{"id":825,"date":"2016-01-27T22:19:37","date_gmt":"2016-01-28T02:19:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zacharybaiel.com\/blog\/?p=825"},"modified":"2016-01-30T11:51:48","modified_gmt":"2016-01-30T15:51:48","slug":"west-lafayette-joint-boards-refusal-for-pro-active-transparency-on-state-street-and-my-nameless-contribution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zacharybaiel.com\/blog\/2016\/01\/27\/west-lafayette-joint-boards-refusal-for-pro-active-transparency-on-state-street-and-my-nameless-contribution\/","title":{"rendered":"West Lafayette Joint Board’s Refusal for Pro-Active Transparency on State Street and My Nameless Contribution"},"content":{"rendered":"

IC 5-23-5-6 Disclosure of contents of proposals<\/p>\n

Sec. 6. The governmental body may<\/strong><\/span> refuse to disclose the contents of proposals during discussions with eligible offerors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The coverage regarding the recent political conflicts and decisions surrounding the State Street Project are fascinating to watch as someone who has been closely following the events unfold.<\/p>\n

If you haven’t already listened to the West Lafayette Redevelopment Commission meeting from January 20th<\/a>, you should.\u00a0 The discussion of State Street starts at 7:40.<\/p>\n

I am looking forward to the minutes of this meeting and seeing how they compare to actual events.<\/p>\n

The three major news outlets, the Journal and Courier, WBAA, and WLFI all had slightly different perspectives on the events.<\/p>\n

WLFI was the most sterile of the coverage<\/a> (TV usually takes the most bland perspective).\u00a0 Nothing different unique in this article.<\/p>\n

The Journal and Courier has had the most coverage of State Street but they have not questioned the narrative put forth by the City of of West Lafayette officials, Purdue, or the Joint Board<\/a> regarding IC 5-23-5-6.\u00a0 In fact, the J&C keeps giving inches and ink to the narrative:<\/p>\n

Steve Schultz, Purdue\u2019s attorney, bristled Thursday, saying he wanted the record \u201cto be crystal clear\u201d that city and university officials working on the State Street project had been confidential but had followed the letter of the law \u201cto the T.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

UPDATE 2016-01-29: \u00a0<\/strong>In Dave Bangert’s recent piece,\u00a0Objections soften over State St. details<\/a>, he mentions the fact that it was optional to withhold information regarding the proposals.<\/p>\n

\n

The city and university were given the option under state law to hold back information during the negotiation period with possible contractors in the novel \u201cbuild-operate-transfer\u201d bidding process. Both sides opted to go that route, locking up details by making those involved in negotiations sign confidentiality agreements that kept even Mayor John Dennis out of the conversation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thankfully, WBAA’s coverage<\/a> of the Joint Board’s January 21st meeting included this blurb:<\/p>\n

But comments after the announcement noted the state\u2019s so-called \u201cbuild-operate-transfer\u201d rubric only says such projects may <\/em><\/strong><\/span>be kept under wraps, not that they must. Schultz noted the letter of the law says only that the documents must be made public at a meeting like Thursday\u2019s, when the Joint Board announces a winner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stan Jastrzebski expanded on this with an article on WBAA’s WordPress site: Build Operate Transfer (or: How I Learned To Stop Hiding And Love Transparency).<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s funny how, in most professions, when someone provides you with unique information, a new perspective, and\/or inspires you to create new work, attribution or credit is usually provided and appreciated.<\/p>\n

I mentioned this to Stan on Twitter and he responded with the following:<\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a><\/p>\n

Well that makes sense.\u00a0 I’m just looking at it wrong.<\/p>\n

Instead of giving\u00a0 the name of both individuals who spoke during Public Comments (Bunder and I were the only ones to make comments and Bunder was named), I should relish in the knowledge that what I said was important.<\/p>\n

For the annals of West Lafayette history, it was irrelevant that it wasn’t a nameless, faceless individual (not a group of commenters) who said this important fact to the Joint Board, at their Public meeting, calling out the City officials, the Mayor, the Joint Board’s legal team, and Purdue for their lack of pro-active transparency and deflating their shoulder shrugging “But we are following the letter of the law”<\/em> narrative.<\/p>\n

It’s obvious now.\u00a0 Everyone else in the audience would have said the same thing.\u00a0 They just weren’t at the meeting.\u00a0 Everyone was thinking about IC 5-23-5-6, they just went to the restroom during the Public Comment portion on January 21st.\u00a0 Everyone in the media is getting ready to call out the narrative perpetuated by elected and appointed officials, lawyers, Purdue, and the Joint Board.<\/p>\n

The piece just needs one more edit.\u00a0 One more review before it goes live.<\/p>\n

I wrote Stan back on twitter:<\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a><\/p>\n

Update 2016-01-30:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a>I’m chalking this as a difference in mass media philosophy.<\/p>\n

We’ll see what happens with the state of transparency in Tippecanoe county. Being a constituent is hard work.\u00a0 Join me if you can.\u00a0 A lot of important meetings coming up in February.\u00a0 The 1st is City Council, the 3rd is a Redevelopment work session, 4th is a State Street learning session at Happy Hollow etc.<\/p>\n

I promise if you get involved that I will give you credit for your work.<\/p>\n

=====<\/p>\n

Here are the written comments I made (paraphrased at points during actual delivery) to the Joint Board at their January 21st meeting.\u00a0 Audio to follow.<\/p>\n