Arkansas Blog: The city board meets UPDATED

Live from the city board special meeting on the city's lately controversial convention and visitors bureau:

1) Mayor Dailey opened with prepared statement. He apologized and accepted a share of blame for "doubt" cast over A&P matters, including "errors and policy failings." He did defend "character of good people, such as Mary Beth Ringgold," though he reiterated that mistakes have been made.

2) Director Dean Kumpuris followed with a version of the case he presented -- with such little useful effect judging by newspaper commentary today -- to Democrat-Gazette editorialists. He's the city board's ex officio member of the A&P commission. He said re:

* Purchase of car for outgoing CVB director Barry Travis. "Errors of convenience" were made, he said. Director Joan Adcock wanted to know who has car allowances.

* The A&P budget vs. Houston, a much larger city -- a comparison in Democrat-Gazette articles and commentary that has caused much comment. He noted that, unlike other commissions around the country, LR's bureau has facilities to manage and a tax to collect. The visitor organization is only about 28 percent of the $12 million budget. The Houston visitors bureau is a membership organization, with dues. "It's a very different animal," he said. He contended that Little Rock actually spends less than comparable average cities and "leaner than it was four or five years ago." Director Michael Keck questioned travel and entertainment expenses to solicit business and whether there are now guidelines to decide when CVB money is used to entertain. Yes, Kumpuris said. Only three credit cards are authorized for CVB use, where a dozen or more were in use in years past. Employees now must use personal credit cards and submit a reimbursement form that lists where expenses where incurred, who the employee was with and the purpose. "It's a real cultural change," from what's been practiced in the past and, Kumpuris said, conformity is not yet 100 percent. He said further changes are expected -- an elimination of one bureau credit card, use of a travel agency for trips. Keck pressed on the need for more guidelines to curb "extravagant" entertainment expenses.

(Side note: drilling down into credit card minutia, as the directors are trying to do, has some usefulness. But, if they think it does much to address the general feeling that certain insiders have more clout than others and decide large issues without public knowledge until after the fact, I think they are kidding themselves. Director Adcock got at this a bit by pressing for the admission that there's no policy to guide how surplus that accumulates in reserve funds is used.)

* Kumpuris noted, in reference to unobligated money, that the travel editor of the Democrat-Gazette, Libby Smith (wife of executive editor Griffin Smith) had brought a group of travel writers to town and the CVB provided subsidies to that group. Kumpuris said this visit produced favorable articles in newspapers. (The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, of which the Ark. Times is a member, was thrown a cocktail party by the CVB when it brought more than 400 conventioners to town last summer.)

* The $500,000 spent to lure some 1,200 members of the Omega Psi Phi fraternity to a national convention here this year? No mention so far.

Apparently coming is some sort of do-right resolution that the board plans to adopt (involving some City Hall review of CVB practices). I'm going to have to break away to do some cooking, scintillating as this discussion is.

Added note: Good questions from Directors Wyrick and Fortson without good answers. Just how did A&P manage to enter a giant month-to-month contract for marketing services without taking bids? And how is it that the auditor has consistently found the agency in compliance with state laws on bidding?

Alibi time: At the request of directors, City Attorney Tom Carpenter confirms that city board has little direct authority over the operation except appointing commissioners. (This is technically speaking, of course. Here we are back to the symbiotic relationship by which City Hall and CVB have operated de facto, if not de jure.) Carpenter's remarks make it clear that today's session is primarily a response to angry letters to the editor.

I think I can predict that the letter writers will see this meeting as window dressing. They want heads to roll. Punishment exacted. Not promises to do better.

UPDATED: At the close of the meeting, an interesting wrinkle. Director Wyrick moved for an executive session to consider the continued service of existing members of the Advertising and Promotion Commission. The motion failed on a 4-4 tie, with Stewart, Adcock and Cazort voting to hold the session. Interesting, Kumpuris, who is a member of a commission accused of irregularities by Wyrick, voted on the motion rather than recusing. He voted against the session. (So did Mayor Dailey, also a commissioner, though he leaves the city board Jan. 1.) The other members of the board said they wanted the City Hall review process to go forward first.

