Sunny Side /South Park Super Neighborhood

Communications Series with Mayor Lee P. Brown

Favorites or Ethics

Memorandum

December 28, 2002

To: Mayor Lee Brown, City of Houston

From: Charles X White, Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood

Subject: OIG - Report


CC. Robert Litke, Steve Tinnermon, Ada Edwards, Gordon Quan, Council Members, Willie Belle Boone, Pastor Delaney, Executive Board and Stakeholders

On December 10, 2002 a group of civic club presidents and members came and requested answers to several questions related to the lack of policies governing the actions of the director of planning. At that council meeting you expressed a position to assist us in securing the answers to our questions. What is your timetable to address this matter? It is abundantly clear that the city has no policies to govern this type of issue or the director of planning. We have since received a copy of the final report from the OIG.

The findings in the OIG report clearly identifies that common sense was not used by the director of planning (Robert Litke). Based on the information contained in the OIG report and our (SSSPSN) investigation his decision was unethical, unprofessional, underhanded, unsubstantiated and it is disrespectful to the people you both serve “and you approved of it”. The reasons for this apparent cover up by the director of planning are very unclear.


It is clear that our original questions are still unanswered except two.

The results of the OIG report has raised additional questions concerning ethics and will be given to our SSSPSN Ethics Committee for review. A community peer review will be scheduled for public discussion. The SSSPSN’s ethics committee has already developed recommendations to be included in our new by-laws in order to prevent this from occurring in the future. Subject to the findings of the peer review our by-laws can be amended.

Thank you for your attention and time.

Nine Months to Reason

Memorandum
January 6, 2003

To: Mayor Lee P. Brown, City of Houston
From: Charles X White, President - Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood
Subject: Matters of good public policy, principles, statesmanship, integrity, respect, character and governance

Cc. Mrs. Willie Belle Boone, Ethics Committee/Chair, Stephen Tinnerman, Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood Executive Board and Stakeholders

Thank you for sending Mr. Tinnerman to our scheduled meeting to represent you in the process of resolving issues related to local governance issues and the role of city government/city employees. Also the authority and protocol for city employees to participate in local governance issues. Our primary concerns are centered on the following policy questions:

Part I. Policy Development from the City to City:
1. Develop some policies that clearly define any department heads and city employee’s authority in dealing with community-based organizations and governance issues.
2. Develop an appeals process that will result in mediation for resolving differences between community-based organizations including super neighborhoods and city officials.
3. Define the relationship of city employees or vendors in terms of public trust or conflict of interest related to volunteer participation in city related projects.
4. Establish a communication criterion for city employees/department heads in terms of communicating concerns/ complaints toward super neighborhood governing bodies, as well as other community-based organizations.
5. A penalty for violating policy.
6. Develop a registration and certification process to document all voting council members.

Part I a. Suggestions for policy development for the city from the ethics committee of SSSPSN:
?˜ If there are complaints verbal or written refer them to the community group identified in the complaint. Forward the complaint to the identified party and request that a copy of the response be sent to the group in a reasonable timeframe.
?˜ Develop a preferred method to verify that a super neighborhood completed the guidelines to establish a new super neighborhood council with certification.
?˜ Establish an easier method for citizens to receive information from a department other than OIG.
?˜ Try and convene a meeting between the parties for them to discuss and try to resolve their concerns.
?˜ A director of any department is not authorized to make any decisions related to the operations or governance of a community-based organization, civic club, super neighborhood, super neighborhood cluster or homeowners association.
?˜ Use the research provided by the SSSPSN ethics committee during our investigation related to existing city guidelines and refine them (see attachments)
?˜ Give us a reasonable timeline that this will be accomplished or we can ask a public policy group to draft a policy.

