The front page of Sunday’s Star-Advertiser featured a banner headline and story: “Governor’s aide tied to big donor.”
My reaction: So what?
The basics are laid out in the first paragraphs.
A former contract coordinator for one of Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s largest campaign and inaugural donors is now a community liaison to the governor who does research on state contracts.
Marvin Wong was a contract coordinator for Mitsunaga & Associates, an architectural, engineering and construction management firm with government and private contracts, for more than six years before leaving in December 2009. He worked in operations for Abercrombie’s campaign for governor, helped with the transition after Abercrombie was elected in November, and was hired by the governor as an assistant.
The story reads like an exposé, leading some commenters to throw around terms like “corruption,” and to express anti-Abercrombie views.
But the story actually doesn’t identify any actual or suspected corruption at all, or wrongdoing of any kind. It seems to really be a non-story.
• It doesn’t allege any wrongdoing, either on the part of the governor, the donor (Mitsunaga) or Wong, the aide.
• The story raises no questions about Wong’s qualifications to hold the position. In fact, it certainly seems appropriate that someone who will be strategizing how to roll out the administration’s accelerated CIP program has considerable experience in contract coordination.
• The story notes, way down near the end, that Wong’s job has nothing to do with selecting contractors or awarding contracts. So he’s outside of any potential “pay to play” loop. So why does “pay to play” get inserted into the story?
• The story recounts the campaign support given to the governor by Wong’s former employer, all apparently legal, it should be noted.
• The story reports Mitsunaga & Associates won substantial amounts of construction-related state contracts over the past six years, during a Republican administration. This seems to mean Mitsunaga’s work is good enough for the company to thrive despite prevailing political winds.
Is it a surprise that someone advising on CIP contracts has a background in contracting? Is it a surprise that Abercrombie drew some large campaign donors as well as hundreds (thousands?) of small individual donors? Obviously not.
So, seriously, where’s the beef?
I agree that large campaign contributors can be in a position to unfairly benefit from the administration’s decisions, and it’s fair to be on guard against this kind of favoritism. But the story doesn’t point to anything of the kind. It just insinuates by juxtaposition.
It looks to me like the story was unfair to Wong, and to Gov. Abercrombie.
What do you think?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I kept reading all the way to the end looking for a scandal or some hint of impropriety, but finished with the feeling that the space could have been filled with something more provocative or informative.
From what I see here on ilind.org, this is exactly the kind of guy we need looking over government contracts. A”contract coordinator.”
The public should know where people in the administration come from. As far as the way the Star Advertiser plays its stories — well, this is nothing new. People only get upset if the headline cuts against their guy. There is no outcry if goes against the other side — then it is just tough cookies.
The gatekeeper here should question whether you might fall into the same trap of the newspaper or if you are to be judged differently as a blog.
a defensive argument like this is nothing new, either. Ian makes a good point and backs it up well, regardless of which “side” he is on. Newspapers need to avoid this trap better.
Where’s the beef?
I agree with you. Why did the paper use a large banner headline for the story? When I picked up my paper I thought of a big scandal. I’ve worked as a “contract coordinator (manager)” for the city. I know that an experienced employee is critical to make sure construction projects are processed and evaluated on a continuous basis . Sounds like the writer of the article was seeking to make a story that was larger than the actual facts.
This kind of pile-on reporting brought down Jeremy Harris when there was no wrong-doing ever found in the way city non-bid contracts were awarded. Harris set up civil service committees to do contract review to change the climate at City Hall during the Fasi years. No one reported on the dramatic changes he made. He would have made a great Governor.
I didn’t attempt to sort through the allegations against Harris. But at the time, it struck me as extremely unfair how he was attacked and “tried in the press” during his campaign for Governor.
He would have been the strongest Democratic candidate against Lingle, but some powerful forces within the Democratic orbit were obviously out to destroy him, even if it meant a Republican victory.
You are so right. Sadly, neither of our daily newspapers investigated who was behind the effort to destroy Jeremy. It was the old guard Democrats who would rather have a Republican in power than a Democrat they could not control.
I was very disappointed with the story. I see no evidence of any impropriety, but the headline and the prominent placement of the story on the front page cry out “SCANDAL” and “CORRUPTION.”
National Common Cause recently had a campaign asking that Federal laws be enacted to bar the government from hiring people with a background in the industry they would then have authority over. I love Common Cause, but the point was absurd. You WANT people knowledgeable about an industry to be involved with oversight of the industry.
There is value in readers/citizens/voters having a “scorecard” of the major players in the administration, with their backgrounds and connections. It would help us scrutinize these folks’ behavior for signs of corrupt practices.
As written, and as trumpeted across the front page as if it were a MAJOR STORY, the article just contributes to cynicism. Citizens NEED to be “skeptical,” but not to be “cynical.”
Congratulations, Star-Advertiser, you have helped tar the new administration AND undermined the critical thinking skills of your readers at the same time.
