HARC member has misused position
The Key West Historic
Architectural Review Commission is charged with the public purpose of
preservation of the character and appearance of the Historic District of
our city. The historic structures in Old Town Key West are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places — one of the largest contiguous
groups of historic structures in the United States. The value of the
Historic District to the tourist economy and quality of life of the
citizens is priceless. It must be preserved.
HARC is made up of five
citizens with two alternates appointed by the City Commission. They
serve with no compensation and spend many hours each month reviewing
building applications and attending meetings. We are grateful for their
service to the community.
Service on HARC and other
advisory boards is sometimes a balancing act to prevent conflicts of
interest. Typically, members are selected because of their judgment, as
well as knowledge in the field — expertise that often derives from
professional practice in the field. The city code states: "Board members
with an actual conflict of interest in a particular agenda item shall
not vote or in any way participate in the item. Accordingly, when a
board member who has declared a conflict of interest is either the
applicant or a representative of the applicant of the particular agenda
item, that board member must remove himself from the dais during the
discussion of the item."
Herein lies a problem
with the activity of HARC member Don Craig. He is a paid consultant to
the developers of the controversial Watermark condominium development at
Key West Bight on the former Jabour's Trailer Park site. Craig appears
to have breached the conflict of interest law at least three times.
Watermark was approved by
HARC and the city commission with 21/2 stories over parking. Craig
properly recused himself when the Watermark matter was formally before
HARC and removed himself from the dais as required. However, Craig did
improperly participate in the matter.
After HARC's initial
approval of Watermark with conditions, an amended application was
submitted to HARC. Craig participated in the consideration of the
amended application by writing a letter to Diane Sylvia, the HARC
administrator, in which he stated she had the authority to approve the
application revisions at the staff level. Craig's letter appears clearly
to breach the conflict of interest law.
The approval of Watermark
was contested in court by a group of citizens because the guidelines
clearly state that new construction in the Historic District cannot be
more than 21/2 stories — not 21/2 stories over parking. The Watermark
approval was quashed by the trial court and the appeal court declined to
hear it.
One would think that this
would be the end of it, but no. On Jan. 24, Craig wrote a memo to his
fellow board members asking for a "clarification of the term 'story'"
and recommended a change in HARC's definition of story to exclude
ground-level parking areas. He is trying to change the rules for the
benefit of his client. Here again, in our judgment, he crossed the line
into a conflict of interest.
A special meeting of the
HARC board was called in response to his memo to discuss updating the
HARC guidelines. More than 50 members of the public attended. Many
advocated leaving the guidelines as they are. Another special meeting
was called to discuss updating the HARC guidelines and in particular the
21/2 story rule. This meeting was canceled at the request of the city
attorney who said the matter had become "entangled with Watermark" and
"frustrating and difficult."
Nonetheless, Craig joined
with two new members of HARC, Marilyn Wild and Terry Garcia, in signing
a letter urging a special meeting to discuss changes in the HARC
guidelines. Under the circumstances, Craig should not have aggressively
continued to pursue the matter as a member of HARC. Strict
constructionists might say Watermark does not have an application before
HARC at the moment, therefore no conflict of interest. But realists
would say that it is obvious Craig is trying to establish a basis for
attacking the court's finding on the Watermark project and, in the
bargain, providing relief to other developers. In our judgment, this too
is over the line.
In a small city like Key
West, it is impossible to have a panel of experts who are not involved
in local developments. But they must be very careful not to play an
advocacy role in decisions that appear to benefit their clients or
prospective clients. Don Craig brings much valuable expertise to the
table as a board member, but he, especially, should recognize and
scrupulously respect the line that defines conflict of interest.
The city commission
should remove Craig from the HARC board.
— The Citizen |