“Regarding the Suburbs Alliance complaints, gracious Vivienne what a specious line of reasoning! There is no link between Act 88 and the nonprofit I run. If there were, the conflict of interest would be disclosed and I would abstain from the vote.”

Then perhaps Mr. Smith would support annual, detailed, financial disclosure statements from members of the County Commission? And since SPARK doesn’t open its books, there is no way to verify any conflict of interest with anyone if public office of course. Funny how that works.

Conflict of interest is narrowly defined, at least as usually applied. I don’t know the precise legal definition or where it is to be found but I would guess that it requires a direct financial benefit. For example, “if our board contracts with this company, they will increase my consulting fee” (hypothetical example). However, influence and increased opportunity are not generally considered a reason for abstaining from votes. We have many examples in current political life where there is some blurring of this line. People have often complained about the many UM employees who are voting on issues that may affect the UM. My former opponent in the recent primary for 5th ward often said he would abstain from votes where his wife’s occupation was being decided, but he can hardly abstain from votes on the DDA’s Connecting William Street project in which she is engaged, since no direct financial consequence is indicated. We have had planning commissioners who are employed with firms who propose developments. I don’t have a solution for these types of situations, except to say that people should be sensitive to these influences and minimize any appearance of conflict where possible.

My point was intended to be that the Michigan Suburbs Alliance doubtless cooperates with SPARK and other economic development agencies. This creates a potential advantage and (favorite word) “synergy”, though probably not a legally defined conflict of interest. I don’t agree that turning all funds to a staff-directed assignment rather than by direct BOC designation makes them more accountable. Rather, it increases their fungibility, often in transactions and exchanges that are not easily observed by the public.

However, the way Act 88 is structured currently doesn’t allow for very effective oversight of the funds. By giving OCED the tools and flexibility to establish a strategic direction for the use of those funds and provide stronger accountability mechanisms, we improve the likelihood that they will achieve the impacts we intend. The structural change I proposed to give OCED increased oversight really just ensures that our economic development granting is given the exact same scrutiny and evaluation as our human services granting.

Regarding the Suburbs Alliance complaints, gracious Vivienne what a specious line of reasoning! There is no link between Act 88 and the nonprofit I run. If there were, the conflict of interest would be disclosed and I would abstain from the vote.

[link]

With this enormous windfall from the State, why would any official of Washtenaw County or the City of Ann Arbor feel any obligation to take our limited local resources (or invent new millages) and continue to pour them down the SPARK sinkhole with absolutely no accountability? This is especially irksome after Conan Smith led the charge to put the well-respected, and results-proven Huron Valley Humane Society through the ringer, looking for every penny he could squeeze out of them.

It’s time to revoke all public funding for SPARK and other ED agencies. It’s also time to replace Conan Smith. Our elected officials need to get back to the business of government and out of the business of business development. Safe, attractive cities and counties, with good schools and roads and efficient governments are far more effective in attracting and growing businesses than any hokey marketing schemes cooked up by SPARK, MEDC, or MSA.

I have been told that Commisioner Smith is having second thoughts.

Many thanks to Mary Morgan for clarifying the NAPP language. It was the ORDINANCE we were amending, NOT the ballot language.

Here’s the ballot language for the 2010 natural areas preservation program millage:

COUNTY OF WASHTENAW
Proposal A
Natural Areas Millage Renewal

To renew the millage expiring after the December 1, 2010 levy, shall the limitation on taxes which may be imposed each year for all purposes on real and tangible property in Washtenaw County be increased as provided in Section 6, Article 9 of the Michigan Constitution and the Board of Commissioners be authorized to levy a tax not to exceed one fourth of a mill, reduced by the Headlee Amendment to 0.2409 ($0.2409 per $1,000 of state equalized valuation) on the taxable value of such property for a period of ten years beginning with the levy made on December 1, 2011 (which will generate estimated revenues of $3,492,000 in the first year) for the purpose of purchasing natural areas in order to preserve them, paying the costs of operating a land preservation program and paying the costs of maintaining the land purchased?

Although the ballot language does not mention the purchase of development rights, PDR is outlined in the ordinance that governs NAPP. In May of 2010 – several months prior to the November election when the NAPP millage was renewed – county commissioners voted to revise that ordinance. The changes were discussed at an April 22, 2010 working session. [Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Natural Areas Tweaked for Ballot"] The changes reflected two strategic goals: incorporating farmland into NAPP’s land preservation efforts, and clarifying the county’s use of the purchase of development rights (PDR) to preserve land, in addition to outright acquisition. [.pdf of NAPP ordinance revised draft, which was ultimately approved in May of 2010] The revised NAPP ordinance is also posted on the county’s website.