Will Wilkins has filed a suit against TDA this afternoon.
Click here. (//%22http://www.chrismedlock.com/2008/08/novus-homes-files-suit-against-tda.html%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Will Wilkins has filed a suit against TDA this afternoon.
Click here. (//%22http://www.chrismedlock.com/2008/08/novus-homes-files-suit-against-tda.html%22)
Good for him...I hope he wins....
What is he hoping to get? Them to negotiate? That is all the contract was for.
Maybe he needs to get legal advice from Jim Bob Miller of McAlester. [:O]
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.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
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.
never done a search on OSCN I take it. Tough stuff there those search tools.
If you're a layman do you know how difficult one of those things is to read? You almost have to put someone on retainer to dumb it down.
Some of us didn't get $100,000 to go that-there law school so we could understand them-there goins-on in our fine city.
Sounds like someone forget his warm milk tonight. Go take a nap.
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.
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.
The suit should make it a lot harder for TDA to shovel the facts of the case under the rug and hide behind a cooperative media.
I hate to see it came to this but glad Will had the cajones to do it.
Did will get treated unfairly? Yes
Is a civil suit going to solve the problem? Probably not
Is the general public going to remember any of this 3 months from now? Probably not
I am not opposed to drawing conclusions...I have a full set of crayons.
The lawsuit says "Breach of Agreement - Contract".
But we know there was no contract.
What is the difference between an "agreement" and a "contract"?
Can you use the terms interchangably?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The suit should make it a lot harder for TDA to shovel the facts of the case under the rug and hide behind a cooperative media.
I hate to see it came to this but glad Will had the cajones to do it.
This may bring to light some things involving "A Public Trust".
"Is the general public going to remember any of this three months from now.? Probably not."
But I would almost guarantee this will give the "Trust" that hint of
conspiracy we have come to expect from Tulsa.
I heard a rumor that the trust was created to keep out the Steve Kitchell's and sell it to the Will Wilkins but since the trust doesn't own the land yet, they can't do anything.
If true he may burn that bridge before it's built.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Did will get treated unfairly? Yes
Is a civil suit going to solve the problem? Probably not
Is the general public going to remember any of this 3 months from now? Probably not
...seems to be the overriding basis upon which local government operates around here.
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.
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[:o)]
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
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.
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.[}:)]
Do you think they'd listen to little ole me? [:D]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For those that would like to read the Ethics Ordinance for themselves, it can be found here.
http://www.cityauditorphilwood.com/Supp18/21084.pdf
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.
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.
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".
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.
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).
If the trust is for the benefit and interest of the city, where is the east side representation?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Rico, you are a man who appreciates good visuals, how's this for starters on TDA:
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/1192446960269.jpg)
Very nice....
Borrowed a copy for my collection.[}:)]
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/TDA.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Pudding.gif)
the secret safe word.. For Luck.[}:)]
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.
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."
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."
quote:
ever serving in such capacity again on.
Is this from the department of redundancy department?
If this wasn't a downtown thing, would the same posters be complaining about the complainers instead[:o)][:o)]
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 you don't have an MBA, so how would you know anything?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. [;)]
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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.
Keep after them.....!
Untold dollars have been wasted by developers in an attempt to satisfy a group that in most cases has no intension of being satisfied.
Justifying their existence by continuously failing to complete their mission.
I agree. Why must it continue?
Added bonus, now everyone has Wil Wilkins' Cricket cell #
The solution to the TDA is simple.
Pull the plug.
This "Authority?" has been brain dead for some time.
I'm going to cut against the grain here. Will, I feel for you and I think the TDA is a disgusting shame.
However, given current budget woes, how far do you intend to push this? Would $46K not cover your expenses you were out on this project at the point TDA quit negotiating? I totally understand that you stood to make far more than that if the development had gone forward. I don't have a problem with you being reimbursed any actual costs you were out, but if you are angling toward recovering the profit you hoped to gain by completing the project I think there are a lot of people who would have a problem with you pushing this further.
Please clarify what you are hoping to gain from this, actual cost recovery or punitive damages and projected losses?
I'm hoping he is after "punitive damages" and the Judge already knows about the CDBG mess..
So, Conan, justice depends on economic conditions?
Quote from: Rico on April 14, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
I'm hoping he is after "punitive damages" and the Judge already knows about the CDBG mess..
Even at a larger expense to taxpayers?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 07:44:33 PM
Even at a larger expense to taxpayers?
At this point, it will take something to make people more aware of the problem. If that be tax money so be it.
Conan
I appreciate your comments and as litigation is still on going, I do have to keep any comments regarding specifics brief in nature. I will, however, say this...the offer extended as represented in the Tulsa World article was not deemed sufficient and therefore, was refused by the Plaintiffs. I will also mention that while we, as Plaintiffs, feel we have a very good case, we did not enter mediation with the intention of fully recovering potential lost earnings on the development had it been completed - though that may be entirely possible under the law and given that our case survived TDA's motion for summary judgement. I cant provide you specifics as to why it survived due to the ongong litigation, but suffice it to say, some of our claims survived - negligence and promisory estoppel.
That being said, litigation was not entered into lightly by any means. TDA took actions we deemed required action to protect our interests, as well as those of other potential future developers, and we are prepared to carry it to trial if necessary. Punitive damages, if awarded to a prevailing party, exist for the simple purpose of detering similar such future actions by the losing party. They are awarded by a jury or judge on the merits of the case and established law.
It was our intention to work with the TDA in good faith to develop a project that would benefit the City of Tulsa's tax base (ad valorem, sales & hotel), assist in downtown's revitalization, bring jobs and much needed residential, commercial and hotel space to an area lacking such. It is still our desire to work with the TDA to do just that, on this site...that has never waivered.
Aside from that, I do want to inform you that today's City of Tulsa budget crisis and the economic downturn really have no bearing on TDA and its financial status. While it may benefit the City of Tulsa in the sense that it is supposed to act to remove blight and promote economic development and investment, it is a separate and independent authority created under state statute. Its principal means of income would appear to be through the sale and lease of various properties it has acquired over the years as an urban renewal authority, sub-grants of Federal funds (CDBG and others most likely) and sales tax projects assigned to it (see link).
To the best of my knowledge, any award from TDA would not impact the City of Tulsa budget.
For more information on TDA's current financials and its operations, you may want to check out the latest financial filing (2009) with the City of Tulsa:
http://cityoftulsa.org/media/74406/tda%20report%202009%20final.pdf (http://cityoftulsa.org/media/74406/tda%20report%202009%20final.pdf)
Will, thanks for stepping up and explaining as much as ongoing litigation will allow. I have to say I've still got some mixed thoughts on it, but I'm sufficiently angry with the operation (or dysfunction) of TDA.