A recent series of articles in The Sun highlighted the challenges of covering relationships between business people and politicians - who have the power to award contracts and make deals but whose primary responsibility is the best interests of the state.
The first article, which led the newspaper's June 28 front page, reported that Maryland was spending $4.6 million to help fund a $5 million purchase of 270 acres of Eastern Shore farmland for preservation - despite independent appraisals indicating the land was worth significantly less. The article reported that the property was owned by U.S. Land Alliance, a for-profit conservation company founded by David Sutherland, who was a member of the O'Malley administration's transition team for environmental resources.
The article also reported that the Board of Public Works - which is made up of the governor, comptroller and state treasurer - approved the deal because officials from Queen Anne's County assured them that it was the best option to preserve the land from development. "The sellers would not sell the property for anything less," a county official said.
The next day, O'Malley complained that the article was unfair. In an e-mail to top Sun editors, his spokesman, Steve Kearney, quoted the governor as saying, "I respectfully feel that the story was grossly unfair." Kearney went on to say: "Our overarching objection is simple. The story is framed by the first two paragraphs referring to David Sutherland as a member of Gov. O'Malley's transition team and a member of the transition's environmental work group - implying that he's close to the governor. There were 1,100 members of the transition team, and 150 members of the environmental work group. Anyone who volunteered was signed up. Neither the governor nor anyone on his senior staff knows Sutherland."
In fact, a number of readers had reacted negatively to the O'Malley connection reported in The Sun's article.
Said Dave Waltmeyer Sr.: "How nice, Martin's transition team big shot is the developer and the land is bought for 1 million dollars more than its appraised price. But what really upsets me is that the developer is a big environmentalist and won't sell it for 1 million dollars less to benefit the state and preserve the land."
From A.L. Schneiderman's letter to the editor: "With recent stories of state budget woes and ominous messages regarding revenue enhancements to come, and the threatened increases in utility costs now a reality, special treatment for a member of the governor's transition working group just does not pass the smell test."
In my view, Kearney made good points. The article's emphasis at the top and in the headline ("Price exceeds appraisals for farm owned by member of O'Malley transition team") certainly gave the impression that Sutherland's connection to O'Malley was the crucial element in the story - if not the deal.
Whether the story deserved prominent Page One play is another question. Editors making the decision used the play of a story from October 2006 as a reference. That front-page article reported that during the Ehrlich administration the state had paid a significant sum to save swampland from development. For the sake of fairness, editors thought the Sutherland land deal should receive similar treatment.
The Sun published an Associated Press follow-up article inside the June 29 Maryland section. It noted O'Malley's defense of the deal and quoted Kearney saying that the governor did not know Sutherland and did not receive campaign contributions from him; in it, Kearney also noted the size of the transition team. Kearney did not note that Sutherland was part of a more important 30-member coordinating committee within the 150-member environmental work group.
This fact was reported in The Sun as part of a July 3 front-page, staff-written article, which reported that the Maryland resources secretary, John B. Griffin, had done consulting work for Sunderland's company before taking his current post. Griffin had recommended that the board approve the $5 million purchase of the property. The article also reported that state Comptroller Peter Franchot had asked Griffin to "temporarily postpone" the sale until Griffin could better explain his relationship with Sutherland and why the price exceeded the property appraisals.
Unanswered questions remain. Critics of the deal are noting in e-mails to The Sun that some of the land in question may not be suitable for development because it cannot be connected to the existing sewer system and may not pass septic tests.
In my view, the initial story should have been more comprehensively reported to receive such prominent front-page play. Once the O'Malley administration raised questions, the newspaper should have responded quickly, and not left the follow-up to the Associated Press.
Still, the July 3 article was a big step forward because it shed more light on oversight of state land purchases, a subject important to readers.
Paul Moore's column appears Sundays.