Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning and Development Services

TO:	Thomas M. Markus, City Manager
FROM:	Danelle Walters, Community Development Manager
CC:	Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager Scott McCullough, Planning Director
DATE:	03/05/2019 City Commission Meeting
RE:	Response to anonymous correspondence presented at the 2/19/19 City Commission meeting re: CDAC

Background

This memo responds to the anonymous correspondence provided by Commissioner Soden at the February 19, 2019 City Commission meeting as it relates to disbanding the Community Development Advisory Committee. During the meeting, Commissioner Soden distributed information from an unnamed source alleging “fallout of ethics determination for the CDAC.”

CDAC Process

The CDAC reviews CDBG and HOME funding requests broken down by categories. The categories reviewed include CDBG/HOME administration, HOME, CDBG Public Service, and CDBG Non-Public Service. Since the individual applications are reviewed in a set of categories, the relevant applications are discussed in a series of meetings. Typically, the CDAC discuss one category per meeting, but a category can carry over into a second meeting if it is particularly difficult to reach decisions in one meeting. Applicants are notified when their applications will be heard and are invited to attend to answer questions or potentially present their item. Typically, there is little to no other business on the agenda for the meeting in which a category is being discussed. Each application reviewed during a funding category discussion is competing against all other applications within that funding category. For example, the CDBG neighborhood associations that apply for coordinator/newsletter funding are competing against agencies such as the Lawrence Community Shelter and Housing and Credit Counseling in the public service category. Since the applications are reviewed against each other in categories, the chance of a conflict of interest is one that staff is required to review.

CDAC Recusals

On January 1, 2019 the City’s revised ethics policy went into effect and staff was directed to review the policy with all of the advisory commissions, boards and committees of the city. At the first meeting of the year for the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), January 10th, staff provided information regarding the ethics policy and asked that CDAC members fill out a Conflict of Interest form. With this completed form, staff was able to determine if any member’s activities warranted a discussion with the City Attorney’s Office.

On January 24th staff reached out to the City Attorney’s Office to request a determination on potential conflicts of interest for three members. One member was the interim director of the United Way, and two were neighborhood association board members for applicant agencies. The City Attorney’s Office reviewed staff’s questions and determined that the board officers and the United Way interim director should recuse themselves from individual applications that they had conflicts for, which were all included in the CDBG Public Service category based on the method the board uses for allocating funds.

Staff informed the three members of the recommendation to recuse themselves from items where conflicts may be present. To implement the expectation of the ethics policy, to be consistent with other board practices, and based on sound legal practice, staff informed these members that they would need to leave the room for the duration of the category, and they would not be able to present to the board regarding their application. Because this was the only true agenda item, the Schwegler and Brook Creek representatives chose not to attend the meeting – staff did not request that they not attend. The United Way interim director indicated she would be resigning because the conflict was throughout the entire CDBG category. She was not asked to step down by staff.

Staff put out an attendance check to the remainder of the committee members the day before the February 14, 2019 meeting (the agenda notification of the meeting went out on February 7) and one member indicated he would be unable to attend; staff determined there would be a quorum if all other members attended the evening of the meeting, one additional member did not attend, causing an absence of quorum. The day after the meeting, staff sent out an email to the board members advising there was not a quorum the night before. The member that did not attend, nor notify staff that he would be absent, responded that he simply “forgot” about the meeting.

Strategic Plan Implications

Commissioner Soden raised a point during the February 19th discussion that several years ago the chair of the Social Service Funding Advisory Board was the then current United Way Director and that staff did not recommend that the position recuse herself from applications. Staff would note that the code establishing the Social Service Funding Advisory Board specifically calls for a United Way liaison. The Social Service Funding Advisory Board has not met since the Ethics policy was approved by the City Commission. If additional action is required regarding this Board, staff will bring forward a recommendation in the future.