|
City versus State
The Audubon Commission is a public body, whose members are appointed by the Mayor and approved by
the City Council. The City Charter
authorizes it "to administer, operate, and maintain facilities administered by the Commission,
including Audubon Park", which is a public, city-owned park.
While the state-vs-city standing of the Audubon Commission is almost as
byzantine as the Audubon Commission/Audubon Nature Institute relationship,
this is what we know:
It is clear that the City and not the state, owns the park and its
improvements.[City of New Orleans v. State of Louisiana, 443 So.2d 562
(La. 1984)].
Act 130 of 1896 placed the park under the management of the Audubon
Park Association, which had previously been incorporated.
Act 191 of 1914 created an Audubon Park Commission for the City of New
Orleans with its 24 members to be appointed by the Mayor with the
consent of the Council.
In Act 352 of 1982, the state legislature placed the commission within
the Dept. of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, with 23 of its 24 members
to be appointed by the governor. It abolished the Commission set up in
1914, but made the new commission the successor of the 1914 Commission.
However, Act 352 of 1982 was declared unconstitutional as a local law
enacted without adequate public notice, as is required for such local
laws. [City of N.O. v. Treen, 431 So.2d 390 (La. 1983)].
Act 485 of 1983 essentially reenacted Act 352 of 1982, presumbly giving
the required notice. However, it too was declared unconstitutional,
this time because the statute constituted an unconstitutional taking by
the State of property belonging to the City. [City of New Orleans v.
State of Louisiana, 443 So.2d 562 (La. 1984)].
Since the last state statute was declared unconstitutional, and since
it abolished the old AC, it is not clear if the present AC derives ANY
of its status from the state.
Public versus Private
The Audubon Nature Institute is a private, not-for-profit corporation that has been contracted
by the Audubon Commission to operate the Audubon facilities,
for which they receive both public and private funds. They started as the "Friends of the Zoo" in 1975,
and incorporated and changed their name to the "Audubon Institute" in 1988. The name
changed again, to the "Audubon Nature Institute", in February of 2001.
While fond of claiming that they receive
no operational monies from the city, the AC/ANI received over 7 million in public funds from
property taxes alone in 2000. In fact, the zoo has received dedicated monies from a city
property tax since the 1970's, which amounted to $727,000 in the year
2000. There is also NO budget for the Park separate from that of the Zoo;
all maintenance, landscaping etc for the Park is considered to be
included in that of the Zoo. It's created a circular argument in the present controversy: whenever
the Institute has been asked why the Park has been allowed to fall into
such disrepair, they claim no money; but when asked, "Well, what's the
budget?", they admit there is no budget either, because it's included
in the zoo budget... But the zoo is pristine and disneyfied, with an
army of landscapers! The ANI merely refuses to spend money in the park
because it doesn't generate any money for them, despite the fact that
it has been the Audubon Commission's responsibility, and thus theirs,
for the past twenty-plus years.
To further complicate the equation,
they regularly move monies from one facility to another via
transfers... and the Aquarium receives a whopping $6.5 million dollars
in property taxes each year. Since some of the Aquarium money is being used
for the Insectarium, for example, you'd think they could have spared
a few thousand for upkeep of the park!
In addition, though technically not for "operational support", in 2000,
the ANI received almost $6 million in "intergovernmental grants for
capital projects". So you see, the "no public monies" argument is just
a bit disingenuous!
New Management Agreement
The Audubon Commission and Audubon Nature Institute share the same attorney, who is paid by the city
for his services to both the public AC and the private ANI; they share bank accounts; they share office addresses;
they even share stationary, with the CEO and COO of the ANI signing off on Commission business, on Commission
stationary, as interchangeably as on their own. Many citizens have been concerned by this public/private comingling,
but the ethics concerns reached a head with the recent adoption of a new Management Agreement between the two bodies.
The new agreement attempted to make Ron Forman, CEO of the ANI, also the CEO/Secretary of the Commission.
When it was pointed out that this constituted an ethics violation at both the city and state level, the agreement
was amended to state that the CEO of the Institute (Ron Forman) could execute documents on behalf of
the Commission. The new agreement combined four separate 5-year contracts between the AC and ANI, one for each facility,
into one 10-year contract, and was designed to coast the ANI through the term of any new mayor, since
Mayor Morial's three-term city charter change failed at the polls.
An even more critical change came in the language outlining the management duties of the Audubon
Nature Institute. The new contract substitutes "The Institute shall: (1) manage, operate, develop, improve and provide all
services for the Audubon Facilities, including fundraising on behalf of the Commission", for the clause in
the old contract which states: "The Audubon Institute, Inc. shall: (1) manage, operate and provide all services for the
Audubon Park and Zoo, on behalf of the Audubon Park Commission".
The addition of the word "develop" is an unwelcome carte blanche to an organization such as the
Audubon Nature Institute, which is far more interested in property development than it is in nature.
Commission versus Board
Commission members serve four-year terms, Institute Board members serve 6-year terms. Both bodies
have a reputation for merely rubber-stamping Ron Forman's decisions.
|
