Novus Homes Files Suit Against TDA

[Gold]

But you don't have an MBA, so how would you know anything?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

But that goes to the core of the question.

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 does being a donor to a trust create a benefit? It doesn't. Therefore there is no conflict.


I don't become a beneficiary of the United Way when I donate to them. How is this different?

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by 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.

But that goes to the core of the question.

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 does being a donor to a trust create a benefit? It doesn't. Therefore there is no conflict.


I don't become a beneficiary of the United Way when I donate to them. How is this different?

I think you may come up short on this one Swake...

The employers of these individuals can not become donors unless the proposed "Trust" has control of the property..

Their votes will give that control to the "Trust" if created.

Whether their "donations" are for their own gain is immaterial. It is in furtherance of their proposed action and could be construed as an unusually friendly relationship.

Just my 20cents... because that is about how much law I know.

[Wrinkle]

I think it could be said the "Trust" Agreement isn't that at all, and 'donors' are actually 'buying' into the operation.

Also, it appears to me the 'donors' money will not be spent on the ballpark directly, rather on the adjacent property development. THAT's why our ballpark is estimated at $60 million instead of $30 million like it should be.

[Renaissance]

Yes, it seems that this "donation" doesn't just build a stadium--it also gives the "donors" de facto total control for the next 12 years over any and all commercial development adjacent to the stadium.  It's a highly unusual arrangement, to be sure.  Too creative by half.  I am not accusing any of the investors donors of having bad motives, but they are sure to see benefit from their investment donations due to the control over the direction it buys them.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Yes, it seems that this "donation" doesn't just build a stadium--it also gives the "donors" de facto total control for the next 12 years over any and all commercial development adjacent to the stadium.  It's a highly unusual arrangement, to be sure.  Too creative by half.  I am not accusing any of the investors donors of having bad motives, but they are sure to see benefit from their investment donations due to the control over the direction it buys them.

I've thought about this one for awhile.  I hear the complaint that the trust is created in such a way that the white collar, Southern Hills crowd is running it.  I won't dispute your assertion of the facts, other than note that I sincerely doubt all the listed names will benefit financially from land deals near the stadium.

But here's something I've thought about: do you think these folks might be sick and tired of hoi polloi blocking any sort of progress downtown?  It seems like any time we get a big project going in this city, the paranoid types come from the hills and we get bombarded by a bunch of malarkey from folks like Medlock and Hicks.  The way this trust is set up, it keeps it from being subject to rash decisions and baseless allegations that tend to wreck a lot of local initiatives.

So, in a way, it might be a cynical attempt by a bunch of aristocrats to preempt the cyncial comments and actions of wannabe city leaders  for the benefit of a stadium.

I don't really care how we get there.  Just build the damn thing.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Rico


Just my 20cents... because that is about how much law I know.

Does that mean you would do cut-rate legal opinions and contracts for me?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Yes, it seems that this "donation" doesn't just build a stadium--it also gives the "donors" de facto total control for the next 12 years over any and all commercial development adjacent to the stadium.  It's a highly unusual arrangement, to be sure.  Too creative by half.  I am not accusing any of the investors donors of having bad motives, but they are sure to see benefit from their investment donations due to the control over the direction it buys them.

I've thought about this one for awhile.  I hear the complaint that the trust is created in such a way that the white collar, Southern Hills crowd is running it.  I won't dispute your assertion of the facts, other than note that I sincerely doubt all the listed names will benefit financially from land deals near the stadium.

But here's something I've thought about: do you think these folks might be sick and tired of hoi polloi blocking any sort of progress downtown?  It seems like any time we get a big project going in this city, the paranoid types come from the hills and we get bombarded by a bunch of malarkey from folks like Medlock and Hicks.  The way this trust is set up, it keeps it from being subject to rash decisions and baseless allegations that tend to wreck a lot of local initiatives.

So, in a way, it might be a cynical attempt by a bunch of aristocrats to preempt the cyncial comments and actions of wannabe city leaders  for the benefit of a stadium.

I don't really care how we get there.  Just build the damn thing.

Gold, it seems there are a slim few who really put up the big bucks consistently in this city when it comes to arenas, theaters, parks, sports, etc.

I believe a handful of people or entities connected to those people (Kaiser, Lorton, Williams, BOKF, KFOC, KFT, various Wms entities, TW, F & M) has some people pretty scared about very narrow control of a lot of public space in one city via corporate and philanthropic interests- moreso Kaiser than anyone else.  Having one of the wealthiest Americans as a benevolent resident is a blessing, but the whole river tax fiasco with strings attached has made many people leery and cynical of the usual donors motives for the city.

I admit, I'm guilty as well of some cynicism and fomenting doubt in others at times and it may be totally un-founded.

This whole episode with Wilkens seems wrong because here was somewhat of an outsider who got shut out by those considered as insiders or proxies of insiders.  I'm not saying there is a vast conspiracy, my point is and has been that it's got the appearance of impropriety all over it.  Appearance is all you need to kill trust amongst people.

I agree, the core group of usual givers seem to be able to cut red tape no one else seems to, but they wind up with egg on their face when things like the ballpark fiasco happens or they con the most incompetent, obtuse, and potentially corrupt  county commissioner to carry the water on a hasty near $300mm tax proposal with very few definitions as to the final product.

It's not like the usual donors haven't given the usual crack pots plenty to put in their cauldrons. []

[TheLofts@120]

I was just reading the Tulsa World and saw their editorial reply to our filing of the ethics complaints (which I knew would be coming).  But in the interest of wanting to be fair and allow everyone to have their opinion regarding this matter, since it promotes discussion and questions regarding the various matters surrounding all this, I thought I would share.  I found all the comments most interesting but particularly liked the last one from from DowntownNow (doubt it will be on there for much longer tho).

Here's a link to the article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=20080822_61_A14_hEDITO130638&allcom=1#commentform

And here are the comments posted so far:
 
righton, (8/22/2008 7:44:13 AM)
there is no ethics in the city of tulsa leadership and apparently at the tulsa world. the tulsa world has a habit of trying to explain away anything that is immoral or unethical.  
 
Lawrence, Tulsa (8/22/2008 7:58:25 AM)
Look, you can't control both ends of a deal, simple, end of story. That's conflict of interest. No one in the private sector will be involved in a business deal where one of the parties has that kind of influence because you're the one that will get screwed in the end, big time.

Now, if that deal has anything to do with the city, one of it's trusts or authorities, then it violates the ethics laws, as it should, and you have to recuse yourself from that deal. If you're a member of the council or on a board of city trust or authority, then you have to recuse yourself from any involvement what so ever in the discussion or vote in that deal. (I'm no ethics expert and I'm sure there's a lot more to it, but that in a nutshell is how it always works.)

What's happened in this TDA and ballpark deal is that 3 of the 5 board members have conflicts of interest and should recuse themselves as required by Tulsa's ethics laws.

Now, to the real reason for the TW throwing this temper tantrum...They don't like that the ethics laws of the city is preventing the powerful downtown donor companies and law firms from sending their employees onto these authority boards and trusts and thus have total control over the money and the project. Which is what they've been doing in the case of this ballpark. What they also don't like is that if 3 of the 5 recuse themselves then they can't do anything with the ballpark because they would never be able to get a quarum on the issue.

Also, if you read the proposed trust document you'll see that if the coucil approves the trust, the city will be giving them "cart blanche" ability to go any where in the city and buy and cell land, using eminent domain if they have to.

Citizens of Tulsa, wake up!! Call, write, email your coucilor. Tell them to vote NO on this ballpark trust.  
 

jett rink, (8/22/2008 9:32:02 AM)
"...self-appointed windbags"

Same as the Tulsa World editorial writers, who obviously hold democracy in contempt.  
 

DowntownNow, (8/22/2008 10:20:25 AM)
What a joke of an editorial! This coming from the most biased paper in Oklahoma no to mention from what I'm sure is the direction of the Lortons as "donors" to the ballpark. TW and the donors are just upset that someone like the Wilkenses are standing up to the big and powerful and taking them to task for a change. The City Council even has a problem with the ethics involed but I guess who are we to question what the Lortons and the Kaisers and the others with money and power have to say.

