Big kudos and many thanks to those who have put their hats in the ring to run for local/state political office. It takes a lot of work to run a campaign and a lot of courage to put your name on the line with very little thanks or financial remuneration (in most cases).
Yesterday, 3/12/18, was the deadline for candidates to file for state legislative seats. Below is the latest list of local Great Falls area candidates who have filed. A few points we found worth noting:
There are no uncontested seats in either the Senate or House races.
Senate District 13 includes a Libertarian candidate.
No primaries in the Senate races.
A 2-way GOP primary in HD19, 3-way GOP primary in HD21, and a 3-way Democrat primary in HD25.
Senate Races
House Races
Stay tuned to E-City Beat for regular updates and coverage of Election 2018, including candidate questionnaires and non-legislative races.
If you’re considering running for local party precinct committee member positions, county offices, or state and federal offices, the deadline to file is 5:00 PM Monday, March 12.
There are also three Great Falls Public Schools Board of Trustees seats up for election on May 8. The deadline to file as a candidate for the school board is 5:00 PM Thursday, March 29.
According to a new poll from Axios, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) might be in a little bit of trouble this year.
Tester is getting pounded to the tune of 55-42 against the generic “Republican,” presumably Montana State Auditor Matt Rosendale.
From his shameless sycophancy to Big Pharma, to his flip-flopping on DACA, to his #Resistance-styled obstructionism that is to the left of even Chuck Schumer — Tester joined socialists Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as one of the lonely 18 “resisters” who voted to continue the failed Schumer Shutdown, even as Schumer himself voted to re-open the government — Jon Tester appears increasingly and remarkably out of touch with Montana values.
Kudos are in order for Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly. Well, sort of at least.
At the 2/20/18 City Commission meeting, the Mayor apologized to citizens and to the organizations that won’t be receiving almost $200,000 in CDBG grants. Well, kind of apologized anyway.
The reason that some local non-profit organizations will not be receiving the grant money they rely on from last year’s CDBG distribution is because the US Department of Housing and Urban Development revoked the funding due to conflicts of interest occurring within the local Community Development Council and from within the City Commission itself.
I truly appreciate Mayor Kelly’s attempt to take some responsibility here. I think it’s a refreshing and somewhat surprising departure from what has been a disturbing lack of honesty, transparency and accountability within the City Commission for a while now.
You can find the Mayor’s comments and apology here, starting at 42:17 and going until 45:34 on the video. It does seem, however, that the Mayor is still in a little bit of denial about the nature of the conflicts of interest that are at the heart of this entire fiasco.
Kelly: “So I think the best thing to do and something I feel very strongly about is to take full responsibility for the confusion and for the apparent conflict of interest…” (emphasis added)
Confusion?
Well, yes the public has been confused by the contradictory words and behavior exhibited by Kelly and other commissioners as it pertains to their votes to distribute taxpayer funds. But it’s pretty clear that there was no confusion on the part of the commissioners themselves. They knew exactly what they were doing and in some cases they clearly knew it was wrong.
Commissioner Kelly didn’t seem ‘confused’ when on July 21, 2015 at a city commission meeting on the controversial Thaniel Addition, after he had just resigned as a member of the board of NeighborWorks Great Falls, and when a potential conflict of interest loomed large in the public eye, he said: “I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.”
And from the minutes of that meeting: “He (Bob Kelly) explained that he did resign from the NeigborWorks Board after the last Commission meeting. It became apparent that in order for him to do this job, he had to give up the areas of what he perceived to be a conflict. He has every legal right to vote on this item tonight because he was removed from his responsibilities as a Board of Director, but chooses not to.”
Nor did he appear to be confused at a March 21, 2017 city commission meeting when he abstained from voting to give Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Timeliness funds to the Great Falls Development Authority (GFDA), while he was a member of the GFDA Board. One could conclude from this that Kelly knew the clear, unambiguous HUD definition of conflict of interest:
“1. Know the Requirements – In general, conflicts of interest occur when one’s private interest and public duties overlap, resulting in a real or perceived lack of independence or impartiality. Common situations include: Elected officials voting on awarding of funds to organizations where a family member is on the staff or where the elected official is on the subrecipient’s board;…” (emphasis added)
However, at the April 18, 2017 meeting of the commission, Mayor Kelly did not abstain from voting to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The Mayor stated he had just resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.
