I know I'm late on this, but I did want to chime in on the solar deal.
I'm glad the Daily News has taken a long, hard look at the solar panel fight. I won't repeat the entire story. Just read the editorial, articles and items from the mayor that run along the side.
Bottomline, Jeff Wootan, the city's representative, as well intentioned as he might be, stands or stood to benefit from the contract he helped negotiate on the city's behalf.
According to the News, he led the city's negotiations with with one company, EyeOn, while also entertaining--or at least discussing--a job with an EyeOn subcontractor, Integrated Energies, that will install the solar panels. Incidentally, Wootan had a hand in launching Integrated Energies earlier this summer.
If this is the case, and no one has disputed it, it's clearly a conflict. I'm not saying it was his motivation, and I can't say a huge windfall--if any windfall--will come his way as a result. Doesn't matter. This is still a conflict that should have been disclosed.
I know the Mayor and other officials say don't see a conflict, but frankly their opinion doesn't matter. To me, the state law is pretty clear.
"Unless you make a proper, public disclosure — including all the relevant facts — you may not take any action that could create an appearance of impropriety, or could cause an impartial observer to believe your official actions are tainted with bias or favoritism."
The missing disclosure, which reportedly was filed after the Daily News started asking questions, takes on even more importance since this deal has been rushed through without the standard competitive bid process.
What's worse is that this connection would have gone unreported if not for the Daily News hadn't been poking around.
Any outrage about this is clearly muted by the fact that we're talking solar power (who doesn't love that) and that the city is spending grant money rather than it's own (at least that's what I've been told.)
I wonder what the reaction would be if a representative of the school department negotiated a city contract with vendor while discussing employment with the same company.
We can argue as to whether this was a wise business practice. Critics--mostly anonymous commenters on the Daily News site--worry that the city didn't get the best deal. The Mayor insists he had to rush to take advantage of state programs and grants to pay for the project. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
But I don't think there's much doubt that politically this is a mistake. Folks on the fence will be looking for any reason to reject next month's debt exclusion. I'm sure, for some, this became one.
6 comments:
I think you're right: the mayor's actions will hurt him in his campaign for the debt exclusion. I for one have trouble believing him on that issue due to his actions on this solar issue. That's too bad.
Bottomline, this deal is good for the city. The only question is whether it could be better.
So while I agree it could, it won't impact my vote.
I hope others think the same way.
By the way, I read that the energy credits the mayor was so concerned were going to expire and which he cited as a reason for the rush were included in the bailout bill passed in Congress last week. Of course, I assume he was told that by the consultant who is going to cash in on this deal....
This may be a decent deal for the city in the long run-- we hope -- but the mayor doesn't look so good right right now.
I believe there is also a state grant that's involved. The Mayor said that was time sensitive as well.
I think you and a lot of people have missed the fact that it has been reported that Wootan "has been working as a paid consultant" for a company involved in this project.
"Reflex President Paul Mustone told The Daily News on Sept. 17 that he hired Wootan as a paid consultant to help him launch Integrated Energies in May and that Wootan has already been paid for his work getting Integrated Engergies up and running." (9/29 Report)
Wootan's disclosure and his defenders leave the impression that the worst he has done is considered working with Integrated in the futre.
He was paid while working on this deal that would benefit the company (or affiliate) he was paid by.
Actually I saw that, and made mention of it.
I think the difference is he'd already been paid for that work.
The connection still should have been disclosed. But I do see a difference between having been paid and talking about a job, particularly when the job is presumably contingent at least partly upon the company securing business.
Post a Comment