Fri 23 Mar 2007
A Matter of Process: Greenbridge and Council’s Devolving Standard of Public Review
Posted by WillR under CarolinaNorth , ChapelHill , Development , Downtown , EconomicDevelopment , Government , LocalPolitics , Ruminations[9] Comments
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “A Matter of Process: Greenbridge and Council’s Devolving Standard of Public Review”.
Will, I’m having trouble following your thinking on this. Unless and until the developer hired a relative of a council member, what needs to be disclosed? And IF a relative was hired, what do the conflict of interest laws say would happen when votes are taken?
I think your argument is a real overreaction.
The measure of your commitment to these principles isn’t when you deal with a development universally hated or a political enemy. That’s “easy”. The measure of your commitment is when it’s a project you love (and maybe are hip deep in developing) or a dear friend and colleague.
This was a “cautionary tale” that the Council, if they were involved, or the Mayor, if he was the lone “decider”, could’ve used to clearly underline their commitment to process.
Bill says while he didn’t know the particulars but “… he only heard rumors that his son had asked for a $40,000 consulting fee.” OK. What did he do with these rumors? Were any other Council members privy to this information? Did you hear these “rumors” Fred?
This was the mildest of events, yet, as I tried to say in my post, it was a critical test of Council’s commitment.
I think, for instance, that some on the Council, including the Mayor, are way too cozy with RAM Development’s Casey Cummings. That said, I’ve never thought that their “coziness” slipped over the edge of propriety. A great part of that confidence is knowing the folks involved, another part was the, it appears, mistaken belief that there was a structured process for dealing with these, even if apparent, conflicts of interest.
Again, if the Mayor, as much as I like and trust him, is the lone “decider”, well, that’s a process our Town can do without…
Will, you are trying to connect dots that don’t deserve the time and energy that you want to devote to the task. IF there was a hiring, THEN there would be something to talk about, but just asking somebody for a contract is not the Town’s and its citizens business until there is a hiring.
I guess I don’t see why having the information that a person sought employment matters until employment happens, especially if a council member is not personally doing the asking.
Quite true Fred. He didn’t get the contract – no harm, no foul, right?
Let me introduce a HYPOTHETICAL based on this situation.
What if Bill’s vote had been the deciding one on Greenbridge – and their approvals went the other way? Would we want to open the door to an accusation of payback for not hiring his son?
It is not just the wider public’s good that is served by following an open process.
Let me introduce a HYPOTHETICAL based on this situation.
What if the next door neighbor or any close friend tried to get a job with them?
Many things could influence a vote for or against something, right? It doesn’t just have to be a close relative. Where do you desire to draw a line UNTIL someone is in fact hired? Should everyone who tries to get a job be checked for any possible ties to anyone who gets to vote?
At the end of the day, we rely on the honesty and integrity of those we have given a public trust. Otherwise, we would spend all of our time ensuring there are no POTENTIAL conflicts.
Fred, you’re right, at the end of the day all we can do is trust the judgment of our elected officials. In a small city like Chapel Hill, we don’t need them burdened with worries that every association, no matter how trivial, between their personal life and public business needs a public airing.
We know folks serving now that have relationships with folks doing business before and with the Town. I guess you expect me to be consistent in my quest to plumb the depths of the trivial and mundane. Why not blather on about those connections? My assumption was that the dramatic nature of the changes Greenbridge brought Downtown – the scale and impact of the project itself – the precedent of TC-3 – raised it above the mundane.
A poor assessment on my part? GeorgeC and TerriB seem to concur with your opinion – a pretty good indication how far off-base my concern for process and precedent is…
I didn’t say a concern for process was off-base. But in this instance, where the adult son of an elected official applied for a job and was turned down, I think the mayor made a good judgment call. What purpose would it have served, other than embarassing Bill’s son, to make an issue of it? Now if he had been hired, then your concerns would be justified IMHO. But I also think that if he had been hired, that fact would have been made public and there would have been a consultation about whether or not Bill should have recused himself.
Fred and Terri, you’re right, the only purpose it would serve is to clear up what Bill called “the rumors”. I thought that since Bill seemed to be saying it was already swirling around the community, a public clarification was necessary. On re-reading my original post I realize that I wasn’t very clear on that point. Of course, one could argue that the months old rehash in the CHN is more embarrassing than a quick acknowledgment and moving on.
Now, what about the process? Is it a matter that the attorney and Mayor always make the call? Was Council informed? It’s the difference between “the decider” and the People’s reps – in this case the Council as a whole – reviewing the situation.
My post was about “process” and how it seems that after some great success at opening it up it is now getting short-changed.
What I am disagreeing with you about Will is your criticism of the process based on this one single incident in which you disagree with the mayor’s judgment. Process by definition develops across multiple iterations. So the question back to you is: Was this a single incident or a trend?
You say the process had some great succes but is now getting short-changed. What are other examples that led to your conclusion that it is being short-changed?