Bottom line: This show session isn't going to get it. City Hall's review won't be viewed as independent. New rules and procedures won't be viewed as sufficent action by the harshest press and public critics.

Comments

Cazort was the other "yes" vote for the executive session. Seems like both Kumpuris and Dailey should have recused, since they serve on the A&P.

Posted by: citizen | December 28, 2006 06:34 PM

Max, Jim Dailey's final act as Mayor was, by relentlessly staying in the room, to protect the local swells who have royally messed up the APCommission.

Your report was outstanding. Here are the "no" votes"
Keck.
Fortson
Kumpuris
Dailey

Don't it just figure!

Thanks for the report,
Pat Lynch

Posted by: Pat Lynch | December 28, 2006 07:37 PM

I watched in tandem with the OSU-Bama game. This meeting was nothing more than lip service. I think I heard de mayor say this meeting was called because some concerned citizens had requested it. Concerned hell. Irate, angry, disillusioned (shouldn't have been with the trolley fiasco, the Library won't cost you the TAXPAYER anything debacle, and all the potholes), ready for heads to roll TAXPAYERS wanted accountability. More than a quarter of the city budget goes to folks to pad their own pockets????? Yes, Dailey and Kumpuris should have recused. They are up to their necks in the collective horse manure and still trying to protect their arses.
How considerate of the City Manager and the City Attorney AND the City Board to delay any action until Dailey is gone. The Doc should resign because he KNEW what was going on and has done everything in his power to minimize the mismanagement. I must pay 28% of my city taxes to treat visitors to eat at places most TAXPAYERS cannot afford. Now, where exactly did the Half a Million Dollars go to entice the OPPs to come to our fair city? This sucks and stinks. Now, that's bad.

Posted by: Curious | December 28, 2006 07:44 PM

SHAME! Kumpuris, you haave slimed the city and the voters.
I shine the lamp of truth on you, and you cast no shadow,
City Board antics are sickening.

Posted by: Diogenes | December 28, 2006 09:53 PM

Kumpuris was trying to deflect blame from himself and ensure that he will remain on the commission when the new city board is installed. Since Kumpuris apparently will not go gracefully, he should be unceremoniously dumped by the incoming board, and his complicity in the current LRCVB/A&P commission disaster should be disclosed and documented.

The car deal has not been put to rest. Repaying the $1,500 trade-in was a good first step, but this tawdry episode is still rife with unresolved malfeasance. The travel allowance to cover the payments on the car was an obvious subterfuge, and allowing private entities to pay off the balance has to be against state or city ethics laws. The businesses that picked up the tab for the car should be debarred from doing business with the city and with the state.

I'm not sure what the city board hoped to accomplish with this meeting, but they should all understand and remember that the whole disgraceful episode was taped. The incoming mayor and board would be well advised to drive a stake through the heart of this monster, or it will come to dominate and contaminate the political process until it is finally put right.

Posted by: Pavel | December 28, 2006 10:33 PM

Why isn't there hew and cry for an Independent audit? There should be some right nice charges against Dailey, Kumpuris, and the rest of the LRCVB/A&P commission. It will never happen. What if we, as a community, demand the same accountability and ethical conduct for our leaders as is being required of the teachers in the state? Let's see, before anyone is able to be elected, they must pass a test on American History and the Judicial process and their constituents must also pass the same tests in order to vote? Whats good for the goose.....

Posted by: Curious | December 28, 2006 10:52 PM

"Just how did A&P manage to enter a giant month-to-month contract for marketing services without taking bids?"

So which marketing company
had the contract? Like many
things in Arkansas it was
probably a "who you know"
deal. That's nothing but
corruption but many just see
it as a standard business
practice.

