Archive for August, 2006

Further Insight?

Thursday, August 31st, 2006

Harry Black, the city’s chief financial officer, has finally gotten back to us with an answer to the burning question about the legality of the city’s multi-million dollar appropriation to the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation (VAPAF).

Well, you couldn’t really call it an “answer,” exactly:


Mr. Harrison:

Regarding your question, it is the City’s intent to contribute to the overall performing Arts Center redevelopment initiative, which is being initiated by the Performing Arts Foundation, a not-for-profit. The City will be treating this consistent with how it engages other economic development initiatives that it has supported. The city’s contribution will not be going to a private concern, and the City’s contribution will be pursuant to stringent financial and project development expectations, guidelines with all of the associated internal controls. I hope that this provides some level of further insight.

Thanks!

Harry Black

Of course, this reponse makes absolutely no sense and is a total contradiction — we already know that the VAPAF is a “private concern.” The Foundation’s former President and CEO said so himself. Remember?

At the same time that he passes surrealism off as public policy, Mr. Black does not remotely address the question that is actually before him: HOW does the city intend to legally appropriate this money to the private Foundation?

So I sent the chief financial officer another email, asking him for clarity and to explain the obvious contradiction. I cc’d several members of the press, which is an apparant no-no at City Hall these days. Here is the e-mail I received after I asked for a more detailed and thoughful explanation:


Mr. Harrison:

For further response to your question, it is my recommendation that you make contact with the City’s Press Secretary, Linwood Norman (646-0434). In that you have copied Mr. Bass of Style Weekly, makes this a press matter, and as such would need to be directed at Mr. Norman. Your original email request did not identify this as a press inquiry. The City’s policy is that all press inquiries must go through the Office of the Press Secretary.

Thanks!

No, thank you, Mr. Black.

And while I’m here, let me wish you continued success with your well-publicized efforts to introduce accountability and responsibility to City Hall. The progress you are making in that area is simply stunning.

More on those fab Emmy Awards!!!

Tuesday, August 29th, 2006

Not really. You’ll have to go to the daily paper for all of that.

Here, in blogland, we only discuss trivial matters and are only concerned with “echoes.” You know the rep.

Still, for nearly two weeks now, Save Richmond has been discussing a little matter that involves $20 million (or more) in city funds, the future of the Carpenter Center and an illegal city appropriation to a private corporation. And no one— save other bloggers — would appear to want to discuss, explain or report on any of it. [And just imagine - during election season!]

Even though we’ve been as Emmy-struck as anyone (actual front page story), I found the time yesterday to correspond with the City Clerk. Since a certain Mr. Taylor, our favorite “wise man” at RCW, was the one who originally discovered the (as we call it) “Appropriation Problem,” we’ll let him take it from here:

“Don Harrison, following Ronald Reagan’s dictum ‘Trust, but verify,’ sent a direct inquiry to Ms. Chavis, our long serving and thoroughly reputable Clerk of City Council as to the accuracy of the list I linked to yesterday. After a day of intense research, a new City entity was born! It seems there are now 75, not 74, entities on Council’s comprehensive list of favored entities.

Say HELLO to the Capital Region Arts and Cultural Funding Consortium! The only alphabetically out-of-order entry on the revised list. (Don being one of the few ‘people who matter’ that have an actual copy.)

If this is Council’s Trojan Horse, somebody call the glue factory. This old nag’s reached the end of the trail.

The Consortium has a short legislative pedigree. Working from the present backward, there are only three legislative notes of its existence. On September 26, 2005, Resolution #’s 2005-R 188 & 189 were passed appointing Eugene A. Mason & William J. Pantele (him again) as directors of the Consortium. They were Council’s first appointees; their terms expire 9/26/06. The Resolution recognizing the Consortium was introduced and passed under ‘expedited consideration’ on May 28, 1996, 9 years earlier. It specifically prohibits the VaPAF type situation we now face.

