Information Provided Validates the Questions that were Raised.....

A week ago today I had a conversation about the new downtown field house concept with a person intimately familiar with this initiative.

I asked this person if they supported the plan for a field house downtown--and the answer was a resounding and forceful "No."

I wondered aloud..."Why not?"

During the course of the ensuing conversation, the reasons for this individual's hesitation would be framed and detailed;  the lack of support hinged on multiple issues and financial concerns--which eventually this person would detail.

#1.  Some financial irregularities should be looked into, according to this source.  Chief among these was the $150,000.00 purchase of a website domain name for www.pensacola.com. "It's not that they spent money to buy this domain,  it's not even about the price of the domain, although I think it is a lot of money--it's the fact that their board didn't authorize the purchase in advance which they should have done.  At least one board member was not happy about this the next month when the full board were notified about the purchase."  

After looking at the minutes for Visit Pensacola from June 27th--the claim about the purchase being made absent board approval appears to be true.  Furthermore, it looks like the board did not even take a vote after the fact to approve the purchase which is odd.  Nobody has been able to tell me definitively, yes or no, the answer to this question:  "Did Visit Pensacola's Board ever authorize this purchase?"  Apparently, from the comments she made in the PNJ,  the clerk of the court believes this purchase was not inappropriate.   From the PNJ: "Pam Childers, Escambia County Clerk of the Circuit Court whose office reviews all county expenditures, said in a text message to the News Journal Thursday evening that there was no malfeasance surrounding the purchase of the domain name."  For what it is worth, I never used the term malfeasance--that was my counterpart in district 2 that used that word.  I said "inappropriate and irregular"--which I believe are the better words to describe this event; because I still have trouble with the fact that the purchase was not approved in advance.  Regardless of what one chooses to call this--it appears that this purchase was, in fact, "irregular" if nothing else....

#2.  Several consultants are being paid by PSA to lobby the BCC for more money for a field house--according to this source.  "They have several guys making thousands per month on contracts to lobby you to spend more on studies for the field house." said this individual.



After receiving the information from Visit Pensacola and the Pensacola Sports Association on Monday---it appears that this additional concern is also a true statement.  It appears that Visit Pensacola has a total of four consultants being paid at the moment tied to the effort to bring a field house to Pensacola. It also appears as if these positions were not solicited via an RFP or RFQ but rather the persons chosen were name-selected. One consultant gets $4,000.00 monthly, one gets $3,000.00 monthly, one received a fixed price to do a study, and the fourth consultant receives $125.00 hourly on a contract not to exceed 210 hours.

In looking at PSA's last two budget requests--I do not see these costs as a part of the request to the BCC.  So the question I have is where is this money coming from, the money to lobby the BCC to


spend more money on more studies tied to the field house?  If it is public money, allocated from the BCC via the TDC--this seems odd.  If it is private money raised by PSA that is probably a bit more acceptable.  So the question becomes fairly straightforward:  What pot of money is PSA using for consultants/lobbyists?

As I said in the newspaper article--I support the work of Visit Pensacola and the Pensacola Sports Association.  Both entities stepped up and quickly provided all of the information I requested--to include all contracts with consultants and lobbyists.  I continue to believe that both of these entities do great things in our community.  But when allegations of potentially improper or irregular spending are made--I believe we as members of the BCC must look into such claims.

And I feel I have done so here--and with this information I believe funding requests for the field house, going forward, will garner some additional scrutiny as well they should.

After all, the lion's share of the funding for this project will be public funds--so the public deserves nothing less than complete transparency.