LETTERS: EDITORIAL BASED ON INCORRECT DATA

To the editor:

I read the Convention and Visitors Bureau editorial on Feb. 11 in regards to the Paddlewheeler program and budget concerns with great interest. Typically, I have agreed with your opinions and feel that you are objective in your approach to various issues. If your facts were correct in this case, I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would not agree with your position, including me. However, your facts supporting your main premise were grossly in error.

The budget for the Paddlewheelers for the next year is $11,000 and not the $129,000 as you reported. Three percent of the overall budget is a far cry for "more than half of the CVB's annual budget." The CVB has an internal and external part to its marketing plan. On the external side, Mary Miller and staff do a great job in soliciting groups, tourists and events from outside the city to come to Cape Girardeau. On the internal side, once these people have arrived in the city we put our best foot forward by servicing these groups and providing the necessary information about our city that helps all of us gain from tourism. Obviously, the more experience that we have providing this service, the better image we portray.

The Paddlewheelers provide a very valuable service to Cape Girardeau. To the uninitiated, it may appear that they are just waving at riverboats, but to those who receive their help, it's greatly appreciated and remembered. Those people in turn tell others of their great experience in Cape Girardeau and how friendly the people of this area truly are, which of course plants the seed for others to visit Cape Girardeau and sample our community hospitality and quality of life.

I can assure you that the staff of the CVB and the members of the CVB Advisory Board do not take their responsibilities lightly. I would hope that you would retract your position and look into the great job the CVB is currently doing with the funds they have.

DAVID B. ROSS, CVB Advisory Board Member

Cape Girardeau

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Ross is correct. The editorial was based on a faulty assumption and a misreading of a previous news story. We apologize. A correction was published Feb. 14.