The last paragraph reads:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any future funding requests by the Arts and Cultural Funding Consortium to the City of Richmond shall be considered only after the Consortium submits and City Council considers written plans for the development of financial contributions from the governments of other jurisdictions located in the metropolitan region in sums commensurate to the amounts contributed by the City of Richmond, as well as plans for the development of a Cultural and Arts Commission for the purpose of the development and coordination of fine arts and cultural programs for the Richmond metropolitan region.

Has anybody seen or heard of ‘written plans for the development of financial contributions from …other jurisdictions…in sums commensurate to the amounts contributed by the City of Richmond?’ That is a requirement to be met BEFORE any further funding can be considered, let alone approved.

Clearly the Consortium lacks standing under their enabling Resolution to present VaPAF’s funding request to Council or the Mayor.”

BTW: I’m sending a copy of the City Clerk’s revised list of boards, committees and offices to a bevy of folks, including people in the media. And I will try to post it at Save Richmond this week. Ronald Reagan would agree (as would Bella Abzug): I should not be one of the few people in town who has this updated list.

Where’s VAPAF?

Sunday, August 27th, 2006

Can you find it?

If you can’t, don’t you think someone has some explaining to do?

From our fave-rave city code reader over at RCW [emphasis mine]:

“There has been some speculation as to whether or not VaPAF is a City entity as listed in Section 6.03 of the City Charter. It turns out there is a complete list posted on a link on the City Clerk’s webpage with commissions, boards, etc as approved by the City Council. VaPAF is not there.

The Seven Rules

Sunday, August 27th, 2006

Gosh, I wonder if Tom Gallagher is talking about any local non-profits in particular when he quotes extensively from Robert Moment’s Seven Rules of Business Integrity in today’s Times-Dispatch op-ed section?

Gallagher, the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Central Virginia — no nattering nabob, he — writes:

“During the past few years, many business leaders have not acted with integrity. They have been accused of cheating, stock manipulation, underhanded dealings, and out-and-out lying. The sordid dealings of a few have put a cloud over many. It’s understandable, but not fair. Those few didn’t act with integrity, and they violated the trust of those who worked for, bought from, competed with, or invested in them. It’s been tragic.”

The publication of this well-timed column begs the question: Shouldn’t one local, publicly-funded non-profit corporation in particular — an entity about to receive at least $20 million more in unregulated tax money from the city — adhere to at least a couple of these guidelines for honesty and openness? While we await the Virginia Perf0rming Arts Foundation’s next report (let’s not fool ourselves by attributing it to anyone else) — expecting the worst if the previous report was any guide — here are the seven rules of integrity for worthy non-profits:

(1) Recognize that customers and clients want to do business with a company they can trust. When trust is at the core of a company, it is easy to recognize.

(2) Be willing, as a leader, to open up to ideas for betterment. Solicit opinions and feedback from customers, employees, and other key stakeholders.

(3) Regardless of circumstances, do everything that can be done to gain the trust of past customers and clients, particularly if something has gone awry.

(4) Make sure that all marketing materials, including advertising, are clear and accurate, and the content does not mislead or misrepresent.

(5) Involve the business in the life of the community. Contribute to worthy causes. Encourage volunteerism among employees.

(6) Take a hands-on approach to accounting and record-keeping.

and

(7) Treat everyone, regardless of position, with the utmost respect and courtesy.

At the end of today’s editorial, Gallagher concludes:

“As we approach the final quarter of 2006, I call upon all businesses in Central Virginia to join us in the creation of a truly fair and honest marketplace, one characterized by the highest standards of trust and integrity.”

Amen to that.

Hard Decisions

Saturday, August 26th, 2006

While we continue to wait for someone to answer the appropriation questions that have been raised regarding the Carpenter Center renovation — can anyone explain how this is legal? — the city of Richmond proposes another huge capital improvement project. From the Times-Dispatch [emphasis mine]:

City officials said a $20 million plan to improve drainage in Shockoe Bottom would prevent the type of flooding problems that temporarily closed businesses after heavy rain last week.

