Conflicted About Conflicts
City Paper columnist Richard Lawson, writing today about the whole Bernhardt-Kleinfelter-McLean-AHR-Neighbors-Swiss Ridge mess is apparently perplexed about the notion of conflicts of interest in city government on matters of planning and development.
After the jump, let's see if I can help out Dick a bit.
Lawson: Across the board, everyone could be made to look bad because political appointments and elected officials in Nashville mirror the dating scene here. Chances are you know or have a friendship with someone in your date’s prior dating history and conflicts arise.
Conflicts of interest are not about merely being acquainted with others; they become a problem when there are financial ties or other concrete interdependencies, or when the public policy matter on the table is one in which you have a personal or financial stake. Simply defining conflicts of interest to mere acquaintance is a convenient but specious way to pretend they don’t exist at all.
Lawson: Builder James McLean is chairman of the Metro Planning Commission and a partner in the development in question. The timing of his appointment to chairman hasn’t helped, particularly as he has let it be known in his role as Commission chair that Kleinfelter’s job is in question. The issues with the development—sidewalks next to the Rose Monte development in south Nashville and a phase of that project known as Swiss Ridge—took place before he was named chairman.
McLean has been chairman only a short while, but he has been on the Planning Commission for years—during pretty much the entire time these developments have been in play. Now he’s involved in a controversy over the job of a staff member who has been directly involved in staff work regarding a project in which he has a personal interest. That, ladies and germs, is a conflict of interest.
Lawson: Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors and her husband Steve were pulled into the public fray largely via media reports because Steve is in management at an affiliated company of AHR and at one time oversaw the Antioch development in question. Based on the logic used in questioning the conflicts of the Neighbors’ family and of McLean, no one experienced in anything related to development should ever be involved with deciding how the city should develop.
That's silly; of course people experienced in development can and should be involved in how the city develops. But there’s a big difference between involvement as an abstraction and having (in McLean’s case) your own financial interests connected directly to a matter of policy to which you have a direct connection as member of a public commission. As for Neighbors, at issue are the interests and activities of the public official's spouse, so the potential conflict for the vice mayor is indirect. Still, in families loyalties and finances are typically (and justifiably) intermingled, which is why the holdings and activities of close relatives are routinely scrutinized in conflict of interest disclosures. There is nothing extreme or illogical about raising perceptions of conflict here.
Lawson: A lot of this would make more sense if the developer in question was a for-profit company or if the Metro Planning Commission chairman had a bigger name in commercial development or if the commission was loaded up with developers.
Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant. You either have a potential conflict of personal interest and public policy making or you don’t. Profit status, size of the enterprise and composition of the commission are red herrings.
Lawson: The real question is whether or not there is any conflict of interest on anyone’s part? Or perception of conflict? Or is perception of conflict enough to constitute conflict?
Yes there is, yes there is and sort of. Perception of conflict is not itself an actual conflict of interest. But for those entrusted with protecting public interests and resources through election, appointment or employment, a legitimate perception that your personal interests might intersect with your public responsibilities is a conflict-of-interest matter. A conflict or perceived conflict does not magically go away just because the individual denies that one exists or insists that he could never be tainted by such a thing. The remedies are simple: disclose and recuse at the earliest opportunity (rather than waiting until journalists figure out what’s going on).
Comments
Bruce it must be nice up there in those ivory towers. I'd a do a point-by-point rebuttal but I have other things to do. The best way to avoid conflicts of all kinds is to simply have anarchy. OK seriously, it would be funny to see an issue arise at the commission where everyone was conflicted themselves out and none could vote.
So who should resign to avoid conflict? McLean? Or one of the Kleinfelters because of the Charlotte Ave. development. McLean did recuse himself on a vote regarding the development. So he can't as chairman also discuss Kleinfelter's job? Isn't it possible that McLean thinks the guy is an arrogant ass because of how Kleinfelter treats commissioners at meetings? Have you been to meetings to actually see how he interacts with the commissioners? If you did, you may obtain enlightenment.
Bad politics is the best way to describe the whole scenario. Jameson targeted a group that builds neighborhoods, a non-profit. If Kleinfelter indeed held up the development in some form, effectively costing AHR a bunch of money in interest, that sort of messes up the mission of helping people into affordable ownership. So does that really make Kleinfelter a neighborhood guy? At any rate, the conflict of interest isn't black or white. It is very nuanced while many want it to be black or white.
Posted 06/09/2008 at 04:32:31 PMI never used the word "resign," and wouldn't suggest anyone should unless their conflicts of interest were repeated and unavoidable, which I see no reason to believe is the case here. By recusal, I mean a public acknowledgement and disclosure of the specific conflict of interest and an intention to recuse oneself. The minutes of the May 8 Planning Commission meeting show that McLean did, appropriately, yield the chair and recuse himself from the vote on Swiss Ridge, but nowhere in the minutes is the basis for his recusal or specific acknowledgement of the conflict of interest spelled out, as it should be. The public should learn of conflicts of interests from the individuals with positions of public responsibility to have these conflicts, not from journalists. (In fact, as I noted in my original post, McLean denies there is a conflict of interest. If so, then why the recusal?)
