• The Bigger Picture...
• More about money...
• Forman Salary Mystery Continues...
• BZA Appeal...
• A Brickbat! For us? What about them?

THE BIGGER PICTURE...

A local reporter referred to us recently as "an organization devoted to criticizing practically everything done by the Audubon Commission and Audubon Nature Institute". We agree that it often looks that way. Unfortunately, someone's got to do it.

Watchdogging organizations like the AC/ANI is not our "job". We are not social psychologists. We are not public policy wonks. We are not investigative journalists, or even reporters. We are merely a group of reasonably intelligent people who found ourselves repeatedly asking: "How is it possible that they keep getting away with this stuff"? And not really getting any answers.

We recognize that high admission fees, facility rentals, and receipts from restaurants and shops offer a way to pay for less lucrative ANI functions, like the Species Survival Center and maintenance of Audubon Park. But we continue to insist that the degree to which the AC/ANI embraces commercial endeavors, the type and location of the commercial endeavors they develop, and the uses to which they put what is essentially "our" money, is a legitimate arena for public scrutiny and debate, and one which must be continued and safegaurded.

In the non-profit sector, questions often arise about highly compensated CEO's and for-profit commercial activities when the public perception of the institution is that it has lost focus on its mission and/or is deviating from the purposes for which it was founded. The AC/ANI's "mission" has been a remarkably fluid concept over the past 25 years. That is part of the problem. Some people believe that the ANI's mission is to run countless nature facilities that people enjoy visiting. Others believe their mission is to generate a lot of revenue. There are even those that believe their primary mission should be their original one, to manage and maintain Audubon Park and Zoo. It is doubtful that "running an executive golf course" would ever have been considered, by anyone, to be part of the "mission" of the Audubon Nature Institute. Certainly no one could have anticipated in 1975 what the AC/ANI has become today-- nor the innumerable disputes, controversies and lawsuits their activities would engender along the way.

Throughout the 1990's, we all heard about planned "renovations" to the golf course. The figures associated with these plans were always $1.5 to $2 million dollars. We all thought we knew what they intended. We were all so wrong. By the time it was revealed that the plans had quietly morphed into the current $6 million dollar deconstruction, reconstruction and new construction, it was too late. We never, ever want this to happen again.

MORE ABOUT MONEY...

In his Times-Picayune article about Ron Forman's salary on 9-2-02, Bruce Eggler wrote: "Although the Commission gets some money from the city-- primarily a 3.8-mill property tax that voters approved in 1986 to build the aquarium-- the bulk of the money for Forman's and all other Audubon employees' salaries comes from the institute's self-generated revenue, including memberships in the zoo and aquarium, admissions, gift shop sales, grants and other gifts, Audubon Tea Room rentals and revenue from the park's golf course."

This statement certainly glosses over the facts just a bit. For one thing, "some money" amounts to between $6 and $7 million dollars per year in property taxes, which represents a not-quite-so-insignificant portion of the ANI's total annual income in the $21 million dollar range! In addition, various other sums (such as the salary for the AC/ANI's attorney, for example) are paid out of city funds, not the ANI's. Finally, it completely ignores the fact that their so-called "self-generated revenue" comes only through the front-end receipt of these public monies and the free use of very valuable city properties, for which the city receives not one dime in rent or user fees. With this kind of financial aid, who wouldn't succeed?

Mr Eggler then goes on to reaffirm that yes, Ron Forman is one of the highest paid non-profit CEO's in the city, possibly even the country. Perhaps high executive salaries at the ANI IS the best use of our tax dollars and local families' donations to the zoo and aquarium. But shouldn't at least one of the by-products of the city owning all these facilities be that they provide SOME financial benefit to the city? Other city agencies with comfortable incomes from city-owned properties, such as the French Market Corporation, have shared their wealth with the city in the past.

In the early 1990's, then city councilman Joseph Giarrusso made some of these same suggestions. He believed that the Institute's enabling legislation "permitted it to use its funds for general city purposes after the needs of the aquarium were met", which they never did. In a commentary dated 9-17-91, the Gambit referred to the issue as "an ongoing feud between City Councilman Joe Giarrusso and the Audubon Institute". Ron Forman claimed that "taxpayers in 1988 voted to dedicate millage proceeds specifically to the Aquarium and related projects, and that to do anything else with the money [such as return some to the city] would be a violation of the public trust-- and possibly of questionable legality". Of course, that didn't prevent the ANI from turning around and funneling that extra money into development of the completely unrelated Insectarium (into which the "plant conservatory with a few insect exhibits" had mysteriously been transformed), an action that did trigger a lawsuit.

We have all come to expect changes in the long-term status quo under our new mayor, and we believe that this is one area that deserves a closer look. Perhaps the ANI should be forced to provide some regular financial support to struggling city agencies whose functions mirror their own, such as Parks and Parkways, the LASPCA, and NORD, or even restore the sorely missed Wild Bird Rehabilitation Center. Not take them over, mind you, as they did with the Nature Center, just provide some regular financial assistance. If they could spare $3000 a year in the mid-90's in dues to the controversial greenwashing lobbying group, the National Wetlands Coalition, they could certainly spare a few bucks for our city's fellow "nature" agencies.

FORMAN SALARY MYSTERY CONTINUES...

"But Forman said his 2000 figure is misleading because the total included a large one-time payment [of $292,000] to cover 30 years of accumulated annual leave and sick leave he was entitled to but had not used." [T-P, 9-2-02]

Hmmm. Even accepting for the moment that Ron Forman didn't take vacations and sick days in 30 years, some of us can still manage simple math, so certain elements of Ron Forman's salary equation still leave us confused and sceptical...

