Print
Comment
Rate
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.
 |
 |
|
| Pony Express to ride during Butterfield | Candidates debate in Benson |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
Of course he does wrote on Oct 1, 2008 1:24 PM:
" What else would you expect from both King and Fenn? Of course they don't agree with the findings. King needs to support his budy so that Fenn won't run for Mayor and King can. It's called let's make a deal. Common practice among some of the council members. They did it for Roberts too.
Fenn is Guilty, Guilty, Guilty and he whines about everything to much. Poor baby. You are the cause of all of this mess Fenn. Resign. "
Fenn is Guilty, Guilty, Guilty and he whines about everything to much. Poor baby. You are the cause of all of this mess Fenn. Resign. "
Albert Turk wrote on Oct 1, 2008 2:28 PM:
" The investigation was useless, the results are useless, and now you blame Mayor Renn because of that? The pro and anti Fenn people are exactly the same in that they are convinced they are 100% right. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. If you can't have businesspeople in these city positions (because of conflicts of interest) all you'll have are retirees and the unemployed. Mayor Fenn showed poor judgement, but so did Suagee and Tipton. Now let's quit fighting like children and take care of the business of Benson. "
No one said that wrote on Oct 2, 2008 5:45 PM:
" Mr. Turk,
No one said that people with conflicts can't serve. They can but they must declare their conflicts and they must not involve themselves in the discussions or the voting on issues with which they have conflicts.
With both Lori McGoffin and Mayor Fenn, this is not the case. Why is it many of you wanted Tipton and Suagee to play by the rules (which in my opinion they did) but it is OK with you if McGoffin and Fenn don't. We appear to have a double standard here.
Be specific about how Suagee and Tipton showed poor judgement. Every time someone challanges someone in these blogs to be specific about what Tipton and Suagee did, there is never a response. Maybe you will all get it this time. They didn't do anything wrong. They did it right. "
No one said that people with conflicts can't serve. They can but they must declare their conflicts and they must not involve themselves in the discussions or the voting on issues with which they have conflicts.
With both Lori McGoffin and Mayor Fenn, this is not the case. Why is it many of you wanted Tipton and Suagee to play by the rules (which in my opinion they did) but it is OK with you if McGoffin and Fenn don't. We appear to have a double standard here.
Be specific about how Suagee and Tipton showed poor judgement. Every time someone challanges someone in these blogs to be specific about what Tipton and Suagee did, there is never a response. Maybe you will all get it this time. They didn't do anything wrong. They did it right. "
Jose wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:54 AM:
" It is sad when even the people of Tombstone laugh at Benson. Benson now has a city council that ignores agenda items if the item does not please them. Items that should have been brought to light are now forever passed over. At least four of the council have proven they are self serving buffoons. How sad for our town. "
Bottom line wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:16 AM:
" The council voted to have the investigation. Since Benson paid for the investigation, some selected council members thought the investigation should say only what they wanted. When it did not, they got mad, got rid of the messengers and protested the investigation. I expect if the investigation is done over a dozen times (honestly) it will still say the same thing. Our Mayor had a conflict of interest in his dealings with the city. It appears that is what the people want. Get on with it. "
State of Denial wrote on Oct 1, 2008 1:19 PM: