Nixon's brief Q&A yesterday was marked more by what he didn't say than what he did. We filled in the details.
What did you know and when did you know it?
The bottom line is obviously I think that there could've probably been more precise communication. But the bottom line is it wasn't a secret that there were challenges down there. That’s why those beaches were closed in May and in June, and the slowness of that report, once it came to decision-making situation we said get it out.
What Nixon’s not telling you: The DNR’s record for closing beaches only applies when Nixon appointees aren’t involved, and these particular closures have nothing to with the test results they concealed. Think this isn’t serious? The May 26 test results were the highest ever recorded by the DNR’s five-year study, and in some levels exceeded what the tests are capable of measuring!
Did any other employees in your office know about the report (besides aide Jeff Mazur)?
It’s important to put the entire thing in context. I’m standing here answering your questions. I’m not running anywhere. There had been already a significant number of (news) releases. Already a significant number of beach closures. Already a significant amount of public information already out there.
What Nixon’s not telling you: He didn’t have to run away to avoid answering the question. They had the test results in their hands and decided not to release them – who knew and when? None of the other closures are relevant. They weren’t connected to the Nixon administration or his appointees, and they didn’t coincide with the health threat they tried to conceal. Nixon has been trying to bury this story all along.
Are you prepared to dismiss anyone in your office who knew about this prior to the July release?
Once again, there was a series of tests done before that and a series of announcements before that done at the DNR level.
These were subsequent tests that were done that apparently were communicated to the communication shop, not to the policy shop. It wasn’t brought for a decision on a policy decision.
Once it came to a decision on the policy side, we said get the information out and take the policy decision that needed to be made.
What Nixon’s not telling you: The distinction between communication and policy shops is bogus. Mark Templeton, Earl Pabst, Jeff Mazur, Susanne Medley and Joe Bindbeutel were all involved – and that’s only the names we can confirm so far. Less than half of these people fall into the ‘communication shop’. In either case, this ‘model’ of doing things led to a DNR paralyzed by bureaucratic incompetence.
How many employees in your office knew about the e- coli situation?
A lot of people in Jeff City were reading on the front page of the paper in late May or early June that the beaches were closed by DNR. Those decisions were made properly by that department as part of their regular duties.
So folks understood that there were challenges with the water during late May and obviously during the weeks of June that they were closed.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He didn’t answer the question at all – if they had released the May test results like they were supposed to, it would have been on the front pages. Instead, people were unwittingly entering E. coli infested waters.
But nobody was writing about pollution spread all over the Lake in late May.
When you see the front page of the paper and it says the beaches were closed by DNR order in May and for significant portions of June, those are pretty public actions.
What Nixon won’t tell you: These closures didn’t coincide with the health hazard discovered late in May. The risk to the public wasn’t mitigated at all, and was arguably made worse because people are so used to trusting DNR testing protocols. Can anyone even pretend this process is public and transparent, knowing that Nixon staffers and appointees lied to cover this up?
Is your office covering up its involvement of a decision in late May not to release these results?
Absolutely not.
What Nixon won’t tell you: They’ve already tried to – repeatedly.
(DNR spokeswoman) Susanne Medley had several discussions with (Nixon aide) Jeff Mazur and one time met to talk about the e-coli issue. Did he relay that information to anybody else?
I’m not exactly sure.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He’s had weeks to come up with a politically viable answer to this one but he’s still stumped. This answer is a delay measure and nothing more. In the meantime, his Administration had no problem lying to buy itself some time.
Do you want to know?
Clearly. We're in a situation in which for a number of times there were reports that indicated the water didn’t meet state quality. That is why with the authority that they have the Department of Natural Resources made the decision to close those beaches in May and for a significant portion of June.
They have that authority to do it. We pressed them forward to do it.
When a series of samples were taken later, there was discussion between the press shops, and I think we've all said they could have been more precise about what those communications were.
Once those communications came to a policy, to our office, we said release it and release it immediately. I think all of the documents and all of the information clearly shows that’s exactly what happened.
What Nixon won’t tell you: They would have closed those beaches anyway because it’s their normal protocol. In the one case where Nixon staffers got involved, Nixon had them cover up the test results. Not a great track record.
What do you say to Missourians about how situations like this will be handled in the future?
We need to clean up the Lake of the Ozarks. And we need to get into a pattern of making sure that we improve that water quality and at times that we have seen challenges down there.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture.
The bottom line is it’s a valuable resource. It’s an important tourism resource, and we need to make sure as we move in the future, we’re working to improve the quality of that water.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He won’t hold anyone responsible for abusing the public trust and exposing Missourians to a health hazard – unless it helps him escape this political mess, and then they’re gone.
