In the February 2006 issue of TRAINS, both the editiorial, by Wrinn, and Don Phillips’ column, discussed the firing of David Gunn. Seldom do two newsmen see things in the exact same light. However both Wrinn and Philips’ comments about Gunn are seen in the same light. Both men have clearly seen David Gunn as one capable of leading Amtrak, and according to Phillips, as, “Saving Amtrak.”
Phillips opening comments contain, “The man who brought professionalism, openness, and honesty to the U. S. passenger operation, David Gunn, is gone.” Gunn’s firing was not about a lack of honesty, or competence. Wrinn praised Gunn’s, “. . . high level of skill, determination, and knowledge.” Phillips points out that Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transporation, has used, “strange and often exaggerated and inaccurate statements.” (As we have seen in a recent edition of TRAINS magazine.) Attacks on Gunn have contained, " . . . hints, innuendoes, and exaggerations" according to Phillips. Gunn’s firing was not based upon his record of improvement, Amtrak’s improving ridership, or Gunn’s policy of fiscal responsibility or financial planning.
Therefore, WHY was Gunn fired? “Without a doubt, passenger railroading is under attack from the Bush administration,” stated Wrinn. Phillips concluded, “So the political process has dumped a good railroader who made a big difference.”
In a nutshell both men agreed, POLITICS was at the heart of Gunn’s dismissal. As Phillips concluded, “how sad.”
I’m not particularly bright, but saw that handwritting on the wall a LONNGGGG time before it happened.
What I didn’t know was when it was gonna happen, but “why” was never a doubt.
He knew more about doing the job than the political hacks who were trying to strong arm him did. So THEY HAD to get rid of him, and replace him with an entity they can more easily control.
This is an administration that has no credible plan for investing and improving either passenger or freight rail, despite the fact that we are facing a growing mobility crisis on our highways and airways. But we do little good by griping about it on forums like this.
What all of us with an interest in our nation’s railroad need to be doing is contacting our state and federal representatives and letting them known this is a critical issue for both our personal mobility and our national economy. To fail to re-develop our rail resources is to further doom our economy and our own jobs.
Gunn was fired for trying to do things the old way that were proved not to work, he was bullhead and refused to even debate any other ways of running the company. Good thing the board fired him, else amtrak would truely be gone, cause Gunn would have run it into full bankrupcy, as his ways were proven histroically.
AND IF you remember any of the 3 or 4 threads that were started just after Gunn’s firing (one of which was by Modelcar) you will know that I not only asked the readers then to contact their representatives but also listed several addys to help people do so. I think I might find Modelcar’s thread and bring it back. It had those addys which now, again, would be useful.
We can not let this dirty political deed so unopposed. During the other threads some people , and even one in this one, suggested that Gunn was not the right man for the job. I guess anyone can look at the facts and spin stories. The current administration is tops at taking lies and telling us they are truth. Mineta couldn’t even get the ridership facts straight, as we saw in a previous issue of TRAINS But Gunn’s management turned Amtrak around despite the falsehoods stated by Mineta.
I don’t agree with everything Gunn has done. But he made a hugh difference, just look at the facts. Of course, some here, think they are more qualified than those in the industry to tell us how the cow ate the cabbage. [;)]
Your notion that Gunn refused to debate or was totally inflexible is just ignorant. He made massive improvements to every operation that he ran, including Amtrak. In his career, he has been able to bring about dramatic reforms in the face of objections from unions and politicians. That is not accomplished without clear and persuasive arguments based on facts and realistic expectations.
None of the “new ways” found any where in the world have had success without massive infusions of government funds. So long as the United States wants to make military strength and homeland security a priority and spend some $500 billion a year (over 400 times the Amtrak grant), no one should have any realistic expectations that we will have the resources to build a world class rail passenger transportation system. In fact, we don’t really have the resources to keep the transportation systems for the other modes in first class shape.
If you don’t believe the last point, hop in your car, head up I-90 and then take I-43 up to Milwaukee. But first, be sure your exhaust and muffler clamps are tight.
Perhaps you should read the editorial and Don Phillips’ column before you make such statements. Nevermind, let me quote a few lines to correct the misstatements you wrote above. As far as Gunn driving Amtrak into bankruptcy (correct spelling) it is the president and congress who approve and fund Amtrak. Now about that funding, Wrinn states, “Amtrak has been starved for capital, its entire 35-year existence.” Before Gunn took over Amtrak Mr. Phillips stated that “deficits were growing like mushrooms.” Then Gunn took over and was amazed at Amtrak’s lack of financial records. He cleaned house of needless vice presidents and other officials and lead Amtrak toward fiscal responsibility and financial planning. Your statement about Gunn leading Amtrak into bankruptcy is totally false and baseless.
Your statement about him using “the old way that were proved not to work.” Let’s look at the facts. Jim Wrinn, in his ending editorial paragraph wrote, “Apparently, the board did not recognize that Gunn, who helped make successes out of the faltering New York City and Washington D.C., transit systems, was just the man for the job.” Please notice, Mr. Wrinn, said successes not failures.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. However, the facts are truly that, FACTS. Your opinion and the facts just don’t agree. Sorry, but someone has to set the record straight. It has been far too twisted the last 4 or 5 years.