However, they said the improvements are not expected to guard against the kind of catastrophic flooding brought by the remnants of Tropical Storm Gaston two years ago.

Mayor L. Douglas Wilder and administration officials detailed the plan yesterday to more than 100 business owners and others at Main Street Station and urged quick approval by City Council. Officials are hoping work can start in October and be completed by December 2008.

Business and property owners, who have been clamoring for attention to the Bottom’s flooding problems, welcomed the announcement.

“It’s probably the most expensive and extensive thing proposed down here, but I know they’ve worked hard to find the solution,” said David Napier, interim president of the Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Association.

“I hope City Council will take an honest review of this and take immediate action on this,” he added.

Michael Ripp, manager of the Havana’59 restaurant, said the plan “sounds very good. I hope there’s a timetable we can follow to make sure it all happens on time.”

Wilder said his administration intends to introduce papers next month for City Council to amend the capital-improvement plan to include the $20 million for the upgrades. Officials are still looking at ways to free up funds.

“This isn’t at the sacrifice of other projects,” Wilder said. “It might be a slight delay.”

City Councilwoman Ellen F. Robertson said she was encouraged by yesterday’s presentation but was eager to hear more details, particularly on how redirected funds might affect other projects.

“I’m going to be looking at the tough, unintended consequences to make sure we don’t create a problem to solve a problem,” she said.

First of all, it’s nice to see city councilwoman Ellen Robertson willing to look at the tough, unintended consequences for once. The rep, and sitting board member of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, sounded even tougher over at Richmond.com, as “Snoopy” at River City Rapids has noted.

It’s interesting to note how Robertson — and her fellow councilpeople — approach these matters. Even though the “Hole in the Ground” sits in her district, and she’s aligned with the VAPAF obstensibly for that reason, she has never called for a public hearing or permitted much input on the arts center plan. Yet, she quickly calls for a “flood related hearing” to address this matter. [Oh, you say that she is currently running for re-election? How interesting.]

But if you value the Bottom, it’s hard to argue against this proposal (except to press the issue of what took everyone so long to address the problem). Yet this makes the questions regarding the Carpenter renovation and the “hole” even more relevant now that the city is looking to “free up funds” to pay for this new proposal. We’ve seen how they bluster, but as our favorite “Wise Man” at RCW explains, city politicians will now have some hard decisions to make, despite the rosy justifications from our mayor in the T-D article:

The $20 million earmarked for Shockoe Bottom over the next 2 years is to come from the City of the Future Line of Credit. There is to be no new income. As amended, the two year plan includes $5 million for parks, $3 million for Landmark Theatre renovations, $1 million for library renovations. $25 million for the Carpenter Center, $66.8 million for schools.

So who gets their funding cut? Assume the meals tax actually brings in $3.5 million per year - which is unlikely. (Calculations suggest that it will be +/- 25% less, meaning there will not be collateralization of +/- $4-6 million in debt over the 2 years.) If you cut out everything but schools and the CC, there’s still an $11 million shortfall. (The schools were already cut $1.7 million from the original proposal.) Of course if you delete the clearly illegal Carpenter Center appropriation, there will be money to cover Shockoe and all other planned improvements.

Appropriation Now Redux

Friday, August 18th, 2006

Can you feel the heat, the excitement, the palpable intensity? I’m talking about, of course, the “Ask The Council Candidates About the Arts Center Fever” that is currently engulfing our city’s civic corridors, barber shops and online chat threads with serious debate and reflection.

Me neither.

Leave it to our favorite wise man at Richmond City Watch, Mr. PTaylor, to cut through the multiple-choice arcana and dissect some wordy city code in order to get to the real question we all need to be asking city officials as we collectively contemplate a perpetually boarded-up and held-hostage Carpenter Center. Take it away, P:

“It appears that the “City of the Future” appropriation for the Carpenter Center does not comply with the Richmond City Charter. The Ordinance 2006-81-122 adopting the budget correctly references section 6.19 of the Charter. The standards for the preparation of the budget are set in section 6.03 of the Charter.

