Commissioners say incentives deal was discussed in public
Formal Lawrence City Commission decisions about incentives for Deciphera Pharmaceuticals came only during public, open meetings according to commissioners. Enlarge video
Mayor Sue Hack and her fellow Lawrence city commissioners say they didn't object to proposed incentives for Deciphera Pharmaceuticals when the package was discussed during a closed-door meeting in September, according to documents released Monday.
Commissioners - including Hack, who has an ownership interest in the company - say they merely received an update on negotiations with Deciphera from Lavern Squier, president of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, according to affidavits filed by the city in response to investigations conducted by the Kansas Attorney General's Office.
And Barry Disney, an assistant attorney general who looked into whether Hack violated the state's conflict-of-interest law in the matter, conceded Monday that the documents provided by the city represented the only evidence he considered in the case.
The disclosures come after his decision last month not to prosecute Hack on whether she had run afoul of the state's conflict-of-interest rules. The attorney general's office at that time also chastised Hack for her admitted failure to fill out a required "Statement of Substantial Financial Interest" outlining her ownership in Deciphera.
Whether Hack willfully participated in a Sept. 20 executive session discussion regarding the Deciphera pact - a meeting from which "a (commission) consensus seemed to favor" the agreement, according to a summary of the city's actions compiled by city attorney Gerald Cooley - cannot be definitively answered, Disney said.
"In the meeting, they didn't record it," Disney said Monday. "That's not disputed. There are no records kept. That's not disputed. The only people there were commissioners, and they all say they were updated.
"There's no evidence. Whether it occurred or not, there's no evidence it occurred. I've got to prove there was participation in order to go any further in the case. And there's nothing there showing participation. : I wasn't making a judgment on whether or not there was. I was making a judgment on what can be proved."
Attempts to contact Hack on Monday were unsuccessful.
The attorney general's office conducted two investigations regarding the city's actions regarding Deciphera: whether commissioners violated the state's open meetings law, and whether Hack acted inappropriately in participating in city proceedings regarding a company in which she had a substantial financial interest.
Commissioners eventually voted to approve the incentives package for Deciphera during an open, public meeting Oct. 23. The vote was 4-0, with Hack recusing herself because of what she considered a potential conflict of interest.
But the city's documents, released Monday, do not mention any discussions that commissioners might have had during the Sept. 20 executive session. During that closed-door meeting, Squier updated commissioners about the Deciphera negotiations and how the company was seeking a revolutionary tax rebate package in connection with a building in the East Hills Business Park.
Each of the five commissioners, in their written affidavits, told investigators only that "neither I, nor any other commissioner, objected to the proposal" after hearing Squier's update.
Disney said he did not question commissioners about their involvement in the executive session, opting instead to rely on the affidavits.
"All I can do is call it based on what's presented to us," he said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
458casul (anonymous) says…
If it smells like poop it is poop.Now thats funny
merrill (anonymous) says…
City and County Commissionsers,
When can citizens expect explicit records to be kept of all executive sessions? We want recordings and written communication.
When in the world did any elected or appointed commissioner come to the conclusion that voters/citizens blindly trust elected or appointed officials? Get real!
Now how about written and recorded minutes of all executive sessions effective immediately?
EmJones (anonymous) says…
It's not satisfactory. They all need to be made to testify under oath about what went on in there and what each one of them did and said.
The commissioners and mayor are in positions invested with the public trust. They owe it to the citizens of Lawrence to come clean. Nothing less than full disclosure, under oath, will do. When the truth is out, only then can it be determined whether resignations or recalls are justified.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
The headline is a little misleading, as it contains the words "details" and "released."
It appears that nothing was disclosed at all.
This is not an investigation, it is an attempt to sweep it all under the rug until the public gets distracted by a different scandal.
EmJones (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim:
A prepared affidavit is much different than being on the witness stand and answering questions on the spot. Everybody knows that.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
The closed-door executive session privilege is based on the honor system.
The honor system only works when the participants possess a sense of honor.
Get rid of the closed-door privilege. This group has proven they cannot be entrusted with it.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
Told ya! Covering for each other and especially Hack!
Recall!
Recall!
Recall!
Godot (anonymous) says…
If we are to believe the commissioners' sworn, written, independent statements, which, according to this article, are identical with regard to the lack of discussion (did they all hire the same lawyer?), then it is worse than previously indicated. They apparently are willing to have us believe that they approved a multimillion dollar giveaway to Deciphera with absolutely no discussion. The commissioners admit they ceded their responsibilities to Laverne Squier.
How is it the commissioners were allowed to coordinate their sworn statements, as it appears they did?
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
"The commissioners admit they ceded their responsibilities to Laverne Squier."
How is it that the president of the Chamber of Commerce has the power to negotiate a "revolutionary tax rebate package"? Isn't that why we have elected cc officials?
ilovelucy (anonymous) says…
Why is everyone concentrating on the commission when the real crooks are Squier and Corliss? I'd be pointing fingers at them first.
lawrence_citizen (anonymous) says…
The closed door session is intended to be used for confidential discussions, such as employee issues, etc... things the public should not be given access to. This obviously is not one of them. Somehow this needs to be monitored closer, such as a impartial person being present at all closed door sessions.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Corliss(an attorney), Squires, Cooley(so called city attroney/he advised them), Boog(an attorney), Hack(government ethics teacher/multiple terms), Amyx(past mayor and commissioner/mutiple terms), the new builder representatives(what are the name of those new guys?/so forgetable) all are responsible and need be held accountable.
WTF, an investigation is supposed to look into background information and dig just a little, not simply take the unquestioned word of those being "investigated".