Going back to Jim’s original post and the fact that Jim Wrinn and Don Phillips took the same view of the fireing, I followed responses to the action as closely as I could and found that no more than one in ten agreed with the action of the Amtrak Board. Those who did agree would agree with anything and everything done by the Bush administration.
I think I would place the most value on the opinions of Wrinn and Phillips, before those of some folks on the outside and just looking in. Opinions are fine, but Don and Jim are at least in the trenches and Don is by virtue of his position privy to first hand info.
You’ll be interested to know that Don and I did not compare notes, tone, or facts before we set out to write our respective pieces for the February issue. Each of us wrote independently of the other. Yet we each came to the same conclusion: David Gunn did some tremendous, much-needed work at Amtrak in a short period of time that had an impact on the organization.
Facts eh? Ok here’s the big fact, Gunn admitted that the Board was right in firing him. no one would admit that unless they truelly belived that what they said was truth. Gunn continued to try and run Amtrak on a 19th century model, which has been proven to fail when applied to modern society.
He was given many different plans by various dfferent consultants and every time he refused to look them over and basically said it was his way or no way. After several of these actions, the board determined he was not Running the company in a positive direction. Yes he had turned some of the aspects of the company around, but in the end he was failing to move it forward and transitioning it to a more profitable model relevent to the 21st century.
Sorry, but I can’t stand behind and continue to support a man who says they were right to fire him, that’s like a Murderer standing in front of a Judge and saying “yes i did it and i accept your death penalty”. Gunn admited he was guilty of everything they accused him of, so quit trying to cry foul when even he Knows the truth. Time for all of you to stop Blaming the “Administration” ( kinda getting tired of the “blame the adminisratation” for everything, including parking tickets, philosophy), and accept that thing happen because they’re the right thing to do.
OK, I call your “hand” on this one, show us your “cards.” I just have to see a valid reference on that one. No where have I seen or heard such a statement by Gunn.
I don’t see where you come up with your second statement either. Just, HOW, was Gunn failing? Definately not in increasing ridership as ridership overall is up according to “Amtrak has best year yet”, Trains magazine February 2006. Was it in fiscal matters that Gunn was failing? Not according to the latest financial figures, “preliminary figures show Gunn’s team trimmed operating expenses to $146.8 million below budget–a positive margin of $116.1 million–and managed to end the year with almost $120 million of working capital”, see “As their agendas diverge, Amtrak fires Gunn” Trains, February 2006.
You are certainly going to have to provide some better fiction than you have thus far. Your statements just don’t hold water when compared to the facts.
You are either badly misinformed or do not understand the difference between Board having the legal right to take action and doing the “right” thing. At the House Committee hearing held on the subject of Amtrak Governance held just the week after Gunn was fired, the committee chair and several other congressmen questioned the Amtrak Board’s legal right to fire Gunn. However, when asked Gunn stated that he thought the Board HAD the right to fire him.
As far as consultants go, when Gunn arrived on the property, he found that his predecessor had consultants all over the place. He decided that there were more than enough full time employees to deal with the planning and management of the company and the outside “help” was just a waste of money. By the way, at the time he took over, money was in very short supply and Amtrak was not very far from not having the ca***o pay the help.
Gunn would have liked to bring the company into what you term as a “more profitable” 21st Century operation but he hardly had all the resources necessary to meet that goal. Now I have a challenge for you. Please show me one thing that the “Administration” has proposed that would, as you state, “move it forward and transitioning it to a more profitable model relevent to the 21st century” Pass the government support off to the states? That’s a joke. Wisconsin had to pay an extra $2 million to keep Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service running because Illinois failed to come up with their share of the support.
I am sorry that you are offended by everyone blaming the Administration, but there is ample evidence that they would screw up a one car funeral procession.
Gunn said that they had THE RIGHT to fire him - they had the LEGAL AUTHORITY.
He did NOT say that they were right to fire him - as in correct.
Mr. Gunn simply agreed that the board had the legal authority to terminate his employment since he served AT THE PLEASURE of the Board and did not have an agreement stating any conditions to his employment or the retaining of said employment.
Whether or not you agree with how Mr. Gunn did or did not operate, he made decisions that were designed to make AMTK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) as financial viable as possible given the situation he was permitted to operate within. The “new way” of operating AMTK was straight out of the British fiasco that nearly ruined BR. The Bush Administration wants to fulfill a vote getting maneuver of fulfilling the wishes of their political power base, part of which is to kill AMTK. They saw how effective the Brits deal was at killing a business so they just copied it. Since it took the Brits only about 1 year to ruin BR and Bush has 3 years left, this does not bode well for the passenger train in America.
The best definition I ever heard of a consultant is that “He is someone you pay a lot of money to borrow your watch and tell you what time it is.” , learned during my short stay in Washington DC where eveything is politics.