As The Potter’s Field Turns

Filed in Delaware by on September 23, 2013

There was lots of chatter yesterday about the appearance of Velda Jones Potter and her son on Charles Potter’s leased access show on Channel 28. Unfortunately, yesterday was also a big football day and plenty of people prepping for the Emmys and/or Breaking Bad. Matthew Albright of the NJ missed all of the fun and found himself watching this show.

Jason330 started this conversation on Friday. Today’s NJ article adds some interesting information:

Jones-Potter acknowledged she attended city meetings about the festival, but said she prefaced each one by saying she was there as a “private citizen,” not in her official capacity. She said she took vacation and personal time to attend meetings.

“Be very clear that Foxtail fest and I, as their representative, had every interest in this being a well-secured public event,” she said Sunday.

How are you the representative of a for-profit venture seeking city services AND representing the taxpayers of the city? And if these negotiations were going on for a couple of months, how come no one in the City/County Building pointed out the ethical problem here? The first article noted that the permit application was received by the City in late July for a mid-September event. Was she attending these meetings to expedite the permit process (the permit app says they want this paperwork 120 days before the event, minimum)?

Then there’s the security issue:

Jones-Potter said Foxtail organizers were “fully prepared” to pay for 20 private security guards to meet city rules, but said police were “uncomfortable” with that prospect. Instead, she said organizers believed they had worked out a deal with police to provide 15 private security guards while the city provided five officers.

“To our surprise, we learned from the paper that supposedly 20 officers were there,” she said. “We had no idea why the officers were there.”

Again, if you look at the application, security is clearly the responsibility of the event organizers. But the permit process is a determination by the city of the level of security you need to provide. That includes a determination if you need WFD resources or ambulance services. So what was Foxtail told they needed? With a less than 60 day turnaround (with other events in process going on the same weekend at the Riverfront), what was Foxtail told they needed to do?

Frankly, I think that pushing this thing forward without the required time to assess the permit is probably the source of the problem. But I don’t think that the city should help paper over the mistakes of organizers. A few months ago, the City Parks and Recs Department denied the use of their bandstand and personnel to put on an event in WCC — and event that happens yearly and is normally supported by them. Even though the organizers worked to get the commitment for the materials — it wasn’t until the last minute that the Department insisted on a litany of new rules and denied the support. After a bunch of negotiations, the event got some of the support it needed and the event went off as usual. Yet here, we have a late submitted permit — and I hope that someone is looking hard to see if this permit was complete — that needed a high-ranking city official to help push through on behalf of her son.

It would be good if Mrs. Potter come out from behind the friendly media her family controls and speak directly to taxpayers who are owed a whole lot of answers here. I do hope that The Gregory’s special council meeting on the 30th will be in the business of taking sworn testimony on this business — from the Foxtail organizers (including Velda Potter) as well as the Police Chief, the FD Chief and Public Works Chief.

And if you are one of the organizers of one of the multiple amazing events that happen in the city, you owe it to yourself and to your organization to be present at this meeting. Before that — call your City Councilperson and tell them that you are expecting honest and detailed factfinding here.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. AGovernor says:

    Again I ask when will the seemingly defunct City Ethics Commission begin meeting?

    The author is correct, where was anyone questioning the ethics of a prominent city official representing a “for profit” event to city or quasi city departments?

    Even if there was no crime or actual wrong doing the APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough to call an ethics investigation.

  2. Geezer says:

    The more they dig, the deeper the hole gets. By her statements, VJP has made clear that her son did not put on this event — she did. At best, this means she has no concept of the ethical requirements of public service and is clueless about the byzantine permitting requirements in the city she was purportedly helping run.

  3. mediawatch says:

    It’s all so convenient.
    VJP can represent her son at all these meetings because she just happened to be in the building.
    I can just imagine it now: “Folks, I’ve taken off my chief strategy officer hat, so this is my lunch hour and I’ll be Ms. Foxtail for the duration of this meeting.” Nobody in the room senses anything inappropriate, and nobody in the room feels at all intimidated by her presence. Hmmm.
    And then, when she feels a need to tell her story, VJP goes on television, to a show moderated by her husband. Don’t see much need to playback the tape to listen for the tough questions.

  4. anon says:

    My comment, encapsulated in 14 seconds here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj2rxFS0qDQ

  5. cassandra m says:

    Very funny, anon.

    The thing about the Special Events process (at least as detailed in their application), is that isn’t all that byzantine. If you did your planning up front and know what you want to do, the permit is a question of getting city buy-in. Getting what you want on paper and getting the right commitments from certain parties is tough work, but about as complex as you make it. Other events that routinely happen in the city never disband their planning cycle — they just keep going in order make sure they’ve got their ducks in a row well in advance of submitting to the city.

    Intriguing also that we haven’t really heard from the Mayor on this. I think he’s been at the CBCF events in DC, but still.

  6. Truth Teller says:

    New Mayor,however, nothing changed

  7. LeBay says:

    >How are you the representative of a for-profit venture seeking city services AND representing the taxpayers of the city? And if these negotiations were going on for a couple of months, how come no one in the City/County Building pointed out the ethical problem here?

    The above is a prime example of the “Delaware Way” in two sentences.

    The Delaware Way sucks.

  8. SussexWatcher says:

    That’s not the Delaware Way, LeBay, by anyone else’s definition but yours. That’s just sheer, unmitigated greed and graft of the utterly venal variety.

