UPDATE:
WFAE has done an interview with CRVA CEO Tom Murray on September 13th, 2012, discussing the outside firm hired to evaluate the economics of the DNC Convention. With prior talk of public funding for a mammoth hotel downtown, the expected results we are paying for already seem suspect:
"Clearly there were people that felt they had to go too far to stay here (during the DNC)," says Murray. "If we find that we'd love to do lots of more DNCs, than how would we be better at delivering a DNC-type convention? We might say we'd have more hotels closer to the center. But we're not ready to say that yet."
Will he be "ready to say that" when the study he has commissioned to lend credibility is complete? Is this just another consultant to prepare inflated numbers to justify more huge tax expenditures? Call on City Council and Mayor Foxx to force the CRVA books open NOW. The records belong to the public.
See email addresses at the right of this column.
Mr. Murray also didn't mention the prostitution and crack dealing alleged on the in-town hotels that press representatives highlighted at the National Review. Chief Monroe and Mayor Foxx may want to focus on that first.
ORIGINAL POST:
PUBLIC RECORDS
OF CRVA SPENDING
A recent set of
requests to find out what money, why, and for how long the CRVA (Charlotte
Regional Visitors Authority) will be paying Tim Newman went to City of
Charlotte Attorney Hagemann, the CRVA Board, and the CRVA Board’s attorney
(Cameron Furr), asking again for that public information. No one yet seems to have legal concerns for
refusing to answer. Is it possible no
larger media outlets have been asking?
Or have they been rebuffed as well and gotten tired of asking?
What about Mayor
Foxx and City Council who have proclaimed their interest in a more transparent
CRVA for many months? Do they know
already…
The
CRVA has already been highlighted here in previous Citynewswatch posts
and more recently in a series of Charlotte Observer stories about “overestimating”
millions of dollars in profit impact the CRVA has claimed. Check this article, which provides links to the
whole series. The Observer explained
that
The
Charlotte Convention Center has cost taxpayers as much as $30 million annually
for construction debt, operating losses and incentives worth of hundreds of
thousands of dollars to win business. The promised payback from the investment
hasn’t materialized.
and
In the past, the
CRVA has inflated attendance by tens of thousands of people, which in turn led
to claims of tens millions of dollars of economic impact. Much of that money
likely never materialized.
In other instances, the CRVA added
millions of dollars of visitor spending for no apparent reason, as was the case
with the 2010 National Rifle Association Convention. For that convention, the CRVA increased its
estimate of spending by 600 percent.
Now
we are paying an outside consulting
company $25,000 to determine a better method and identify whether and how much
was net by the DNC Convention. So the
full-force denial about Newman’s payments is really puzzling. The Observer also quotes Mayor Foxx:
“We have pushed for
change at the CRVA in a very public way,” Foxx said in a statement. “The new
leadership team has had less than a year to get established, and I have
confidence that we’ll see good results and better accountability from them.
After the Convention, I will ask them to update us on their efforts to date.”
We’ll see if Mayor Foxx answers all the questions, including why
former CEO Tim Newman, who left under a cloud of revelations about lavish and
possibly reckless spending, is still receiving huge sums of money from
tax-funded CRVA. In the wake of conventioneers
leaving town, we need to take accurate stock of the effects on life and
economic impact at all levels.
Despite promises that Charlotte’s taxpayers will not have a
negative effect, it’s safe to say that the real impact on City and County
staff, budget, and businesses has been great and must be counted on the balance
sheet. Mayor Foxx also swore Charlotte
tax payers would not be on the hook for any leftover DNC bills, no matter what
fundraising goals were met or missed.
With word out now (via Bloomberg news) they missed by $15 million,
people are nervous about managing and reporting the finances.
LAWYERS AND
BOARD MEMBERS WILL NOT SUBMIT RECORDS
The
latest request letter concerning just Newman’s payment information reiterates
some points made in earlier letters, and there has been no response since the
CRVA received this:
The Resolution
shown below, sent to you again, establishes the CRVA and shows:
"This First
Amendment to Interlocal Agreement, made July_' 2009 by and between the CITY OF
CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
North Carolina (the "City"), and the CHARLOTTE REGIONAL VISITORS AUTHORITY, a unit of local government and political
subdivision of the City of Charlotte (the "CRVA")." **(SEE FULL RESOLUTION
AT THE END OF THIS POST)
Mr. Hagemann's
statement that "the CRVA is a legal entity separate and distinct from the
City of Charlotte" is not quite correct and the "clear legal
facts" are that the CRVA is a municipal corporation, making the records
and terms I have asked for public.
