The wrong response
Published November 6, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, November 6, 2015.
Gov. Pat McCrory’s office issued a weak rebuttal to a damaging story by the state’s McClatchy newspapers, The News & Observer of Raleigh and The Charlotte Observer.
“The McClatchy newspapers, through their distorted headline and cropped photographs, clearly attempted to give the impression that something improper or even illegal was done,” the governor’s office statement said. “Clearly, just the opposite occurred.”
If the defense focuses on a headline and photographs, rather than the substance of the report, it isn’t convincing.
The substance is this: Last year, McCrory helped arrange and attended a meeting for friend and political donor Graeme Keith Sr. with top prison officials. Keith was seeking to renew prison maintenance contracts worth $3 million. At the meeting, Keith said he had given “a lot of money” to political candidates and thought it was time to get something in return.
Prison officials opposed renewing the contract, the newspapers reported. The governor did not order any action, instead asking his budget director, Lee Roberts, to review the matter. Eventually, Keith’s contract was renewed for one year. The newspapers reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into what happened.
The governor’s office complained that the headline, “McCrory held meeting to extend donor’s contract,” was “absurd and false.” The newspapers stand by the headline’s accuracy. While the contract was not extended or renewed at the meeting, that seemed to be its purpose from Keith’s standpoint.
The governor’s office also objected to a photograph that showed McCrory and Keith together but cropped out two other people.
“If that’s what the governor found objectionable, we make no apologies for being sensitive to two people who had nothing to do with this issue,” Charlotte Observer Executive Editor Rick Thames wrote.
The governor’s response does not show that nothing improper or illegal was done. More investigation is needed to make such determinations. The appearance of impropriety is strong, however. If the governor arranges a high-level meeting on behalf of a donor who wants a state contract, that looks like the sort of pay-to-play access that has gotten politicians, such as former Democratic House Speaker Jim Black, in trouble in the past.
It may be that Keith made the best proposal and, by an objective analysis, deserved the contract. The state and the taxpayers might have gotten the best possible deal. But were any other bidders given a chance to meet with top prison officials and the governor to discuss the maintenance contract? Was the door open to all, or only to those with the right political connections? Those are equally important questions.
This is a reminder that campaign contributions are sometimes made with ulterior motives. Most donors may give just for the purpose of electing the candidates they believe can best serve the public interest. But some may donate with the hope or expectation of getting something in return.
The governor should recognize the difference.
