El Scott Harrell

Lance Dutson v. WKPA- The Lawsuit Against a Maine Blogger

I received an eloquent email this afternoon concerning (mostly) my decision to not travel to Maine for my family's "leaf-peeping" vacation this year (at least while Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC continues to serve the Maine Office of Tourism (MOT)).  The writer makes some very valid points that I wanted to share with you, Dear Reader, as well as shed some critical fly-on-the-wall observations concerning the initial meeting set up between Mr. Dutson and his opposition; I think it characterizes how this entire matter has been handled from the outset.  The writer's identity has been redacted since I did not seek permission and it is immaterial to the overall conversation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 2:09 PM
To: L. Scott Harrell
Subject: Lance Dutson vs. The Big Guys

Thank you for your thorough coverage of this issue.  While I appreciate your efforts to support Lance, not visiting Maine doesn't punish Dann Lewis or "The Big Guys" - it punishes me, a small business owner who depends on tourism to support my business and pay my employees.  Your decision to "abandon Maine" adds further insult to the injury MOT and Warren Kremer Paino have already done by their misdirected advertising strategy.  Please reconsider your vacation plans - don't throw this baby out with the bath water!

While I might have your ear, I want to clarify a point being made over and over by MDT's Director and WKP.  Both seem to indicate that Lance was "uncooperative" and "unwillingly to participate in discussion" because he (and his lawyer) left the meeting which was supposed to be an open discussion run by the State.  Since I attended that meeting, I feel like I can comment to the "tone" and "feel" of the event.  Lance came into a room, was directed to sit at a table facing Tom McCartin with a tape recorder in between them (Mr. McCartin had, incidentally, already served Lance with his "intent to sue" motion, hence Lance's lawyer's attendance.)  Introductions were made.  Everyone facing Lance was from Warren Kremer Piano or a State sub-contractor.  Sitting immediately behind Lance was Nancy Marshall and her lawyer (remember her-she sent or called Lance's clients and his wife's employer with her now-infamous "Do you know what Lance Dutson is doing" commentary) and the reminder of the room was filled with invited guests of the MOT.  When Lance's lawyer asked the mediator and the state representatives who would be determining what was discussed and what was not going to be discussed, these folks all looked to Tom McCartin!  Lance's lawyer felt like the room was a "set-up" for Lance and determined his client shouldn't participate. If I were in Lance's position, sitting facing someone who is threatening to sue me and behind me is some one who had actively tried to impact my business and my wife's employment and then they put a tape recorder directly in front of me - I would feel like I was in a deposition, not a friendly meeting to discuss the issues!  Yet, Tom McCartin says he decided to move forward with this law suit because Lance's unwillingness to participate in this meeting indicated to him that Lance wasn't interested in hearing any answer to his questions. Tom McCartin and the Director's statements feel at bit disingenuous to me.

Again, thank you for speaking out on this issue.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Outstanding.  I fully understand the writer's point of view and, being a small business guy myself, appreciate being called out so eloquently.  I realize that my decision (if taken up by many others who feel the way I do) would have a deleterious effect on companies (and their employees) that rely upon tourism in Maine.  It cannot be avoided and is part and parcel to my theory that if we hold Warren Kremer Paino's clients accountable for their actions then we will influence change.

My reply is as follows:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: L. Scott Harrell

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:41 PM
To: [redacted]

Subject: RE: Lance Dutson vs. The Big Guys

Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate comments and concerns.  I appreciate your opinion that my decision to abandon Maine hurts those small businesses that rely upon tourism; I agree with you 100%.  However, I believe that my choice is having immediate and intended consequences by getting people like you involved in the argument.  You are understandably concerned with my decision and were at least moved to write me about it; I have received 5 similar emails as well in the last 2 days.  My response to each email is the same I impart with you: 

While my intention is not to hurt your business or its employees, my intention is to make a statement and to apply pressure on those who I feel tacitly approve of WKP’s lawsuit against Mr. Dutson.  Yes, the Director has explained to me that the lawsuit is not in his hands and that this is not an action on behalf of the state of Maine or its citizens, but judging by the tone of his comments to me regarding this matter I have to believe that his feelings are not as neutral as he would have me believe.  I also understand the power of simple economics.  When he (or someone higher up on the Totem pole) says to WKP, “Enough is enough, the press you are receiving reflects negatively upon our state, our tourism industry and is causing unintended consequences to our taxpayers.  We can no longer in good faith honor our contract with you and have no further need of your services if you continue your lawsuit.” this SLAPP will go away.

