Deciphera Pharmaceuticals
- Deciphera looks to fast-track first drug (10-31-07)
- Bioscience firms taking root (11-01-07)
- City: Deciphera tax break not handled well (10-27-07)
- City, county may be responsible to pay $1.5M of company's grant even if it moves (10-27-07)
- Deciphera deal eluded public scrutiny (10-25-07)
- City upholds agreement reached with Deciphera (10-24-07)
Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson is investigating whether the City Commission violated the state's open meetings law as part of a controversial process authorizing a tax rebate for a local company.
Branson's office has received three formal complaints alleging that city commissioners violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act when it conducted a closed-door executive session last month to discuss a contract that would give a first-of-its-kind tax rebate to Deciphera Pharmaceuticals.
Branson said he had delivered a letter to City Hall on Thursday afternoon directing city leaders to provide a written response to the allegations. The city has until Wednesday to provide the information to Branson.
"This is the first step in the investigation," Branson said. "After we receive and review the city's response, we'll be in a better position to determine whether to investigate further, whether a formal complaint should be filed in District Court, or whether the file should be closed with no additional action."
The alleged violations could threaten the approximately $3 million incentives package that the city, county and local economic development organizations have offered to Deciphera to keep the promising startup company in town.
Branson said if a violation is proven to have occurred, the agreement that was approved by city commissioners last week could be declared null and void. Branson said state law allows for that remedy, but his office would have to decide whether to seek it. The law also allows for a $500 fine.
City Manager David Corliss previously has said he believes the discussions about the Deciphera agreement did not violate the state's open meetings act. Corliss confirmed that a conversation was conducted on the deal as part of an Oct. 2 executive session. He said the conversations could legally take place behind closed doors under the provision that allows governments to have executive sessions to discuss matters "deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship."
On Thursday, Corliss referred all questions to Jerry Cooley, the city's attorney. Cooley said he was still reviewing the allegations and gathering information.
Branson declined to reveal who had filed the complaints alleging that the city had acted improperly. But leaders of Grassroots Action - one of the city's larger political activism groups - announced Thursday that they had filed a complaint.
"It appears policy was discussed behind closed doors, and it never really was discussed publicly," said Gwen Klingenberg, a member of the group and a signatory of the official complaint. "That concerns us."
The complaints stem from an agreement that commissioners approved at their Oct. 23 meeting. The only action that commissioners took in open meeting was to authorize the vice mayor to sign a package of legal documents related to the deal. The package of documents included more than 20 pages of legal language. One of the pages contained a single paragraph authorizing the unique tax rebate provision.
The idea of a tax rebate - a device never before used in Lawrence - was not mentioned during the public meeting.
The tax rebate is similar to a tax abatement. It guarantees that for a 10-year period, Deciphera will not pay above a certain amount in property taxes for an East Hills Business Park building that it will use as its headquarters and laboratory.
The tax rebate did not go through any of the normal review processes that are required for a tax abatement. Tax abatements are required to be reviewed by the city's Public Incentives Review Committee. A cost-benefit analysis also is required to be performed for all tax abatement requests.
Several city commissioners have defended the process. They said the city needed to move quickly to keep Deciphera from moving to a Johnson County community that was offering an incentive package to the bioscience company.
City leaders have praised the company because, as a firm working to develop cancer-fighting drugs, it is expected to have strong growth potential. The company has predicted it will have 200 employees - mainly Ph.D-level scientists - at its Lawrence operations in the next several years.
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.
busymom (anonymous) says…
I'm speechless. I'm wondering how many Ph.D level scientists live here in Lawrence that this company will benefit? And, how does this "deal" affect the city. Okay, maybe I'm not speechless. I'm sure there will be to come out on this, out of the 20 pages of legal jargin.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
I think the idea is to attract more PhD's.
I did feel this was handled improperly and costly mistakes may have been made - like Deciphera being able to pick up and move (along with their rebate) someplace else in Kansas at the cost of Douglas County taxpayers.
I understand the desire to 'get it done' - and I'm not against Deciphera or the rebate.
The reailty is that when a closed group makes the determination to do something and it's pretty much one sided other things - potentially very important things can get overlooked.
An expedited process can still occur without disregard to procedure.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
If Dicephera is so good for the city that it deserves a giveaway from the taxpayers, fine.
There was no excuse to do this behind closed doors.
It's the taxpayers' money!
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
"The company has predicted it will have 200 employees - mainly Ph.D-level scientists - at its Lawrence operations in the next several years."
