Reluctant Disclosures?

The City's Pulse Issue #25 Aug 30, 2007 by Mary Souza
Reluctant Disclosures? The very first meeting of our urban renewal agency, now called Lake City Development Corp. (LCDC) took place way back on October 23, 1997. As this new group gathered for the first time, their attorney talked to all of them about disclosure. He explained the laws, the expectations and the consequences. He spoke to them about the importance of conflict of interest laws before they ever discussed their group’s purpose or their plan; disclosure was literally at the top of their agenda. Here’s what the minutes of that first meeting recall: "Conflict of Interest Law: City Attorney, Jeff Jones, explained the conflict of interest laws (I.C. 50-2017 and 18-1359) and when an agency member must declare a conflict of interest, abstaining from voting, and possible penalties. Written statements of conflicts of interest should be submitted to Susan Weathers.” Susan Weathers was, and still is, the city clerk, and was in charge of their meeting minutes back then. The Idaho law, cited above, tells all commissioners and employees of urban renewal agencies not to "voluntarily acquire any personal interest, direct or indirect, in any urban renewal project or in any property included or planned to be included in any urban renewal project…” It also mandates that if they do own land or any interest, they must "immediately disclose, in writing to the agency” and that "such disclosure shall be entered upon the minutes of the agency.” There were seven people listed as Members of the Agency at that first meeting. Within the first month, board member Nancy Sue Wallace posted her disclosure statement, noted in the minutes. (She is no longer on the board.) Nancy Sue reported a business interest in a bank located within the urban renewal district. A short time later, board member Dave Patzer submitted his disclosure, recorded in the minutes. Dave declared property owned in the district. But that’s all, folks. There were no disclosures from any other LCDC members. I have personally read over all of the minutes of each meeting from October 1997 until November of 2006, and no additional conflict of interest statements were "entered upon the minutes of the agency”. Does that mean that they had no conflicts to disclose? That they held neither property interests nor business connections within the urban renewal area? Nancy Sue Wallace and Dave Patzer heard the attorney’s explanation of the law at the first meeting and took prompt action to be as transparent as possible…after all, the law says "immediately”. It was nine years later, in the Fall of 2006, that a citizen made a public records request to the LCDC for copies of the board members’ disclosure statements. The minutes of the November 1, 2006 meeting states the following: "Board members shared their disclosure forms, and upon receipt by Executive Director Berns, said disclosure forms became public record.” I have copies of all of the board members’ disclosure statements. They are all dated within a week of November 1, 2006. Of the nine current members of this board, only two list neither business nor property interests within the districts-- Rod Coldwell and Paul Anderson. The remaining seven members, including chairman Charlie Nipp and vice chair Jim Elder, list property ownership and / or business relationships within the urban renewal areas. Two of the LCDC board members are also city councilwomen. Dixie Reid and Deanna Goodlander sit on both boards, and have for over five years, yet no disclosure statements were noted in the minutes prior to November of ‘06. Both Dixie and Deanna now list business connections or property ownership within the districts. Why did it take nine years and a citizen request to have the law applied? Are there any consequences for this delay? The minutes of the first meeting show that the city attorney explained the "possible penalties” of not following the law. That law, I.C. 50-2017, titled Urban Renewal Law, states clearly "Any violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute misconduct in office.” We elect the mayor and city council and they, in turn, appoint the members of this urban renewal board, which handles millions of public tax dollars. Their decisions impact both our pocketbooks and our city’s future. We should expect supervision, accountability and the protection of the laws. As taxpayers, our only recourse is to demand that our city officials take action.

Reluctant Disclosures?

The very first meeting of our urban renewal agency, now called Lake City Development Corp. (LCDC) took place way back on October 23, 1997. As this new group gathered for the first time, their attorney talked to all of them about disclosure. He explained the laws, the expectations and the consequences. He spoke to them about the importance of conflict of interest laws before they ever discussed their group’s purpose or their plan; disclosure was literally at the top of their agenda. Here’s what the minutes of that first meeting recall:

"Conflict of Interest Law: City Attorney, Jeff Jones, explained the conflict of interest laws (I.C. 50-2017 and 18-1359) and when an agency member must declare a conflict of interest, abstaining from voting, and possible penalties. Written statements of conflicts of interest should be submitted to Susan Weathers.” Susan Weathers was, and still is, the city clerk, and was in charge of their meeting minutes back then.

The Idaho law, cited above, tells all commissioners and employees of urban renewal agencies not to "voluntarily acquire any personal interest, direct or indirect, in any urban renewal project or in any property included or planned to be included in any urban renewal project…” It also mandates that if they do own land or any interest, they must "immediately disclose, in writing to the agency” and that "such disclosure shall be entered upon the minutes of the agency.”

There were seven people listed as Members of the Agency at that first meeting. Within the first month, board member Nancy Sue Wallace posted her disclosure statement, noted in the minutes. (She is no longer on the board.) Nancy Sue reported a business interest in a bank located within the urban renewal district. A short time later, board member Dave Patzer submitted his disclosure, recorded in the minutes. Dave declared property owned in the district.

But that’s all, folks. There were no disclosures from any other LCDC members. I have personally read over all of the minutes of each meeting from October 1997 until November of 2006, and no additional conflict of interest statements were "entered upon the minutes of the agency”.

Does that mean that they had no conflicts to disclose? That they held neither property interests nor business connections within the urban renewal area? Nancy Sue Wallace and Dave Patzer heard the attorney’s explanation of the law at the first meeting and took prompt action to be as transparent as possible…after all, the law says "immediately”.

It was nine years later, in the Fall of 2006, that a citizen made a public records request to the LCDC for copies of the board members’ disclosure statements. The minutes of the November 1, 2006 meeting states the following: "Board members shared their disclosure forms, and upon receipt by Executive Director Berns, said disclosure forms became public record.”

I have copies of all of the board members’ disclosure statements. They are all dated within a week of November 1, 2006. Of the nine current members of this board, only two list neither business nor property interests within the districts-- Rod Coldwell and Paul Anderson. The remaining seven members, including chairman Charlie Nipp and vice chair Jim Elder, list property ownership and / or business relationships within the urban renewal areas.

Two of the LCDC board members are also city councilwomen. Dixie Reid and Deanna Goodlander sit on both boards, and have for over five years, yet no disclosure statements were noted in the minutes prior to November of ‘06. Both Dixie and Deanna now list business connections or property ownership within the districts.

Why did it take nine years and a citizen request to have the law applied? Are there any consequences for this delay? The minutes of the first meeting show that the city attorney explained the "possible penalties” of not following the law. That law, I.C. 50-2017, titled Urban Renewal Law, states clearly "Any violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute misconduct in office.”

We elect the mayor and city council and they, in turn, appoint the members of this urban renewal board, which handles millions of public tax dollars. Their decisions impact both our pocketbooks and our city’s future. We should expect supervision, accountability and the protection of the laws. As taxpayers, our only recourse is to demand that our city officials take action.