The Downtown Plan: Style Reports on Lack of Conflict

For those following the progress of Richmond's proposed Downtown Plan as it wends its way through the hallowed halls of the city's Planning Commission, Style Weekly has details about the city's attorney office conclusions about possible conflicts of interest involving the chairman of the Planning Commission. I've written a few posts (here, here and here) about potential conflicts of interest recently.

Architect Bob Mills’ clients and his position as chairman of the city’s Planning Commission present no legal conflict of interest, according to an opinion released by the Richmond City Attorney’s office Jan. 25.

Comments that Mills made came under scrutiny earlier this month when he criticized the draft of the downtown master plan for “sticking its nose” into the business of Virginia Commonwealth University and the state, both clients of Mills’ firm, Commonwealth Architects. He requested the opinion after the Jan. 21 Planning Commission meeting.

Mills says he abstains from voting on matters relating to his clients, but when it comes to discussing the land-holding of those same clients, he says it’s his duty as chair of the commission to fully analyze and discuss all aspects of the plan.

Although the city’s master plan includes recommendations for state-owned buildings, including those on the VCU campus, the plan has no legal authority over state-owned property. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest that bars Mills from voting on the master plan, the city attorney’s office concludes.

More entertaining than reporter Amy Biegelsen's web exclusive summary, however, is the content of the legal opinion issued by the city attorney's office. I sort of like the way a case is summarily made that there might be a conflict of interest, but one fell swoop of state immunity sweeps it all away. It's pretty amusing stuff.

• Mills is an "officer" as defined by the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. (Attorney: A member of the Commission is an “officer” as defined in the Act.)
• The planning commission is covered by the Act. (Attorney: The Code of the City of Richmond list the planning commission as one of the agencies to which financial disclosure applies under the Act.)
• Public hearings and/or votes on the Downtown Plan are transactions. (Attorney: A public hearing and vote held by the Commission on the Plan would constitute a “transaction” as defined in the Act.)
• Mills has a personal interest in a business impacted by the Downtown Plan. (Attorney: You have confirmed that your business, Commonwealth Architects, in which your personal ownership interest exceeds three percent of the total equity of the firm, currently has professional services contracts with the State for several of its buildings. As a result of that level of ownership you have a “personal interest” in Commonwealth Architects under the Act. You also currently serve as Chairman of the Commission. A proposed Plan covering fifteen City identified neighborhoods on each side of the James River will soon come before the Commission for final action.)
• Oh, but none of that matters because any State buildings impacted by the Downtown Plan have immunity. (Attorney: Although the State owns a number of the buildings located within the area encompassed by the Plan, none of those State buildings must comply with any of the recommendations outlined in the Plan due to the State’s immunity from land use controls by a local government.)
• In conclusion: This conclusion is based primarily on the fact that no action of the Commission has a binding legal effect on any State owned buildings and as a result of that limitation, your firm, Commonwealth Architects, does not stand to realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the Commission’s actions.

As I've posted time and again, the issue as I see it has everything to do with transparency and the the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding the appearance of conflict. By raising the issue during a recent planning commission public hearing -- both by publicly lambasting the plan for meddling in the business of his firm's clients and by pointing out that his firm has done business with VCU, the state and the city -- Mills made a half-hearted attempt at satisfying what I would care the bare minimum of transparency.

The appearance of conflict still stands. Fortunately, increased media and public scrutiny might help Mills refrain from publicly taking sides as the Downtown Plan moves through the process. It's clear enough that he can't restrain himself without help.

[Update: The Times-Dispatch just posted their brief take on the same story: "It's cut and dried," Mills said of the legal opinion this evening.]