You as a Maine taxpayer, and more pointedly- a “client” of the MOT, should be angry that consumers of Maine tourism have decided to look elsewhere to spend vacation dollars as a result of MOT’s perceived complicity in the Dutson matter.  My choice is not unique; consumers have influenced organizations for decades by boycotting companies with whom the targeted organization does business.  Does this also affect the boycotted company’s employees?  Sadly, yes… but when those employees eventually speak out to their employers we eventually come to the tipping point where change then begins. 

This is where you complain to the MOT and the DECD that their actions, real or perceived, and the decision to continue to employ WKPA are going to have an adverse effect on you- economically.  I am a concrete example at which to point for evidence.  I spent approximately $4500 in Maine last September and similar amounts in 4 previous trips.

Did you notice that his response to me was not, “Mr. Harrell, we are sorry that you feel this way and we would hate to lose you for reasons that are currently out of our control.  We are aware that a situation currently exists and rest assured that we are doing our best to sort this out as we are able.  We understand your concerns and hope that it does not reflect poorly upon the many wonderful people and opportunities travel in Maine has to offer.  Please let us know how we may accommodate you and bring you back?”  Instead, he responded with unsubstantiated rhetoric and continued to cast aspersions upon Lance Dutson.  THAT should truly make you angry- knowing that your director of Maine tourism was less concerned about losing my business than going on the offense in this matter (and that they have a PR firm on retainer- more of your money- that was not involved in the crafting of his reply).

I look forward to having this matter resolved to your and my satisfaction, [redacted], and returning to Maine when the “powers that be” ensure that companies such as WKPA do not come to represent what your beautiful state stands for and has to offer.  Thank you again for your concern and I wish you the best of luck!

Just a heads up… I am going to include our conversation on my blog but I will leave your name and email address out of it.  I think your “play by play” regarding the MOT meeting speak volumes about this issue.  Your eloquence in presenting the Maine small business point of view is critical to impart upon others who might be interested in the larger issues at work here too.

Warmest Regards,

L. Scott Harrell

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The one thing I did not say to the writer, which I should have, was thank you for making me feel that I will be missed.

Maine Department of Tourism's Response to Free Speech Debate

Being the El Scott Harrell can be both exhausting and exhilarating at times.  I wouldn't consider myself an activist by any stretch of the imagination but when I am inflamed by something, I sink my teeth in and won't let go; it's cathartic.  Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC's (WKPA) SLAPP (my opinion) against Lance Dutson of [his website] has really stood my hair up on end.

One of the most effective ways to cause or create change is to communicate- EFFECTIVELY; that means getting your point across elegantly, emotionally (but remaining devoid of personal attacks) and knowing with whom you must speak or write.

In support of Lance Dutson's cause, I sent the following email to Maine Department of Tourism's (MDT) Director copying the Governor of Maine, the president of Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC (WKPA), Nancy Marshall Communications (MDT's PR firm), and the leaders of the Maine Senate and House of Representatives.

Before you go any further here, Dear Reader, it needs to be perfectly clear that my problem is not really with the director of the MDT; my issue is with Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC's (WKPA) and their choice to hammer on the "little guy."  I include the director in the conversation only because he is helping to pay WKPA's multi-million dollar advertising invoice and at anytime he could simply say, "WKPA, you are putting us ALL in a poor light with your lawsuit and I am afraid that Maine is not going to be able to continue to retain your services as long as you are being counter productive to our ultimate goal, which is to attract visitors to Maine."  Despite our following conversation I still believe him to be responsible, if not complicit, in the run up to WPKA-Dutson matter.