You ask whether as commission chair it is legitimate for him to discuss a staff member's work in the department. Certainly yes as a general matter, but if the actions of the staff member are nontrivially implicated in the particular matter on which the commissioner has (appropriately) recused himself from a commission vote, then he should also 'recuse' himself (so to speak) from having anything to do with the possible removal of that staff member from his job in the department. This seems simple enough to me.
The possibilities that there are "bad politics" involved or that there is some problem with commission staff that has failed to serve legitimate interests of involved parties are interesting issues germane to the operation of the city's planning function, but are fundamentally irrelevant to the conflict of interest issues that you raised in your column and that I critiqued in my post.
Finally, you say that "the conflict of interest isn't black or white." I agree; they often aren't. That's justification for full public disclosure, not for minimizing their significance.
Must run now; we're putting a new coat of ivory paint on the tower.
Posted 06/09/2008 at 06:03:24 PMI have to say that I've read a lot about this. I was never a fan of Mayor Dean and tried to convince people that he was NOT interested in the neighborhoods. And that he was going to HAVE to pay back all the money the developer crowd poured on him.
I've a lot but I still don't really know all the facts. But I do find it interesting how quickly the Vice Mayor denied ALL wrong doing and how defensive Mr. Lawson is on his story. If the facts show that nothing wrong is going on, why do so many people have to keep saying "Move on, nothing to see here?" Why not let the story move on its own? If nothing's there, then it will play out and Mr. Lawson and VM will be proved correct.
Enclave has a great summary of the respective parties and their interest if anyone cares to learn.
From what I can tell, the issue isn't a councilman trying save one person's job. The issue is a councilman trying to point out that the guy is getting fired for DOING his job. Which is making developers (ALL of them) do what the Commission and the law require of them.
And I don't care if they're building houses for Frist or for the poor. They still have to build to standards. And shouldn't we be more concerned that developers who are building for the poor are held to the highest standards? Since the poor homeowners won't have any money or clout do so for themselves? And isn't that all that Kleinfelter was doing?
Posted 06/09/2008 at 06:22:30 PMWow. 4 Comments here, two comments there. What's going over there anyway? Anybody reading this thing or just the pathetic few who remain?
Posted 06/09/2008 at 10:55:16 PMJust curious.
Wow. 4 Comments here, two comments there. What's going over there anyway? Anybody reading this thing or just the pathetic few who remain?
Just curious
There were more readers a few weeks ago, but some idiot kept posting bumper-sticker links.
Posted 06/09/2008 at 11:39:33 PMInterested sounds like a sock puppet for Byrd.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 05:10:40 AMWow. Lawson against Barry. Dick v. bb. One rarely sees a mismatch of such proportions played out in print like this. Talk about a bitch slap. Dick, you gotta bring your A-game to these things. Wait, that was your A game. It's a little different in the minor leagues, ain't it? Hello to City Paper: These are worthwhile issues. Please bring someone who can write/think/analyse/report. We'd all beneift from the discussion.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 09:21:49 AM"Interested" has an alibi. My two sock puppets were in the wash yesterday between 6:00 & 7:00.
I was interested to see anon's comment appear last night and then disappear until 5:00 a.m. today. Looks like he/she arose before dawn to make certain that his/her preoccupation with the tubes received public attention. Those webmasters have to wake up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on anon.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 10:08:28 AMLawson--The fact that an organization has nonprofit status does not make it infallible, nor does it guarantee ethical behavior, nor does it even mean that the organization doesn't make plenty of money. (Vandy, anyone?) It's just that the money can't be treated as profit and distributed to investors. And a previous poster was right--shouldn't affordable housing have to meet the same basic standards as other developments? When it doesn't, in a few years you end up with dysfunctional, deteriorating buildings. The goal of affordable housing is not to create future slums.
As for conflict-of-interest questions: Yeah, you're right, professionals drawn to this and other city governing boards will likely have conflicts arise. One way to balance that is to also appoint board members who have no vested financial or career interests in the sectors at hand, but who can evaluate issues from a general-welfare perspective. If Dean does not tend to that balance, it will be bad for the whole city.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 12:11:46 PMbb and Lawson- it is, in fact, not appropriate for the Chair of the Planning Commission to speak publicly about the role/"work" of a Planning Staff member. The Planning Commissioners are appointed and have no (thank god) oversight in personnel matters. The Chair is nothing more than the leader of the appointed group.
As a planner (not in metro), this whole deal is illustrative of how incestuous Planning Commissions and Developers actually are. Look closely at the make-up of Planning Commissions all over Middle Tenn and everywhere else. It's both shocking and sad...
Posted 06/10/2008 at 12:35:52 PMVeritas... I think I can hold my own thank you very much. And at least I put my name to it.