‘However, at the April 18, 2017 meeting of the commission, Mayor Kelly did not abstain from voting to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The Mayor stated he had just resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.’
In addition to the HUD rules (see above), common sense should dictate that if you serve on the board of an organization, like GFDA, you can’t as a City Commissioner vote to allocate funds to that organization. Even if Kelly resigned immediately prior to his affirmative vote in this case, the appearance of impropriety should be obvious, not confusing.
Twice Kelly abstains because of his position on the boards of organizations receiving funding, knowing that “sometimes things are right”, but then he goes ahead and votes on approval of funds for GFDA even though he had recently resigned from that board. What was different?
I would feel a lot better about the sincerity and genuineness of Kelly’s apology had he taken a minute to explain to the ‘confused’ public and clear up the contradictions in his own actions and words as a commissioner and mayor.
By the way, the amount of funding that HUD rescinded from GFDA was the same amount, $40,000, that Kelly felt “free and clear” to vote for. The HUD CDBG requirements are crystal clear and easily accessible and if Kelly didn’t know them, he should have.
In his apology statement the Mayor also referenced “…apparent conflicts of interest”.
Apparent?
According to the HUD letter, which can be read in full here, there were actual conflicts of interest: “At a minimum, these actions create an appearance of impropriety in the CDBG funding process, as well as actual conflicts of interest in some cases.”
Also from the letter, “Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.” (emphasis added)
And finally, from the letter, “The City Commission membership, the final approving authority for the City’s CDBG funding, also included members with business or personal relationships with employees of CDBG subrecipients or subrecipients themselves.”
Is Bob Kelly reading the same HUD letter the rest of us are reading? How in the world can he possibly interpret the HUD conclusions as anything other than findings of not just the appearance of conflicts, but actual conflicts of interest? Including from currently sitting City Commissioners.
So while I sincerely appreciate the Mayor’s attempt to apologize, unfortunately the effort falls short. What is he apologizing for if it’s all just “confusion” and only an “appearance” of impropriety? What it boils down to is a slick way of giving the illusion of remorse while at the same time saying you have nothing to be remorseful about.
“So while I sincerely appreciate the Mayor’s attempt to apologize, unfortunately the effort falls short. What is he apologizing for if it’s all just “confusion” and only an “appearance” of impropriety? What it boils down to is a slick way of giving the illusion of remorse while at the same time saying you have nothing to be remorseful about.”
What if you told your kids that they could go outside to play but that they better not play in the mud. Then after a little while they come in the house all muddy.
You: “I thought I told you not to play in the mud, but you did anyway, so you need to apologize for not doing what you were told.”
Oldest kid: “Okay. I’d like to apologize for the confusion here and the appearance that we were playing in the mud.”
You: “You’re all muddy. Are you telling me that you weren’t playing in the mud?”
Oldest kid: “Well, that certainly wasn’t our intention so please accept our sincere apology.”
Would you as a parent just say “Okay, let’s move on then.”? I doubt it. Yet, what message are we sending to the citizens of Great Falls, including our youth, if we pretend that this CDBG fiasco and the HUD findings is all just a well-intentioned misunderstanding?
So far the only ones being held accountable are the organizations that won’t be getting their funding. It appears that no one, not one person who is actually to blame for this debacle, is being held accountable or taking responsibility in any meaningful manner. That includes Mayor Kelly and his kind-of-but-not-really apology.
And finally, it should be pointed out that Kelly’s apology cannot be taken as a blanket butt-covering for the other city commissioners who are directly culpable – Bill Bronson and Tracy Houck, who sat in stony silence when the Mayor twice gave them the opportunity to comment on this issue, a chance to offer their own apologies.
I wonder why Mayor Kelly is willing to tolerate and excuse their conflicts of interest? And how much money will it cost us taxpayers and our local nonprofits because of his excuses and failure to address these issues head on, as a real leader?
Stay tuned for upcoming episodes in this series covering a full explication of the recent HUD letter, the details and history of the other City Commissioners roles in the recent Great Falls CDBG funding circus, its implications, and how we are going to move forward.
