It has been disappointing to watch our city lawyers and aldermen act like they were in a chess match rather than holding up the moral bar for Fayetteville. When Matt Petty was first elected and got caught stealing a bicycle I was taken aback as he told me he had rescued, not stolen the bike. The TV cameras caught Petty in the act when he had an accident on the bike and first responders had to come tend to his wounds. The owner of the “rescued” bike spotted it on TV, (the local news), and thus reclaimed it.
More recently our city attorneys got Matthew off the hook when he chose not to disclose his relationship to Specialized Properties, but rather speak in favor and vote for their Markham Hill development. The city ethics code (#3) requires that one recuse himself from the discussion and the vote when doing business with someone coming before the Council for approval of a project.
Specialized manages Petty’s Prairie Street property. The city attorneys were able to find a technicality and get Matt and the city was off the lawsuit hook. If you ask the legal team about it they’re likely to paint a rosey picture about how they saved “the city” from a lawsuit.
Whether you agree with the Markham Hill development or not is not the issue in the following. The procedure is what got my attention. At one of the planning meetings about Markham Hill I went to the podium to make public comment and ask questions. I’d even typed out my questions to be sure I stayed on point. I even passed copies of those questions to the committee members. It was startling to listen to the chairman change one of my questions into an entirely different question. Lesson learned, do not leave the podium until the questions you actually ask, are answered.
At that same time I asked if the people involved in assessing the ecological consequences of the Markham Hill development had to sign Non Disclosure Agreements, (NDAs). City legal counsel Blake Pennington responded that he did not have a problem with NDAs. Why would you ask for one’s professional opinion, then muzzle them? What information is the public not getting that we should be getting?
The bottom line here is do we want a city government that plays legal and word games or do we want a city government that operates from both a legal and ethical base?