You want to write a real and meaningful editorial, one with journalistic integrity and truth with substance behind it? Then write one about the hypocracy of these power players calling this a donation when it fact its an investment. Write one about how the meaning on philanthropy has apparently changed within our city to mean the giving with strings attached. Write one about how unethical it is to want the IDL property owners to pay half of this so called "ballpark plan" for not only the stadium but the redevelopment of surrounding properties and not have a say in the way the Trust is operated. Write one for Pete's sake about how what was once a well respected paper can have fallen so far to be nothing more than the mouth piece of the special intersts. Any of those would make for meaningful and newsworthy journalism...not this garbage meant to distract us from what is really going on.  

[TheLofts@120]

By the way, thanks to Mr. Clayman for pointing out my error in the Tulsa World article on Thursday.  I have since filed an amendment to my original ethics complaint.  That language is below.  I also provided a copy to PJ Lassek of the Tulsa World yesterday along with voice audio from the August 7th TDA meeting that substantiated the second segment of my amendment but no story so far.

COMPLAINT – ETHICS VIOLATION (AMENDMENT)

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
      918/902-0760

Amendment:   In the initial Ethics Violation filed on August 19, 2008, I erred in referencing the date of July 8, 2008, in the first paragraph.  Mr. Clayman was not present at that TDA Work Study meeting.  It was my intention to make reference to the TDA meeting of April 17, 2008, where Mr. Clayman participated in discussions and, as referred to in the second paragraph, chose to recuse himself just prior to the vote.  

   Mr. Clayman also makes reference in voice audio from the August 7th meeting that he discussed whether he should recuse himself in the matter with his employer, Mr. Fred Dorwart.  The fact that Mr. Clayman chose to consult his direct employer, referenced doing so in open meeting when discussing his original opposition to recuse after being challenged and most importantly, that the question or possibility of a conflict was raised by Mr. Clayman himself prior to the meeting speaks to his own mindset regarding the possibility or even the appearance of a conflict.  The fact Mr. Clayman had a prior conversation with his boss, Mr. Dorwart (a key proponent and participant of the ballpark plan) speaks to the issue of his conflict.  

It was for this very reason Mr. Clayman chose to recuse himself at the April 17, 2008, meeting as well.  Mr. Clayman was not challenged to recuse himself at the April 17, 2008, meeting; he chose to do this of his own accord.  At that time, there were no listings of ballpark donors or players involved in developing the ballpark plan and stadium trust that would have prompted me to challenge for recusal.  

[Conan71]

"The city has better ways to spend its time and energy than listening to whiners and self-appointed windbags."

So says the unidentified "World Editorial Writer"

You got you some really classy Op/Ed writers there, Lorton.  The word "penis" comes to mind...

[carltonplace]

If I were Mayor Taylor I'd do three things to get the ballpark back on track (realizing of course that you can't make everyone happy) and smoothe over some of hard feelings about the deal:

1. Request that the TDA reopen negotiations with Novus and give the RFP a serious look.
2. Open 3 or 4 seats on the ballpark trust to downtown property owners, and not just the big property owners so that the trust can get the approval of the council. Maybe also modify the terms to less than 12 years for donors.
3. Come to an agreement with the Drillers and finalize their list of stipulations: approving some and rejecting whatever isn't a deal breaker.

If she places herself as the mediator she could help restore some goodwill for the project.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Novus has asked for an injunction (i presume) on the TDA decision.

Wow, good for them. If they win the injunction they will be able to exclusively negotiate to buy land that there is no way in hell TDA would ever sell to them now. Exclusively at least until November when the period ends. That's going to be quite a victory if they get it.

[TheLofts@120]

As a follow up to Rico's comment in another post, I decided to enter my comments related to it here instead of there, hope everyone doesnt mind.

I felt the need to reply to today's Tulsa World article as I was not contacted by the writer prior to its publication for one reason or another.

Authority approves $46,000 offer to settle suit
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Friday, April 09, 2010
4/9/2010 6:40:48 AM

The Tulsa Development Authority on Thursday approved a $46,000 offer to settle a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by a local development firm.

Will Wilkins of Novus Homes and his mother, Cecilia Wilkins of W3 Development, sued the city in August 2008 after the authority ended negotiations for a redevelopment contract on a piece of property near the downtown ballpark.

