Novus Homes Files Suit Against TDA

[sgrizzle]

Someone can recuse themselves anytime they feel uncomfortable, it is not a standing commitment to keep recusing yourself. Also, without any monetary gain, I cannot see how he really needed to do it anyway.

[Conan71]

RM- no, it should not keep someone from serving on a board, all Will Wilkens was asking was for Shahadi and Clayman to recuse from voting on the Novus agreement.

Swake- This is a hair-splitting issue and I don't think either one of us are qualified to make a final call on it, but I'll add my opinion.  

My opinion is, it doesn't matter if it's a commercial, for-profit enterprise or the betterment of Tulsa.  It's a vested interest in an idea or concept.  Whomever donates, gets a certain level of recognition.  In corporate terms, that's advertising if the Williams Cos. or BOK gets their name on a plaque or sign.  If Williams owns properties in the near area, improvements will eventually add value to those, same for BOKF for properties it might finance for others in the area in the future.  Granted, family trusts generally don't gain anything from advertising, but if they own nearby property or have holdings in businesses which do, there's a potential for gain.

In any event, I do think there is a certain disregard for the appearance of impropriety on some of the boards.  If a board member were truly non-biased why would they participate in a vote that would benefit the wishes of clients or employers?  There may have been nothing nefarious about the dealings at TDA, but I can certainly see why there are more people than just Will Wilkens who think so.  A few recusals would have gone a long way in good will (no pun intended).

[MDepr2007]

If the trust is for the benefit and interest of the city, where is the east side representation?

[waterboy]

I agree with Conan on this. No overt monetary gain may be involved but there is pr to be gained, power to be acquired and the possible career gain for the employee who sides with his employer's wishes.

That aside, the trust agreement as posted on this forum is certainly arguable as being for the city's benefit. It appears to benefit us only by some tax dollars and making use of TDA owned land as stimulus for further downtown development. And that's where the power gained by having a seat on that trust is important to his employer. The power to decide who will build what and for how much with the city receiving little benefit other than development of currently fallow lands. Heck, if it all fails and the trust liquidates the assets, the city is not guaranteed any benefit at all. Its up to the trustees. How's that for power?

[carltonplace]

What has the TDA successfully developed or sold for developement? So far they've acquired land for the arena and now the ball park. The only other downtown site that I know of that has been approved was to Greenwood Chamber.

I could be wrong, but I just see them holding onto land all over downtown that has no aggressive plan for development.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

What has the TDA successfully developed or sold for developement? So far they've acquired land for the arena and now the ball park. The only other downtown site that I know of that has been approved was to Greenwood Chamber.

I could be wrong, but I just see them holding onto land all over downtown that has no aggressive plan for development.

That's the part that frustrated me about how they handled Novus.  I thought the whole point of TDA was to bring innovative, independent developers on-board and get them to re-develop these parcels.  They finally get one and I can honestly see no valid reason so far that Novus should have been shut out of a Driller Stadium development package other than an obtuse board.

Personally, if I were Lamson, I'd be talking to Jenks right now.  If history is any predictor of the future, we will keep fumbling this.  Our bureaucracies in Tulsa have such a long and rich history of managing to eff up simple and innovative projects, it's sick.

[Rico]

Personally, if I were Lamson, I'd be talking to Jenks right now. If history is any predictor of the future, we will keep fumbling this. Our bureaucracies in Tulsa have such a long and rich history of managing to eff up simple and innovative projects, it's sick.< Quote

Ditto........!

Can you say .  "Tulsa shot itself in the foot...again.?"

P.R. from this one is forming like a mushroom cloud.

[Conan71]

Rico, you are a man who appreciates good visuals, how's this for starters on TDA:

[Rico]

Very nice....

Borrowed a copy for my collection.[}:)]






the secret safe word.. For Luck.[}:)]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

RM- no, it should not keep someone from serving on a board, all Will Wilkens was asking was for Shahadi and Clayman to recuse from voting on the Novus agreement.

Clayman did recuse himself from the vote.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

RM- no, it should not keep someone from serving on a board, all Will Wilkens was asking was for Shahadi and Clayman to recuse from voting on the Novus agreement.

Clayman did recuse himself from the vote.

Ah, re-reading I see he did.  I guess Will's point was that Clayman may have been breaching ethics by calling for a vote and participating in the discussion.  Good catch.

"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."

[RecycleMichael]

Should he be allowed to serve on this board...should they be allowed to participate in conversation...should they be allowed to vote...all are different points.

Will's petiton says "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."

[sgrizzle]

quote:

ever serving in such capacity again on.

Is this from the department of redundancy department?

[MDepr2007]

If this wasn't a downtown thing, would the same posters be complaining about the complainers instead[)][)]

[Chris Medlock]

quote:Originally posted by 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".

You are trying to apply a "legal" standard to this question. Shahadi didn't act contrary to state law or to any legal canon of ethics. What he did was in violation of Tulsa's specific Ethics Ordinance.

It does not matter if he stands to gain financially or if his employer stands to gain financially. The ordinance prohibits you from voting to the benefit of your church, your social club or any other organization that you might have an "intangible" attachment to.

How do I know? I was part of the committee that drafted the ordinance and that was our intent.