|
Joy
Cone a good corporate citizen
Guest Editorial
By David George
Flagstaff Resident
This
is in response to the article regarding Joy Cone Company, entitled,
"Ice cream cone maker fined
for sloppiness." My name is David George and I am the
plant manager of Joy Cone's Flagstaff facility.
Although
I would not describe myself as an avid reader of the Tea Party,
I have read various articles from your paper over the past two
years. I did not always agree with everything in the articles.
However, I was pleased that Flagstaff had an alternative news
source. I think an independent, unbiased, fair, but critical,
alternative news source is important for any community.
Unfortunately, after reading your article on Joy Cone's
wastewater violations, it is clear that Flagstaff does not have such
a news source. While the Tea Party does look at business,
government, and society with a critical eye, I am now wondering how
much it actually researches the facts of an issue. Your
"Mission Statement" reads: "We are an independent
publication that does not shy away from expressing controversial
views and seeking out the truth." Although the first part
may be accurate, the second part, "seeking out the truth,"
is questionable.
I find it perplexing that when researching an article on a
given company, you did not contact the company itself. How can you
possibly "seek out the truth" without bothering to speak
to the major party involved in the issue? Without doing so, how
do you know that you are actually getting all the information you
need to understand truthfully a particular situation? This is a
basic tenant of legitimate journalism. In this case, there are only
three logical conclusions as to why the writer would fail to
contact the subject of this article. One, the writer is perhaps
new and not familiar with sound journalistic practices. Two, the
writer was simply too lazy to bother with thorough research. Or
three, she already had her mind made up, prior to writing the
article, that Joy Cone was simply another business that is bad for
Flagstaff and has not lived up to expectations. This type of shoddy,
biased journalism is the kiss of death of a news organization
interested in the truth.
A typical reader, who had no previous knowledge of the issue
between Joy Cone and the City of Flagstaff would glean the following
incorrect conclusions from the printed version. My
responses follow each:
1) Joy Cone received a gift from the City by paying
"only $2,432" (in fines).
In reality, we will be spending over $200,000 for a
wastewater pretreatment facility. We are doing this despite the fact
that our wastewater flows are extremely minimal. Although we
are classified as an "industrial waste discharger," our
flows are far lower than a typical manufacturer. On any given day,
we have over 70 people working here in a 24-hour period.
Despite this, on average we dump less than 400 gallons a day into
the city sewer. The average manufacturer of this size could be
dumping as much as 10,000 to 20,000 gallons into the sewer. However,
because of our clean operation, we dump very little. This is
factual. In addition, it is my opinion, and the opinion of others we
have contacted in the wastewater industry, that given our low flows
and minor, nontoxic "violations," there is no need for
pretreatment. It would actually be cheaper for us to simply pay
$30,000 in fines. Instead, we will of course put in the
required pre-treatment facility at a cost of $200,000. So,
although we are glad we could work this issue out with the city, we
are clearly not getting away with anything.
2) The "inadequate testing site" is the fault
of Joy Cone Company.
In reality, before construction of our new building, we
submitted our building plans to the City, as would any other
business. Not until February 2000 — just one month before we
opened for business and after our building was completed — did the
City Industrial Waste department inform us of the need for a sewer
monitoring site. They should have and could have done this when we
originally submitted our plans. That is, after all, the whole
purpose behind doing so. By the time they brought this up, our
building was complete and putting in a separate monitoring pit would
be very difficult and expensive. We had absolutely no idea
that we would need a separate monitoring and adjusting site for our
production wastewater. As it stands right now, the only place
that we can monitor and adjust the wastewater is in the same
place that we record data for the City! In other words,
when we test ph, if we get a low reading and then we adjust for it,
it is too late in terms of the recording. The low reading
already counts as a violation, even though we have no other place
where we can test for it and correct it in advance of the
recording site. (Please note, however, that we usually are
able to still adjust for and correct the pH prior to dumping into
the City sewer.) If we had been alerted in advance to the need
for a separate testing site, we would have put one in, so that we
could make the necessary adjustments in advance of the recording
site. As it stands now, we essentially have to do both at the
same time.
Had we been informed of the city sewer requirements, we could
have put in a separate monitoring area just before the data
recording area. We could then make the correct adjustments
before the readings were already recorded.
3) That the low pH readings and high BOD and TSS
readings were simply a result of "sloppiness" on the part
of Joy Cone.
In reality, aside from not submitting some of the monthly
reports, we were not sloppy. These readings were inevitable, given
the testing system in place.
4) That Joy Cone has not lived up to the "high
hopes some in Flagstaff had when the local Joy Cone plant was opened
in 1999..."
This point is the most perplexing. Someone reading only
the printed copy, and in particular the last sentence, would have to
think that the Web site edition would have quotes from people that
were complaining that Joy Cone had not lived up to expectations and
other such data. There is no other way to interpret that last
sentence of the printed version.
In the Web site edition, Lisa Rayner writes, "Joy Cone
hoped at the time that the Flagstaff plant would ultimately have 10
cake cone ovens producing about 1.2 million cones per day..."
Again, the implication is that Joy Cone has failed to live up to
such expectations. In reality, Joy Cone has 15 ovens in our
Flagstaff plant and we can produce up to 1.5 million cones per day.
Further, we will be breaking ground this summer on a new addition
which will more than double the size of our existing plant. We
currently employ over 90 people and will hire even more after our
expansion. All this in just over two years in existence in
Flagstaff. So, far from not meeting the "high hopes"
that some people had for Joy Cone, we have actually exceeded them.
Please note that these figures are facts, not opinion. Rayner
could have found these facts out by simply picking up the phone and
contacting me. Of course, this would have taken some effort, and the
facts might have gotten in the way of what she probably prefers to
believe.
Finally, I found it quite ironic that in the same issue that
Rayner is implying that Joy Cone has not lived up to the "high
hopes" for Flagstaff, there were at least two articles about
the lack of livable wages in our city. Please understand that the
vast majority of "livable wage" jobs in Flagstaff are
supplied by the very industries that your paper routinely attacks.
Of course, the fact that Joy Cone and other industries pay livable
wages does not allow them to abdicate their responsibility to be a
good member of the local community. Nor does it mean that the
company should not be criticized and held accountable for any
transgressions. However, the articles about livable wages simply
lament the dearth of such jobs without noting any of the businesses
that actually provide members of this community with the wages and
benefits they need to support their families, while at the same time
striving to be good and honorable additions to the community. Why is
this? Again, the conclusion must be that the biased slant
against any and all manufacturers supersedes the desire to
"seek the truth," particularly if it is not what the
reporter wants to be the truth.
On a personal note, my wife has donated money in the past to
the Flagstaff Tea Party, which she reads frequently.
Like myself, she supports the idea that an independent, unbiased,
news source is good for Flagstaff. However, given her disappointment
with the shoddy level of journalism displayed in the Joy Cone
article, she now feels she cannot conscientiously donate any more
money to your paper. We are both left wondering what else we
have read in the Tea Party that was inaccurate and only
partially researched. Given the fact that your editions seem to
get smaller and smaller, I cannot help but think that many others
have come to these same unfortunate conclusions.
David George
Flagstaff
Editor's
Note: David George is the manager of the Flagstaff Joy Cone plant
and a member of the George family, which owns the company.
|