Mathematically the choice is simple for WKP: 4 million dollars and additional potential revenue footed by the residents of Maine or 1 million dollars from a Maine small businessman, which if they prevail in their lawsuit will never collect anyway.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Scott Harrell
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:48 PM
Cc: 'governor@maine.gov'; 'SenBeth.Edmonds@legislature.maine.gov'; 'RepJohn.Richardson@legislature.maine.gov'; 'nmarshall@marshallpr.com'; 'tmccartin@wkpadv.com'
Subject: Travel to Maine- Maine Department of Tourism

Sir or Ma'am,

After reading over all of the national media coverage surrounding the Maine Department of Tourism and your advertising consultant's extraordinary lawsuit against a concerned Maine businessman, I will NEVER visit your state again.  I will travel instead to New Hampshire or Vermont for our regular annual "leaf-peeping" vacations, which we had always enjoyed in Maine.  I will actively urge others to choose alternate vacation destinations as well.

Incidentally, I am further sickened by the prospect that your PR firm may have sent emails to this man's family and clients in an effort to quash the freedom which we hold most sacred, the Freedom of Speech, especially when questioning our own government and its use of our resources and taxes.  “Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.” -- Samuel Johnson

You should be held personally responsible for letting this get out of hand.

Warmest Regards,

L. Scott Harrell
CompassPoint Investigations
In Relentless Pursuit of your Success!
http://www.compasspointpi.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Much to my amazement I received a response from MDT's supervising entity, Department of Economic & Community Development, via the email I sento to Maine Governor John Baldacci, indicating that there would be a sit down in an attempt to mediate the situation between all parties involved- this is outstanding!

I also received the MDT Director's response this morning:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:58 AM
To: L. Scott Harrell
Subject: Travel to Maine

Mr. Harrell-

        It is unfortunate that you have made a decision not to re-visit Maine, based upon the many untruths and distortions put forth by an individual who relishes spreading falsehoods for his apparently personal reasons. His many accusations should be put in context to be seen as a blatant attempt to invoke freedom of speech in an effort to divert attention from his months of slanderous and false comments. This is the type of person who gives all bloggers a bad name. The facts of the matter are diametrically opposed to Mr. Dutson's continuing ranting.

        The overwhelming and solid support of the Maine Tourism Industry for the Office of Tourism and our various contractors may be accessed by anyone who is interested in separating fact from fiction.

       
[redacted]
Director
Office of Tourism
59 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
207-624-7483
{redacted}

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I appreciated the favor of his reply; to say that I was disappointed in his response would be an understatement but after reading so much about this subject and Dutson's version of how he has handled the entire matter, I was not surprised.  Instead of a professional letter, "Thank you for your concern... blah blah blah, we are handling this situation the best way we know how... blah, blah blah, we want to see you back... blah, blah, blah." I received a heaping of rhetoric and additional aspersions on Mr. Dutson's character.  While I certainly understand that every story has 3 sides (his side, their side, and the truth somewhere in the middle) I am more inclined now to believe Dutson's version of the story... this is a very personal matter to Mr. Lewis and through additional discourse with him,  I actually under why: by his own admission, and to his own detriment here, he is not a career politician (though I personally take this as a good thing).

Here is my reply:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: L. Scott Harrell
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:06 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: RE: Travel to Maine

Sir,

As a public official you should understand that you will suffer some criticism; it goes with the territory.  What defines a great public administrator is his or her ability to, serve their constituency, graciously handle criticism and manage people (including subcontractors) working toward a well-defined objective. 

As a prominent private investigator with extensive experience I understand that there are two sides to every story- probably better than most; I certainly don’t need that lecture.  I have read the blogs and news stories; reviewed your website and advertising campaigns (including PPC); and poured through the WKPA lawsuit- in fact I even called the owner of the Bed and Breakfast my family has stayed with every year we have been to Maine and asked her how she felt about the hoopla… she is definitely not a happy camper. 

