It's safe to say that Charles Heatherly is not a fan of Richard Moore.
In a guest column in the Durham Herald-Sun Saturday, the former deputy state treasurer questioned the Democratic gubernatorial candidate's handling of the state pension fund.
"Despite Moore's frequent claims that North Carolina's pension trust fund is the second best funded in the nation, there is evidence that this claim may be overly optimistic," he writes.
It is not the first time Heatherly, who retired in 2001, has raised questions about Moore.
* In an Oct. 14, 2002, guest column in the N&O, he argued that the pension fund is not "sound" and attributed gains to Moore's predecessor, Harlan Boyles.
* In a Jan. 9, 2004, guest column in the N&O, he called Moore's TV ads for the state's unclaimed property fund "thinly disguised political ads."
* In a March 3, 2006, guest column in the N&O, he criticized Moore's political fundraising and called reports on the pension fund "overly optimistic."
He's also been quoted on those issues in several news articles.
Comments
Re: Heatherly hits Moore again
February 18, 2008 - 3:07pm — ryanteaguebeckwith (author)That's a bit of a complicated question, but one that we will address in the coming weeks. Thanks for reading!
— RTB
Re: Heatherly hits Moore again
February 18, 2008 - 2:02pm — dahedgehogRTB,
Thank you for pointing us towards an op-ed that is relevant news in the Dem race for governor. Many of us don't read the Durham Herald-Sun, and probably missed it.
I have one problem, however. You give voice to Heatherly's quote that "Despite Moore's frequent claims that North Carolina's pension trust fund is the second best funded in the nation, there is evidence that this claim may be overly optimistic." This is a claim that would seem to lend itself to some journalistic scrutiny. Are Heatherly's claims valid? Is NC's pension fund the 2nd best funded, or not? On factual issues like this, a journalist should clarify things. Instead, you're offering a he-said, she-said approach that just muddles the issue for those of us who can't take the time to perform the analysis needed to weigh the competing claims. Ideally, your blog post would provide information as to whose claim is the more valid, thereby leaving your readers more well informed than when they were before reading your piece. Unfortunately, I've come away from your blog more confused than more informed.