AG, assAG, what's the difference? One was elected.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
This thing sounds fisherier than ever. Why did'nt the AG pursue this further; maybe through depositions the truth would/will come out. The AG has his own troubles as we find out now. Although of a much more minor scale, the lack of forthrightness in the Dicephera deal smacks of the Scooter Libby and CIA video destruction deceptiveness. Maybe a new Commission of Sue, Bonnie, Lavern, Dave Corless and Bob Johnson would assure prompt and honest action on city matters.
pace (anonymous) says…
They weren't into asking too many questions. Narrow questions, narrow single answer, probably one statement prepared by attorney and then signed by all present. Could we get a question on the agenda about when Sue bought, how much she paid, how much she really owns, does she have options to buy more, who arranged for Laverne to come to a closed door executive session? Has she "misunderstood" her duties on other investments? Maybe she will address some of the issues since she ran for and won a position of public trust. The longer she stonewalls, the less likely it looks to be innocence and more like insuring her investment was secure. Greed. Sue Hack should resign or be recalled if she doesn't address the issues.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Forgot to mention: Pilgrim needs to book a return trip on the Mayflower; back to a more representative 17th Century England.
Also, is Disney with the AG's office any relation to Walt? Sounds like a Mickey Mouse clone!
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
I wonder when the CC talk of increasing any and all taxes will begin again? I doubt they have a prayer of taxpayer approval on that front, but at least we can keep Boog out of our spare change stash until we all forget about this most recent brouhaha.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
The Disney method of investigation seems to be: don't seek and ye shall not find.
Not even bothering to question any commissioner in person seems like dereliction of a prosecutor's duty.
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
Once again, please educate yourself on the laws in question before you leap to conclusions. Even if there had been investigations, lasting for weeks, where everyone involved was interviewed ad naseum, and even if the results showed that more had happened, under the KOMA and under conflict of interest laws the penalties would have been (a) A class B misdomeanor on the part of Mayor Hack and (b) all that was contained in the consent agreement and maybe one more thing, $500 fines. That is it. Neither Act could, as of the late date it was reported, resulted in a voiding of the contract in question. So even if the matter went to a judge/court, there was no remedy available giving a judge the authority to order that result. Read the statutes (on line at www.kslegislature.org) and the AG's detailed outline on the KOMA on line at www.ksag.org (go to open government link). And before you complain that the AG's outline is not right, keep in mind it is the same one that has been authored by that office from the time Robert Stephan was AG, up through 3 other AG's (with updates when the laws get changed). There is currently NO LAW that requires executive sessions to be recorded (in fact 3 or more attempts to get such a law never got out of a committee!). There is currently NO LAW that allows an agreement to be voided (1) outside of 21 days from its approval or (2) if it was approved in an open session. There is currently NO LAW that prohibits public bodies from using an executive session to discuss a topic that falls under KSA 75-4319.
So, even if there had been interviews or more done, the results what ever was discovered would not have been to (a) get rid of the agreement or (b) get rid of the officials in question. So those who are arm-chair quarter backing prosecutorial decisions may want to reconsider the wisdom of spending thousands of tax dollars and hundreds of state employee work hours to get results that weren't all that different from what happened.
If you want new state laws, talk to your state lawmakers. If you want new city commissioners, recall these and vote differently next time (or run for office yourself)!
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…
When the AG's decisions about Hack's illegal acts and the entire Commission's criminal conduct were first announced, I was really angry. I didn't realize that the poor AG was just too busy dealing with his own little "technical violation" of the law. Poor guy is trying to cover his problems up, so he isn't about to waste his work time in taxpayer-provided offices investigating other officials' technical violations. Quid pro quo, anyone?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Well, well, look at how suspected KOMA violations are handled by the Shawnee County DA; it appears he views it seriously enough to actually interview the parties involved. Imagine that!
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/12120...
"Shawnee County District Attorney Robert Hecht confirmed Tuesday his office is investigating a possible violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act by some members of the Topeka City Council......
Speaking on the "On the Other Hand" radio talk show on am 580 wibw, Hecht told hosts Raubin Pierce and Megan Mosack that several people had been subpoenaed to give testimony in connection with the open meetings investigation."
Apparently some government officials do not view such a violation as a "technicality."
Godot (anonymous) says…
Makes you wonder why Branson handed this investigation off to the AG when the AG did not even bother to interview to parties involved with the closed meeting. The Shawnee County DA did not let the fact that he knew the parties involved stop him from investigating an open meetings violation.
Does this mean Branson cannot ever handle a case where he knows the participants, meaning he cannot handle many of the cases in Douglas County, or does this mean Branson had to pass this case on because he, too, is involved with Deciphera?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Dechipera is only one example where public taxpayer dollars were used for the benefit of private investors in the last few years. Ask yourself why no member of the present nor past commissions want a to implement the most basic of reforms: Requiring that every LLP, LLC, and partnership disclose the real people who will benefit from contracts, grants and tax rebates; and independent audit of the City of Lawrence's finances over the last five years and ongoing yearly audits
While LLC's, LLP's, and partnerships are legal business structures they often are created solely to make it difficult to "follow the money." These multi-layered private business structures coupled with private executive sessions make it very easy hide who benefits when the commission actions. There is no reason why those that receive Lawrence tax dollars should be unwilling to list all those that directly benefit. Lawrence can register domestic partnerships but not partnerships who get our tax dollars?
Finally an outside independent audit of the last five years of Lawrence finances and ongoing yearly audits thereafter would go along way to quiet the plc/gra. If I were on the current Commission I would propose such reform the next time the their usual suspects called for my resignation. If I am to be subjected to a public lynching you can be darn sure I am going to do everything possible to make sure I have plenty of company!