Friday, January 27, 2006

Of Partnerships, Conflicts, and Gossip - I heard recently from a City Commissioner, and also read in one of the weeklys the other day that there is some concern among unnamed "Main Street" interests over the fact that I recently accepted a seat on the board of directors of the Sarasota Downtown Partnership (DTP). My first reaction was to wonder, if this concern is out there, why someone didn't just say "hey Mike, what's up with this thing about you and the DTP board? Isn't there a conflict there?" After all, I have to be one of the easiest people in town to locate, and I would have had an opportunity to answer. Since nobody did, I'll address the issue here.

The DTP recently expanded its board to include a number of people intended to broaden its scope; it is the Downtown Partnership. County Administrator Jim Ley, Police Chief Pete Abbott and I are all new members on the government side, along with people like Joe Moraca who is there representing the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations. I believe this collaboration is a good thing, as the interests of the Partnership and the interests of the City and County will typically be the same. When DTP Executive Director Tony Souza came to town, he and I talked about strengthening the connection between the DTP and city government, which started with the city's rejoining the DTP as a corporate member, a move that was applauded when announced at one of their large functions. I didn't hear any comments about conflicts related to the city being a member of the organization, and don't think being represented on their board creates any more conflict than being a member.

Beyond that, one of the stated issues is that Pete Schneider, who is a city employee under my span of control, signs special event permits, and the DTP sometimes has events. Actually the DTP has moved away from being an event-driven organization. They still conduct the Saturday and Wednesday Farmers' Markets, but those are not done via the special event process, they have both been approved by the City Commission, and implemented through administrative agreements. Interestingly, in the "old days" the Downtown Association, precursor to the DTP was very much event driven, and for some time Mr. Schneider himself sat as a board member, including the first year or two I was in Sarasota. Rumor has it he also poured a mean beer at many of those same events. I didn't hear anything about conflicts at that time. If the DTP were to apply for a permit, the rules would be the same as they are for anyone else.

It is of course possible that at some point the interests of the city and the interests of the DTP might diverge. In that case, my obligation is clearly to the city, and I will act accordingly should that situation occur. Having served on a number of not-for-profit boards during my career, as do many in public service, elected or appointed, I realize I must always be aware of potential conflicts. I am happy to address issues anyone might have regarding potential conflicts that I might not be seeing, and as I said I'm very easy to locate down at City Hall - or on this blog.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question regarding this- The Downtown Partnership recently came out unanimously endorsing the Pineapple Square project and presented this to the media and city officials. How can a group support a project that has not proven at this point that it is viable for what the city is being asked to provide? As a -dare I say it- servant of the public and our interests do you not consider your position on the DTP, and your vote for this project as a conflict of interest?

29/1/06 12:18 PM  
Blogger Michael McNees said...

What the DTP board did was endorse the project in concept, pending full disclosure of the details of the deal. I took it as the DTP saying "it sounds good, let's support trying to make this happen for downtown, but lets make sure we understand the details." Which is pretty much the same position the City Commission has taken so far, so I don't know what the conflict is. It also seems to me that this was a consensus of the DTP board, I don't recall a formal vote being taken, though I could be mistaken on that.

Basically DTP exec Tony Souza and I think the DTP and the city working more closely together is a good idea. For the life of me I don't understand the energy spent turning that into a negative thing. I also sit as chairman of the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Management Committee, and it may be that certain positions that overall body takes are not exactly the same as the city's position might be. In that case I conduct myself accordingly, as do all of the City Commissioners who sit on one board or another.

29/1/06 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem important for the elected and charter officials to sit on boards of other organizations that are connected with the city.

I am a little confused because I never heard any buzz about this being an issue.

30/1/06 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DTP should not be any different than any other board many who work for city sit on. Everyone is trying to make this a better city and with the information the City Manager can bring to a meeting is one of the most valuable tools any board can have. Also, having the County Manager is great as well. They are just one of many on the board, all from different backgrounds.

30/1/06 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the DTP could have some influence over some of the stupid policy decisions the commissioners make then I would think it would be a good thing to have city and county staff on the board. Obviously, there are many on the board from different view points to balance any decisions.

I appreciate your knowledge and ability to manage this city. You are obviously a very smart man who is willing to stick his neck out to make things better.

30/1/06 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noting no other contributing dialogue Mr. Manager- you want to pick another issue?

1/2/06 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we can talk about Mr.Mcnee's transfering a social issue with no solution over to another part of the City? Any comment?

1/2/06 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I note that the DTP is in favor of the city giving $15M+ in cash and land to Pineapple Square in order to increase retail downtown. If only 200 or so new parking places are built this seems like a very expensive proposition.

Sarasota has a number of high priority needs: infrastructure (think sewer problems), attainable housing (downtown and throughout the city), traffic relief. Added retail is not a high priority compared to these.

It will be interesting to see how our city manager presents the city's needs at Mondays meeting to discuss the Pineapple Square proposal.

2/2/06 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike,

I just read the guest editorial this morning from the DTP on the Pineapple Square issue. It is an outright endorsement of the project. You are now acting as a facilitator on the city level, which is part of your job, but a full endorsement runs counter to you maintaining your objectivity- and you still don't see a conflict of interest? Another thing about the guest editorial. They say the State Street lot is not capable of being developed as a mixed use parking garage- do they know something we don't? Who's word are they taking on this- the developer that stands to benefit from it? The City was going to issue an RFP on the State Street lot before the Isaacs convinced them to hold off. You want to tell me how such an outlandish statement now seems to have worked its way into "fact" and endorsements for a project that nobody still understands- including the DTP?

2/2/06 10:27 AM  
Blogger Michael McNees said...

Tony Souza and Ian Black wrote a column expressing their opinion, not all of which I agree with. That's fairly simple, where's the conflict of interest?

If you want to know how certain information found its way into their column, my suggestion is that you contact them - it is their opinion they are expressing, not mine.

2/2/06 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually it says the DTP supports it- not just the two individuals. Your involvement with the organization, and their assertions (the ones you don't say if you agree with) calls into question the credibility of the article and has the appearance that these are all the Board's opinions. If you do not believe they are indicative of your opinions- then you should recuse yourself from involvement- sounds like conflict of interest to me Mr. McNees.

2/2/06 11:18 AM  
Blogger Michael McNees said...

Since I don't get a vote, it's not necessary that I recuse myself. Staff will give it's report, and the commission will deliberate over the issues as they can best be laid out. If there's a "conflict of interest", I'd be happy for you to articulate precisely what that is.

2/2/06 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I get why the DTP (I am a business member) would endorse the Pineapple Square project because it is a good project. What I do not get is if they are really endorsing giving the developer the State Street parking lot in exchange for rights to build 350 parking spaces in their building.

2/2/06 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

INVISIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

Well, not entirely so.

But I would like to see a regulation requiring our Public Officials to disclose and publish any purchase agreement for real property where the project is, has, or is likely to be, the subject of any approval process involving any commission or board they serve upon in any capacity.

As I understand it, presently, such contracts are totally private matters which, if the contracts are subsequently assigned to another purchaser, may never see the light of day nor our Florida Sunshine.

This would allow a developer to provide a sweetheart offer to sell at pre-development prices with a minimal down payment to an official during the "conceptual" discussions and that official to sell the contract at a nice profit when a CO was issued without the transaction ever (effectively) becoming "Public."

There's literally millions of dollars in the balance for everyone of these land use, zoning, and Public Partnership agreements. The temptations are great.

Sunshine is the best way to protect our officials from undue influence and we need more of it.

CHARLES SENF

7/2/06 3:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home