Sec. 6.03. Preparation
It shall be the duty of the head of each department, the judges of the municipal courts, each board or commission, including the school board, and each other office or agency supported in whole or in part by the city, including the attorney for the commonwealth, to provide at such time as the Mayor prescribe, estimates of revenue and expenditure for that department, court, board, commission, office or agency to supply all of the information which the mayor may require to be submitted thereon.”

The Carpenter Center is wholly owned by VaPAF. VaPAF is not a city department. VaPAF is not a court. VaPAF is not a board, commission, office, or agency. There is no provision for private organizations not on the above list to participate.

Which of the above organizational entities is legally authorized to act on behalf of VaPAF to submit revenue/ expenditure data to enable the transfer of city capital budget funds to a private entity? Just asking.”

The future is wow. Truly.

The Unthinkable

Friday, August 18th, 2006

I swore I wasn’t going to blog about the trial. Absolutely made myself promise. Thank goodness for the work of Terry Rea at “Slantblog” and John Sarvay at “Buttermilk & Molasses” — stronger men than I. I just wanted to say that you can count me in as one more addition to the throng of Richmonders no doubt wrestling with their positions on the death penalty this week.

Ask or They Won’t Tell

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Those sounds you aren’t hearing? Richmond’s city council candidates talking about the “hole in the ground.”

Those words you aren’t reading on campaign literature and candidate websites? Missing details that would clearly spell out what city council candidates propose to do about the boarded-up Carpenter Center, and whether or not they support the continued funding of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation with city tax money and resources.

And y’know what? Unless you press them on their views, most city politicians aren’t going to address the issue at all before the November election. And if they do, their responses will no doubt be framed in terms of “supporting an arts center” — while the actual concerns about fairness, competence, access, feasibility, waste, oversight and the VAPAF’s past performance history will never be broached.

I realized all of this last week while attempting to get a particular council candidate on the record about where he stood on the performing arts debacle. The frustrating correspondence reminded me more of a slippery pig catching contest than a serious dialogue about the final resting place of millions in city tax money and the future of Richmond’s premier performing arts venue. [So far, the only council candidates to speak out, even in passing, about the arts center are 1st district pols Tom Vance and Paul Goldman - others have been convieniently missing in action or furiously dodging].

Why is getting a definitive statement on “the hole” so hard? Well, because doing something constructive and speaking out on the issue would mean pissing off very powerful people who give lots of money to city council campaigns (many of them give so much, apparantly, that they don’t have any extra dough to donate to an arts center). As we’ve learned at Save Richmond, it’s far more important for the area’s politicians to keep the businesspeople behind the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation happy and exclusive than to make sure Richmond has a functioning Carpenter Center and a fair and workable plan. It’s just that simple.

In a few cases, candidates will actually break out into shared hives if you bring up the subject. In the second district, we find VAPAF’s chief enabler Bill “Fundraising Momentum” Pantele pitted against Patrick Kjellberg, a former member of VAPAF’s youth squad, OPUS (an organization last seen offering free drinks to “young professionals” in exchange for writing letters to the State Senate on behalf of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation). Anyone out there wanna bet that neither of these gentlemen will be bringing up the Foundation’s last private fundraising figure ($20,000) during their next debate — or making much of a public show out of their close associations with the controversial project?

Luckily, candidates can’t duck and run forever. Did you know that we, the people, get to ask these folks specific questions about what they intend to do once they get in office, or if they get re-elected? This includes questions about things they would rather not talk about — unbelievable, isn’t it? Why not give this Democratic process a try by Asking About the Art Center during the next candidate forum, debate or community baby-kissing photo op? The answers — and/or the elaborate dodges — may surprise you. To help out, Save Richmond has compiled an all-purpose questionaire for those lucky few who can manage to corral the potential representatives and get them on the record.

If elected (please circle either YES or NO):

1. Do you intend on making a definitive statement about where you stand on the arts center situation BEFORE the election? Any public statement at all? YES NO

2. Do you intend on making a definitive statement about where you stand on the Performing Arts Committee’s approach when the next interim report is released in September? Any public statement at all? YES NO

3. Do you intend to make it a priority to introduce public oversight into the publicly-financed, privately-run arts center project? YES NO
What are your specific plans? _____________________________

4. Do you intend on calling for an independent feasibility study of the current arts center plan being circulated and OK’d by the Performing Arts Committee? [Followup: Do you intend on asking for a feasibility study if the Shockoe Bottom baseball stadium plan comes before you?] YES NO

5. Do you intend on holding the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation accountable in any way for the millions in tax money they have wasted — including the simple act of decreasing their influence and role in the arts center project? And will you be announcing this specific plan for accountability before the election? YES NO

6. Given all the facts now in, would you consider extending the VAPAF’s fundraising deadline again to ensure that the private organization be given still more time to raise the private funds they’ve promised to raise since 2003? (If you would consider doing this, vote yes. If you feel that they’ve had enough time, vote no) YES NO

7. Choose one or more of the following options to tell voters what you will do, specifically, about the arts center mess. (CIRCLE A LETTER)

A. I will wait until I’m elected and the Performing Arts Committee final report is released and then figure out what to do.
B. I will propose that Joel Katz be reinstated as head of the Carpenter Center to help oversee its renovation.
C. I will propose that a multi-member community review board be set up to help determine programming and increase access into the project and the process. The board would consist of prominent arts-related administrators, entertainment promoters, gallery owners and well-known non- and for-profit performing artists — not lawyers, bankers, real estate moguls and venture capitalists.
D. I will call for an investigation to determine if the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and performing arts committee are using public money properly in their current funding of out-of-town consultants, awarding of bonuses and funneling of kickback money to former VAPAF employees.
E. I will call for an independent feasibility study to determine if this project is workable and worth the city’s considerable time and money - like Richmond would with any other project.
F. If a combination of the above, please list the letters: _____________
G. For now, I intend on trusting the people behind the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and will not attempt to alter their plans in any way if elected.

8. Do you think that the future of the Carpenter Center is (choose one):

A. Very important
B. Important
C. Not important at all
D. It is beneath me to even discuss its future

9. If you discover, while in office, that a group of city employees has embezzled $7 million dollars of consumption tax money, will you propose:

A. Giving this group $20 million more and moving them into new swanky offices
B. Firing this group and seeking criminal charges
C. Nothing. Since my constituents haven’t talked about the embezzlement by this group, it’s not my concern.
D. It depends on who, and how powerful, this group is.

10. Would you, as a city councilperson, advocate eliminating the meals tax hike that city council passed in July 2003? YES NO
Why or why not? _______________

The Armstrong-Pantele Multipurpose Hall

Saturday, August 5th, 2006

From “Creative Class” over at RichmondCityWatch, a very important Top 10 list as we contemplate our official city crater and the approach of 2007:

What will we tell the Queen about “the hole in the ground” on the occasion of her visit to Richmond next year? Some suggestions:

10) “We’ve already extracted over 95 ounces of gold from ‘Booty Gulch’ so far!”

9) “We’re using it to bury a locomotive that we pulled out of Church Hill last year!”

8 ) “It’s not our fault. It was all caused by a smokescreen of semantics!”

7) “Coming soon: Richmond Underground!”

6) “It may not look like much, but the acoustics are great!”

5) “Future home of the Richmond Braves!”

4) “We believe it is the ancient site of Jamestown West!”

3) “It’s not our fault. It was the Mayor and his auditors that did it in!”

2) “Yes, we still plan on opening the Armstrong-Pantele Multipurpose Performance Hall on this site by the end of the year.”

1) “It’s not our fault. It was those two whiners with a website!”