Golf is a valued recreational activity in Great Falls, however, some are now voicing concerns regarding the long term sustainability of two municipal golf courses in Great Falls and the Park and Recreation Department’s ability to continue to operate them.
The City of Great Falls is responsible for Anaconda Hills and Eagle Falls golf courses. Unfortunately, the golf course fund is $1,199,882 in the red as of December 2017 and according to Finance Director Melissa Kinzler, the debt gets worse every year.
From the February 6, 2018, city commission work session:
“Director Kinzler reported that the golf course ending fund balance is negative $1,199,882 as of December 31, 2017. She explained that the revenues are less, which may be due to weather; however, it still has the full time expenses of staff. The cash balance gets worse every year, as well as an increase with the intercap interest.”
Apparently, city golf course operations were shored up by the city’s general fund for a number of years, as noted in the city commission’s work session notes, dated February 2, 2016:
“Director Kinzler reported that the last debt service payment was made in September for the golf courses. Manager Doyon commented that the consultant will touch on whether or not the City should have two golf courses in the Park & Recreation Master Plan. Just because the debt service is relieved, the golf courses still owe the general fund a significant amount of money.”
Despite the debt service retirement in 2016, it seems the city still has a financial situation on its hands with the golf fund’s negative balance of over a million dollars. At least one city official would like to see the city take a different approach in running the municipal golf courses.
“City Manager Greg Doyon expressed concern with regard to resolving the golf course debt. He commented that the golf course fund needs to be operated like a business. If it can’t be sustained, other areas in Park and Recreation, as well as the flexibility of the General Fund that could address other priorities, would be affected.” February 6, 2018, city commission work session.”
Yes, it appears we have a problem with the city-run golf courses’ financials. But Great Falls is far from alone in its municipal golf woes. A quick search online shows many communities across the country are dealing with the dilemma. For example, Duluth, Minnesota is one community facing financial difficulties with its courses:
Participation in golf has been in decline for almost a decade. The Great Falls Parks and Recreation Master Plan, October 2016 (Master Plan), includes statistics from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2016, which notes that golf participation nationally has decreased 7.7% from 2010-2015.
An online search of golf statistics will back up that truth—golf as a leisure activity is declining in popularity. Factors leading to the decline have been noted in a variety of online news articles and golf industry research and include millennials lack of interest in golf, time constraints with current golfers and cost of play.
Great Falls is above the national average for the number of municipal golf courses per population, according to the Master Plan. The Master Plan used recreational industry service standards to compare to current Great Falls park amenities. The standards recommend one municipal golf course per 50,000 population. Great Falls has one course per 29,491 population.
“Great Falls is above the national average for the number of municipal golf courses per population, according to the Master Plan. The Master Plan used recreational industry service standards to compare to current Great Falls park amenities. The standards recommend one municipal golf course per 50,000 population. Great Falls has one course per 29,491 population.”
According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Great Falls needs to answer the question of whether or not the golf courses should be subsidized. The Master Plan also raises some doubts about the city’s ability to sustain two courses:
“Golf is highly valued in the community, however, questions arose regarding the long term sustainability of the department’s ability to operate two, eighteen-hole golf courses.”
Highly valued might be a bit of an overstatement. The Great Falls parks survey showed that only 16% of the respondents listed golf as one of their top four recreational choices in Great Falls. The top valued recreational choice for Great Falls was trails, at 48%.
Great Falls needs a solution to its golf dilemma. Continued “mulligans” from the general fund aren’t the answer. I would tend to agree with Doyon, the courses should be run more like a business. What does a business sometimes do when it can no longer operate all of its facilities? It makes the tough decision to shut some of them down.
Editors note: The deadline to file for county-wide elections is March 12. The only Cascade County Commission seat up for election is the District 3 seat currently held by Democrat Jane Weber. So far, Weber is unopposed. Commission candidates must live within the district they are running to represent.
Lots of folks have been complaining about the county commission district maps on the Cascade County website. So I took the initiative to contact Rina Moore, Cascade County Clerk and Recorder to request better maps.
Those maps have now been posted and are found here:
The following was posted on Facebook by Great Falls mom Kelsie Semple on Tuesday, February 27th, 2018. E-City Beat is publishing the post with Kelsie’s permission.
