Reporters see public authorities as having no legitimate need for marketing or lobbyists

Channel 13 TV in Houston has been touting an "undercover expose" of the Metro transit system and ads it is running trying to get more riders. The ads of course talk about high gasoline prices and the cor lobbyistsonvenience of Metro's buses. It's an entertaining expose of what seems an expensive bit of marketing, and pretty silly, but an underlying theme of the reporters is that marketing by a government owned business is illegitimate. It's "your money" and you should be indignant about it being spent on marketing the service.

see http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=investigative&id=5675643

Also in Florida the St Petersburg Times is beating up on the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority for hiring a lobbyist:

Under the headline

"Expressway agency wants new lobbyist"

the article leads off:

"TAMPA - The Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority, criticized by state auditors last year for having a paid lobbyist, voted Monday to consider hiring a new one.

"The board members who oversee Hillsborough's toll road agency say they know they're wading into potentially controversial territory and want to proceed with caution..."

But why should it be controversial for a toll operator to employ a lobbyist?

These days governments are constantly legislating in ways which impinge on the interests of business, including publicly owned businesses like state tollroads or transit agencies. They legislate grants, restrictions, taxes, environmental controls, all kinds of stuff that affect business. Organizations that are in business, if they are to stay in business and serve their customers and their shareholders need to employ people who specialize in following government and in speaking up for them to legislators and their staffs.

In the case of Tampa last year John Beck longtime lobbyist for the local toll authority got caught up in a Republican/Democrat power struggle on the board of directors during which he was accused of all kinds of innocuous behavior - like charging expenses for attending Team Florida, the state get-together of toll agencies.

The Tampa authority was also the subject of a silly nit-picking little report from a state auditor who argued that since the authority could not cite specific legislative authority to hire a lobbyist the hiring of a lobbyist was illegal. This is as ridiculous as the argument that since the legislation establishing the toll authority doesn't give specific authority to hire an engineer the hiring of an engineer is illegal. Or that since bathrooms aren't specifically allowed for toll collectors in enabling legislation, their construction is illegal.

Instead of laughing off the silly auditor reporters have constantly invoked his report as somehow authoritative on the lobbyist hiring issue.

They expect the toll authority to deal with legislators deaf, blind and dumb?

The same is happening in Texas with TxDOT's "Keep Texas Moving" website and other marketing materials. They are under attack as an improper and wasteful effort at both marketing and lobbying.

see http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/

Here we have a government department given legislative authority for operating most of the roads of a large state yet finding itself in a financial crunch and trying to innovate and find new sources of capital to serve motorists.

The critics don't want TxDOT to explain what it is doing and why?

To explain properly to a public and politicians with a limited attention span takes professional expertise and money. We thought TxDOT didn't do nearly enough early enough to explain themselves early in the debate on new toll financing, and that as a result there was a public policy debate there based in unnecessary ignorance, emotion, rumor and speculation.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission apparently spent millions of dollars earlier this year fighting the Governor's plan for privatizing the Turnpike. Their materials contained a lot of rubbish, we thought, but it is part of how democratic government works to allow organizations to mobilize their case and explain themselves, but they were criticized for that.

If the organizations in question were privately owned it wouldn't occur to commentators to question the legitimacy of hiring marketing and lobbying people. It's normal and therefore expected in the private sector. But for government owned operations it is somehow unacceptable.

COMMENT: That's an indefensible double standard.

TOLLROADSnews 2007-09-26