Although the city council has not made its final two appointments to the board of the Urban Enterprise Association, a meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow morning. It is my understanding that the administration has assembled a quorum of its appointees and returning board members; that former city attorney Shane Gibson (not Stan Robison?) has provided legal justification; that "release of funds" implies considerable pressure applied by entities ranging from Landmarks to the Horseshoe Foundation with regard to funds gently eased from the UEA's pocket by the England administration's shotgun wedding philosophy of governance (for use at the 8th and Culbertson building and the farcical "Come to City" campaign with DNA); and that the gist of tomorrow's meeting is the reordering of the UEA to bring its administrative functions into the city's office of economic development, and to relieve director Mike Ladd of his position.
If anyone reading has any information whatever to contradict what I've written here, I will immediately revise this statement.
The public is invited to the meeting tomorrow. I've heard both sides of this story, numerous times, and while I understand the administration's position that irrespective of past misadventures, we must move forward, my appreciation for the very essence of the notion that the past genuinely matters -- if we cannot learn from it, we are condemned to repeat it -- compels me to respectfully disagree.
Merely stating that the UEA owes monies for two past projects, the very composition of which was achieved by (at best) questionable tactics pursued by repellent means, without a public airing of those decision-making processes, strikes me as a trend worth opposing, and oppose it I must. My conscience cannot permit me to do otherwise.
I believe the administration when it tells me that these two occurrences are not to be repeated.
I do not agree that we must ignore the lessons learned from them, and I persist in advocating a public inquiry.
I believe the administration when it assures me it has legal grounds to declare tomorrow's meeting in spite of what the UEA's by-laws say.
I do not agree that such a meeting should be contemplated until the council makes its long overdue appointments. Full disclosure: I'd like to be one of them, having previously served. But this is not particularly relevant to the case at hand.
I believe the administration when it tells me the UEA will remain intact, and that all it seeks is a plan of cooperation among the UEA, DNA and NA First.
I do not agree that whatever has happened (or not happened) during the first two months of the year, when appointments to all bodies have been weirdly and inexplicably delayed, and as the UEA's director has been suffering through health issues (back problems), justifies the draconian nature of what is being contemplated tomorrow.
I believe the administration when it explains its good intentions to me.
I do not agree that pre-determined outcomes are truly representative of what consultative, democratic government should be.
Five or so years ago, Mike came to town, and without warning, stepped immediately into the cesspool of conflicting interests defining this most bizarre collection of egos. Together with a solid UEA board, Mike was forced to withstand veritable siege conditions for almost two years, with the England administration not even attempting to disguise its cavalier attitude of the UEA as a chosen ATM, fit to be emptied at whim. Has Mike been erratic during the first two months of 2012? Perhaps, but he's also been injured ... and not just physically.
The most depressing thing about this is that I am utterly convinced of one fact above all others: The persons who have done the most to bring this situation to its current heated and dysfunctional state will have nothing to do with tomorrow's scheduled meeting.
They remain apart from it all ... until money is needed, of course.
I believe that Mike Ladd, the members of the current administration, and both new and old board members are conscientious and are acting in good faith. So am I. If all this comes off as planned, the ones who need to be answering questions will be silent. The ones who want Mike's head will be silent, and they'll get what they want.
And that's why this is so very wrong.
1 comment:
Very well said. It makes little sense to suggest that past context should be ignored while simultaneously playing directly into it.
And if using the mayor's bully pulpit toward ousting organizational leaders is seen as a solution-based approach to past conflicts, it's one that should be applied evenly across the other organizations involved as well, namely Develop New Albany, Indiana Landmarks, and the Horseshoe Foundation.
To wit, even while under siege, Ladd and the UEA have managed to develop productive, harmonious working relationships with several other organizations in the area. Clearly and despite very pointed but limited claims to the contrary, neither Ladd nor the UEA can objectively be singled out as sole instigator of previous conflicts.
The DNA/UEA relationship was poisoned by design of the England administration of the 90s, which viewed both as extensions of the mayor's office rather than the independent organizations they are supposed to be.
Thus, DNA's by-laws restrict it from public advocacy even though such advocacy is a major component of the national Main Street scheme. Likewise, the UEA has historically been tethered to the DNA group, even though their at times distinctively anti-Main Street positions and lack of independent voice have been at odds with the UEA's state mandated mission.
It was and is an abuse of both organizations.
As I mentioned in the immediately previous post, compounding such mistakes and resultant absurdities via even more strong-arm tactics would not be a healthy, community-oriented response.
Post a Comment