"All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions of a new beginning."
The Non-Stick Governor
Posted 11:42 p.m., June 2, 2004
|
Has anyone else noticed our governor's faint resemblance to Harry Houdini? Not physically, of course, but as an escape artist.
In just the latest example, Gov. Tim Pawlenty again escaped serious scrutiny when news broke in late May about New Access Communications--the telecommunications firm with ties to Pawlenty that agreed to pay $2 million in Minnesota and nine other states to settle charges of deceptive sales practices.
While the story got front-page treatment in both the major metro newspapers, and Pawlenty's involvement in New Access was mentioned in both, his failure as a board member to oversee questionable slamming practices--switching customers' phone service without informed consent-received no close examination.
Instead, the Star Tribune, in the opening paragraphs of its May 28 story, allowed Pawlenty, through a spokeswoman, to repeat assertions that the governor was "not involved in this at all," while winsomely hoping that "it's a fair settlement for everyone involved."
The Pioneer Press' lead paragraph that day didn't mention Pawlenty at all, calling New Access a company "known for its legal troubles and past business ties to some of the state's highest-profile Republicans." Pawlenty is not mentioned by name until the sixth paragraph. (A May 27 story on the Pioneer Press's Web site mentioning the 10-state settlement does mention the governor in the lead.)
To be fair, by May 28, 2004, Pawlenty's ties to the New Communications fiasco were old news. To take fairness even farther, deep into the May 28 Star Tribune story, the governor's involvement is discussed. But a case can be made that the Pawlenty angle in the story gets short shrift because, as in so many matters where this governor is concerned, the local media has routinely let such trails grow cold.
One notable exception was a report by WCCO-TV's Pat Kessler, whose tough-minded "Reality Check" piece about the New Communications scandal, aired July 17, 2003, laid out pointedly valid questions about Gov. Pawlenty's role as a board member of New Access' parent company, NewTel Holdings.
The Kessler piece acknowledged that, as the governor had said, Pawlenty did not oversee day-to-day operations of the company under investigation. But Pawlenty did serve as one of only three directors of NewTel, which under primary owner Elam Baer, owned 80 percent of the subsidiary.
It also mentions that Pawlenty earned $54,000 as a legal advisor from yet another Baer telecommunications concern, Access Anywhere, while he was running for governor. Pawlenty formed his own company, BAMCO, to handle the work, but failed to list the earnings on his financial disclosure forms, referring to the money as an "investment," not income.
This is not to accuse the local media of a pro-Pawlenty bias. In the case of the traditionally liberal Star Tribune, such an assertion would be laughable. But it is valid to wonder why the governor seems to be getting a pass when it comes to accountability.
For instance, the Campaign Finance Commission finding of "no probable cause" to believe Pawlenty was required to disclose his Baer compensation on campaign disclosure forms doesn't mean there is no question left to be pursued. Perhaps the financial disclosure law is faulty, and Pawlenty simply took advantage of a gaping loophole?
Why does this governor rate such easy treatment? Is it simply because the governor has such a friendly, jocular touch with the capitol press corps? Is it a hangover from the rancorous, jackal-baiting Ventura years? Is it a case of waiting to turn the hounds loose until after he reaches a second term-when public opprobrium one way or the other won't affect a reelection's outcome, a traditional media allergy?
Whatever it is, here are just a few questions about this governor it would be good to see asked and answered:
- Isn't a holding company supposed to have oversight over its subsidiary concerns? And if the governor wasn't exercising an oversight role with NewTel, how exactly did he earn his money? The governor's limp assertion that he doesn't remember is an insult to the public's intelligence, yet the press largely seems to have swallowed it.
- Why did the governor get a pass after claiming that Access Anywhere was not related to NewTel, even though FCC records show Baer is that company's CEO and that it purchases line access from New Access?
While we're at it, here are a few other questions:
- Is it really plausible that Pawlenty did not know that his nominee to head Public Safety, Rich Stanek, had a race-baiting skeleton in his closet--even though the two served in the Legislature together and the issue came up during a Stanek's political campaign? If Pawlenty really was clueless, doesn't that raise critical questions about his preparation and vetting process?
- Why did the governor not do more to bridge the partisan gulf between embittered Democrats and Republicans during the failed legislative session just passed? Why did he refuse to work with the moderate-minded former Republican, the DFL's Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, to resolve the impasse, rather than continue to act as his party's de facto partisan whip?
- Why did he not speak out against the shoddy treatment meted out against Rochester's Independence Party Sen. Sheila Kiscaden, booted from the Republican caucus for the crime of thinking for herself?
- Why did he waste time spouting right-wing, anti-gay rhetoric on the capitol steps at exactly the moment when his negotiating force was so badly needed to get a bonding bill passed? (To its credit, the Star Tribune editorial page recently raised this very question.)
Remember, this is the same man who got busted for helping Republican Party operatives break campaign finance laws with an illegal campaign ad in 2002, then claimed not to have known about it--despite fighting with the Campaign Finance Board to have the complaint rejected. When he lost his case, Pawlenty simply blamed consultants. He took no responsibility, and was not really held accountable for that imbroglio, either.
Anyone see a pattern emerging?
It's fairly odd that the governor is eluding the media klieg lights, given the hot-pursuit approach news crews brought to bear on former governors Ventura, Carlson and Perpich, to name just three. This governor who vowed "accountability" during his campaign and afterward--at least for teachers, bureaucrats, the Transportation Department, state employees and others--is not himself held accountable.
Again, this is not to say that the local media have a bias in favor of this governor. There's no reason to doubt that sound editorial judgments lay behind most decisions to tread lightly with this popular governors. (Though not so very popular, if the polls are to be trusted; Pawlenty's approval rating currently stands at just 54 percent, according to a recent Pioneer Press/Minnesota Public Radio survey. Another 32 percent rated the governor as doing a "fair" job.)
But I'll pose this challenge to the Fifth Estate: Tim Pawlenty has been in office for a year-and-a-half now. Think it's time to end the honeymoon?
-- Kevin Featherly
|