Novus Homes Files Suit Against TDA

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

No, the public won't remember 3 months from now but any one on a public trust considering agreements with Novus...will remember.

RM, that is indeed the crux of the suit. Novus says the contract was breached, TDA says there was no contract. They'll end up settling for reimbursement of expenses.

Not if he demands a jury trial, in which case punative damages and actual losses (over the lifetime of his proposed project) might come into full consideration.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Chris Medlock

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

What is he hoping to get? Them to negotiate? That is all the contract was for.

well if you would read instead of sitting there trying to sound smug you'd see they are seeking civil relief in excess of $10k.  It is an estoppel and BOC suit.  The combination of the two is particularly good because TDA can't argue that they breached contract to help him not incur any expenses.  That argument is extremely weak anyways because that would only hold merit if Novus had asked them to break contract because of costs.  Claiming they did that out of the goodness of their hearts is complete BS.

Medlock didn't have any details posted when he started the thread Mr Wizard.

Gee...next time I'll take the extra time to write the obvious, rather than giving you the respect that you'll be able to see the same thing I'm seeing and draw your own conclusions.

I'll leave the drawing conclusions part up to the expert.

HA HA HA HA
This wouldn't have been as funny if I hadn't read your post the last few years[)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

No, the public won't remember 3 months from now but any one on a public trust considering agreements with Novus...will remember.

RM, that is indeed the crux of the suit. Novus says the contract was breached, TDA says there was no contract. They'll end up settling for reimbursement of expenses.

"An oral contract is worth the paper it's written on"

-author unknown

[waterboy]

CF where are you!? Oral contracts can be enforced. But if this guy goes the Wrinkle route he'll spend a lot of time and $ in court while others with better relationships with the city will be developing downtown land. This needs to be resolved without enmity. Punishing the TDA is not going to be fruitful.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Punishing the TDA is not going to be fruitful.

I would suggest you tell HUD the above... I think they believe they are on a bountiful journey.[}:)]

[waterboy]

Do you think they'd listen to little ole me? []

We don't need more lawsuits, recalls, speculating on ulterior motives and arguing for the sake of arguing. Do the roads, do the river, do the ballpark, do the East End, and on and on. We need to pick a target and shoot rather than firing aimlessly into the forest. Yeah, our boards and authorities are hopelessly inept and loaded with elitists, friends of the powerful, players and resume builders. Lets clean them up where we can and put pressure on them but please, before I get too old to enjoy it, lets do something.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

CF where are you!? Oral contracts can be enforced. But if this guy goes the Wrinkle route he'll spend a lot of time and $ in court while others with better relationships with the city will be developing downtown land. This needs to be resolved without enmity. Punishing the TDA is not going to be fruitful.

I'd tend to disagree with you here. A few costly mistakes often instigates change, both in the mode of operation and in the personnel. Both of which TDA could apparently use.

I'd call upon of newly formed Ethics Commission to demand the resignations of several Board members, effective immediately.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

What is the difference between an "agreement" and a "contract"?

Can you use the terms interchangably?

It appears from other threads that small groups of people can re-define whatever words they want to obtain their goals.  Uneducated people will follow them anywhere.

[Rico]

Interesting comment by Councilor Wescott in Today's paper.....

quote>
"It seems to me that they (advisory board members) would be more familiar with the city's ethics ordinance and how they have interpreted it in the past and be better to render an opinion," Westcott wrote to Taylor on Friday.

He told the city attorney: "There must have been a reason for bypassing the committee, and I'm just curious as to what it was. I'm not implying anything improper; it just seems unusual."< end quote




I would think you may want to seek the advice of an Attorney rather than a board when the actions could be part of legal a action. Just a thought.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

CF where are you!? Oral contracts can be enforced. But if this guy goes the Wrinkle route he'll spend a lot of time and $ in court while others with better relationships with the city will be developing downtown land. This needs to be resolved without enmity. Punishing the TDA is not going to be fruitful.

I'd tend to disagree with you here. A few costly mistakes often instigates change, both in the mode of operation and in the personnel. Both of which TDA could apparently use.

I'd call upon of newly formed Ethics Commission to demand the resignations of several Board members, effective immediately.