Raising the question of the First Amendment was of my own device and opinion.  I see the lawsuit exactly for what it is- SLAPP; Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  By not asking WKPA to drop their suit you are tacitly supporting their action.

In the end it is apparent that you have failed to reign in your people or handle criticism.  You have made this a personal crusade rather than a professional one.  If you would have simply shrugged off the criticisms or, better yet, constructively handled them with facts, figures and empirical evidence, I doubt that it would have been blown out of proportion.  Now [the evil] bloggers and news outlets have gotten a hold of the story and you are getting plenty of press- and all of it is negative.

As the director of the MDT, you are ultimately responsible and you should be held accountable for this entire debacle as a result.    I received an email from the Dept. of Economic & Community Development this morning in response to my email to the Governor- since the matter has now been referred to your supervisor for mediation I can only hope that this situation is handled in a fair and professional manner

Warmest Regards,

L. Scott Harrell
CompassPoint Investigations
In Relentless Pursuit of your Success!
www.CompassPointPI.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which I received a speedy reply:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'L. Scott Harrell'
Subject: RE: Travel to Maine

Mr.. Harrell-

    I understand from your latest message that you have a great deal of experience in Government and and didn't need a lecture on two sides of a story! Since you don't know my background, ( I am not a career public servant, but do certainly know that criticism comes with the territory,) I don't need that lecture!

    If you have read Mr.. Dutson's blog from the beginning, you will notice that he has distorted virtually every attempt my department made to respond to what were not clearly articulated questions, but accusations of wrongdoing based on greed, ignorance, or other equally nasty motives. We finally stopped attempting to respond on his blog, but set up a meeting for him with our contractors and the private sector volunteer advisory group from the tourism industry that is aware of all of our activities. Mr.. Dutson and his attorney walked out of the meeting before it started. We later sent him all of the statistics and other data that was gathered in response to what we believed to be his concerns. We deal with various concerns voiced by the tourism industry and politicians on a regular basis, and appreciate their input. This is a small department (6 persons) in a state with a small population. We are easy to contact and have regular meetings seeking both input and to update the industry on our promotional activities. Mr.. Dutson has never chosen to avail himself of these opportunities for discussion.

    As far as my asking WKP to drop their suit, I have acted consistently with the advice of our attorney general's office and other senior agency officials. My actions are consistent with the advice received. It reflects the policy that a contractor with the state does not abandon their rights either as individuals or as companies to protect themselves or to seek relief from slander, false accusations or actual damage from actions by others. Any such dispute is viewed as a matter between those involved, and the state does not have a role for or against such matters. ( If your experience is contrary to such a view, I would be interested to hear it, but I can't say that I can influence the existing policy.)

    We at the office of tourism and at DECD will continue to try to deal with this in a "fair and professional manner" and sincerely hope that it will be reciprocated.

Respectfully,

[redacted]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the end, I understand the interface problem between Dutson and the director- Dutson is speaking out as a citizen and he needed a typical political response at every turn rather than a personal/emotional response.  In truth, the reason Lawyers and Politicians ultimately don't tear each other's throats out is only because they separate emotion from the business at hand.   This is clearly an emotionally charged issue. 

I give the direcotr credit for being passionate and responsive about his business- he could have very easily just deleted my email and went about his day.  I have to believe Dutson wore out his welcome with them.  In the end I thanked him for his response and the conversation and he thank me in return.  If nothing else, I have presented MDt's side of the story.

Again, I don't have a real issue with the director; honestly I could care less about the fight between he and Dutson becuase it is ionconsequential to the Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC lawsuit.  However, the fact remains that the MDT, DECD and the State of Maine continues to utilize the services of WKP and as long as the WKPA lawsuit continues I will be unfettered and undeterred in my support of Dutson and his First Amendment/Anti-SLAPP cause at the risk of being right, wrong or indifferent.

I believe this to be too important of an issue to sit on the sidelines.