Lawrence Chamber of Commerce leaders have come to the defense of a controversial package of economic incentives designed to keep Deciphera Pharmaceuticals in town.

The chamber sent out a mass e-mail on Thursday urging its more than 1,000 members to begin expressing support for the deal, which has been heavily criticized as being crafted behind closed doors.

“This investment in Deciphera represents a great opportunity for the city,” the letter from the chamber’s executive board reads.

The chamber letter sought to offer “additional perspective” and “clarification” on the deal that could involve up to $4 million in local money.

But the chamber e-mail did not address a growing question: What role did the chamber have in the process that led to the deal being approved with very little public comment or discussion by city commissioners?

On Friday, Lavern Squier, president and chief executive officer of the chamber, said the chamber did nothing to try to hide the deal from the public. Specifically, Squier said it was not accurate to say that he pushed for the item to be on the city’s consent agenda, which is normally reserved for items not expected to generate public or commission discussion.

“It is the city’s house,” Squier said of the decision to place the item on the consent agenda. “We’ve said nothing throughout this whole process that would inhibit discussion.”

Consent agenda criticism

Members of the public have alleged that the city did not properly publicize or discuss the deal because it was looking to avoid potentially contentious comments on the unique incentives being offered to Deciphera. But city leaders – and now chamber leaders – have said that wasn’t the case. Instead, they said the deal was placed on the consent agenda because it was viewed as an extension of a January agreement with the Kansas Bioscience Authority that was fully discussed at a City Commission meeting.

That action, however, was taken by the previous City Commission. Two new commissioners have joined the commission since the January vote.

Squier and City Manager David Corliss have both said they felt comfortable putting the multimillion-dollar deal on the consent agenda because the new deal did not require any additional money to be spent than what was approved in January. Under specific scenarios, it could be less, they said.

City first

But unlike the January deal, the new deal provides job creation incentives in the form of cash payments to a private company. That’s a first for the city. Also, the new deal included a tax rebate provision that is similar to a tax abatement but was not required to go through the tax abatement review process. The tax rebate also was a first for the city.

Despite the two new policies – and a history of incentives to private companies sparking significant public comment – neither Corliss nor Squier said they questioned whether they should do more to alert the public of the new policies.

“Through all the negotiations, we had convinced ourselves of the value of the deal, but we neglected our role to convince others,” Corliss said.

In retrospect, Squier said he wished he would have insisted upon making a more detailed public presentation to city commissioners that explained the tax rebate and other new provisions. But he also said he wasn’t asked to do so, and was assured by city staff and commissioners that the deal was understood.

“We were there to answer questions,” Squier said. “But how do I say to them that they have to listen to an exhaustive presentation that they don’t want to listen to?”

Chamber’s role

But some members of the public have said the chamber orchestrated this deal – as the paid contractor handling economic development issues for the city – and should be held responsible.

“We have a problem here, and it has to do with the leadership of our economic development efforts,” Kirk McClure, a local resident who has been critical of the city’s growth and development policies, told commissioners on Tuesday. “We have become the laughingstock of economic development in the Midwest.”

A key question that has emerged is whether the chamber pushed for the deal to be kept off the regular agenda. Comments by Corliss have helped fuel those questions.

Corliss previously has said it was his decision to place the deal on the consent agenda. Mayor Sue Hack also has previously said she approved Corliss’ decision to place it on the consent agenda. But at Tuesday’s City Commission meeting, Corliss said that although he made the decision, it was Squier who had first suggested the item be placed on the consent agenda.

Squier said he doesn’t remember suggesting it be placed on the consent agenda, but rather that he concurred with it being place there.

On Friday, Corliss didn’t change his recollection. Instead he pointed to an e-mail from Squier that referred to the matter as a consent agenda item. Squier, though, said he wrote the e-mail that way because he and Corliss already had discussed via telephone the issue of placing the item on the consent agenda.

Ultimately, Corliss said the distinction of who suggested what isn’t overly important because Corliss said it clearly wasn’t Squier who made the ultimate decision to place it on the agenda.

Items not discussed

In addition, the item eventually was pulled from the consent agenda at the request of Commissioner Boog Highberger. But once it was moved to the regular agenda, several key points of the deal still were not discussed publicly.

Squier was responsible for writing a memo to commissioners summarizing the background of the deal. That memo did not mention the tax rebate or the cash incentives for job creation. But again, Squier said he wasn’t asked by the city to provide detailed information. Instead, he said Corliss asked him to keep the background memo under a page in length.

Conflict of interest?

The deal also has brought up questions about a potential conflict of interest involving the chamber and Hack. Mayor Hack is a chamber employee, serving as the organization’s director of Leadership Lawrence. That means Squier is Hack’s boss, yet Squier serves as a paid adviser to the City Commission on economic development issues.

On Friday, Squier insisted the situation doesn’t create a problem.

“We make a great distinction between her work for this office and her commission and mayoral duties,” Squier said.

The entire process surrounding the deal has sparked an investigation by the Kansas Attorney General’s office. Investigators are examining whether the city violated open meetings law by holding a closed-door executive session on the Deciphera deal. The attorney general also is investigating whether some commissioners violated conflict of interest laws. Hack has an ownership interest in Deciphera – which she verbally disclosed just before abstaining from the Oct. 23 vote. But she did not file the necessary paperwork disclosing that interest, and she did not recuse herself from the executive session discussion regarding the deal.