During a Thursday authority meeting, members were told that the $46,000 figure was reached through mediation of the lawsuit.

The amount is subject to the plaintiffs' acceptance, authority attorney Jot Hartley said.

The Wilkinses could not be reached for comment.

Authority member Carl Bracy said the amount "is more than they deserve."

Hartley responded: "I couldn't agree with you more."

Although portions of the lawsuit have been dismissed, Hartley said, a negligence claim remains.

The settlement offer will not save the authority money, Hartley said, but it would be about what it would cost to go through litigation.

Hartley said the offer in no way constitutes an admission of liability or culpability on the part of the authority.

Hartley said an earlier offer of $16,000 was rejected by the Wilkinses.

The lawsuit alleged that the authority ended an exclusive negotiation period with Novus on property that is now part of the master plan for the downtown ballpark project.

Novus was approached by the authority about the property after previous development efforts had fallen through and prior to the ballpark being relocated to the Greenwood area.

The ballpark was initially to be located in the East Village until problems arose in acquiring some of the land there.

The lawsuit stated that once the ballpark's new site was announced, negotiations with Novus began to break down and ultimately ended.

The site Novus was going to develop fell in an area surrounding the stadium, which was to be acquired by the Tulsa Stadium Trust for redevelopment, the lawsuit states.

Rico, again I appreciate your comments.  For us however, this is not a dead issue as we intend to continue pursuing the matter while also focusing efforts on further downtown redevelopment.  In response to the Tulsa World article, I wrote PJ Lassek the following and am sharing with you all so there is no misunderstanding...as there appears to be based on several calls I have received already.

Email to PJ Lassek

Good morning PJ.

I was surprised to read this article this morning for several reasons, most among them was the statement that Plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.  To the best of my knowledge, we were never contacted for comment regarding this matter.  I trust this was simply an oversight, but one that I believe should be corrected for your readership if at all possible.

Had we been contacted, several things would have been referenced with regards to the offer made and comments by TDA commissioner Carl Bracy and TDA Counsel Jot Hartley.

It was always my understanding and that of the other Plaintiff and Counsel in this case that efforts made during the course of mediation were strictly for that purpose and that any materials, offers, etc were not to be discussed outside of mediation.  This is something the TDA's Counsel obviously feels is an unwarranted understanding for mediation purposes and we regret TDA's counsel chose to publicly release such information.

At no time during the course of mediation was a settlement offer ever 'reached' between the parties.  While TDA did make an final offer of settlement prior to the close of mediation, TDA Counsel Jot Hartley was informed personally at the TDA Work Study public meeting on 4-1-10, that Plaintiffs would not be accepting the proposed final offer from mediation.  This was an agenda item to be discussed during executive session at that meeting and Mr. Hartley chose to make personal one-on-one contact with myself, outside of Plaintiff's counsel to address this issue. 

Again, TDA counsel was made aware that Plaintiffs did not accept the last settlement offer and that Plaintiff's counsel would be contacting him to schedule a conference to determine an appropriate court date and schedule.  For TDA to suggest in the article that the TDA's proposed settlement is subject to the Plaintiff's acceptance as if it is still on the table is a mis-characterization.

While a portion of the lawsuit was dismissed on 12-17-09 when the TDA attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed in it's entirety through a motion for summary judgment, both a negligence claim and promissory estoppel claim survived.  TDA counsel is wrong in stating that only the negligence claim survived. 

Regarding TDA Commissioner Carl Bracy's comment that the amount "is more than they deserve" and TDA counsel's responding "I couldn't agree with you more," we trust that a jury of our peers will make this determination, not the same authority that chose to terminate an exclusive negotiating agreement to serve third party private interests, and was entered into by the Plaintiffs in good faith.

I hope this serves to clarify several points regarding your article and provides us the opportunity to get our side of the issue out.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 902-0760.

Respectfully,

Will Wilkins

Based upon this article, OETA contacted and conducted an interview that will air tonight at 6:30 with Angela Rose Crantz.  PJ Lassek has contacted me as well, and I hope that she and the Tulsa World will publish a follow up article on the matter.

Thank you. 

[Breadburner]

Keep after them.....!