Posted by: The Bold and The Blue | December 29, 2006 04:14 AM

This is not just a problem at the A & P commission. It is systematic throughout all levels of government throughout the state at every commission and board at every city; county government; state government and its agencies; UAMS; Metroplan, Supreme Court, etc. etc. There has been no oversight and no real investigative reporting done in decades. Does anyone believe that the last abuse of taxpayer money was Steve Clark's fraudulent use of credit cards? Thanks to the DemGaz at least for getting the ball rolling. There are problems everywhere. Where is Larry Jegley?

Posted by: HankRearden | December 29, 2006 07:36 AM

Also, I did not want to forget mentioning the shenanigans that occurs at the State Highway Department. Someone should look at their purchasing habits; spending habits; expense reports, etc. It would make the A & P fiasco small potatoes.

Posted by: HankRearden | December 29, 2006 08:11 AM

One last point: there needs to be a full accounting as to how much funding the A & P commisions and CVB has granted directly and indirectly to the Clinton library. That marketing contract, if I am not mistaken, was with PR division ofCranford Johnson which at the time, was headed up by Rutherford. I am convinced that a great deal of money was directed to support the Clinton Library that was not disclosed to the public. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Posted by: HankRearden | December 29, 2006 08:27 AM

Here's a festering stewpot of malfeasance for someone to look into: at UAMS foodservice, they operate on a no-bid contract with SYSCO Foodservices of AR to the tune of $75,000+ per WEEK! How did that happen?

Posted by: Hillcrustian | December 29, 2006 08:41 AM

Geez, you people see a conspriacy at every turn. There have to be laws broken for "some right nice charges" to be brought.

I'll grant that there was some shoddy record keeping going on, but laws broken? I doubt it because from all my readings, there weren't a lot of *laws* involved unless someone embezzled some money which I haven't heard anything about. Was Lou's "do right rule" ignored - yeah, I'll grant you that.

I'm never one to cut the business interests and their hold on city government much slack, but people are throwing the baby out with the bath water on this deal. Reforms needed? You bet. Crime of the century - or even of the last 12 months? I doubt it. This blog is sounding as bizarre as the DOG's letters page on this issue.

Once again, it's all Clinton's fault to some. Give me a break.

Posted by: Rackensacker | December 29, 2006 02:04 PM

Let's take a look at the car deal again, Rackensacker. First, Barry Travis traded in a car that belonged to the city and applied the $1,500 trade-in to a car that was registered in his name. Whose $1,500 was that? If Travis had taken the city-owned car to a used car dealer and received $1,500 in cash, the money would have belonged to the city. If Travis had taken the $1,500 cash across the street and used it as down payment on a car, there would be no question that he had taken money that belonged to the city and used it to buy something for himself. Some people are so narrow minded that they would call this theft. Please include me in that group. I have worked for public agencies that had agency cars. If I had taken one of those cars to a car dealer and used it as a trade-in on a car that was sold to me personally, I would have been arrested. Just because Mary Beth Ringgold said it was OK to do this doesn't make it OK; it makes her an accessory.

At the other end of the car deal we apparently have at least two private companies who do business with the city and the LRCVB (that is, they are paid substantial sums of money for performing services for the city and the LRCVB) paying the remaining debt on the car. These companies essentially gave money to the man who approved contracts with those companies worth tens of thousands of dollars. I have recommended contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars also. If any of those vendors had offered to pay off the debt on the car I bought a few months ago, I would have refused the offer immediately and reported this offer to the authorities. But I'm just one of those worthless public-agency employees who can't be trusted. I believe this action was a violation of existing ethics laws, and the law was violated by the recipient and the people who paid the car off.

Soon after this episode hit the paper and was discussed on this blog, one poster stated that it is common practice for departing agency directors to take their state-agency cars with them when they leave. I asked for a list of the names of state-agency directors who have done this. I'm still waiting for those names. Accusing departed state-agency directors of felony theft is not nice. If fact, it's slander.

Posted by: Pavel | December 29, 2006 02:53 PM

Arkansas Blog

The city board meets UPDATED

Comments

Post a comment