A recent story perpetuated inaccurate and unfair reporting about a trip to New Orleans last year that was sponsored by the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce.
The May 3 story about planned trips to Charleston and China referred to a Nov. 19, 2006, story about last year’s trip.
“A Times-Union review showed the chamber of commerce kept $100,000 of the $361,000 trip costs to pay its own expenses,” the May story said.
Chamber officials have maintained that the $100,000 number is inaccurate and misleading, and I agree.
According to the chamber’s projections at the time, which the newspaper relied on for its Nov. 19 story, the chamber collected $326,005 in revenue to pay for the costs associated with the New Orleans trip. It spent $324,500.
The revenue included about $80,000 from local government funds for sponsorships and to pay for 34 public officials to attend along with more than 100 other business and civic leaders.
The projected expenses included $62,200 in staff time to plan, coordinate and attend the trip and a follow-up meeting on Jan. 31.
In addition to, and separate from, the $324,500 in direct expenses, was an additional line for “Allocation (Indirect Cost)” of $37,200, which includes overhead such as building rent and utilities. Such full-cost allocation is common for not-for-profit organizations. If the overhead of $37,200 was included, the chamber would show a loss on the trip.
“CHAMBER TRIP: WHO BENEFITS MOST?” asked the lead front-page headline. Above that headline was this lead-in to suggest an answer:
“When the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce took its annual leadership trip to New Orleans at the start of this month, tax dollars paid about 22 percent of the bill. But that money covered more than just the basic trip expenses – at least $100,000 of it never left the chamber, even with the four-star treatment on Bourbon Street.”
Below the headline, large numbers informed “What was collected” was $326,005, “What was spent” was $361,739, “Taxpayer cost” was $80,000 and “Chamber keeps at least” $100,000. The $100,000 was in red type.
Based on those numbers, would you wonder how the collected number could be $326,000 and the spent number could be $361,700 and the chamber could keep $100,000?
The $100,000 was arrived at by adding the $62,000 the chamber paid its staff (as part of the $324,000 expense) to the $37,200 in overhead (borne by the chamber and not charged to those who took the trip).
Does that sound like the chamber kept $100,000?
The Nov. 19 story’s second paragraph said part of the $80,000 “went toward chamber … overhead, including utility bills and portions of the rent for the chamber’s downtown office.”
In fact, according to the projections the newspaper relied upon, the $37,200 in overhead was not part of the $324,500 that included the $80,000.
On Nov. 21, a Times-Union columnist wrote “the chamber pocketed $100,000 from the $326,005 it collected from those who participated in the trip.” That statement was at odds with both the Nov. 19 story and the chamber’s accounting.
Following the original story, I pointed out the above-described inaccuracies, and raised other concerns about the story, both to key editors and in a memo available to the newsroom staff.
No corrections or clarifications were forthcoming.
I should have been more insistent or, in the alternative, I should have brought this to readers’ attention earlier. The repetition of inaccuracy on May 3 prompted me to do so.
Managing Editor Mike Richey responded.
“The numbers highlighted, as well as the accounting terminology, made the math confusing,” Richey said of the Nov. 19 story. “There were administrative costs built into the trip price for city officials. Our reporters considered those overhead. The chamber does not. “At the time of our story, the chamber had not taken in enough revenues to realize $100,000.
“But our reporters said a chamber official said revenues from other profit-making operations would make up the difference for accounting purposes. If so, the chamber accounting would make the $100,000 figure correct.”