The content is unedited. There are minor formatting edits for easier readability.
You can find responses from Big Sky Bus Lines and the Great Falls Public School District in KFBB’s news footage here.
“After what could have been a tragic event, I feel that it is my obligation AS A MOTHER to let everyone, who has young children that attend the Skyline Preschool, and ride Big Sky Bus Lines to school everyday, know what happened to my FIVE year old this morning!
At 8:06 this morning, I put my five year old daughter on bus #19 to start her every day routine to the skyline preschool. At around 945am, I received an automatic phone call saying my daughter was marked absent today. I then messaged my daughter’s teacher immediately, questioning why she was marked absent when I had placed her on the morning bus myself. She replied that my daughter was not at school and that she was going to call Big Sky Bus Lines, and told me ‘not to panic’. She called me after about 10 minutes and told my daughter never got off the bus! At this point I am put in a complete panic and wondering where my daughter is!!
Without any hesitation, I started to drive to the bus depot.
On the way there, a deputy from the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office called me and let me know that he had my daughter! So thankful that I put my name and number on the inside lining of her coat, I was able to meet up with him and the other families who had so graciously pulled off the side of the road to stay with my sweet Presley. Did I mention she was on the Old Havre HIGHWAY?!
She had fallen asleep on the bus and woke up at the bus depot, where she was able to push open the bus door and then run to find someone else because she was all alone. The families had said she was waving at cars on the side of the highway. And she described to me that she was “waving at people for help”.
My only intention in letting you all know about this extreme, unfortunate event is to, hold someone accountable! It is completely unacceptable!! If the bus driver and the teacher’s aide were following appropriate protocols, my daughter would NOT have been left on that bus, and would be enjoying her day at school, instead of being scared to be left alone again!
‘My only intention in letting you all know about this extreme, unfortunate event is to, hold someone accountable! It is completely unacceptable!! If the bus driver and the teacher’s aide were following appropriate protocols, my daughter would NOT have been left on that bus, and would be enjoying her day at school, instead of being scared to be left alone again!’
I can’t describe the feeling that came over me after hearing all of this happen this morning. And I am so unbelievably grateful for those who stayed and waited with her, and that no serious harm came to Presley today.”
Currently, GFHS has approximately 380 on-campus parking spots, which is by conservative measure about 300 short.
In order to address the parking shortage, the school district is planning to pursue three approaches.
The first, remove a substantial portion of the fabric of the picturesque and historic original campus landscaped open space on the northeast corner at 20th Street and 2nd Avenue South.
The beautiful treed campus is what makes Great Falls High School a very special and cohesive part of the neighborhood which can never be duplicated. A major reason why GFHS was selected as the most beautiful high school in Montana by Architectural Digest magazine.
The second, buy multiple single family residentially zoned 50’ x 150’ lots in the neighborhoods surrounding the school, rezone the properties, demolish the structures and build mini parking lots of no more than 20 parking space on each. The GFPS school board has already approved the purchase of the historic Campfire property and building at 1925 2nd Avenue South. The offer to pay $100K is contingent upon the City of Great Falls granting a zone change.
The third, is to acquire approximately 1/3 of Kranz Park to the west of Memorial Stadium for a large surface parking lot. This approach would also require a zone change.
Our architectural firm has advocated for a different approach to solve the parking problem at GFHS, structured parking on the existing one entire block of the practice Field. This became a real possibility when the school district installed an artificial surface in Memorial Stadium which now allows the football team to practice in the stadium.
The District’s options 2 and 3 requiring re-zoning of neighborhood single family properties and Kranz park will not be a “walk in the park, or the neighborhood” given the City’s attitude about liquidating park land, or approving “spot zoning”.
What is spot zoning?
From an article by ELYSSE JAMES | Orange County Register
March 13, 2012
“Spot zoning is when one area’s use differs from its surroundings; in this case, the surrounding area is designated as single family residential. It can be deemed illegal when it is not compatible with the existing zoning designations or with a community zoning plan.”
A judge has decided the Orange County Board of Supervisors used illegal spot zoning practices for a proposed senior living community in North Tustin that has been the subject of debate for three years.
The District’s first option should elicit a negative vote from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office and the Great Falls Historic Preservation Commission.