Part I b. Additional Primary Corrective Actions Requested:
1. Restore our original name Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood (68, 71, 72, & 76) on all city communications and records.
2. Generate a letter to the Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood – Ethics Committee Chair Mrs. Willie Belle Boone conveying:
?˜ Under these unique circumstances all registered and certified stakeholders can participate with either super neighborhood without any interference from city employees.
?˜ The city also recognizes the right of a super neighborhood/ cluster to determine its leadership, governance procedures and partnerships without city approval or governance.
?˜ The city encourages all governing bodies to take advantage of any and all leadership and administrative training sessions as possible. The city also encourages stakeholders to take all avenues to resolve local issues between themselves.
?˜ The city has acknowledges the partnership and SNAP request turned in for super neighborhood 68 as part of a partnership with the Sunny Side South Park Super Neighborhood Cluster (71, 72 & 76).

3. We would like for Mayor Brown to attend and have opening remarks at our fifth community partnership breakfast scheduled for January 30, 2003 at 9:00am. at the Marcie L. Keys Activity Center 8302 Colonial Lane hosted by Pastor James Nash. Our featured speaker is Lorine Clark, Director of Organizational Effectiveness for Lyondell Chemical – We have a three part leadership training series for stakeholders
4. Our next general stakeholders meeting is scheduled for January 30, 2003 at 6:30pm at the Sunnyside Multi Purpose Center, we have invited the director of planning and public works as well as the fire chief, we would like for Mr. Tinnerman to attend that meeting as well.
5. Please confirm that Mr. Tinnerman will attend our peer review community forum in February 11 or 13, 2003 at 7:00pm. as your representative at the Sunnyside Multi Purpose Center.
6. Convene a meeting with the line staff from the planning department and us as soon as possible in regards to our SNAP.

Part II. Additional Community Impact Issues
Mayor Brown we have received a copy of the OIG report in mid December 2002. Statements contained in a letter dated May 21, 2002 were grossly incorrect and incomplete. Our brief response is as follows:

?˜ May 21, 2002 letter addressed to you signed by Bessie Swindle and LE Chamberlain did not make any request of Mrs. Boone or us. Mrs. Boone did consult the city attorney, our by-laws, and Robert’s rules of Order and Stanley Ikpo about the election process including asking the voting stakeholders what was there pleasure. Five of the concerns listed in the May 21, communications (1,4, 5, 7, & 8) are related to the election process. Mr. Litke, you and all stakeholders were mailed a copy of Mrs. Boone’s report and this was after the so-called letter of concerns were sent to you with the request to look into the ten concerns. Ms. Swindle and Chamberlain along with approximately 22 other stakeholders raised no objections after Mrs. Boone explained the process and before the votes were cast.
?˜ You were asked to investigate the ten concerns but you did not.
?˜ Item 6., there is no violation of community trust. However, if the question is going to be put to me was the same question put to -- as city employees and as a county employee. Charity Productions vendor relationship with the city is over twelve years old and the safety survey project was successful and will save lives.
?˜ According to the information in the OIG report, the only item that was addressed was 10, and this is the action that was the last straw. Mr. Litke refused to properly inform or communicate with us and disregarded any ethical protocol or due diligence. If Mr. Litke would handle is day-to-day administrative duties as he has handle this matter – he and the city could be sued.
?˜ We will also include in our detailed report to the community peer review scheduled for early February that at least five of the civic clubs that they listed with them were either mislead or misinformed, as to what or why they were being added to another super neighborhood.
?˜ This is a public relations nightmare – the route that was taken by Robert Litke in this matter we do not understand or agree with. In a previous communication I mentioned to Mr. Litke “if the mayor was given incomplete information he could only make a decision that was incomplete”.
?˜ Item 2 we have had our general stakeholders meeting every year. No one in the group that logged these concerns responded to a monthly publication and memo that asked each executive board member to select our formal meeting pattern in June of 2000. Not one of them!
?˜ Item 3 our secretary Jeanie Ashiru only attended five meetings in twenty-four months – the assistant secretary kept the other minutes. New members and voting rights are in the by-laws that Ms. Swindle signed off on in early 2000.
?˜ Item 4 this question is not clear.
?˜ Item 5 Ms. Swindle voted twice once for her civic club and the other for her church. Mrs. Boone allowed several people to vote that were with Ms. Swindle and were not identified as voting stakeholders.
?˜ Item 9 is totally incorrect and unproven. As I have offered to Mr. Litke – lets take a polygraph and see who is lying to the community and at city hall – I make the same offer to anybody else.

