Determination 133: Minnesota Department of Transportation v. Star Tribune
On March 15, 2002, the Star Tribune published a news story about Department of Administration officials who questioned MnDOT’s legal and ethical behavior in awarding contracts for work on the intersection of Hwys. 55 and 62, associated with the light-rail project. An Administration official, Kent Allin, was quoted as saying, “The culture of MnDOT is to act the bully, throw one’s weight around, villainize anybody who stands in your way and not worry about wasting tax dollars.”
Complaint: 1. The headline “MnDOT contracts called illegal” did not fairly reflect the facts of the situation or of the published story. 2. The page-one placement of the headline was sensational, inflammatory and misleading, in that it implied a pattern of wrongdoing that the facts did not justify. 3. The news story listed items and quotes that make serious allegations of wrongdoing are not backed up by facts. 4. The news story is unbalanced, and it unfairly sides with MnDOT ’s critics in the Department of Administration. 5. Reporting on the independent audit was incomplete and did not reflect audit’s findings that MnDOT contracts were made within legal and ethical bounds under both state and federal law.
Response: The Star Tribune says its headline and story accurately reflected what officials charged with exercising oversight of MnDOT activities had alleged. The newspaper says the headline and the story draw attention to “a dispute over the behavior of the state’s transportation department, which spends millions of dollars of public money annually [which] is important and is of interest to the public. The Star Tribune did not raise this dispute. It was raised by the public officials. The community should expect its newspaper to cover it.”
The Star Tribune also said that the audit did not conclude that MnDot’s contract awards were clearly legal and ethical. The newspaper says the audit warned that “there were grounds for further inquiry regarding a number of allegations suggesting that MnDOT, in certain instances, had failed to adhere to best contractor bidding and selection practices, or had failed to exercise adequate management oversight after contracts were awarded.”
Discussion: MnDOT Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg criticized the Star Tribune’s reliance on “a few Department of Administration employees with a clearly vested interest” in protecting their power to exercise control over MnDOT contract awards.
Chris Ison, Star Tribune projects editor, said that when MnDOT ‘s Tinklenberg cited the audit’s conclusion that the agency was in the clear, “he left out the opening phrase that said, ‘generally speaking,’” MnDOT’s activities were above board. Ison said the audit went on to cite allegations that needed investigation of serious problems in the awarding of contracts.
Pioneer Press Editor, Vicki Gowler, supported MnDOT’s challenge to the Star Tribune headline: “The Pioneer Press talks a lot about putting both sides in the headline [and the sub-headline]. I would have done it differently [from the StarTribune].” MnDOT’s view did not appear in a headline until the continuation of the story on an inside page.
Many News Council members said they felt that readers were quite able to sort out the various contentions in the story. Tony Carideo, a former Star Tribune staff writer now in public relations, said, “The state’s customers are taxpayers and citizens. The oversight responsibility of the media for an agency spending so much money and dealing with public safety is the overriding factor in my thinking when I look at this story.”
Reed Anfinson, publisher of the Swift County Monitor-News said if the outcome of the story was to get two state departments to clean up their process, it is a public service.
Vote:
Complaint 1: not upheld (9-3)
Complaint 2: not upheld (11-1)
Complaint 3: not upheld (11-1)
Complaint 4: not upheld (10-2)
Complaint 5: Not upheld (8-4)
Tags: Star Tribune