Bruce you are parsing the role of chairman. So let's say the employee was accused of workplace harassment (absolutely hypothetical). Does the chairman still recuse himself? There's the suggestion that once recused always recused. The chairman saw no conflict in his dealing with Kleinfelter but there was a clear conflict with respect to amending the minutes related to a specific piece of a development in which he is a partner. Ultimately, the minutes were changed to reflect what Bernhardt, Kleinfelter and all had originally agreed on two years ago.
Interested: The development crowd poured money into Clement. He was who many developers wanted. As to the guy doing his job, that's part of the issue with the development in question. Was he doing his job? More broadly, has been doing his job affectively? Neighborhoods haven't won very many battles.
Additionally, the issue wasn't about building standards related to the actual building. It was a sidewalk. Woods painted it as those poor residents will have to cross the busy street to get to a sidewalk. Reality is it would be incredibly expensive to put a sidewalk on the same side of the street and Bernhardt agreed that it couldn't be done.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 01:20:43 PMRichard, it sounds to me like you've been covering your beat too long.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 04:23:52 PMThe development crowd poured money into Clement. He was who many developers wanted.
And when he lost, they gave money to Karl Dean. I would bet my last dime that developers are more politically pragmatic than ideological about whom they vote for. All things being equal, Karl Dean WILL get the lion's share of developers' dollars when he runs for re-election, regardless of his opponent.
Posted 06/10/2008 at 05:21:05 PMJeff: Hardly
It's funny everyone is acting very Bush like. If you don't state that you are for neighborhoods, you obviously are against them and therefore in favor of the developers. So if I don't beat the daylights out the developers and paint them as evildoers, I must be in their camp. Fascinating.
Posted 06/11/2008 at 11:39:56 AMActually, I'm going by my reading of your relevant NCP analysis. I am hard pressed to find any other attitude but latitude for developers (who seem to have honest limitations) and cynicism for neighborhood leaders (example: neighborhood leaders merely oppose developers to piss the latter off; otherwise they don't have any honest beefs). I've documented bad experiences with developers over and over.
Posted 06/11/2008 at 12:53:55 PMBad is in the eye of the beholder. If a neighborhood can't get exactly what it wants out of a developer, then they don't want the development. There have been many times where neighborhood leaders across the city have acted as if they are equity partners in proposed commercial development deals.
Posted 06/11/2008 at 01:39:00 PMWell, at least you're not denying that you judge developers and neighborhood leaders with a skewed double standard (my primary point).
And I wonder where the motivation for that comes from. Just as you compared neighborhood advocates to George Bush, I could compare you to an embedded journalist--caught up in the spin of the DoD at war--who never bothered to question the truth of what the powers-that-were fed.
The differently applied standards yellow the objectivity of your journalism, in my opinion. Surely, bad is a matter of perspective, and you seem to have already chosen to give the development side the benefit of your perspectival doubt and any of the promotion in your writing.
Posted 06/11/2008 at 02:21:31 PMAgain, doesn't anyone find Mr. Lawson's continued defensiveness here and at NCP (even on Nate's new story) a bit odd? He's completely crossed the line from reporting to advocacy. It's bothersome. Like FOX and Bush, doncha think?
Posted 06/11/2008 at 05:56:24 PMAgain, it seems the pervasive attitude is if you are with neighborhood folks you are obviously against them.
Mike, if you ask a few developers about how I "judge," you'd find a different viewpoint. Just ask Palmer, for example. Mike, I've seen your web site so I know you're perspective. Often times, those who claim someone is biased, expose their own bias.
And interested, I guess I should say nothing for fear you will view it as defensiveness and therefore suspect. I'll keep that in mind when I respond to folks defending someone.
Posted 06/12/2008 at 11:06:04 AMI've confessed my bias over and over again on Enclave, which is more than you've done at NCP. Blogs are supposed to be opinion-oriented; journalism claims not to be even as it at times trojan-horses subjective alliances with sources it is afraid to buck and to lose. Thing is, I back my bias up with specific cases of personal experience with developers, especially in Salemtown.
However, I've also been critical of various neighborhood leaders and expressed my differences with preservationists (case in point: Westin hotel) and those more zealous and protective about neighborhood "character" than me (case in point: LEDs).
When you refer to leaders as "equity partners," you cannot be referring to anything I've written. I've told developers before that the planning process includes some neighborhood feedback and if they want my support expressed in public hearings, then they need to at least throw in some concession to the community (case in point: one single family home in a 6 property duplex plan; ended up with the Planning Commission ordering 3 SFHs because the developer dug in his heels). That's hardly demanding equity; it shows a willingness for compromise.
It's just that there are developers and other economic power brokers who believe it is their right to impose anything they choose on a community without having to listen to the slightest community feedback. You, Richard, express absolutely no provision for neighborhood feedback that I can see for that in your writing. In fact, you lampoon community leaders who exercise the privilege they've been given by Metro to give feedback. And then you claim to know some ulterior motive (case in point: pissing off developers).
Perhaps granting me these things is the difference between "seeing" what I write and "reading" what I write.
Posted 06/12/2008 at 12:22:28 PM