News
Probe cost taxpayers $18,000
Thelma GrimesSan Pedro Valley News-Sun
Benson taxpayers will foot an $18,256.29 bill to have a third-party attorney in Tucson investigate allegations against Mayor Mark Fenn.
The allegations, claiming Fenn violated state conflict of interest laws, were levied by Martin Roush, the former city manager, along with recently recalled council members Dianne Tipton and Kathy Suagee. Also speaking out against business practices Fenn used was current City Building Official Mike Lockett.
After several meetings in March, the council voted 4-3 to hire Mary Judge Ryan to conduct an independent investigation.
According to the recently released invoice, Ryan officially started the investigation on April 22.
Charging $175 an hour, Ryan billed the city for everything from phone calls with witnesses and city staff to interviews with council members.
The last entry in the five-page list of charges is on Aug. 26, $175 to finalize her 23-page report.
Vice Mayor Toney King said he is not happy with the cost the investigation, noting that the report was not helpful in the situation, calling her finding "non-committed."
King said Ryan may have expressed concerns with three of the seven allegations, but the report didn't get anywhere and her invoice lacked details.
In many parts of the cost breakdown, Ryan charged the city for items such as a "telephone call with a witness," or "prepare for interview."
Ryan was specific about who she interviewed in some cases. Her interviews, whether by phone or in person, with Suagee and Tipton cost taxpayers $682.50.
Her charges to interview Roush and Lockett, who originally brought forth the allegations, took a combined five hours, costing $875.
Fenn, who has been fighting the allegations since they were made public, was interviewed by Ryan for two hours, at a cost of $350.
Fenn agreed with King on the report's lacking information. The first-term mayor said he called Ryan on numerous occasions, as well as providing her with a list of witnesses that would prove his innocence.
Fenn has continuously been critical of the report because he felt Ryan disregarded witnesses for his side, while King was more critical because none of the witnesses were ever interviewed under oath.
In all, Ryan reported working 103.5 hours on the case.
On Aug. 18, when Ryan reported her findings to the council, she stressed that her job was simply to investigate the allegations, and her report should not be construed as a finding of guilt.
Of the seven allegations posted by Suagee and Tipton, Ryan said there is no proof that he violated conflict of interest laws on at least four of them, but she is seriously concerned with some business deals Fenn had during the last year involving three of the accusations.
The first is Fenn's purchasing a piece of property from Triple L Management Group, a Las Vegas company, while at the same time trying to push through an annexation for them with the City of Benson.
Ryan said records indicate that Fenn was actively involved in the annexation process since at least July of 2007, and at one point accused former City Manager Martin Roush of dropping the ball on the project.
Ryan said it is important to note that neither Fenn, nor the rest of the City Council, have actually voted on the annexation proposal, and he has not signed the final papers to purchase the 10-acre property at 2101 Prickly Pear from Triple L Management.
Another concern of Ryan's dealt with the same issue, with the accusation being that Fenn has an unfair advantage over other developers because he is the mayor.
In the rezoning process of the property located on 2101 Prickly Pear, Ryan questioned Fenn's actions leading up to the council's approval in March.
Fenn asked city staff to expedite the rezoning process because the purchase of the property was contingent on its being rezoned from residential to business. Ryan said according to interviews conducted with staff, they felt compelled to speed up the process that normally takes six months. The rezoning was approved by the City Council in 53 days. Fenn did not vote with the rest of the council.
In the third concern provided by Ryan, the new dental building under construction on 4th Street is in question. The Tucson attorney questioned Fenn's method in getting the contract to build the new facility and whether or not he violated A.R. S. 38-503.
Fenn said he is even more disappointed with Ryan and the report because she never returned his calls after the information was made public. The mayor said he had evidence to show he did not violate the law when it came to the three allegations.
Suagee and Tipton have said that despite being removed from the council by voters, they still feel Ryan's report points to laws having been broken, and they will pursue the issue.
Tipton has requested hundreds of pages of public records ranging from personnel files to the last four years of council meeting agenda meetings and minutes.
The attorney general's office was made aware of the allegations in March, and has not contacted Fenn, the council or city staff regarding the matter.