Please release the records immediately. Your continued efforts to
hide this information are not acceptable and cause a great deal of increased
concern regarding the spending of public money.
Robert
Hagemann’s terse reply on August 28th says he believes the CRVA is
not an entity which is part of the City of Charlotte:
Although I previously provided you
the following response, I am resending it for the benefit of the members of the
CRVA board who you have copied:
I am going to repeat what I
previously advised – the CRVA is a legal entity separate and distinct from the
City of Charlotte and I am not its legal advisor. Your repeated assertions
to the contrary do not change these clear legal facts. And I do not
intend to debate the matter.
Robert E. Hagemann
CITY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Hagemann does
not assert the records are not public—only that he says he does not have them. It seems obvious he could get them. When consulted, is it his responsibility?
Also, Mr.
Hagemann seems to be stating he will not involve himself in anything having to
do with the CRVA, based on his argument.
But isn’t that part of his job responsibility to be chief legal adviser for matters pertaining to City business? It would be good to hear Mayor Foxx’s
position and the rest of City Council’s position on this.
BEFORE THE CITY ATTORNEY
STATED THE CRVA IS SEPARATE FROM CHARLOTTE…
After
asking for all the pay, settlement, retirement, or other salary or benefit
information for some time, the CRVA responded with this:
Mr. Newman began working for the CRVA on November 29, 2004 as
the Chief Executive Officer. He served in that position until December
14, 2011, when he became Chief Marketing Officer. Mr. Newman resigned on
February 24, 2012. There was no "dismissal, suspension or demotion
for disciplinary reasons taken by the municipality" and therefore there is
no "written notice of the final decision of the municipality setting forth
the specific acts or omissions that are the basis of the dismissal."
As noted above, Mr. Newman was employed as CEO. He became
Chief Marketing Officer, a position which reported to the CEO. He then resigned. There
was no promotion for which we can provide a date and general description of the
reasons for the promotion.
"Current Salary,"
"For purposes of this subsection, the term 'salary' includes pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred
and all other forms of compensation paid by the employing entity."
We have provided you with amounts paid to Mr. Newman from March 16, 2012 through
July 6, 2012 (see below). If there is another period during which Mr.
Newman was paid by the CRVA for which we could provide that information, we
will gladly provide it.
As noted above, Mr. Newman resigned his position with the CRVA
on February 24, 2012. He is no longer an employee of the CRVA.
Pay Date Pay Car Allowance Total Payment
07/06/2012 $9,461.54 $ 9,461.54
06/22/2012 $9,461.54 $694.58 $10,156.12
06/08/2012 $9,461.54 $ 9,461.54
05/25/2012 $9,461.54 $694.58 $10,156.12
5/11/2012 $9,461.54 $9,461.54
4/27/2012 $9,461.54 $694.58 $10,156.12
4/13/2012 $9,461.54 $9,461.54
3/30/2012 $9,461.54 $694.58 $10,156.12
3/16/2012 $9,461.54 $9,461.54
Again,
since the CRVA did not release the full information requested, so:
If you maintain there was no
settlement for Mr. Newman, then is he still an employee? Or would you
define the amount of money he is being paid as some sort of other payment or
benefit? That must be defined. Is he still an employee? Is he
a consultant? Is this a gift? Is this money being paid out of
regular salary budget? This is public information.
When will these payments stop?
Is he under contract so that they will stop, or do you plan to pay him
indefinitely? If you don't define these payments as part of a
"settlement," do you define them as part of a "contract?"
If so, please provide that contract which would be public record. He is
either salaried and a current employee, contracted (in which you must provide
the contract), received some sort of settlement (or if you wish to title it
differently, such as separation agreement) to leave, or is being paid as a gift
of some sort.
Is Mr. Newman currently employed or
contracted by the CRVA? Is he performing any work for you?
Thanks for clearing this up and providing all the information
required by law without further delay.
On
Fri, Aug 17, responding to Cameron Furr’s email, another request was sent:
Dear Mr. Furr,
I assume you are "unable to understand anything in this
email that is different from ... prior emails" because the law has not
changed. My request has not changed. I did highlight your own
statements back to me, hoping you that would help you understand, as you and
members of your organization had indicated your difficulty understanding the
law and struggle to find information. However, I believe you have had
ample time to discover the very issues you cited back to me and the basic
information about contracts and settlements which are also included.
