The Need to Disclose a Grantee's Name, and a Problem with Public-Private Development Partnerships
Here's another story involving the lack of transparency. This time, the
lack of transparency involves a company getting government
grants.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20140319/BUSINESS/303190026/County-…; target="”_blank”">an
article from a week ago on floridaytoday.com</a>, 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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20140325/BUSINESS/303260008" target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday on floridatoday.com,</a> 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.”<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---