I don't think people are paying enough attention to Miller's throw away line,
'we'll model the behavior we want other to emulate', or something to that
effect. It ain't all Ms. Cherryhomes either. Central neighborhood has been
plagued with conflict of interest questions: board members who wanted to be
funded for start-up costs of different non-profits, developers who were getting
funding through NRP Questions like, is it conflict of interest if you're a
board member and get nothing through your programs but your whole block gets
upgraded at an overly healthy cost so that your property appreciates more than
$100,000 and your block has gotten more funds than any other block? I know that
Miller said Central would have to come up with a viable conflict of interest
statement before much longer. Also, in Central conflict of interest is used as
a way of demonizing neighbors. We have not behaved well recently around here.
Wizard Marks, Central
David Brauer wrote:
> 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