What did you know and when did you know it?
The bottom line is obviously I think that there could've probably been more precise communication. But the bottom line is it wasn't a secret that there were challenges down there. That’s why those beaches were closed in May and in June, and the slowness of that report, once it came to decision-making situation we said get it out.
What Nixon’s not telling you: The DNR’s record for closing beaches only applies when Nixon appointees aren’t involved, and these particular closures have nothing to with the test results they concealed. Think this isn’t serious? The May 26 test results were the highest ever recorded by the DNR’s five-year study, and in some levels exceeded what the tests are capable of measuring!
Did any other employees in your office know about the report (besides aide Jeff Mazur)?
It’s important to put the entire thing in context. I’m standing here answering your questions. I’m not running anywhere. There had been already a significant number of (news) releases. Already a significant number of beach closures. Already a significant amount of public information already out there.
What Nixon’s not telling you: He didn’t have to run away to avoid answering the question. They had the test results in their hands and decided not to release them – who knew and when? None of the other closures are relevant. They weren’t connected to the Nixon administration or his appointees, and they didn’t coincide with the health threat they tried to conceal. Nixon has been trying to bury this story all along.
Are you prepared to dismiss anyone in your office who knew about this prior to the July release?
Once again, there was a series of tests done before that and a series of announcements before that done at the DNR level.
These were subsequent tests that were done that apparently were communicated to the communication shop, not to the policy shop. It wasn’t brought for a decision on a policy decision.
Once it came to a decision on the policy side, we said get the information out and take the policy decision that needed to be made.
What Nixon’s not telling you: The distinction between communication and policy shops is bogus. Mark Templeton, Earl Pabst, Jeff Mazur, Susanne Medley and Joe Bindbeutel were all involved – and that’s only the names we can confirm so far. Less than half of these people fall into the ‘communication shop’. In either case, this ‘model’ of doing things led to a DNR paralyzed by bureaucratic incompetence.
How many employees in your office knew about the e- coli situation?
A lot of people in Jeff City were reading on the front page of the paper in late May or early June that the beaches were closed by DNR. Those decisions were made properly by that department as part of their regular duties.
So folks understood that there were challenges with the water during late May and obviously during the weeks of June that they were closed.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He didn’t answer the question at all – if they had released the May test results like they were supposed to, it would have been on the front pages. Instead, people were unwittingly entering E. coli infested waters.
But nobody was writing about pollution spread all over the Lake in late May.
When you see the front page of the paper and it says the beaches were closed by DNR order in May and for significant portions of June, those are pretty public actions.
What Nixon won’t tell you: These closures didn’t coincide with the health hazard discovered late in May. The risk to the public wasn’t mitigated at all, and was arguably made worse because people are so used to trusting DNR testing protocols. Can anyone even pretend this process is public and transparent, knowing that Nixon staffers and appointees lied to cover this up?
Is your office covering up its involvement of a decision in late May not to release these results?
Absolutely not.
What Nixon won’t tell you: They’ve already tried to – repeatedly.
(DNR spokeswoman) Susanne Medley had several discussions with (Nixon aide) Jeff Mazur and one time met to talk about the e-coli issue. Did he relay that information to anybody else?
I’m not exactly sure.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He’s had weeks to come up with a politically viable answer to this one but he’s still stumped. This answer is a delay measure and nothing more. In the meantime, his Administration had no problem lying to buy itself some time.
Do you want to know?
Clearly. We're in a situation in which for a number of times there were reports that indicated the water didn’t meet state quality. That is why with the authority that they have the Department of Natural Resources made the decision to close those beaches in May and for a significant portion of June.
They have that authority to do it. We pressed them forward to do it.
When a series of samples were taken later, there was discussion between the press shops, and I think we've all said they could have been more precise about what those communications were.
Once those communications came to a policy, to our office, we said release it and release it immediately. I think all of the documents and all of the information clearly shows that’s exactly what happened.
What Nixon won’t tell you: They would have closed those beaches anyway because it’s their normal protocol. In the one case where Nixon staffers got involved, Nixon had them cover up the test results. Not a great track record.
What do you say to Missourians about how situations like this will be handled in the future?
We need to clean up the Lake of the Ozarks. And we need to get into a pattern of making sure that we improve that water quality and at times that we have seen challenges down there.
I think we need to look at the bigger picture.
The bottom line is it’s a valuable resource. It’s an important tourism resource, and we need to make sure as we move in the future, we’re working to improve the quality of that water.
What Nixon won’t tell you: He won’t hold anyone responsible for abusing the public trust and exposing Missourians to a health hazard – unless it helps him escape this political mess, and then they’re gone.
Comments