City Hall/Photo by Noah Dawson
Amarillo City Council and members of the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation’s Board of Directors exchanged heated words during the most recent meeting of Amarillo City Council. By the end of the discussions, the two entities seem to have reached an agreement regarding the next steps forward in the ongoing AEDC/RANGE controversy, though whether or not it will last is an open question.
The controversy began when it was uncovered that the AEDC had paid the nonprofit organization The RANGE $750,000 in membership fees, despite the item only being budgeted for $100,000. The increased cost of the payment was never voted on by either the AEDC Board nor Amarillo City Council.
The city’s response began with a three-year audit of AEDC expenses. That audit was completed and presented to the council last week. The auditor did note that, while the RANGE transaction “was an exception to the norm,” there was a lack of “policies, procedures, controls to audit against,” making it essentially impossible to identify other anomalous transactions.
The council also declined to approve the AEDC’s full budget, opting instead to only approve basic operational expenses and contractual obligations. In discussing the AEDC budget, the council’s outside legal counsel George Hyde argued that the current practices of the AEDC were out of line with state law. The council directed Hyde to begin a rewrite of the AEDC’s articles of incorporation, setting aside up to $10,000 for the task.
In response to the guidance to rewrite the articles of incorporation, the AEDC Board met. Much of the meeting featured members of the board expressing lament regarding the organization’s constrained budget. In particular, they pointed to the inability to pay membership fees to organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the lack of an approved marketing budget.
The board also took issue with the claim that their policies were not compliant with state law. They defended their policies by pointing to similarities between the way the AEDC operates and the way other Economic Development Corporations throughout the state operate.
The board ultimately responded by hiring their own outside counsel, opting to approve spending up to $10,000 with attorney Jeff Moore. In a statement, AEDC Board Chair Andrew Hall called the council’s actions “overtly political.”
The council, which met the day after the AEDC Board, spent much of their meeting discussing their response to the AEDC’s latest move. Councilman Les Simpson, who had been absent when the council directed Hyde to begin a rewrite of the articles of incorporation, expressed that he did not agree with the council giving such direction, especially since there was not a noticed agenda item for directing Hyde to engage in the rewrite. Mayor Stanley noted that, once the proposed new articles are written, approval will be a noticed agenda item, allowing for input from the public on any changes at that point.
Regarding the parts of the AEDC budget not approved by the council, Councilman Tom Scherlen noted that the AEDC has the ability to ask the council for approval of additional specific expenses. “If y’all need anything, come and ask.”
Stanley also had some sharp words for the AEDC Board. “I need to know that I have a board that understands what right and wrong is,” said Stanley. “As long as I have a board that’s willing to work with us, then I’m good to work with you guys. If not, I do appreciate resigning and stepping aside so we can get a board put together that we can work with.”
Hall responded to that ultimatum by stating that he would accept working with the council.
With the AEDC Board’s chair expressing a willingness to work with the council, we will have to
One other controversy regarding the AEDC was also brought to light during the meeting: the policy of allowing AEDC staff to utilize personal credit cards to pay expenses. We covered that topic in full in a separate article.