You could be right. My limited experience dealing with boards and authorities doesn't give me much insight other than they seem to be populated with numb nuts and professional looking people who want to talk more than do. Some sit quietly so as to look smart and deliberative, the others open their mouths and prove they have no business serving.

[TheLofts@120]

Here is a link to the Tulsa World article regarding the ethics complaints I filed with the City Clerk's office yesterday morning.  

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080820_11_A4_Tommes327785

Below is the actual language used in the complaints filed.

COMPLAINT – ETHICS VIOLATION

Cause: Violation of ETHICS CODE, Chapter 6, Section 603 – Participation on Items of Personal, Financial or Organizational Interest Prohibited.

Against: Mr. John Clayman, Commissioner, Tulsa Development Authority, Mayoral Appointee

Brought By: William Wilkins, Owner – Novus Homes LLC

Claim: At the Tulsa Development Authority (TDA) Board of Commissioner's Work Study meeting held on July 8, 2008, Mr. Clayman, acting in his capacity as a Mayoral appointee Commissioner, was involved in direct discussions regarding a matter before the Board. This matter concerned the on-going exclusive negotiations and contract for purchase of lands for redevelopment purposes with Novus Homes LLC. This parcel of land is located adjacent to the proposed site for the new Tulsa Driller's ballpark in downtown Tulsa and has been identified as being required by the ballpark donors and planners for inclusion into an as yet to be identified or approved Master Plan and transfer into a Public Trust controlled by the donors.

On August 7th, Mr. Clayman actively participated in the discussions and seconded the call for a vote on the issue to terminate the exclusive negotiating agreement with Novus Homes LLC, 30 days prior to its previously approved deadline as reflected by an approved Board resolution on April 17, 2008. At the start of this meeting and prior to any direct discussions by the Board, Novus Homes asked Mr. Clayman to recuse himself due to his employment relationship and his own previous recusal to a vote on April 17, 2008, in which he stated his employment relationship as cause. Mr. Clayman did finally recuse or abstain from the vote but only after discussions in which he took a very active role and after increased pressure by Novus Homes.

Mr. Clayman is currently employed by the Fredrick Dorwart Law Firm located in Tulsa. The Dorwart Law firm counts the City of Tulsa, Nadell & Gussman, and Bank of Oklahoma among its clients. Nadell & Gussman, the Bank of Oklahoma and the George Kaiser Family Foundation (founded by the owner of BOK) are listed among ballpark donors. Each would also enjoy a seat on the created Public Trust which would oversee stadium construction and surrounding land disposition for redevelopment. The Dorwart Law firm has been listed as a ballpark player by the Tulsa World and in documentation submitted to City Councilor Bill Martinson. The Dorwart Law firm is currently engaged with assisting in land acquisition of the identified surrounding parcels adjacent to the stadium from private owners, contracts for purchase, and being the registered agent for some of those sites. The Dorwart Law firm is also working with the City of Tulsa to draft the Tulsa Stadium Public Trust.

Mr. Clayman has repeatedly involved himself in open discussions with the Board with regards to the exclusive negotiations with Novus Homes, offering opinion and perhaps influencing any outcome in violation of the Ethics Ordinance by which he is bound as a City Official. Even when confronted with the possibility of a conflict, Mr. Clayman chose not to immediately recuse himself and instead, further went on to discuss the issue prior to removing himself from the vote only. This is all in violation of the Ethics Ordinance wherein, when presented with even the possibility of a conflict, a City Official shall not discuss the matter with any other City Official who is participating in the action other than to state his disqualification.
Mr. Clayman has also failed repeatedly in the recent past to address any possible conflicts of interest during other discussions, votes and dispositions of land under TDA ownership on which the Drillers Ballpark site will sit (i.e. the 5.5 acre TDA owned parcel originally under contract to the Greenwood Chamber Development Corporation).

I would ask that in light of Mr. Clayman's actions in these matters and his direct refusal to adhere to the Ethics Ordinance on more than one occasion, he be removed immediately from his position as a City Official on the Tulsa Development Authority's Board of Commissioners and barred from ever serving in such capacity again on.

COMPLAINT – ETHICS VIOLATION

Cause: Violation of ETHICS CODE, Chapter 6, Section 603 – Participation on Items of Personal, Financial or Organizational Interest Prohibited.