  9. cassandra m says:

    No, he’s right — the persistent looking the other way on clear ethical or other problems is absolutely central to the Delaware Way. Others (i.e, Tony DeLuca) were just better at working the story.

  10. cassandra m says:

    Mayor Williams talked with WDEL this AM, with the NJ expanding. We still don’t know where he was in the middle of this process, but he is noting that there may be other personnel changes in the Administration. He also notes that Department Heads will be more accountable for Ethics issues — one wonders why this is a new thing. And nor should it be limited to Department Heads.

    But this isn’t quite over folks — it is even more important now to make sure to contract Theo Gregory and other Councilmembers to make sure that they don’t let this get swept under the rug. We still need sworn testimony, focused fact-finding and an effort to make sure this kind of thing stops happening in Wilmington.

  11. Agreed, Cassandra. Really worried that Gregory has said that he will talk privately to Velda Potter-Jones.

    I sense some mutual empathy between the two walking conflicts-of-interest. Maybe they, and other council critters, have similar conflicts they want to keep secret?

    My Spidey Sense is sensing whitewash.

    BTW, the Mayor has still not answered any questions about his role in this. And no, ‘did not directly order…’ is hardly an exculpatory phrase.

    Jones-Potter deserved firing for, if nothing else, serving as both a city official and a ‘representative’ (her word) for the company putting on the festival. That is in direct contradiction to city statute.

    However, it is not at all clear to me that she ordered the personnel to the riverfront.

    We do, however, know that SOMEBODY did. Who, and on who’s say-so?

  12. mediawatch says:

    Couple things here:
    1. It seems inconceivable that Hizzoner did not know that VJP was representing Foxtail at these meetings. At the very least, she should have told the boss, “Hey, I’m off the clock for the next hour. Have to run down the hall for this Foxtail meeting.”
    2. Unless it was Matlusky or Sophrin who gave the orders, whoever made the call was subordinate to VJP on the organization chart. Given that VJP was attending the Foxtail meetings, and no one had sounded the conflict-of-interest alarm, it’s reasonable to believe that the caller gave the orders because he/she recognized that this is what VJP, the boss, wanted.

  13. city democrat says:

    One item- the City Ethics Commission can be used as the County Ethics Commission
    has been used as sounding board to protect elected and appointees from conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest- attorney for the County Commission is advised of the facts and circumstances surrounding a situation and may informally advise the questioning official before it gets to the Ethics commission (if necessary) for an opinion or before someone files a complaint- then a formal complaint process begins- in the City – the Ethics issue I understand goes to the City Solicitor- in the case of VJP- the Solicitor should have recused himself and asked for outside counsel to review the facts/circumstances- had this issue proceeded in this manner- VJP would have protected herself and more importantly the Mayor and the administration- I am assuming none of this happened- we will see – PREVIOUS POSTINGs are correct- ethics board needs the independence, funding, independent counsel and strengthening of the enabling language-

  14. Geezer says:

    Ethics commissions, like campaign finance laws, waste a lot of time and effort on infractions that carry no significant penalties.

    If it’s a violation of law, it should carry charges. If it’s not, we should write stricter laws — assuming we want to discourage this sort of thing, which I admit is an unsupported assumption.

  15. cassandra_m says:

    I wonder why we need so much review of a “potential” conflict of interest. For most of my business career, the rule is if there is potential, you don’t do it. Ethics is about maintaining a public trust and trust with your coworkers. Someone on French St needs to set some standards and insist on them. I don’t see what an Ethics Commission could have done in this instance. Someone would have had to blown the whistle on VJP doing this work while wearing her taxpayer hat and it doesn’t sound like anyone did.

  16. mediawatch says:

    Permit me to add another unsupported assumption:
    There is a far greater desire for ethics commissions with meaningful authority among the general public than there is among those who hold public office.

  17. cassandra_m says:

    Right. Bobby Marshall had a bill earlier this year providing a change to Wilmington Charter (I think that’s right) to add an independently elected City Auditor. Wilmington City Council voted a resolution rejecting that idea. Even though this is the kind of thing that Wilmington definitely could use, I think.

  18. city democrat says:

    well I agree Cassandra- that there should be an independent Auditor not being answerable both to the Mayor and the Council – though in fact more answerable to the Administration – An independent Auditor could even have an role in asking for a management audit of this special events process- going back 5 years – I believe when this policy was implemented – publishing all events, costs and who assumed financial responsibility for these special events-and even suggest changes if necessary to the policy looking at other municipalities special program policies and the effectiveness, fairness, transparency etc-
    look at the Inquirer today- a Councilwoman was going to raise money to offset costs she accrued from an Ethics violation- cancelled the fundraiser- these ideas ethics Commission reform and independent Auditor were proposed to the transition team before the Mayor took office

  19. cassandra_m says:

    An Ethics Commission that had some teeth to increase transparency would be a great idea. But fundamentally — if there is no one on the 9th floor insisting on making sure that the public trust wasn’t abused, an Ethics Commission won’t matter.

  20. AGovernor says:

    @city democrat, please forgive my ignorance but to what are you referring when you say “at the Inquirer today- a Councilwoman was going to raise money to offset costs she accrued from an Ethics violation- cancelled the ‘

    I am curious but do not get your reference.