Arkansas Blog: No conflict

City Attorney Tom Carpenter said there was no rule prohibiting an employee of Moses-Tucker from voting on a Riverdale District design committee considering the Aloft Hotel proposal being handled by Moses-Tucker.

Except simple common sense, of course.

QUESTION FROM KATHY WELLS OF DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO CITY ATTORNEY TOM CARPENTER

please address the conflict of interest that occurred yesterday when the
River Market Design Review Committee voted upon the Aloft Hotel application
for a waiver, seeking permission to build a 7-story structure.

today's paper listed Committee member Ann Wait as voting Yes upon the waiver
request, and identified her as an employee of Moses Tucker Real Estate, at
the same time it named Jimmy Moses of the same firm as the agent for the
owners seeking the variance, appearing before the Committee.

The City Code of Ethics prohibits an interested party from voting upon
matters before city boards and commissions to their own benefit, or the
benefit of their business, or family members.

Please uphold the Code of Ethics in this case, and remedy this flagrant
conflict.

Yours Truly,
Kathy Wells

RESPONSE FROM TOM CARPENTER

Dear Kathy,

I sent a response to Mayor Stodola on this question last week (or whenever you raised it). I thought that you were copied. Perhaps not. I will provide a more detailed response to the Mayor, that he can share with you, but here is the executive summary: (1) The River Market Design Review committee is made up of owners of property within the district intentionally, so there will always be some kind of impact on the various owners of any decision – that was the policy decision initially made by the Board of Directors; (2) Because of the way the City Code of Ethics is drafted, if there is not a direct or indirect financial impact on a member of the Committee, then there is certainly no conflict; (3) In the past, this office ruled, in a case involving Hank Kelley and John Flake, that Mayor Dailey did not have a conflict because at the time the Flake group was divided into real estate management and real estate development, and the two sides did not share funds or costs; in this situation, we were informed that the same was true at Moses/Tucker (incidentally, the Hank Kelley situation came up again a couple of years later, but the method of operation of the company changed, so Mayor Dailey had a direct conflict of interest). Anyway, by the language of the two ordinances, this was not a disqualifying situation in the River Market.

Please note also that I mentioned to Mayor Stodola that we have some problems with our conflicts ordinance that should be addressed; he agreed, and indicated that he also has some issues that he would like to be addressed.

Tom

Comments

"The River Market Design Review committee is made up of owners of property within the district intentionally"

enough said.

Why even have a committee?

Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR | September 22, 2008 03:59 PM

Oh it's a conflict of interest...

These people are going to destroy the Historical integrety of the district. But, they're probably all Republicans anyway. If they wait long enough they'll get part of the bail out money and won't have to build the hotel.

And don't try to shame us by saying that "other cities do it this way." That's a non argument. We're not other cities, and many of us don't want your damn hotel built unless it CONFORMS TO THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.

Posted by: spunkrat | September 22, 2008 04:40 PM

The River Market District is not a historical district. It was never intended to be. There are old buildings in it, true. But there are also many new buildings.

Posted by: Stan Drews | September 22, 2008 04:47 PM

The new motel looks stupid. It doesn't belong.

Posted by: Jim | September 22, 2008 04:55 PM

How does a corporate structure as well as law value the cost of labor and what is labor? What is ethical about labor being used or manipulated and even ignored? For the sake of law itself, and rulings, the code of Little Rock's ethics is drafted, to what degree must indirect conflict of interest exist? There is a fine article in Environments about the nature of indirect planning, but who am I to even suggest to my Brothers and Sisters in the Rock what is ethical?

Posted by: Bill | September 22, 2008 05:01 PM

REAL ethics stipulations bar the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest, not some micro-LEGAL definition!! This is the "bidness" equivalent of our animal cruelty, pollution and other quasi-restrictions... Pure-D BS.
|

Posted by: Larry | September 22, 2008 05:56 PM

We need a McDonalds and Wendys down there with big signage and then a Starbucks with a Barnes and Noble...at which point we can scream aloud, in unison, "we have arrived"...oopppsss sorry, I was reciting a Tom Cruise Scientology memo.
My bad.....

Posted by: yapperjohn | September 22, 2008 07:21 PM

Hey, builders and developers have been running the City of LR for years, so how is this different?

Posted by: strangelove | September 22, 2008 08:31 PM

Stan:
Well good, I'm glad there are other newer buildings in the district. Then go build your hotel in one of those existing buildings instead of putting up a new monstrosity.

And perhaps I was wrong. Maybe it's not an official historical district. But the feel of the River Market is historical. And it's encompassed by a wider "Quapaw Quarter" district. And that hotel does not belong as designed. So, choose another "newer" building and put your hotel in that one. No excuses.

What about all that development you people said would occur on Main street? You failed us on that. So now it's another "modern" building. Anything to switch the bait to get more tax money and tax breaks, I suppose. And you'll foul up the River Market area for 2 years trying to get the damn thing built and no one will be able to park. There will be constant noise and useless road closings and detours--all of which discourage commerce.

I agree with Jim. The hotel looks absurd. And it'll never be full, and it will end up being what passes for "condos" in Little Rock and then it'll be slum housing. This wouldn't stink quite so bad if you people didn't try and stack that committee. Build it in West Little Rock where you guys live and stop tinkering with our downtown neighborhoods.

Posted by: spunkrat | September 22, 2008 10:48 PM

Let them destroy their egg laying hen if they are that stupid. NLR's main street is nicer than the RiverMarket already in my opinion. Eventually the LR side will be all high rise hotels and condo buildings and NLR will be redeveloped with a historical feel which tourists prefer.

Posted by: eark | September 22, 2008 11:18 PM

Common sense has never been Tommy Carpenter's strong suit. It's been that way since elementary school.

Posted by: Julianna | September 24, 2008 01:50 PM

Arkansas Blog

No conflict

Comments

Post a comment