You are here
The Need to Disclose a Grantee's Name, and a Problem with Public-Private Development Partnerships
Wednesday, March 26th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Here's another story involving the lack of transparency. This time, the
lack of transparency involves a company getting government
grants.
According to an article from a week ago on floridaytoday.com, Brevard County, FL's commissioners approved a $205,000 grant for Project Magellan, a business development at the Melbourne (FL) airport that is "expected to bring 1,800 jobs paying an average of $100,000 apiece." The grantee's name was not provided.
According to an article yesterday on floridatoday.com, the Joint Legislative Budget Commission approved a $20.8 million grant for the same mysterious project after only three minutes of discussion, which consisted primarily of the minority leader saying that he was “going to trust the professional staff” of the Department of Economic Opportunity “that they’ll do the right thing.”
Greg Weiner, senior director of business development at the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast (also known as Brevard County), said that the timing of the announcement of the company's identity will be announced “solely at the discretion of the client." The EDC describes itself as a "public-private not-for-profit partnership between the Brevard County Commission and the Space Coast business community."
We have Mr. Weiner to thank for putting his finger on a major problem in this matter. If his "client" were the citizens of Brevard County, he would have announced the identity of the grantee before asking for a penny from the county or the state. The reason for the lack of transparency is that his "client" was instead the company itself.
No grant, contract, or permit should be given to anyone who is not identified well in advance, so that citizens may provide testimony and ask questions. If the reason for the lack of identification is that the company does not want its identity to be given yet, then the company can wait to ask for government benefits until it's ready.
If a public-private partnership supports the company's demand for secrecy, the partnership should end. It should be spun off into a private nonprofit (with the return of government funds) whose employees and agents would then be considered lobbyists seeking special government benefits for their clients. At least then its "clients" would have to be identified.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article from a week ago on floridaytoday.com, Brevard County, FL's commissioners approved a $205,000 grant for Project Magellan, a business development at the Melbourne (FL) airport that is "expected to bring 1,800 jobs paying an average of $100,000 apiece." The grantee's name was not provided.
According to an article yesterday on floridatoday.com, the Joint Legislative Budget Commission approved a $20.8 million grant for the same mysterious project after only three minutes of discussion, which consisted primarily of the minority leader saying that he was “going to trust the professional staff” of the Department of Economic Opportunity “that they’ll do the right thing.”
Greg Weiner, senior director of business development at the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast (also known as Brevard County), said that the timing of the announcement of the company's identity will be announced “solely at the discretion of the client." The EDC describes itself as a "public-private not-for-profit partnership between the Brevard County Commission and the Space Coast business community."
We have Mr. Weiner to thank for putting his finger on a major problem in this matter. If his "client" were the citizens of Brevard County, he would have announced the identity of the grantee before asking for a penny from the county or the state. The reason for the lack of transparency is that his "client" was instead the company itself.
No grant, contract, or permit should be given to anyone who is not identified well in advance, so that citizens may provide testimony and ask questions. If the reason for the lack of identification is that the company does not want its identity to be given yet, then the company can wait to ask for government benefits until it's ready.
If a public-private partnership supports the company's demand for secrecy, the partnership should end. It should be spun off into a private nonprofit (with the return of government funds) whose employees and agents would then be considered lobbyists seeking special government benefits for their clients. At least then its "clients" would have to be identified.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments