Self-congratulatory bombast

Kevin Cuneo, writing in his blog called Readers’ Forum today (which reads like a reject from the “public editor’s column), had better be careful he doesn’t break his arm patting himself and his colleagues on the back, taking all the credit for the agreement among and between the city, county and Millcreek involving the airport runway extension, county appointments to the Municipal Airport authority, sundry golf course facilities and various other convoluted quid pro quos.

There’s a lot of garbled rhetoric in between, but in essence here’s the way Kevin put it in the column entitled A deal takes shape to help remake Erie (Oct. 18, 2007): “In this case, I felt city and county leaders reacted positively to the newspaper's encouragement and criticism, and worked for the general good.”

Kevin’s self-congratulatory bombast derived from his modest notion that “For years on its editorial pages, the Times-News has encouraged such teamwork between the leaders of various local governing bodies.”

Kevin is quick to spin even the most innocuous development consistent with the Erie Times-News’s self-serving editorial policy into an opus grande. But when its editorial efforts fall flat, they are studiously ignored. For example.

In a cogent letter to the editor today, City Council member Jessica Horan–Kunko noted that an Oct. 6 editorial “took issue with a resolution passed by Erie City Council asking Erie Renewable Energy, the proposed developer of the tire-to-energy plant, to voluntarily prepare an environmental impact statement," and proposed instead that one should more appropriately be undertaken by the state.

Ms Horan-Kunko deftly demonstrated how off-base that proposal is: “As the sponsor of that resolution,” she wrote, “I researched the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection permitting process to which the tires-to-energy plant will be subject. According to the DEP, its review will not include an environmental impact statement. It will focus on emissions, erosion and sedimentation, and storm water management. The DEP will not address noise pollution, traffic, the ability of the city to treat the plant's wastewater or fire/disaster procedures,” all functions the editorial wrongly ascribed to the state.

Ms. Horan Kunko added: “Although only the federal government can require it, an environmental impact statement is the most common, widely used and objective process by which to obtain the facts that will help us make an informed decision, balancing private and public interests in job creation with legitimate environmental concerns.”

That more or less equates with what I had written in my blog the day the errant editorial appeared, which follows: “While ’s it’s true the city can’t require the firm to prepare and submit an environmental impact statement (EIS),” I wrote, “contrary to the editorial, neither can the state Department of Environmental Protection.

“Any mandate for an EIS can only come from the federal government under the provisions of the 28-year-old National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA). While the federal government has delegated certain land, water and air protection responsibilities to the various states within their jurisdictions, only the feds can order the sponsor of a project to submit data required under NEPA to designated federal agencies bearing on environmental impacts. It is the U.S. Interior Dept., the lead federal agency, which is ultimately responsible for preparing and issuing an EIS, and may require the sponsor to pay for the costs.”

Good thing Ms.Horan-Kunko didn’t rely on the Times-News’s editorial “encouragement and criticism,” as Kevin put it in his boastful Reader’s Forum column, to formulate her perspective on this key public policy issue.

Kevin concluded the Forum with this stirring pronouncement: “At the newspaper, we cover the news and report the facts. But as a local business, we have a vested interest in supporting the heavy lifting which must be done to ensure a strong, vibrant future for Erie.”

But what he and his colleagues don’t seem to understand is that the facts belong in the news columns, while the newspaper’s vested interests should be restricted to the editorial page. All too often, in the Times-News, they are interchangeably commingled.