November 12, 2018
Citizens:
Is it possible to achieve good outcomes with a corrupt process? That is the question citizens need to ask our Milton city government. Today, I sent a letter to the Milton City Manager about issues issues of conflict of interest, lack of transparency, exceeding authority, and cronyism in our government. See the letter below. In the letter, I reference the July 25th Planning Commission (PC) meeting, where the Planning Commission Chairman tells the developer at the podium that the Milton City Council regretted its decision to deny variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. The chairman then proceeds to invite the applicant to discuss the matter further in a private meeting. That meeting did occur and shortly thereafter the developer again applied for a variance for the SE corner. At the City Council meeting on Monday night, four city council members changed their original votes and the variance was granted. Here is the video, so you can hear for yourself the conversation between the PC chairman and the developer, Tad Braswell.
Error
This video doesn’t exist
Unfortunately, the events described in this post and in my letter cause citizens to lose trust and confidence in our government. And we are seeing that in Milton. Many previously engaged citizens are disillusioned and are checking out. Citizens deserve better. Good governance is on the wane. Council members Bentley and Jamison both ran on a platform of good governance in the 2017 election. Will they now step forward to address these violations of the public trust? Will they (finally) deliver on their promises to reform our government and shift power back to citizens? If not now, when? How bad do things have to get to prompt action from our local government?
(Still) Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government
Tim
*********************************************************************************
Dear Steve:
(I am copying City Council and the City Attorney on this email.)
On Monday night, I expressed concerns about the process followed for granting variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. Previously, I have discussed with you concerns (different from the concerns that will be discussed herein) I had about the process followed for granting variances for the NW corner. I will address both the SE and NW corners in this email.
SE Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
As you know, on July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the preliminary plat for the SE corner for Birmingham Crossroads. In that meeting, the chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Paul Moore, who was calling into the meeting, stated that some council members regretted their previous (in April 2018) decision to reject the developer’s requested variances. Mr. Moore further requested to meet with the developer, Mr. Tad Braswell, to discuss this matter. I request that you, all council members, and the City Attorney watch the PC meeting. Cue to 1:20:45 in the video to hear the PC chairman’s comments; listen for 2 minutes.
The meeting requested by the PC Chair did, in fact, take place at City Hall. I do not know all people that attended, but I do know that the developer, the PC chairman, and another PC member attended. Furthermore, Mr. Moore told the other attending PC member, a friend of mine, that the Mr. Moore had concerns about the other PC member’s participation. The reason cited is that Mr. Moore did not want me, Tim Becker, to know about the meeting and what was discussed.
Steve, as you know, Mr. Braswell did come back to Council with a variance request, which was granted to him. Four council members changed their votes.
Steve, this meeting raises obvious (ethical) questions about the role of committee members and transparency. So I ask these questions:
- Under whose authority and in what capacity was the PC chairman operating?
- Who else attended this meeting?
- Was staff there? If so, who?
- How long was the meeting?
- Who in our government knew about this meeting?
- What was the content of this meeting?
- Were notes kept from this meeting? If so, please provide them.
- Why would the PC chairman not want me or other citizens to know about what was discussed?
- Were conditions discussed that Mr. Braswell would need to agree to? Was Mr. Braswell coached on how to proceed with his new application?
- Were there additional meetings or other communications between the PC chairman and Mr. Braswell? If so, many of the above questions pertain to these meetings and communications.
- Were any city council members involved in these communications with Mr. Braswell? Did a city council member authorize or otherwise sanction this meeting? Which council members knew about this meeting?
- Who informed the PC chairman that members of council regretted their decisions? Which council members were referenced? Is it appropriate for a member of the PC to discuss with a developer the stances of council members on zoning matters, particularly in public meeting (and even privately)?
NW Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
Steve, you and I previously discussed the Planning Commission’s hearing on Curtis Mills’ application for a special use permit (and 9 concurrent variances) for the NW quadrant of Birmingham Crossroads. By his own admission, the PC chairman is a fan and frequent attendee of concerts at Matilda’s. He was aware that due to re-development, Matilda’s was soon to be homeless. The PC chairman devised a plan to find Matilda’s a new home in Milton. The PC chairman took Mr. Mills to a Matilda’s concert, introduced him to the Potters (the owners’ of Matilda’s) and suggested the idea that Matilda’s move to Mr. Mills’ land on the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads. I first heard this story from Council Member Bentley. However, in March 2018, the PC chairman told me the same story, in the presence of 4 other people.
I have no problem with the Mr. Moore finding a home for his favorite music venue. And I supported the general notion of bringing Matilda’s to Milton, although not to the Crossroads. However, my concern is that the PC chairman did not recuse himself from hearing Mr. Mills’ application when it came before the PC. Furthermore, if you watch the PC hearing on the NW corner (and I suggest that you do), the PC chairman recommends concessions from the City (e.g., concerts on both Saturday and Friday nights) that were not even sought by the applicant. I would remind you of Milton’s city code Section 2.15 (a) – Prohibitions, part (1), which states that no appointed official shall knowingly:
“Engage in any business or transaction or have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or which would tend to impair the independence of his or her judgment or action in the performance of official duties”
So for this matter, I have just one question:
Did the PC chairman have a direct or indirect personal interest in the granting of a special use permit for the NW corner that “would tend to impair the independence the independence of his judgment or action in the performance of official duties”?
(Note: Steve, you and I previously discussed this issue in another context. However, I assert this matter needs to be re-visited in light of Section 2.15 (a) of Milton’s City Code.)
*************************************************************************************
Steve, to be clear, I am not looking to overturn either the decision on the SE or NW corners. What’s done is done. However, I assert the actions described above represent serious breaches of the public trust. Furthermore, I do believe the actions described herein are not conducive to concepts of good governance, including transparency. Citizens deserve better than this from our city government . . . much better. I request that you formally investigate both matters and provide a response back to me.
Milton Coalition 