Better he should hire someone who supported
Mufi or Duke and opposes his programs?? Sheesh!
I’m still unclear about what Wong was hired to do. Advise the governor on contracts? Wouldn’t the procurement office do that?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Santayana
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/whiff.htm
The story reads like an exposé, leading some commenters to throw around terms like “corruption,” and to express anti-Abercrombie views.
THE HORROR!
From the story:
Mitsunaga & Associates, according to its website, has completed more than $800 million in construction-related projects in the past six years alone.
The firm gave $55,000 to the Abercrombie campaign.
Mistunaga and his wife gave $50,000 to the Democratic Party of Hawaii
Mitsunaga & Associates was also the largest single donor to Abercrombie’s inaugural festivities — at $30,000 — and Terri Otani, Mitsunaga’s office manager, helped with inaugural arrangements.
And now the former contract coordinator for Mitsunaga & Associates will be advising Abercrombie on state construction projects.
So where’s the beef?
But, as the story makes clear, he does not have a role in awarding contracts or selecting contractors. He will advise on a different order of issues involved in planning and organizing a CIP program that will include a number of separate projects. How is that done, in what order, at what pace? I’m guessing those are the kinds of issues he will be dealing with. That’s a very different beast than selecting contractors.
Ian: Agree completely with what you said. Much ado about nothing. Yes, the paper can print whatever it wants and try to sell it as news. But what was really unbelievable about all this was that someone @ the paper thought this this was a really Watergate type story and put it on the FRONT PAGE and ABOVE the real NEWS story of the day – the earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Distorted priorities. But that’s what happens when the goal is not reporting the news, but making money from manufacturing news. The criticism a few weeks ago from a national t.v. reporter about the quality of the Star-Advertiser rings true. In fact, the bell’s been ringing for many months.
I have remained open-minded and read all the comments here. Nonetheless, I am still not convinced that this isn’t a story.
The question remains for all the intelligent thinkers here — do you really believe that this system we have is the best we can do?
Bill,
You posed a question to all the intelligent thinkers here. While we are waiting for them to respond, let me offer an obvious suggestion.
Under our correct system, only a small fraction of a politician’s career is paid for by their salary. For the rest, they need to seek out private underwriting. Or, they must be independently wealthy, a solution (perhaps) for those who believe the rich are the smart ones.
I think public financing of elections, along with equal time opportunities to get their message out to voters, is the proper direction to go.
That and a heckuva lot of transparency, so IF someone gets into a position of influence and uses it improperly, such behavior will be available for public scrutiny.
In the last administration, there were allegations of serious ethical violations which did not receive enough (IMO) media attention. The Abercrombie administration, perhaps in the false hope they will be buying goodwill from Republicans in the future, has declined to investigate any past shenanigans from the Lingle group, just as Obama has ignored numerous illegal actions by Bush administration officials.
A part of the value of alternating administrations from “opposing” parties is that they should tend to check the excesses of the previous administration and restrain their own misconduct out of concern a succeeding addministration will expose their wrongdoing.
Obama, by refusing to prosecute crimes of the Bush administration, has essentially granted a “bi-partisan” acceptance of those practices. Which may prove convenient, as his administration continues to engage in many of the same crimes.
The alleged improprieties of the Lingle administration do not, of course, rise to the level of the crimes of the Bush gang, but by refusing to investigate them, Abercrombie is undermining the deterrent effect of worrying about your misdeeds being exposed by a successive administration. I don’t think that should be his prerogative, as I think it is an inherent “check and balance” safeguard built into the two-party system.
Finally, an important safeguard is for the press and community watchdog groups, to be disciplined in distinguishing between actual misconduct and situations like this one. Elected officials WILL appoint campaign supporters to positions of influence in their administration. That is not inherently “corrupt.”
In the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, the heroine misled the villains by putting a chalk mark on everyone’s door, rendering useless they mark which had been placed on Ali Baba’s door to indicate where he lived.
When the media are too free to characterize political actions and relationships as “corrupt,” they cause citizens to lose our ability to distinguish between truly improper behavior and normal political conduct. Similarly, the view that “all politicians are crooks,” unfairly besmirches the more virtuous among them and helps the true crooks fade into the crowd. It encourages cynicism and disarms skepticism. It is a disservice to democracy.
Oops. I wrote “under our correct system,” when I meant “under our current system.”
I guess I shoulda waited for those “intelligent” people to return after all.
After reading your post, it is pretty apparent that you don’t have any interest in building bridges between partisan divides.
Of course, you are free to have any kind of agenda of you want. But just realize that your partisan hate and demand for warfare against the other side is exactly what the public despises.
And it is this partisan warfare that is the real disservice to our democracy. Perhaps when your witch hunt is finished — your intelligent thinking could be applied to discussing a better system for electing our officials that goes beyond partisanship and dinner tables filled with the wealthy folks who are obviously sitting there for more than just the meal.
What in the world are you talking about???