Mayor Brown, in our opinion there is no doubt that we have been victimized in this matter and our right to due process have been violated. The factors that contributed to this unnecessary happenstance are immaturity, envy, ego, bias, bad politics, deliberate misleading information being distributed, personal agendas, un-professionalism, favoritism and complicity from city employees. This situation has contributed in the promoting of negative feelings throughout segments of this community. The accusations put forth by other community volunteers have been distributed and we were not afforded an opportunity to refute or respond until now. Making things worst Robert Litke refused to respond to our reasonable questions and the only way we could find out -- the degree of slander and misinformation that was being distributed concerning this matter was through the freedom of information act. This is not good for NOG or the city’s image and the OIG report was clearly incomplete.

We have taken steps to prevent, reduce and address this situation from our by-laws and the creation of the ethics committee from the community standpoint. Our focus is to reach an agreement with the city is due to the actions of city employees not being guided by policies, which does not exist with regard to community volunteers and governance of community-based organizations. As you know Neighborhood Oriented Government is designed to build coalitions and to solve problems at the local level, by stakeholders. The city’s role is to assist the community with capacity building matters and improving city service delivery.

The director of city planning is well aware of our capacity to address issues in a reasonable manner for the good of the community. We have demonstrated this successfully with this same type of issue. It is clear that some of the community volunteers had no interest in directly confronting the executive board with their concerns that are easily answered. Had we been afforded the opportunity to answer the questions on May 21, 2002 we could have answered them the same day! This has been nine-month nightmare as well.

The negative impact caused by the decisions rendered by the planning director and others, who apparently participated willingly in a unethical and unprofessional administrative maneuver that will negatively impact this community for years. Any public servant conducting this type of behavior should be unacceptable and for over stepping their authority with bias. NOG is clearly not to be dominated by a department head or city employee.

We think this can be the framework for a win – win and start the process of healing within and without the community for the following reasons:
1. This will prevent city employees from becoming entangled governance issues local executive boards in the future and will address the current issue.
2. We will be able to continue our work in the community with all stakeholders without the shadow of misinformation following us.
3. The group that pulled away can stay away with their name but we would like them to be registered and certified as all super neighborhoods should be and continue serving the community in the manner in which they prefer.

We look forward to your response in this matter as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation!

Monday January 6, 2003 – 1:00pm
Sunny Side/South Park Super Neighborhood Ethics Committee Meeting

Agenda

Opening Prayer………………………………………………………Pastor James Nash
Meeting Call to Order…………………………………………….……Pastor Marvin Delaney
Opening Statement…………………………………………………………Charles X White
Introduction and Opening Statements by committee…….…………..Mrs. Willie Belle Boone
Issues for Mayor Brown ……………………………….………….Mrs. Willie Belle Boone
Remarks by Chief of Staff of Mayor Brown ………………………….. Stephen Tinnerman
Closing remarks ……………………………………………………………………
Closing Prayer……………………………………………………………………….

Red Tape

----- Original Message -----
From: charity productions
To: Stephen Tinnermon ; Rose Valenzuela
Cc: Willie Belle Boone ; Marvin Delaney
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:48 AM
Subject: Red Tape


To: Stephen Tinnermon, Chief of Staff of the Mayor

From: Charles X White, President Sunny Side/South Park SN

Subject: Red Tape

Date: January 21, 2003

Cc. Mayor Lee P. Brown -- Willie Belle Boone - Marivn Delanely



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr. Tinnermon thank you for your response. Mrs. Boone is going to call you as a follow up from the committee. My responses to parts of your letter will be shared with the committee and stakeholders today after Mrs. Boone speaks with you to clarify some of your statements.

