Dayton Daily Publisher: Republican Shill

(UPDATE: Visit Daytonology for more on the DDC and their partisan leanings.)

Mike Turner's wife, Lori, CEO of Turner Effects, pulled the company out of the Dayton Development Coalition's marketing effort yesterday.

Tom Beyerlein of the DDN has done a terrific job of reporting on this story. So it's unfortunate that Lori Turner took a cheap shot at him in her resignation letter, and it's also unfortunate--disgusting, actually--that Doug Franklin, publisher of the DDN and Beyerlein's boss, decided to carry water for the Turners by defending them in print.

(However, Beyerlein missed a major aspect of this story: Turner was recently turned down for a seat on the House Appropriations Committee. More on that in a sec.)

Turner went after Beyerlein personally, accusing him of in accurate reporting. Today's front page story includes the following quote from Turner's letter to the DDC:

"During the past several weeks, the Dayton Daily News has knowingly and publicly misrepresented my involvement in the Dayton Development Coalition community branding process..."

That's a cheap shot, especially since, as Beyerlein notes in the article, she doesn't specify how she was misrepresented, and she didn't respond to his calls for comment. Without defending her accusation, Lori Turner's assertions are little more than playground name calling.

But what disturbed me most about the article wasn't Lori Turner's predictably weak facing saving parting shot, it was Publisher Doug Franklin's ridiculous quote defending the Coalition.

Franklin said: "I think everybody involved has been well-intentioned to advance the Dayton region. And while everything was done aboveboard, I think people have to understand there was a perception — and I emphasize perception — of conflict."

It's interesting that Franklin's quote is inserted in this manner. There's no context, no lead in, such as, "asked about the conflict, Franklin said," etc. Since Franklin is Beyerlein's boss, it leads me to wonder whether Franklin's comments were inserted at his instructions. There's no way to know, since Beyerlein isn't going to say, but the simple lead in of "Franklin said:" is curious, to say the least.

It's also curious because the publisher of the DDN is going out of his way to defend the Turner's actions in the quote. "I emphasize perception." Well, sorry to disagree with you Mr. Franklin, but it isn't simply a matter of perception. Maybe you should read your own paper, and start with Mary McCarty's excellent column on the subject:

But these circumstances are far from ordinary. In 2006, the Dayton Development Coalition chose — without competitive bidding — the Turner Effect as the lead branding contractor. The company has been paid more than $300,000 so far. Former Development Coalition staffer Evan Scott, who coordinated the project, explained that the Turner Effect was "the only local firm with the capacity to do the job."

Really? Dayton is so small-town there's only one competent marketing firm? Kind of goes against the branding concept, doesn't it?

"That argument is ludicrous," said M.J. Leman, president of the Beavercreek-based Implications marketing, communications and Web development firm. "And it's flat-out inexcusable that it was not put up for bid, when there are several good firms with more expertise in brand design or brand strategy. They had to know it was going to create the appearance of being a slush fund for Mike Turner."

Hiring the congressman's wife, Leman said, provides exactly the wrong kind of branding for the Miami Valley: "It tells people you have to have connections to make it in this town."

Turner Effect's choice for the campaign is a problem because the DDC lobbies Turner on behalf of the community. And with community development the wealthy benefactors of the DDC benefit. That isn't the perception of a conflict of interest, it's a real conflict of interest. I don't know Doug Franklin's politics but he seems awfully interested in defending the Turners' integrity. It might have been better if he had let Pete Luongo speak on behalf of the Coalition, even if his company is one of Mike Turner's largest contributors.

If Turner had been selected for a spot on the House Appropriations Committee, which he had sought, the conflict of interest might have drawn more attention, and perhaps that explains the timing of Lori Turner's decision more than the DDN's reporting. The Hill lists Turner as one of the Republicans who had been turned down for the seat. Too bad Turner wasn't asked about this--even though his response would be predictable enough. Or, maybe the timing was based on the fact that the DDN and local bloggers like David Esrati, who has questioned Turner Effect's work in other areas, were getting a little too close to a bigger story.

In a separate piece on the Dems' response, Jane Mitakides said, "They knew there would be political blowback, I think what they misunderstood was the amount of the blowback." The always blunt David Esrati was quoted also: Turner's resignation also "doesn't change the fact that Get Midwest/Be Midwest stinks" as a slogan.

That about sums it up. This whole story stinks.