Contact: Fred Phillis (480) 892-5402

(Mesa, AZ – August 14, 2006) The Valley Business Owners and Concerned Citizens, Inc., a 10-year-old non-profit organization that promotes truth in government, said today that Mesa City Manager Chris Brady is playing "Hide the Potato". "Hide the Potato", the group said, is a technical term denoting an array of unnatural acts employed by bureaucrats to avoid answering legitimate questions posed by citizens.

At issue is a list of 16 questions submitted to Brady back on June 8, 2006 in anticipation of the city’s decision to submit $260 million face amount in new utility bonds for voter approval at the November general election. At 10 percent interest over 25 years that face amount will explode to more than $900 million.

The group said the 16 questions are simple and straight-forward. The public has a right to answers, the group said, in order to reach informed decisions on the bonds.

The VBO said Brady has steadfastly refused to provide direct answers to the 16 questions despite two months of repeated requests. "If Brady has nothing to hide," the group asks, "then why won’t he answer the questions?"

The VBO said Brady introduced the "Hide the Potato" game to Mesa when he was hired last year from San Antonio on the retirement of former city manager Mike Hutchinson. The VBO said Hutchinson never played "Hide the Potato".

"We were seldom on Mike Hutchinson’s side on any public policy issues," the group said. "Yet when we asked questions he provided prompt, comprehensive answers. On one particularly controversial issue Mike invited us in, sat down with us, gave us all relevant documents and explained every aspect of the project. We left with his promise that he would provide us with anything else we could think of – and he meant it. Brady, by contrast, is arrogant and hostile to the public’s right to know. He has been regularly thumbing his nose at every attempt to obtain even the most basic information."

Brady replied immediately to the June 8 inquiry saying he would forward the questions to appropriate staff members. When nothing happened, the VBO questioned him again. On June 20 he wrote, "I am aware of your interest in receiving answers to your questions.  As I mentioned in an earlier email, I have requested that the staff assemble the appropriate documents that can answer your questions.  I was briefed yesterday that staff will be providing some of those documents to you shortly."

When the group asked Brady for the answers a third time, he responded on June 28 saying, "In an effort to address all of your many questions, I have requested that Debbie Spinner (Mesa City Attorney) and Bryan Raines (Finance Manager) provide you the appropriate available documents related to your inquiries.  I am aware that both Ms. Spinner and Mr. Raines have recently forwarded these responses to you.  Additionally, I was informed that you have been invited to review many of the documents currently held in the Finance Department.  If there are any specific public records that you are still requesting please let me know."

At this point, the VBO said, Brady began to shift the exchange from responding to direct questions to recasting it as "documents related to your inquiries." The VBO said it didn’t ask for documents. It asked for answers. By digging through the few documents provided by the city the VBO determined that the questions were still unanswered.

The VBO responded to Brady by making it clear that it did not want to pore over a plethora of documents to guess where the "potato" was hidden – in this case 16 of them. What it wanted was answers. The group wrote:

"Is there a problem here?  Based on your comment one would believe that Mr. Raines had already responded to our questions -- or at least that he told you he had.  Yet as of July 18, 2006 we still haven't received the answers.
 
"Are you absolutely certain that Mr. Raines told you he sent them off to us?" the VBO asked, "Did you believe him?
 
"At issue are simple, straightforward questions, and the public has the right to know the answers," the group told Brady. "This is particularly important in light of the city's plans to ask the public to approve hundreds of millions in new utility bonds.  How can you ask the voters to approve these bonds while keeping the answers to these questions hidden from public view?
 
"If Mr. Raines has nothing to hide, why is it that we still have not received the answers?  Why did you tell us, back on June 28, that he had already responded to us?  The mail may be slow, Mr. Brady, but it's not that slow."

In an August 4 response Brady once again dodged direct answers and again threw the questions back into the miasma of bureaucratic hide-the-potato talk. He wrote:

"Please know that we are trying to be responsive to your request.  By providing you with access to the detailed bond transaction summaries which include the majority of the information you are seeking we hoped that this would direct you to the answers you seek.  As the City Attorney's Office has explained we will provide you copies of the public documents you seek and believe we have attempted to comply with your request.  I would request that you once again review the bond proceedings summary documents in order that you might find the answers to your questions."

The VBO said it didn’t want documents. It wanted answers.

The obvious problem with this hide-the-potato approach, the VBO said, is that the public has to guess just where the answers might be hidden, request the documents that might be their hiding place and then spend an inordinate amount of time in the slim hope they might get lucky and find some answers. It said the city’s approach is tantamount to harassment. Where, for example, would the public find out how the city avoids conflicts of interest, or how it insures that financial advice is independent – if at all? Meanwhile, the answers to the VBO’s questions are readily available to the city and could be easily provided – unless, of course, the city has something it wishes to keep hidden from public view.

Brady’s most recent reply included the following item from an unnamed staffer, which at least included one direct answer to one of the questions:

"Chris -

"As we have discussed, following Mr. Phillis' earlier submissions that outlined a variety of bond issue related inquiries, including the 16 questions outlined below, the City provided him with documents both in written form and on CD’s to address his various questions.  These documents included several full compilations of bond proceedings from Mesa’s most recent past bond sales and refunding activities and all of the information review by the City Council as part of the City’s most recent bond sale and refunding processes.  As a follow-up, the City Attorney requested, but I do not believe has received clarification on some of the initial inquiries.  

"The 16 questions listed by Mr. Phillis below do not request specific documents but rather make general inquiries into the City’s bond transaction activities and business relationships.  Since these inquiries are general, we have sought to provide Mr. Phillis, through the materials listed above, information that answers these questions.  If, after a thorough review of the information contained the documents and CD’s, Mr. Phillis continues to require additional documentation that too will be provided upon request.

"It should be noted that the response to one of Mr. Phillis’ questions that would not have been included in any prior documentation wherein he asks, "Have any of those associated with any previous bond issuances made contributions to any ballot issues or to candidates for office to the Mesa City Council?"  The answer is no.   Additionally, activities of that nature are subject to regulatory oversight and prohibition."

The inquiries weren’t "general", according to the VBO. They were specific, and the group wanted specific answers.

The group said Brady was hired with a compensation package that includes $184,000 in salary, an expense account, a $20,000 moving bonus, six weeks of vacation and a $600 monthly car allowance. The VBO said this money was well-spent if the objective was to acquire a chief operating officer with a KGB mentality toward the public’s right to know. "But in terms of what serves the public’s interest, hiring Brady has already turned out to be an unmitigated disaster."

The group said it has concluded that getting straight answers out of the city’s new city manager is hopeless. Nonetheless, it said it will not stop asking questions, no matter what Brady does with them.

Here are the 16 bond questions submitted on June 8, 2006:

1. What will be the total interest and transactional costs to the city over the life of the bonds?
2. Are these bonds being sold at public auction, to the underwriter offering the best price, or are they being sold through negotiation?
3. Or is the city acting as its own underwriter with the help of the financial advisor?
4. Does the city see each bid and accept the lowest from the underwriter and/or buyer?
5. Who will be employed to handle the bond transactions?
6. Who will be employed to provide advice and counsel on the bond transactions?
7. How much will each be paid?
8. How is each selected?
9. Were any of the above involved in previous bond transactions? If so, how many transactions by each?
10. How much were they paid?
11. How does the city avoid conflicts of interest?
12. How does the city insure that advice is independent?
13. How are underwriters chosen?
14. Have any of those associated with any previous bond issuances made contributions to any ballot issues or to candidates for office to the Mesa city council?
15. What are the bond covenants and payment schedules?
16. What are the reserve requirements and how will they be segregated?