Benson taxpayers will foot an $18,256.29 bill to have a third-party attorney in Tucson investigate allegations against Mayor Mark Fenn.
The allegations, claiming Fenn violated state conflict of interest laws, were levied by Martin Roush, the former city manager, along with recently recalled council members Dianne Tipton and Kathy Suagee. Also speaking out against business practices Fenn used was current City Building Official Mike Lockett.
After several meetings in March, the council voted 4-3 to hire Mary Judge Ryan to conduct an independent investigation.
According to the recently released invoice, Ryan officially started the investigation on April 22.
Charging $175 an hour, Ryan billed the city for everything from phone calls with witnesses and city staff to interviews with council members.
The last entry in the five-page list of charges is on Aug. 26, $175 to finalize her 23-page report.
Vice Mayor Toney King said he is not happy with the cost the investigation, noting that the report was not helpful in the situation, calling her finding "non-committed."
King said Ryan may have expressed concerns with three of the seven allegations, but the report didn't get anywhere and her invoice lacked details.
In many parts of the cost breakdown, Ryan charged the city for items such as a "telephone call with a witness," or "prepare for interview."
Ryan was specific about who she interviewed in some cases. Her interviews, whether by phone or in person, with Suagee and Tipton cost taxpayers $682.50.
Her charges to interview Roush and Lockett, who originally brought forth the allegations, took a combined five hours, costing $875.
Fenn, who has been fighting the allegations since they were made public, was interviewed by Ryan for two hours, at a cost of $350.
Fenn agreed with King on the report's lacking information. The first-term mayor said he called Ryan on numerous occasions, as well as providing her with a list of witnesses that would prove his innocence.
Fenn has continuously been critical of the report because he felt Ryan disregarded witnesses for his side, while King was more critical because none of the witnesses were ever interviewed under oath.
In all, Ryan reported working 103.5 hours on the case.
On Aug. 18, when Ryan reported her findings to the council, she stressed that her job was simply to investigate the allegations, and her report should not be construed as a finding of guilt.
Of the seven allegations posted by Suagee and Tipton, Ryan said there is no proof that he violated conflict of interest laws on at least four of them, but she is seriously concerned with some business deals Fenn had during the last year involving three of the accusations.
The first is Fenn's purchasing a piece of property from Triple L Management Group, a Las Vegas company, while at the same time trying to push through an annexation for them with the City of Benson.
Ryan said records indicate that Fenn was actively involved in the annexation process since at least July of 2007, and at one point accused former City Manager Martin Roush of dropping the ball on the project.
Ryan said it is important to note that neither Fenn, nor the rest of the City Council, have actually voted on the annexation proposal, and he has not signed the final papers to purchase the 10-acre property at 2101 Prickly Pear from Triple L Management.
Another concern of Ryan's dealt with the same issue, with the accusation being that Fenn has an unfair advantage over other developers because he is the mayor.
In the rezoning process of the property located on 2101 Prickly Pear, Ryan questioned Fenn's actions leading up to the council's approval in March.
Fenn asked city staff to expedite the rezoning process because the purchase of the property was contingent on its being rezoned from residential to business. Ryan said according to interviews conducted with staff, they felt compelled to speed up the process that normally takes six months. The rezoning was approved by the City Council in 53 days. Fenn did not vote with the rest of the council.
In the third concern provided by Ryan, the new dental building under construction on 4th Street is in question. The Tucson attorney questioned Fenn's method in getting the contract to build the new facility and whether or not he violated A.R. S. 38-503.
Fenn said he is even more disappointed with Ryan and the report because she never returned his calls after the information was made public. The mayor said he had evidence to show he did not violate the law when it came to the three allegations.
Suagee and Tipton have said that despite being removed from the council by voters, they still feel Ryan's report points to laws having been broken, and they will pursue the issue.
Tipton has requested hundreds of pages of public records ranging from personnel files to the last four years of council meeting agenda meetings and minutes.
The attorney general's office was made aware of the allegations in March, and has not contacted Fenn, the council or city staff regarding the matter.
Copyright © 2012 - San Pedro Valley News-Sun