So why won’t the GFPS school district consider structured parking solution to the problem? They are currently saying and have repeatedly said in the past that they don’t have the $5M in available funds to build a parking structure for 300 cars.
Here’s the idea.
The district still needs to build a new Longfellow school. Why not use the much acclaimed design used for the new Giant Springs Elementary? The exact same school, but with a different name. That would save architectural and engineering fees and involve only minor changes; Maybe a different color palette. The new GSE is of relatively light weight construction and would be suited for soils conditions at the Longfellow site.
“The district still needs to build a new Longfellow school. Why not use the much acclaimed design used for the new Giant Springs Elementary? The exact same school, but with a different name. That would save architectural and engineering fees and involve only minor changes; Maybe a different color palette. The new GSE is of relatively light weight construction and would be suited for soils conditions at the Longfellow site.”
Students that happen to transfer from one school to the other would quickly recognize the same floor plan, where the offices were located, how to get to the restrooms, gym and library. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
The same contractor could be hired to build both schools and the district could potentially realize enough of a cost savings to make up the difference to build a parking structure at GFHS and solve a 50 year old problem without adversely affecting the GFHS campus, or the neighborhood surrounding it.
Well Tammy, tell us how you really feel about solving the parking problem at GFHS. Here’s what Superintendent Lacey wrote in a recent form Email to those who have expressed their feelings about the District’s plans:
“Finally I note that I would prefer not spending any money on parking.”
There exists an emergent trend in the local discourse these days, and it goes something like this: if you oppose something, but didn’t say so on the record at the meeting where it was discussed, then your ideas are not credible, and you need to shut up.
It’s an amusing fallacy that, while rhetorically effective to some, should be rightfully vilified as logically bankrupt by all.
Witness the hectoring from GFPS educator Kimberly Clark:
Notwithstanding the irony of Clark’s lecture on “keyboard warriors” from her keyboard, to Tryon’s point, some folks simply can’t get there. They’re at work!
To a degree, I appreciate the sentiment: it is more impactful to show up to a meeting and speak your peace. But that doesn’t work for everyone.
Many folks find public meetings uncomfortable. This is a small town, and to be candid, some of our local bodies are historically not the most friendly. (Anyone remember Dona Stebbins?) A lot of folks are understandably not in love with the notion of going “on the record” and taking a position where they, their business(es), and/or their children could be met with reprisals. I get it. And many people just aren’t natural public speakers.
Thankfully, in our ever-changing Republic, folks do have a voice — online, via social media, and on forums like E-City Beat.
Consider this: of the 250+ different servers who view our blog, Great Falls Public Schools delivers the fourth most views. That’s huge! While it is on one hand amusing that our educators and administrators read ECB’s content on our, the taxpayers’ dime on District-tethered devices (and that doesn’t count their personal machines, like smart phones), is it honest to suggest that the District is really unaware of our ideas, whether they are good, bad, or indifferent? Should Tryon have had to excuse himself from work to deliver ideas the District was privy to already? Alternatively, what if Tryon got a hall pass from work, and said that the plan to bury the Campfire building was a bad call? Would his ideas have magically had more merit had he physically attended the meeting?
Such is the pathology of some of our readers.
And Clark is amazingly among the more sensible adherents to this tenet.
In truly unhinged fashion, local attorney Robert Kamper suggested that if Tryon didn’t make a good faith effort to buy the Campfire building, then he should have had no voice:
Perhaps Kampfer, after downshifting to a more sensible position, has a sense of humor….. but his initial instinct was absurd on its face. It does dovetail, though, with the default settings of Angry Readers Dennis Granlie and Patrick Caniporilielie [sic], who question ad nauseam — despite their absence — whether or not I or anyone with the temerity to question the School District has attended the most recent School Board meeting. (Apparently, you can support a decision in absentia, but you can’t oppose one.)
It is rhetorical maneuvering masquerading as a legitimate argument, and it is cheap. It’s a copout from facing or discussing any real ideas. If you or I, or anyone else, happened to attend the last Board meeting that the Trustees were indisputably prepared to ignore, does that make our ideas — whether we agree or not — any more or less legitimate?
I have asked it, sincerely so, and I have still yet to see any real response…..
What about the zoning?
