the Costello’s admit that they once owned the paper.
A little note here folks. Reporters research , gather and write the story. Then the editors step and see how much they can screw it up. ( an almost perfect quote from a former Sun reporter)
Shouldn’t the Sun have published a correction and an apology, not a clarification? The reporter altered what occurred at a public meeting. I watched the meeting on cable and was baffled by the reporter’s version. I knew he had changed wording. I now question everything in that paper, particularly if it is written by that reporter since I now know he alters facts and quotes.