OMG I've heard that before, in other cities. It's always the jobs they are going to provide, which never seem to materialize. And what if it turns out to be untrue? Then what? This win-win deal for Dicephra stinks for the taxpayers. How about some guarantees from the company in exchange for the freebies?
merrill (anonymous) says…
Reschedule the whole event. That is the only right thing to do. Mayor Hack has a personal invvestment in this matter and Commissioner Bob Johnson has been involved with East Hills Business Park for years. If the deal falls through that's what happens when bad judgement takes precedent over proper procedure.
Bring it back for a complete review for the sake of transparency. There is no fast track policy on the books that anyone is aware of so far that is known. Apologies and explanations are not good enough for that is no assurance it cannot happen again. I respectfully submit that Commissioners Bob Johnson and Sue Hack recuse themselves from the entire process.
Track record of the Chamber: The leadership of the Chamber are the same people that led the City into 18 prior tax abatements of which 14 are either total failures (the firm failed or left town eg: Serologicals, Davol, E&E, etc.) or the firm failed to provide the jobs or wages promised (eg: Microtech, Prososco, Packerware, etc.) The Chamber favors adding 1000 aces of industrial land while the number of industrial jobs is declining, not rising, and our industrial facilities are sitting empty or are being converted to storage uses. Given this poor record of leadership, the Deciphera propsoal is suspect because the same leadership is pushing the City into what may be another failed project.
Open ended tax rebate: This rebate freezes the amount of the tax. This has never been done before. Even abated properties appreciate in value over time providing some gain to the city. The taxpayers should be assured that there is a compelling need for such a generous subsidy.
merrill (anonymous) says…
I say savvy Lawrence taxpayers should demand all taxpayer funded projects such as the above, the hotel project and the North Lawrence Project be put to a public vote. Included should be the many road projects on the table. If not taxpayers could get taken to the cleaners.
I am of the opinion the majority of the city and county commissions are so inundated with special interest projects that they have become overwhelmed thus requiring a savvy taxpayer public vote on the issues.
After all we do get stuck paying the bills.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Same BS from the usual suspects. You guys wouldn't be happy if we were able to lure a major high-tech employer like Microsoft. The simple fact is that Lawrence needs to be able to offer incentives to attract high-quality employers to this town. The 200 new professional positions created would be quality jobs. We all can't work for minimum wage downtown and provide the necessary tax revenue to the city!!!
I'm not entirely surprised that Gwen Klingenberg was involved in this political witch-hunt! Unfortunately, when you deal with idiots like this who have made a career out of loitering at City Commission meetings, these are the kind of headlines that will be generated. The City Commission did nothing wrong and I welcome the investigation since it will provide the necessary proof to prove that no laws were broken.
This argument that the Mayor has a personal interest in the action is obviously a red herring. More baseless innuendo and speculation aided by the cowardice of anonymous comments!
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
"This argument that the Mayor has a personal interest in the action is obviously a red herring."
Hey kshiker have you missed all references that madam mayor didn't vote - though she was involved in all other parts of the discussion - because she had a financial interest in the company?
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
Is there any assurance that the employees will be hired from Lawrence and not contract labor from all over the country?
the merrils:
"I am of the opinion the majority of the city and county commissions are so inundated with special interest projects that they have become overwhelmed thus requiring a savvy taxpayer public vote on the issues.
After all we do get stuck paying the bills."
Maybe if our previous cc had not bankrupted the city, Lawrence would not be so desperate for spare change. Where did all of our money go, merrills? There were millions in the general fund before Rundle, Schauner and Boog took over the bank account.
WWoftheW (anonymous) says…
Monkey;
Our money was all spent on paying developers infrastructure and anything else they wanted so they could become richer on the taxpayers bill. By the the time Schauner and Highberger and Rundle were finally in office the developer commissions had approved the expenditures like Home Depot.
WWoftheW (anonymous) says…
Monkey;
We are overbuilt with taxpayer paid developements and the housing market has crashed and the City imposed a unbelievable high tax increase of 4% for this year and a 3.5% increase for next year when over the past several years our tax increase has remained pretty constant at 2.27 ish%
Why did the city need to budget for such an increase?
Instead of using city monies to maintain and replace failing roads and infrastructure we paid for more new infrastructure to build vacant commercial and residential properties.
Now we have no choice but to repair and replace hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure while still promising the developers, now we have a new CC, that they can continue to count on free new infrastructure to their new developments.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Logicsound --
More useless hysterics and hyperbole. How has the City of Lawrence been harmed by these actions? When the DA concludes that no violation of KOMA occurred (as he surely will), this issue will fade away. Why don't you take your fancy MBA from KU and do something productive with it? You don't need to become a faceless lackey for Grassroots Action and the neighborhood groups.
alfie (anonymous) says…
Hey ks- then tell all of us who you are?