Forget who went to the meeting….. and honestly answer the question: what about the zoning?
Precisely no one has answered this question yet.
Here’s a guess: If the School District’s “plan”, such that it is, were advanced by Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Rick Tryon, Cyndi Baker, or any other known conservative, outrage from the same District defenders, over a plan predicated on spending millions of our tax dollars in the hopes that the City will break its own rules, would be through the roof — no matter who attended any meetings — and that tells you all you need to know.
Here’s a quote from Rowell’s story: “The city is not fighting the HUD findings related to the CDBG process, but is following up in regards to HUD’s interpretation of City Attorney Sara Sexe’s comments during a June meeting.”
I found the following in HUD’s letter to the city, which contains the HUD interpretation that the city apparently took issue with:
“Finally, we are concerned with an exchange between the City Commission and the City Attorney as it relates to the 2017 allocation. The minutes for Great Falls’ June 20, 2017 Regular City commission Meeting, contain a statement by City Attorney Sara Sexe that“a representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had reported that there was not a conflict of interest.” That statement is false. While we do not need a response to this issue, we do want to make it clear that this office did not previously review and excuse the city of any Conflicts of Interest. We are currently engaged in that process.” (emphasis added)
The city and Sexe assert that Sexe’s comment from the meeting minutes (bolded above) is a summary and taken out of context. It is suggested that one should reference the video/audio of her comments at the meeting for the full picture.
I remember I had watched that video last year but ever curious, I just watched again. The video of the June 20, 2017 commission meeting is here:
First some background on that meeting’s CDBG funding vote. On June 6, the city commission passed the CDBG funding for public facilities projects. However, it was later determined that was an invalid vote because it passed with a simple majority of 2-1-1 (Commissioner Burow dissenting, Commissioner Houck abstaining, Commissioner Bronson was absent).
So on Jun 20, the CDBG funding for public facilities had to be put to a revote before the commission.
At that meeting, Commissioner Bronson was present. He spoke of a May 25 memo in which he detailed his family members’ involvement with organizations requesting CDBG funding and his assessment that there is no conflict of interest.
Bronson begins this discussion at @ 2:07:05. He further states @ 2:08:02 that the memo is on the city’s website. At @ 2:11:00, Bronson claims that the memo along with City Attorney Sexe’s concurrence letter, was provided to HUD. Sexe agrees with that in the meeting.
At @ 2:11:2, Sexe states, “Your letter and mine, indicating agreement to there being no conflict under the regulation that we evaluated as to your son (Commissioner Bronson’s son) were provided to the representative of Housing and Urban Development who spoke to our CDBG administrator and verbally indicated agreement that there was no conflict.”
I’m left scratching my head over why the city and Sexe feel it necessary to dispute HUD’s “interpretation” of Sexe’s statement. I don’t see a major difference in meaning between the meeting minutes summary of what Sexe said versus her verbatim statement. The semantics in this case seem negligible.
So to paraphrase, according to Sexe, the agreement that there was no conflict of interest (regarding Bronson family members) came from a HUD representative to the city’s CDBG administrator before the commission vote in June. HUD claims that their agency did not review and offered no such report to city staff regarding any conflicts of interest—until now. The term “any” in HUD’s response would include the Bronson matter.
Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUDrequires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).
‘Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUDrequires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).’
I don’t think HUD would state there’s no conflict without that written request. I believe the agency would keep things legitimate and legal by responding in writing and not verbally (to be more precise, orally). Further, if the city provided HUD with Bronson’s memo and Sexe’s concurrence back in May, let’s see the proof that someone with the city mailed or emailed those documents.
Ultimately the city is responsible for knowing the rules and playing by them. It’s troubling that we now find a history of the city commission ignoring federal regulations. Instead of making HUD the enemy for taking away money from the self-described deserving organizations, perhaps we should consider all the organizations that sought funding through the years, but didn’t stand a chance because the skewed process and actions of the city commission.
By the way, an extensive search of the city’s website did not produce Bronson’s memo even though he claimed it was posted there. Normal city procedure would put it in the meeting agenda packet for the date CDBG funds are voted on, but it’s not there.
The city did provide Commissioner Bronson’s memo upon request and it is available here.
Below are links to CDBG items in the agenda packets for June 6 and June 20.