The spin that the city has taken in this matter in my view has to many unnecessary crooks and turns. However, my comments listed below is my way in giving the Mayor another view. We both think the NOG is a good concept and can be very help for the city and stakeholders in the 21st century. I am being frank and maybe brutally honest. My community work and its benefit to all citizens spans nearly thirty-years, I hope you and the Mayor or whoever else don't take this as a personal attack but rather a commitment to my community work. There are several comments that are left out that Mrs. Boone will address when she calls you today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I must emphasize, however, that contrary to what appears to be the prevalent sentiment among Ethics Committee members, the City's decision to dissolve the cluster had absolutely nothing to do with complaints generated regarding your super neighborhood council officer elections held last year".

When did the city make this decision and to whom and when were stakeholders notified?
Why didn't you use the formula that you referred to in your response regard getting input from other super neighborhoods. This is again selective intervention.
This statement has an odor of falsehood. There is no way that you can prove this statement to any reasonable degree after reviewing the timeline of events that happened after the letter dated May 21, 2001. Combining the deception or misinformation by the planning director and the Mayor and adding your statement (Tinnermon) related to the communication breakdown on the city's part acknowledges a communication problem however it doesn't address it. We are trying to address it but you keep changing our words.
The fact that both community groups requested an investigation and none was done however changes were made without any notification to us, clearly indicates collusion and deception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Rather, the City’s decision was based purely on a fundamental cornerstone of the entire concept of neighborhood oriented government".

This is purely a subjective statement on the Mayor's part. There are several cornerstone points, at least three others. One of which you stated -- self determination -- another would be problem solving. This administration is constantly making selective interpretation in this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Put simply, this tenet holds that each of the 88 super neighborhoods defined by Mayor Brown has an inherent right to self-determination over its own affairs".

All 88 super neighborhoods are separate to start with.
Why did the Mayor, you, and Robert Litke determine a course of action that falls under a self-determination action by the stakeholders and the city continues to ignore proper notification timelines before a final decision is made and communicated to the stakeholders?
Where were the tenants and protocols on May 21, 2001 and before?
If this statement is true someone must be giving the Mayor a lot of misinformation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As such, Mayor Brown believes that every super neighborhood has the right to participate in the super neighborhood program as part of a cluster group – or not".

If the above statement is accurate why wasn't it enforced before and after May 21, 200?
This is another discrepancy in your statements.
The three people that had some concerns and requested an investigation that was never forwarded to us to respond to -- by the city or them. The existing procedures to organize a super neighborhood as listed in the city of Houston requirements was not followed in that case. Along with this you all are not making any documentation available to the stakeholders and then you say you don't want to get involved with local issues --- self-determination etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Based on our discussion at the January 6th meeting, I believe that your organization was not as clearly informed of the reasons why the City made this decision as you should have been".

We know and you know that -- however we addressed this in our written material on January 6, 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Having personally participated in several discussions involving this matter, I can absolutely assure you that this was not a result of any ill-intent".

If a person is accidentally killed or intentionally killed -- the result is the same.
However there is a penalty in either situation. You all are trying to by-pass the penalty that applies to you as well as deny your direct involvement and mismanaging this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However, for whatever reasons, the apparent breakdown in communications never should have occurred. For this reason, I believe an apology is in order to Charles X. White, to the Ethics Committee to other leaders and stakeholders in Sunny Side community".
It is not for whatever reasons -- its for the reasons that you all don't want to answer. I have several communications and documented/corroborated witnesses that Robert Litke's misrepresentation of the facts when he tried to justify his position in this matter which contradicts what you are saying in your communication.
"You believe" -- is a denial of the facts.
Your continued misrepresenting our concerns and interests clearly identifies that you all have an agenda that is contrary to ours in several key areas. (we never requested the city to dissolve any cluster-- but you wrote that we did. We said change our original name on all city records and the other group can stay where they are and serve the community in a manner in which they see fit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On behalf of Mayor Brown, as his Chief of Staff, I offer my most sincere apologies regarding any real or perceived communications breakdown. I think that the steps that we plan to take to promulgate written guidelines will help us avoid any future missteps along these lines".
This is a good statement and looks good for the record but the other parts of your response are full of incorrect statements.
It seems that you are pushing the theme that you want us to say but you are saying and trying to make it appear that we are requesting something that we are not.