A memo today from the Unified Government ethics administrator did not find Commissioner Ann Murguia in violation of the UG ethics code.
The memo was brought up by Mayor Mark Holland at tonight’s UG budget hearing, and part of it was read into the meeting record by Commissioner Mike Kane.
Commissioner Murguia had requested the ethics administrator’s opinion on whether she could participate and vote on the Community Development Block Grant issues.
While the mayor tonight interpreted the ethics administrator’s opinion as meaning that Commissioner Murguia couldn’t vote on the issue, Commissioner Murguia said that was not the case. Commissioner Murguia, who was not at tonight’s meeting, said the Argentine Neighborhood Development Association’s name was removed two days ago from the application by the Argentine Betterment Corp., and she plans to vote by phone at Thursday’s meeting.
While ANDA’s name was on the application as a partnering agency, Commissioner Murguia, who is ANDA’s executive director, said on July 16 that ANDA was not receiving any funds from the project and was just giving free advice. It was never the intention for ANDA to receive any funds from the project, she said.
ABC was the only agency that submitted a bid for new development, a housing project in the Highland Crest area of Turner in Commissioner Angela Markley’s district, and a UG committee had shifted some CDBG funding from predominantly emergency home repairs in the past to a program to build new housing.
Commissioner Kane read into the record of tonight’s meeting Ethics Administrator Ruth Benien’s conclusion: “Having reviewed the video of the July 16, 2015 meeting, the underlying documents and applications and prior documents, the Office of the Ethics Administrator finds that there was no intentional violation of the UG Ethics Code by anyone with respect to the CDBG process. If ANDA’s name remains on the application because of the lack of clarity with the application form and who receives the funds Commissioner Murguia would be disqualified from voting on the ABC project and ANDA would be prohibited from receipt of any UG funds from ABC’s project approval. The preferred practice would be that the application form require specific disclosure of the role and interest, financial or otherwise, of the participating agencies. Absent such disclosure the appearance is that there would be a sharing of funds.”
The ethics administrator felt that there was a problem with the application form in that it did not provide or require any detail to be provided on the role of a partnering agency so that it could be determined if ANDA were to receive any funds. Because the application was not clear, ANDA should not have been listed as a partnering agency.
The ethics administrator stated that ANDA should not be listed on the application form because the form itself did not give enough information or detail on the role of the partnering agency. “Having said the above, but asking all of you to cooperate with each other, a simple solution to this is to have Mario Escobar from ABC go to City Hall and prior to the vote on July 30, 2015 take a marker and delete ANDA as a ‘partnering agency.’ I clearly can’t compel that but it would resolve the problem and allow a potentially worthwhile project to go forward,” the ethics administrator’s memo stated.
Benien also stated in the memo that Commissioner Murguia was entitled in her capacity as UG commissioner to assist development groups such as ABC in obtaining funding or with unpaid consulting, and that was not a violation of the prestige of office provision. She cited a few other commissioners who were assisting with development projects. They may help as long as they don’t have a substantial interest in a project or receive any UG funds.
There also was not a violation of the UG ethics code’s confidential information section, she stated. Nothing was presented that suggested any current UG commissioner withheld information on the availability of these monies to the commissioner’s benefit. She also pointed out the committee meetings where these issues were discussed were open public meetings.
The mayor said tonight he would like to bring up the issue again at the Thursday, July 30, budget workshop to be held at 5 p.m., before the 7 p.m. meeting and vote.
Some of the agencies that didn’t receive Community Development Block Grant funds in this year’s budget spoke up at a public hearing today at City Hall.
The Unified Government Commission heard a few comments about the way that CDBG funds were distributed, and also heard from a few developers at the budget hearing.
Brenda Shivers, a board member of the Northeast Economic Development Corp., said the agency’s board was not made aware of the funds that were available. The agency previously almost lost some funding opportunities after it didn’t use all the grant money. NEDC did not apply for funds this year based on the precedence, she said.
She recommended all CDCs be held to the same requirement, to spend the funds they already have before being awarded additional funds. She said the ABC funding should be reduced to $200,000, with the remaining $200,000 to be given to an emergency home repairs program.
Richard Mabion suggested that the UG consider collaborating with his environmental programs to increase energy efficiency programs in low-income homes.
The UG clerk read an email from CHWC, a housing agency, that stated that they did not notice a shift in the way UG funds would be spent. CHWC decided not to apply this year because it had not been awarded CDBG funds since 2011, when it received funding for a minor home repair program for low-income families. It had been quite some time since CDBG funding was relevant to CHWC’s program, the message stated. Now that funding will be used for bricks and mortar programs, CHWC will make an application next year for a grant to be used for affordable housing, the message stated.
See earlier story at https://wyandotteonline.com/ug-discussion-gets-heated-over-community-development-block-grant-funds/.
