Tobacco Documents Online

r,mn &ir- & Tobacco Institute poll raising eyebrows here By C f 1 AH M 1 A N t'>CI I A LLf:R Monhor Sla/l Wrtlee ---- The Jan. 11 special saeclion on a proposed La Alamw County non-smoking ordinance has drawn the attention of a Houston. Teaas, polling firm - and the resulting survey is raising eyebeuws. The client paying lor the work is 1M Tobacco In-. stitute, headquartered in Washington, D.C. The in- stitute is a trade association whose asamben are eompanks that produce cigarettes. ------ The Monitor received two ealh lasl week from concerned residents who had beeq polled and teG the questions asked were biased. Subsequently, the Monltor called the polling firm, Tarrance and Associales, owned by Laacil Tarrance, Houston, and ssked why the poli was being conducted, the purpose behind Iha quei- ,tions,anAthenameofthe --- ----- ---- ----W Yiag elienl. Richard Ryan, speaking (or Tarre.nee end Associates said, "Wtthout parsnission from itty alient, I can say none of those things." And, Ae said, he didn't have that pertnissisn. iie did confirm that the firm Is conducting a "random sample o/ laa Atamos,`but he would not give the siae of the survey or say siAMa N would be 4osVssszo7 completed. Many lekphone calls Iater, however, Bill IFloepler, aaiwr vice president for public com- munication at the Tobacco Institute in Washin`ton, gave a candid answer. Asked whether the institute is paying 'for the poll, he said. "Yes. That is the ease." lie said that the survey was "Jusl part of our job to report to our members on public senliment." Ile atso sab, "We try to keep a running finger on the public puise in terms of this general question." would be a misdemeanor."' And, she added, "They only gave the upper limits of the lhne.'' She also quoted !he survejor as sa finn,'"'Some people say this should be a matter ot eourtesy, not the law .,. Strottman said she viewed Ilfe poll at, "in a sense, tampaigning agsinal the ordinance." She commented that the eeuneil, nol the pelitioners, made the dedslon to ge to a public election. "Thh (poll) cannot eome eheap," she uid, 'especially from Tetias." She contended that In Like Strottman, he said that they begsn with the question, "'V/hal are the two most important tssues in Los Alamo_s?' And then a0o1 the rest of the questioni-were aboufthe smoking ordinance. It was strange." He said that he too was asked whether he was ^'aware"' lhat "'a person can be charged (tt10 and a misdemeanor lor vtolatin`lt' (the proposed or- dinance)." He said that he was asked about "'poiice involvement and possible violence with the police,"' and was asked, "'Do you natite it will cost $4.001) for the election? .... Do you think it's right lhal the law should intertere with peoa ple's individual rights?"' "The questionsiU had this Oavor,^ he said, "It seemed to be a strange po0, and I said to myseU, Thal's the tobacco industry trying to influence the outcome of the election."' Olsher provided the name of a third person surveyed, Maggie Becknell. Becknell insists that her ca Iler told her.- twice - Ihat the survey was a Gallup poll, but the questions were basically the ume. Ironicaliy, one of the people polled last week California: the tobaeco Induslry spent $3 million to was 1Teresa Strottman, a leader tn the petllion defeat a simiiar ordutance. ' drive that forced the Initiative election. She was Leslie Ruth Olsher, who spearheaded the peti- upset by- the queslions asked and called a1_led Ih_e_ lion drive, echoed her eoncern. She said, "1Ye d Monitor to relay the name of the firm. - /ust like to make the public aware. We want people She said she was asked first, "' What are the ma- to ask themselves. 'Who's doing the survey? Why jor problems facing lae Alamos Countl?"- She is It going onT and Who's payin{ for il?'•' - listed the luues of ma jor lab financing and eounty. . The Monitor's second caller, Mike Cannon, said utilities aequisilion - but the neat I7 qtustions he hasn't been actively involved on either side ol were all about the nan-smoking ordinance. the eampaign, but he was concerned about the She said she was ssked, »Vould you be more or poU. He said he was disturbed by the tenor of the less likely te vote for the ordinance if you knew the questions when he was called Dec. tl. "My feeling - - election would coa/ 14.11110? If you knew it might In. Is tAal they werenY really conducting a .. they cite violence (n tlw eommunltyt 7/ you knew It .readissemhutl.glnformalion;'hesaid. ISee POLL, Page A-2/ .? . e-4 . . _._..-._ .. . 1 Ef