All issues of pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred
and all other forms of compensation paid by the employing entity are salary and
must be disclosed. Also, any contracts must be disclosed as public
documents. Also, any settlements must be disclosed as public documents.
So, no matter what the source of the reason for the payment, you must
disclose. Please provide the information I have asked for.
I continue to attempt to understand what information or
document you might be requesting that falls under a North Carolina statute
which allows or requires disclosure. While you have not asked for this specifically,
following are the amounts paid to Mr. Newman since July 6th, the date of the
last payment we reported to you. These amounts are disclosed pursuant to
Section 160A-168(b)(7) of the North Carolina General Statutes. Other than
the following, the CRVA does not have any other information which
falls within your request, as we can understand it, and which is disclosable
under the North Carolina General Statutes. Thank you.
Pay
date
Pay
07/20/2012
$9,461.54 plus car allowance $694.58
08/03/2012
$9,461.54
08/17/2012
$9,461.54
Mr.
Furr gives no rebuttal to what seems to be a misstated personnel exclusion—where
there is no specific reason he feels the terms of payments and car allowances
would be permitted to be held as confidential when the law clearly allows for
release of that information.
Mr.
Furr even points out himself that “the public information of ‘salary’ defined includes
pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred and all other forms of
compensation paid by the employing entity." Also, see North
Carolina § 132‑1.3.
Settlements made by or on behalf of public agencies, public officials, or public
employees; public records (a) Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall
include all settlement documents in any suit, administrative proceeding or
arbitration… But his email on August 24th states:
I have tried to explain to you the personnel records exceptions
to North Carolina public records laws and how that limits the disclosure of
documents. We have provided you with "salary" paid to Mr.
Newman to date as required by law.
This led to yet another
clarification to attorney Furr:
The money you are paying
to Mr. Newman falls into a category which you must disclose, including if it is
salary, a benefit package, incentive package, bonus package, deferred
compensation package, contract payment, settlement payment, or other type of
compensation. The TERMS of
those agreements are PUBLIC INFORMATION, including how much the payments are and when they will stop (if ever).
So far, then,
CRVA has confirmed at least $117,011 in some kind of payments and car allowances to former CEO Tim
Newman. If he has continued on schedule,
that number would be $136,629. That’s
not bad money for ten or twelve weeks of not working somewhere.
Citynewswatch will update you when editorial
staff receives word that the CRVA or City of Charlotte replies. Or, ask them yourself:
REFERENCES
Here is a portion of Chapter 132, the Public
Records Law Chapter of North Carolina General Statutes. Read the entire chapter and other statutes at
www.ncleg.net. Also check out N.C. Sess. Laws c. 169
(HB 961)(the Act) enacted by the General Assembly July 10, 2010, which
broadened and defined release of information concerning public employee records
and information.
Chapter 132.
Public Records.
§ 132‑1. "Public records"
defined.
(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall
mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound
recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data‑processing records,
artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or
characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in
connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North
Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or
its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or
official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board,
commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government
of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political
subdivision of government.
(b) The public records and public information compiled by the
agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of
the people.
§ 132‑1.3. Settlements made by or on behalf of public agencies,
public officials, or public employees; public records.
(a) Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall include all
settlement documents in any suit, administrative proceeding or arbitration
instituted against any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions,
as defined in G.S. 132‑1, in connection with or arising out of such agency's
official actions, duties or responsibilities, except in an action for medical
malpractice against a hospital facility. No agency of North Carolina government or
its subdivisions, nor any counsel, insurance company or other representative
acting on behalf of such agency, shall approve, accept or enter into any
settlement of any such suit, arbitration or proceeding if the settlement
provides that its terms and conditions shall be confidential, except in an action for medical
malpractice against a hospital facility. No settlement document sealed under
subsection (b) of this section shall be open for public inspection.
(b) No judge, administrative judge or administrative hearing
officer of this State, nor any board or commission, nor any arbitrator
appointed pursuant to the laws of North Carolina, shall order or permit the
sealing of any settlement document in any proceeding described herein except on
the basis of a written order concluding that (1) the presumption of openness is
overcome by an overriding interest and (2) that such overriding interest cannot
be protected by any measure short of sealing the settlement. Such order shall
articulate the overriding interest and shall include findings of fact that are
sufficiently specific to permit a reviewing court to determine whether the
order was proper.
