While his co-leader, COO Tamara Fountain, is battling to keep her job, City Administrator Eric Olson has some explaining to do about the Planning Department and the Planning Board–both of which fall under his supervision according to the new Organization Chart.
Let’s do some PBR – Planning Board Review:
Architect Scott Sallis’ partner presents an item before the Planning Board at its July 14 meeting. When questioned by the audience whether Sallis should recuse himself, chairman Paul Ritz said, “Point of order, he is the architect on the board whose position allows him to vote on items that his own office brings. He’s the one board member who can, in fact, vote on items that his office has before this board.â€
Sallis preceded to take over the presentation and argued for his firm’s client. Both Sallis and Ritz voted for the item, the only two boards who did so. Right before voting, Sallis made this comment: “The Austins are one of my clients. As awkward as it is to have this city system where I’m allowed to vote on my own work, I try to avoid it if at all possible, But that is the case, and because two of our board members are missing, I will probably for the first time since I’ve sat on this board exercise this right.”
When the residents of East Pensacola Heights came to Inweekly and provided the audio of the meeting, I sent an email to City Attorney Lysia Bowling asking her to investigate. She did not reply.
Sallis’ vote was clearly a violation of Florida’s Ethics Law (112.3143 Voting conflicts). Public officials, including volunteers who serve on advisory boards, must recuse themselves from votes on issues that benefit themselves, family members or business associates and clients. Â The voting conflict section of the law is critical to preserving public trust in government.
When Bowling failed to investigate, we assigned reporter Jeremy Morrison to the story. Ritz told Morrison that city staff had cleared Sallis for participation. Sallis also said he was told by staff in the city planning department that he was allowed to discuss and vote on issues his firm was involved in
Morrison requested interviews with the city attorney and the planning administration. The requests were denied. Public Information Officer Vernon Stewart said, “No one will be speaking with you.â€
The board member had broken the law, apparently with the consent of the planning department staff, and the city attorney and mayor’s office didn’t care. We stayed on the story.
Inweekly did find a 2004 Florida Commission on Ethics ruling involving architects serving on the Pensacola’s Architectural Review Board. The ruling said that there wasn’t a specific conflict for architects to serve on a board that considers issues presented by their firm. However, they are “subject to the voting conflicts law regarding measures which would inure to the special private gain or loss of clients of their firms. CEO’s 79-2, 80-63, and 80-75 are referenced.â€
Kerrie Stillman of the Florida Ethics Commission’s communication’s department, told Inweekly, “The voting conflict statute is always in play with officials who have issues that come before the board.â€
Councilman Charles Bare came on “Pensacola Speaks” to talk about the food truck ordinance. During the interview, he said that he had asked Olson about the Planning Board issue. The City Administrator assured him that city staff did not tell Sallis he could vote.
So Inweekly asked Morrison to go back to Ritz and Sallis to get them to clarify. Somebody wasn’t telling the truth.
Ritz said, “That’s recollection from eight years ago and the opinion of the attorney at that time.â€
Sallis said he had been invited to city hall on Wednesday, August 5 to sit in on a conference call with the Ethics Commission and the city attorney. The planning board member described the call as “quite pleasant and informative.â€
Sallis said that he was told that the previous legal decision had been made in a “gray area†and that the city was changing its position on allowing a designated board member to vote on matters they are involved in. He said the policy change would be announced at the next planning board meeting.
“They regretted that I’d been in that situation,†Sallis said. “They’ve all acknowledged that I was following their direction.â€
The architect has said previously that he was told of the designated architect’s special status (apparently the only such board member on any city board to have such a status) by Planning Administrator Sherry Morris, as well as other planning staff members and previous city attorneys. (Note: Morrison contacted former City Attorney Jim Messer who said the voting issue was never brought to him in his three years with the city.)
“That was their interpretation of the law,†Sallis said.
While the city had not responded to our repeated requests for comment on the matter, Sallis said that the inquiries had apparently sent staff searching for answers.
“Your questions put them in great research mode,†Sallis said.
The architect also said that, following the conference call with the Ethics Commission and an explanation of the pertinent laws, the issue seems easy enough to understand.
“It seemed pretty clear to me,†Sallis said. “It says ‘cannot vote.’ I don’t know how they misconstrued that.â€
Morrison tried to contact Olson and again his phone calls weren’t returned.
On Friday, Councilman Charles Bare filed an agenda item for the City Council’s August meeting. He wants the council to hold an inquiry into the matter and try to find the facts.
——–
This is another matter that the mayor’s office has let grow into a crisis. Had City Attorney Lysia Bowling responded to our request, it’s a one-day story –Staff misinterprets law, board member makes mistake. Apologies made to citizens.
Instead Bowling went silent. We sensed something was amiss. Requests for interviews were denied. Councilman was told by City Administrator Eric Olson a story that conflicted with what board members were saying.
——–
From the city’s Transparent Pensacola web page:
“Public trust is a critical dynamic of a world-class city. From day one of his administration, Mayor Hayward has made a firm commitment to making city government more open, accountable, and accessible to the residents of our great city.”
From the Mayor’s 2012 State of the City address:
“Seventeen months ago, I took office with a set of twenty solutions to our City’s most pressing issues. My primary goal was to restore trust and confidence in our City government.”
From the Mayor’s 2013 State of the City address:
“Our government’s business processes must be transparent and ensure everyone has an opportunity to compete on a fair and level playing field.”
——
And the item for which Sallis’ voted is coming before the city council this month.