r e Los A'lam!os Monitor 1, PG)ll (from P2ge A-C) : Once again, the survey began with a question about the tnostimportantlocal issues. Becknell said she spoke briefly, about Western Perimeter and thensafd she was ina burty and had to hang'up, but the caller said; "'Wait jast'a minttte. I have to ask you some questions about the tton3moking er- dinance.'•' The questions Becknell remembers are almost identical too those listed by Strottmanand Cannon. She also remembered another question: ""Do you agree or not agree thatenfore, ingthe ordinance would be a waste of police time?'•` • Becknell said she tried to:pin down the survey,or.'"I told the woman that It seemed to me that the intent of'the ques- tions was to change my mind;" she said. She then asked the purpose of tlte questions• She said that the caller responded. "'I'don't know. I'm justan interviewer. I'm not supptued'to know. I'en supposed!to be objective:•" Becknell!said she was also asked to provide identification so ttia t the surveyor could'"prove to her employers that she had contacted me." Ottiei• questions involved "occupation and if'I was asmoker:" The Monitor relayed Imost of this information to ICloepfer and asked for his comments. He said it was regrettable iI' some of'those polled hadla negativrinterpretation of the questions. "Certainly, there'snoinlentionofthat (bias),"'hesaid. "I can see how people might get the impression, that this is meant to be persuasive, but that is not the intention." He emphasized that the questiona are "just to enable:us on aa continuing basis to understand the depth of public knowledge rather than to persuade the randomly called per- , .. He addedl '"Ihis is the first time that that interpretation has come tb our attentiott.^ He noted! that those who called the Monitor may not themseives be'•a repraetttative sample o[the sample:° And'hewid his institute certainly dbesn't approve of any ~ surveyor saying nntru(htully that he It part of a Gallup poll. "If itis demonstrated thattbere is any misrepresentation by anyone," be said. 'Rbey' will hear frtnn us: I would be astonished U!that happaned. I certainly donst go along with that." He acknowledged that Tarrance and Assoeiates has run similar polls for thrTobacco Institute in other areas where elections were held on the smoking, issue. He said all answers are used to help build up a data bank of answers too consistent questions. "There Aave been a halfdozen elections Gke yours;" he said„and about 1S.S'million persons havevoted lin them. "In every case, the voterresponse has been a resounding no." He said'hedidn't krwwthe sample size of the Tarrance and Associates survey in Ias Alamos or the target'date for com-' pletion. Those issues, he said, are left up to the profes- sionals: The decision not to give out the information is pro- bably based on "professional reasons," he said. He denied that there was any intent to keep going wtil the responses recorded supported a praconceived plan. The/tssociated!Pneas provided the information that Tar- rance and Associates is a, "large polling outfit in Houston"' that has represented, among other clients, outgoing U.S.. Sen. Harrison Sshmitt. "' In pursuit of information on Tarrance and Associates, the Monitor had! alreadycalltd Californians for MonSmokeis' Rights before the Tobacco Ihstitute returned calls for infor- mation. Peter Hanauer, prrcsident of the Glifornia organiaation,. ; confirmed that Tarrance and Associates did polling,for the Tobacco industry during thrPropositioni S and Proposition ~0 electionain California in 1978 and 1980: Both votes were on smoking limitations, and both failed, but Hanauer said they , failed bysmalt,margins., Hanauer and his organization said that in 1978. Tarrance was polling for'"Califoz•nianslor Common Sense," and that in 1980the client was "Californians against Regulatory E:- cess„" but, he said, filing;forms required Iby Califorpia cam- paign laws revea9ed! that "99 percent of the money came from the tobaccoindustry."' He said, "Mat polling firm has been used Iby the tobacco industry in everytleetion (on the;qpestion) that I know• of_ "We've filtd a lawsuit claiming that the tobacco industry should have identifaed itself assponsor of the poil."

T-I b