• Re-scheduling of board meetings is usually done for a different day of the week and time than the originally scheduled meeting, making it difficult for board members to re-arrange their schedules.
• Board members are not given the previous meeting’s minutes until the day before or sometimes the day of the meeting.
•  Board members receive an agenda 24 hours or less before the meeting. ·
• Board members are often not given copies of documents before voting, or given little time to review voluminous documents.
• When given documentation – like pay the bills statements – board members are given no context or backup data referring to the work involved.
•  Until the last meeting, minutes were provided verbatim, including public comments and objections. At February’s meeting, and for future meetings, the board is provided only the motions and votes.

SPIN: In the opening paragraph of the Intelligencer Journal on January 13, 2006 ("Gray Gives Nod to City Center") Dave Pidgeon notes that when Rick Gray was campaigning he said he would look at the viability of the controversial hotel/convention center project: “During his campaign last fall, Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray promised to look at whether the embattled hotel/convention center proposed for downtown was viable.”

The article then recounts how Gray was booed nine days earlier on January 4th at the LCCCA meeting at the Farm and Home Center when he was jeered for supporting the project.

Finally, an interview conducted at City Hall on January 12, 2006 with the newly elected mayor is reported.

WATCH DOG: While it is true that Mayor Gray did promise to re-examine the viability of the project when he was running for office, and he was jeered at the Farm and Home Center. What went unreported was that Gray said that if he had a choice on spending $137 million on a convention center or something else, he said he probably wouldn't choose a convention center. But since state money was available for the convention center, he wanted to take it.

But the real news in this article was made during the City Hall interview on January 12. Gray’s comments regarding the convention center authority were buried in paragraphs 12-13, where it is reported: "Gray said there are reasonable criticisms about the project’s lack of public accountability and the amount of money Lancaster County Convention Center Authority has spent since 2000. 'I’m willing to listen,' he said. 'Some of the points are valid. Public money is being spent, and people have a right to know how it’s being spent.'"

To date, the Authority has spent more than $17,300,000, including more than $5,000,000 to the law firm of Stevens & Lee.

SPIN: The second item from the Intelligencer Journal editorial of January 2nd -- "Our 2006 Wish List" -- reads: " A convention center and hotel in downtown Lancaster. The deal's financing structure is far too convoluted, but a conference center/hotel will work." (Intelligencer Journal, January 2, 2006, p. A6)

WATCH DOG: In recent days the monopoly Lancaster newspapers have told us that a market study is not a market study but a feasibility study, and published a letter that maintains a poll by Fox 43 / Opinion Dyanmics Corporation is not a poll but a "push poll." Is the Intelligencer Journal telling us that the convention center is not a convention center but a "conference center," or has it come to its senses in recognizing that the original concept of an area for local gatherings has mutated way out of proportion?

DISTORTION: A letter to the editor of the January 1, 2006, Sunday News, Jack Howell, President, The Lancaster Alliance, describes the "'poll' conducted by Opinion Dynamics for Fox Channel 43 in October'" as a "'push poll,' a political campaign technique in which, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issues is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed.' Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion." He also states "Interesting, isn't it, that one week before the results of this 'survey' were released, Mr. Field wrote in the Sunday News: 'the proposed convention center may not prove viable,' that 'downtown Lancaster is not a suitable overnight spot for transients' and asks, '…how much is put at risk and how questionable the prospects for success.'" (Sunday News, Jan. 1, 2006, pg. P3)

WATCH DOG: Robert Field has built and owns luxury and economy hotels, major apartment complexes, and is currently building mid-rise condominiums and developing communities in Eastern Europe, but has no investment or even had any contacts with Fox Channel 43 or Opinion Dynamics before offering to fund a poll. Jack Howell should direct his accusations at Fox 43 and Opinion Dynamics who authorized the poll and its wording. When the monopoly Lancaster newspapers either ignored or reported selectively from the poll, Mr. Field published the eight survey questions and responses in half page ads in the Intelligencer-Journal and Lancaster New Era to inform the public and allow them to judge for itself. (The other six questions surveyed the demographics of the respondents and did not relate to the Project.) If Mr. Howell and his cohorts took issue with the objectivity of the poll, why has it taken them two months to get around to challenging it? Of course Mr. Field had grave doubts about the feasibility of the convention center / hotel project. Otherwise why would he have spent thousands to subsidize an objective poll and thousands more to give the public access to its results? Unlike others who have already gorged on over $17,300,000 of Convention Center Authority spending and can expect to further feast at taxpayer expense if the Project moves ahead, Mr. Field has nothing to gain except the satisfaction that he is providing accurate information to a community that has consistently been misled about the Project by the monopoly print media which is a partner in the project and others.

DISTORTION:
In reporting a statement made by Robert Edwin Field on December 28, 2005 to the county commissioners concerning the proposed hotel/convention center development, an article in the Intelligencer Journal stated: “[Field] told the county commissioners the study of the project, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, actually was a market study that did not include all the information required for a feasibility study, which is how it has been represented.” (Intelligencer Journal, December 29, 2005)

WATCH DOG:
The article neglects to report that, as substantiation for his assertion, Field provided a six-page detailed analysis from Mark Kenney, MAI, of American Valuation Group, Inc., dated December 22, 2005, that states as follows: “In conclusion, my review of the five reports discussed above indicates that they are meant to be market or marketing studies, and neither are represented as feasibility studies nor include sufficient information or analysis required to be considered feasibility studies.

SPIN:
The New Era reports LCCCA Executive Director David Hixson’s decision to postpone the authority board meeting was because of a “lack of new business.” (Lancaster New Era, Dec. 14, 2005)

WATCH DOG:
The Watch Dog has been told that cancellation of the Authority Board meeting requires approval of the Authority board members, which did not occur. The Watch Dog suspects the meeting was cancelled to prevent audience members from disclosing that there never has been a feasibility study of the Convention Center Project despite such ongoing representations by the sponsors and others.

DISTORTION:
The article states: “[Hixson] said the consultant’s request that the study not be posted on the authority’s Web site did not mean it was withdrawing its support for the project.”

The article repeats the claim that PriceWaterhouse-Coopers “conducted two feasibility studies for the convention center authority, in 2000 and 2002.”
(Lancaster New Era, Dec. 14, 2005)

WATCHDOG:
Hixson continues to refer to the Pricewaterhouse-Coopers report as a feasibility study although the Pricewaterhouse-Coopers describes the report as a Market Study in its title and defines the limited scope of the report in the introduction. Furthermore an examination would show that it does not provide information or the conclusions requisite of any feasibility study, to wit: Focus on a specific project, presentation of anticipated revenues and expenses, setting a reserve for replacement of capital, estimating real estate taxes, generating a year by year financial projections over several years, and estimating funds available for servicing of debt service and return to investors. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers has ample reasons for concern that their reports are being mischaracterized and misapplied.

SPIN: The Sunday News leads its report with: “A brewing controversy over the role of the Stevens & Lee law firm in county government has ended with the resignation of the county's 17-year solicitor, John Espenshade.” (The Sunday News, Dec. 10, 2005)