This argument that the Mayor has a personal interest in the action is obviously a red herring. More baseless innuendo and speculation aided by the cowardice of anonymous comments!
kshiker (anonymous) says…
I'm a citizen of the City of Lawrence who is disgusted by people like you. I'm not the one making anonymous, unsubstantiated accusations about others. It is very easy to say horrible, unsubstantiated things about other human beings when it is done under the veil of secrecy.
alfie (anonymous) says…
well may I suggest you change your email addresses to mo-hiker. or get back to work
alfie (anonymous) says…
well may I suggest you change your email address to mo-hiker. or get back to work
alfie (anonymous) says…
Again, where are the top management people of Deciphera going to live? Wanna bet that most of the employees come from outside Douglas county?
Where do the existing ones live now?
alfie (anonymous) says…
Another interesting thing here also is that- what group(made up of) wanted to get the monkey off there back with the building they were stuck with for many years in the East Hills Business Park?
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
kshiker wrote "...The 200 new professional positions created would be quality jobs. We all can't work for minimum wage downtown and provide the necessary tax revenue to the city!!!..."
True, but if they are getting a substantial cut in taxes, how does this create tax revenue for the city (other than sales/property tax from the workers who may or may not live here)?
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
BTW, I moved here three years ago with a wife and two teens. Although not a huge input into the economy, I wish I could get a rebate or abatement for the buying power I brought.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
You know what I want to know? How many of the letter writers were and will be contributors to Branson's past and future campaign? Why all the secretiveness behind their identities? When this blows up in their faces, what will the new PLC/GRA's be calling themselves next? Finally, when will we get a independent audit of the last five years of the Lawrence's finances? What are the current and past Commissioners desperately trying to hide from the Lawrence taxpayers?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Just because I am pleased 2 of the 3 PLC/GRA are no longer sit in the five chairs doesn't mean I mindlessly support the current seat warmers. Neither do I care in the least what the "intentions" of various Commissions were or are. It is the results of their actions I care about. I don't feel any better about having Lawrence tax revenues wasted locally downtown as opposed to corporately.
So I'll ask again, when will the citizens and taxpayers of Lawrence get a independent audit of the last five years of the Cities finances? What are the current and past Commissioners desperately trying to hide from the Lawrence taxpayers? Open the books and let us see for ourselves who got what and why. Then the right wing nut jobs and the looney left can both go down to the new DA with FACTS and demand action.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
I think tax rebates are for the birds. Why not give rebates on the side where it counts. Personal taxes. Sure I could make a great story about what I plan to do but following thru is another thing. We have had plenty of businesses that promise big things for big money. I have always wondered what the end numbers realy look like
laughingatallofu (anonymous) says…
Boy, am I glad that I don't live in Lawrence. What a messed up place. I giggle everytime I see the roundabouts. The role of the LPD is to hand out MIPs to kids who are old enough to go to war and speeding tickets to ANYONE who is just trying to navigate the horrific traffic. Does anyone have a vision there? My vision is that, eventually, Eudora will assimilate Lawrence and raze the city back to farmland (saving just ONE sub joint for good ol times sake).
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Lets just start with 5 years independent audit of City finances. Statutes of limitation aside, no one on the Commission today was there 50 years ago and the last 5 years are much more relevant to today's "crisis." The issue is, how is our money being spent currently not how was it spent before most residents were born.
For instance, I am not sure how relevant what percentage was spent on libraries decades before the personal computer and the Interweb really informs us on how much we should be spending today. The focus of an audit is to identify problems in the recent past and to decide future budgets and needed tax rates to support City services. If Lawrence truly wants an informed and engaged citizens, like both sides CLAIM they want, they are going to have to give us the information needed to provide that informed input.
Without that information we are reduced to "You're a developturd!" "No I'm not, you smelly hippie." "Well at least I'm not bald!" bullcrap that passes for reasoned discussion here in Lawrence, Kansas.
But the truth is, neither side wants that information in the hands of the average citizen. If Lawrencian's know the game has been rigged they may just demand all their necks. Nope, in the current political structure both sides want to keep Lawrencian's in the dark. Better to hang together than to hang separately.
laughingatallofu (anonymous) says…
swan_diver,
I didn't take the time to count the number of commas, dashes, and run-on sentences that you had in your latest post. But, if I did (instead of counting sheep), I'd be asleep in no time!
I'm yanking your chain! Please don't go ballistic on me like a lot of posters on this forum, who - take themselves - much, too, seriously!,,,,,,,,,,,
Regards,
laughing
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
I know Sue Hack personally and have known her for many years. She is an honest and conscientious public servant. I trust her and know that she will do all she can to resolve this situation. I agree that the process that was used was not the correct way, but we have the opportunity now to look at the deal in the light of open and public discussions and see if the tax relief is warranted or not. Let's make the right choice based on the facts.