Reason for the Pause, Part I

Sometimes a close examination of an allegation is good for all sides. Sometimes it proves there was no "there" there, other times it confirms allegations.  Occasionally  it serves to improve processes.  In any case, a thorough look is in order when seemingly alarming claims are made

At yesterday morning's agenda review session, I led the effort to pull a funding item from the agenda for this month so that I could investigate some issues that had been alleged having to do with the "process" of some purchases.

The board agreed and the item was dropped.

I described to the media and my peers on the BCC some of my concerns--the largest one being that according to a citizen with intimate knowledge of Visit Pensacola--a large-dollar purchase of a website domain name was made without proper authorization (from the full Visit Pensacola Board of Directors--in advance of the purchase)

I did confirm that to be true yesterday late in the evening--the board of Visit Pensacola neither authorized nor approved this purchase in advance as should have happened according to their bylaws and financial procedures documents.

The minutes from June 27th describe the purchase being disclosed to the full board after the fact. 

So far as I understand it--the purchase was questioned by the clerk's office, who in turn deferred to the County Administrator's office.

The County Administrator's office approved the purchase for reimbursement in September of 2018 (although the original purchase was made in early June of 2018).  I asked the following question yesterday:  "Was the authorization for the approval of this purchase reimbursement made with the understanding that the Visit Pensacola Board of Directors had voted to authorize this purchase in advance?"  and the answer was an unequivocal "Yes."

I'm told at least one Visit Pensacola board member was not happy about the way this purchase was done.

Nobody has told me yet, for sure,  if this purchase was ever officially ratified by a follow-on vote of the board--as should have occurred.  This action, if it did occur, is not reflected in the minutes.

So setting aside the size of the expenditure ($150,000.00 seems high to me-- but I'm not an expert in buying website domains) There is little doubt that the process here was badly flawed.

So if this was truly a time-sensitive issue--my question is why not call a special meeting?  Why not wait at least 3,5, or 7 days to do it right?  Why not write the contract stipulating the purchase is not valid until the Board of Directors approve the purchase?  Why the rush to spend this much money with no deliberations among the board of directors prior to the purchase?

And if the website was so important to acquire in such a rapid fashion, why has nothing been done with it--why is it not, at a minimum, at least directing traffic to the existing Visit Pensacola site right now?

Some other allegations were made about "multiple consultants and lobbyists" being engaged by these entities as well--with very generous monthly stipends.  This is all well and good, but I am requesting some information to see if what I am told squares with the reality of the situation with respect to several of these consultants, what they are doing, and for what purpose, and what sources of money is funding this.

I'm also going to ask about how these positions were advertised and whether or not RFP's or solicitations for these services were put out before the hires were made--or were these persons direct hires?

As I said in the PNJ--it is all probably nothing--I hope there is no larger issue other than this one obvious misfire with the website address purchase prior to board authorization.

But in our oversight capacity as commissioners--we have to take credible information seriously and we have to ask questions when irregularities (like the $150K Website Purchase without prior authorizations from the Board of Directors) are brought to our attention. 

I hope everyone gets this.

I mean, just imagine the alternative.  Imagine if we "didn't" follow up on allegations brought to our attention about potential issues with the expenditure of public monies?