Steve Brandt writes of NRP's proposed stiffer conflict-of-interest policy:
http://www2.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=82783110
Basically, the policy would prevent anyone on NRP's governing board from
serving on neighborhood board or other groups funded by NRP. This goes way
beyond normal IRS non-profit regulations (my wife the lawyer tells me).
Those rules say that a board member must recuse themselves from any issue
benefiting them personally, or benefiting another group they're involved
with specifically. More general conflicts - say, a board member voting to
increase NRP funds dedicated to low-income housing while also working for
one low-income housing group - are okay, at least according to the IRS.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the city being tougher than IRS
standards. However, it strikes me that a lot of neighborhood activists are
going to die (metaphorically) for Jackie Cherryhomes' sins. As you may
recall, Jackie got a sweetheart deal on an NRP-rehabbed house - with rehab
spending many said would not have been available to others - while sitting
on the NRP governing board. That's clearly improper - so it looks like NRP
pooh-bahs are going overboard for letting Jackie's thing slide, in effect
saying, "You're against conflicts of interest? Well, we'll you're your
neighborhood stuff a conflict of interest so now you'll have to squirm,
too."
NRP Policy Board members should be prevented from personally financially
benefiting from NRP - I don't have a problem with that. If the price of
serving on the Policy Board is you give up your right to attach NRP money,
well, that's ok with me. As a neighborhood board president, I would never,
ever apply for neighborhood NRP money - even though I can. It wouldn't
bother me if that rule was codified.
But banning all "organizational conflicts" seems far-fetched. I don't think
there's a fundamental problem with Gretchen Nichols (cited in the Strib's
story), sitting on her neighborhood board and the NRP Policy Board - though
she should recuse herself if her neighborhood group is getting some
individualized benefit. I mean, folks, these are volunteer boards. If you
outlaw personal benefit, an NRP policy board member's "conflict" becomes
pretty scant at this level. The idea that Gretchen has a conflict serving on
the Center For Neighborhoods - which I don't think receives a penny of NRP
money, but is an NRP "watchdog" - is ludicrous. If any group should be
worried about this role, it's the Center for Neighborhoods, but they are
private so it's their call.
I'm a little more suspicious of an NRP Policy member who gets paid by groups
attaching NRP money. Apparently, Gretchen also serves on the board of a
non-profit housing group; does she get paid for that? If not, no problem. If
so, I'd consider a ban. The article also cites George Garnett, who does a
lot of neighborhood economic development stuff, is identified as "a
consultant for neighborhoods and non-profits that receive NRP funding."
This, I'm suspicious of.
It's funny that NRP is getting tough when the city usually isn't. For
example, the city usually appoints a union person to the Metropolitan Sports
Facilities commission, who votes on issues that could lead to union jobs.
Nobody is saying that person has to leave the board.
I don't want to fall into the trap of arguing for loose NRP rules just
because that's common practice everywhere - let's tighten the rules on all
direct personal conflicts before jumping to organizational ones. It is
interesting that NRP may be held to a higher standard than the city's
business as usual.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