(c) Except for confidential communications as provided in G.S. 132‑1.1,
the term "settlement documents," as used herein, shall include all
documents which reflect, or which are made or utilized in connection with, the
terms and conditions upon which any proceedings described in this section are
compromised, settled, terminated or dismissed, including but not limited to
correspondence, settlement agreements, consent orders, checks, and bank
drafts. (1989, c. 326.)
The
following resolution regarding the formation of the CRVA, which may be key, is
even provided to the Board and attorneys:
July 27, 2009
Resolution Book 42, Page 42
STATE
OF NORTHCAROLINA
COUNTY
OF MECKLENBURG
First
Amendment to Interlocal Agreement
This
First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement, made July_' 2009 by and between the CITY
OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of North
Carolina (the "City"), and the CHARLOTTE
REGIONAL VISITORS AUTHORITY, a unit of local government and political
subdivision of the City of Charlotte (the
"CRVA").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,
the parties hereto are authorized pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the
North Carolina General Statutes to enter into contracts or agreements with each
other in order to provide for the joint exercise or the contractual exercise by
one for the other of any power, function, public enterprise, right, privilege,
or immunity of local government; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to, inter alia, G.S. 160A-489 the City is authorized
to establish and support public auditoriums, coliseums, convention centers; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to Chapter 5, Article II of the City Charter (Session Law 200-26), the
Authority is vested with the authority to control, manage, and operate
City-owned auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers; and
WHEREAS,
on January 13, 2003 the City and the CRYA signed an Interlocal
Agreement
to confer upon the CRVA the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and
immunities of the City for purposes of the management and operation of City-owned
auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers in order to facilitate the more
economical operation of the same and to
better
serve the public; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Session Law 2005-68, the CRVA was
vested with the additional authority to control, manage, and operate the NASCAR
Hall of Fame Museum; and
WHEREAS,
the City desires to confer upon the CRYA the powers, functions rights, privileges,
and immunities of the City for purposes of the management and operation of the
NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum in order to facilitate the more economical operation
of the same and to better serve the public.
NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the fulfillment of the terms of
this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the Interlocal Agreement between
the City and the CRVA dated January 13, 2003 is amended to read as follows:
I.
In addition to the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities
directly provided to the CRYA by law, in fil1filling its responsibility to
control, manage, and operate City-owned auditoriums, coliseums, convention centers
and the NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum, the CRVA shall have in addition thereto,
and not in substitution thereof, all of the powers, functions, rights,
privileges, and immunities of the City.
July
27, 2009
Resolution
Book 42, Page 43
2.
The CRVA may exercise or act upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges,
and immunities conferred on it pursuant to paragraph I of this Agreement either
unilaterally or jointly with the City.
3.
This Agreement shall continue in perpetuity unless and until it is terminated
by operation of law, by mutual consent of the parties, or unilaterally by
either party, with or without cause, upon six (6) months written notice to the
other party. The parties may amend this Agreement by mutual consent.
4.
If the parties jointly exercise or act upon the powers, functions, rights,
privileges, and immunities conferred pursuant to paragraph I of this Agreement,
the manner of appointing any personnel necessary to the execution of the
undertaking and the method of financing the undertaking, including the
apportionment of costs and revenues, shall be set forth in the Instrument that
constitutes the joint exercise. If the CRVA unilaterally exercises or acts upon
the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities conferred upon it
pursuant to paragraph I of this agreement, the CRYA
shall be responsible for appointing any personnel necessary to the execution of
the undertaking and for the financing of the undertaking.
5.
Ownership and title of any coliseums, auditoriums, convention center, and the NASCAR
Hall of Fame Museum real property that might be the subject of the CRYA's exercise
or actions upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities
conferred upon it pursuant to paragraph I shall remain vested solely in the
City, and under no circumstances shall the CRVA have the power or authority to
unilaterally convey an ownership interest in such properties.
Executed
as of the day and year first above stated by authority duly granted by the government
boards of the parties hereto.
CITY
OF CHARLOTTE
Curt
Walton, City Manager
CHARLOTTE
REGIONAL
VISITORS
AUTHORITY
Tim
Newman, Chief Executive Officer
July
27, 2009
Resolution
Book 42, Page 44
CERTIFICATION
I,
Stephanie C. Kelly, City Clerk of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution
adopted by the City Council of the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, in
regular session convened on the 27th day July, 2009, the reference having been
made in Minute Book 128, and recorded in full in Resolution
Book 42, Pages (41-44).
WITNESS
my hand and the corporate seal of the Ci~~~~1I'
(CITY OF CHARLOTTE SEAL)