Against: Mr. George Shahadi,Vice Chairman, Tulsa Development Authority, Mayoral Appointee

Brought By: William Wilkins,Owner – Novus Homes LLC

Claim: On Thursday, August 7, 2008, Mr. George Shahadi, acting in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the Tulsa Development Authority, was involved in the discussion, calling for vote and subsequent voting on an issue in which Mr. Shahadi, through his personal/organizational relationship, had either a direct, indirect or possibility of a conflict of interest in the matter before the Board. That matter being the early termination of exclusive negotiations with Novus Homes, LLC on a parcel of property adjacent to the proposed Driller's Ballpark location in downtown Tulsa; a parcel being sought after by the Ballpark donors for inclusion into a to-be-created Public Trust.

Mr. Shahadi is currently the Director of Corporate Real Estate for Williams Companies, Inc. Williams Companies, Inc., and in particular Mr. George Shahadi, enjoys a close working relationship with BOK Financial as they are the largest renter of Williams Companies owned property within the Downtown IDL. BOK Financial is owned By George Kaiser, founder of the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF) and a listed donor to the ballpark effort. GKFF is the entity that is purchasing property surrounding the ballpark site for "donation" to the ballpark public Trust.

Furthermore, prior to Board level discussion, William Wilkins of Novus Homes challenged Mr. Shahadi to recuse himself in the matter, citing Mr. Shahadi's employment by Williams Companies; itself a listed financial donor to the ballpark effort and in particular, the indentured public Trust that will be created and exercise direct control and influence of surrounding lands, of which the topic of discussion and action was one such parcel of land under Tulsa Development Authority ownership. It was later revealed at the City Council Economic and Urban Development Committee meeting on August 12th that the Chairman, President and CEO (Steven Malcolm) of Williams Companies, Inc. was listed to be the "downtown property owner" Trustee on the to-be-created Stadium District Public Trust draft submitted to Council for review and action to adopt.

In addition, prior to the August 7th TDA Commissioners meeting, Mr. Shahadi in a July 8, 2008, TDA Work Study meeting was involved in discussions to table this same matter, excluding it from the TDA Regular meeting on July 10, 2008; again not forthcoming with any possible conflict of interest prior to discussions. This was after Williams Companies was listed as a donor.

Mr. Shahadi failed to report any possibility of a conflict of interest or to recuse himself from the discussions or vote when challenged, intentionally violating the above prescribed ethics code. Mr. Shahadi has also failed repeatedly in the recent past to address any possible conflicts of interest during other discussions, votes and dispositions of land on which the Drillers Ballpark site will sit (i.e. the 5.5 acre TDA owned parcel originally under contract to the Greenwood Chamber Development Corporation).

I would ask that in light of Mr. Shahadi's actions in these matters and direct refusal to adhere to the Ethics Ordinance on more than one occasion, he be removed immediately from his position as a City Official on the Tulsa Development Authority's Board of Commissioners and barred from ever serving in such capacity again.

[TheLofts@120]

For those that would like to read the Ethics Ordinance for themselves, it can be found here.

http://www.cityauditorphilwood.com/Supp18/21084.pdf

[waterboy]

You make a good case for cleaning this board up. Hope you succeed and I hope other boards, authorities and trusts are making note. Whether or not you prevail in developing the property or should, I admire you for going after these people.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't know your chances.

His company was a donor so he has a conflict of interest seems tough to prove.

Williams give money to everything. Does that mean that no Williams employee can ever serve on any board?

Does that mean that no BOK employee can ever serve on any board?

Explain again where his monetary gain was from his action.

[swake]

I have a real legal question. How does being a "donor", or being involved with/employed by a donor, create a conflict of interest? There is no interest or benefit derived from being a donor therefore there cannot be a conflict of interest as defined in the ordinance.

A public trust to benefit the city is being created and that trust is having funds donated to it. Since this trust is a not a for profit venture and even more a city chartered public entity it seems to me that a legal conflict cannot be created by being a donor to that entity. There is no tangible personal benefit that can be derived from being a donor therefore there cannot be a real conflict of interest. There may be a predilection to a particular decision that is revealed by being a donor to the trust, but that is not the same thing as a legal conflict of interest since there is no "interest".