On October 10, 1995, Stewart Yerton wrote an article on Ron Forman and the Audubon Institute for the Times-Picayune entitled "Force of Nature". It was an excellent article. It also included the following paragraph regarding Ron Forman's salary: "And he [Ron Forman] earns a handsome living. In 1993, according to Audubon's tax return, Forman received a package worth $252,000. Audubon spokesman Steve Schulkens said this included a $160,000 salary and $90,000 for Forman's auto allowance, gasoline, insurance, an annuity and compensation for vacation time not taken. That doesn't count an extra $11,000 he received in contributions to an employee benefit plan and a $4,400 expense account [presumably in addition to car expenses], the tax return said." So in 1993, his $90,000 in "benefits" INCLUDED unused vacation.

Fast forward seven years to the year 2000, in which Ron Forman claims that his base salary was $260,000, plus $120,000 in benefits such as "retirement and life insurance plans" [total $380,000]. He also received $10,916 in contributions to an employee benefit plan and a $7,900 expense account. And, we've now been told, was paid $292,000 for 30 years of unused vacation time, which we're supposed to assume does NOT include the money he was already paid for that item in 1993? We're supposed to accept that the steady increases in compensation each year that got Ron Forman's "salary" from $252,000 in 1993 (that included compensation for vacation time not taken) to $311,357 in 1997, $359,899 in 1998, $361,000 in 1999, and supposedly $380,000 in 2000-- did NOT include further compensation for vacation time not taken?

Are you confused yet?

It's possible that 1993 was the only year out of the past 30 that Ron Forman received money for unused vacation time as part of his compensation of $250,000 that was reported to the IRS. But based on the figures reported in subsequent years by the Audubon Institute, he continued to receive even more substantial payments for ambiguous "benefits" as part of his regular compensation. Short of full disclosure on the part of the Audubon Institute, we have no way of determining what these payments were actually for, and whether some of it continued to be compensation for unused leave in any of these years. Common sense dictates, however, that if "payment for unused leave" becomes a regular part of someone's yearly compensation, then whatever anyone chooses to call it, and no matter how high or low the figure, you might as well just call it a salary increase.

And it doesn't take an investigative journalist to figure this out.

BZA APPEAL OF CLUBHOUSE PERMIT

On September 9, 2002, the Board of Zoning Adjustments heard arguments for and against the granting of a building permit for a new golf clubhouse in Audubon Park. Save Audubon Park challenged the proposed clubhouse, claiming that the large commercial kitchen and dining areas included in the plans are a restaurant and in violation of zoning regulations. In the appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, Save Audubon Park quoted a zoning ordinance stating that, in park districts, restaurants are allowed "within boundaries of a zoo only." The proposed 8000 square foot clubhouse and its accessory 4000 square foot cart storage building are scheduled to be built off Magazine Street near the bandstand.

Whether or not you care about a restaurant in the park, or even the zoning being violated to get it there, we have always questioned why the new golf course, with the dubious distinction of being the shortest and lowest-par golf course in the entire state, nonetheless needs this huge building, which is 4500 square feet LARGER than clubhouses deemed adequate for the members of the state's new Audubon Golf Trail. If they eliminated the restaurant portion, the building could be reduced by half or more, thus sparing more precious green space for the park.

Tut Kinney, attorney for the AC/ANI, claims that the food service will account for only 9% of the "clubhouse's total revenue", and that "a business cannot be classified as a restaurant unless at least 50% of its revenue comes from food operations". We have another math problem here, because in fact, the daily food service, not counting extra catered functions, is expected to account for 44% of the income of the clubhouse building, and 9% of the TOTAL golf course operation. Add in private rentals, and if that doesn't kick the food service revenue to over 50% of the building's total income, heads will probably roll in the ANI's catering department!

The percentage of money generated by using the building as a rental facility for weddings and private parties was obviously not included in their figures. We suggest that the restaurant portion of the building will have 100% of its income from food service and party rentals, and the clubhouse portion will have 100% from the pro shop and green fees. If you do accept the ANI argument, then a rooming house or guesthouse, which is not allowed to have a restaurant, could have "food service" identical to a restaurant, but so long as the food service didn't generate over 50% of the total combined income of the building AND operation, it would be permitted. Clearly not the result intended by the "50%" law.

After both sides made their presentations to the BZA, the first motion was to uphold the permit. It failed for lack of a second. The next motion was to uphold the permit, but with provisos, which passed unanimously. The exact language in the decision reads:

"The decision is subject to Audubon Zoo adhering to the following provisos:

(1) (Audubon Zoo) shall assure that the facility is open to the general public.

(2) (Audubon Zoo) shall make every effort to assure that disturbances to the neighborhood are minimized.

(3) (Audubon Zoo) shall operate the clubhouse as a meeting facility and not operate as a full scale restaurant."

A BRICKBAT! FOR US? HEY, WHAT ABOUT THEM?!!

"Ironic" is the primary word that comes to mind when noting that the single solitary comment ever uttered by the Gambit Weekly regarding this entire year-long controversy over the Audubon golf course redevelopment was to bestow SaveAudubonPark.org with a brickbat for "making misleading statements" about Ron Forman's salary. We maintain that (a) SaveAudubonPark.org is NOT the organization known for making misleading statements about money in this controversy, and (b) perhaps the Gambit should consider applying a journalistic brickbat to its own failure to investigate long-term patterns of controversial behavior at the ANI. Even more ironic is that this item is printed in the same issue as "Media Black-out: Project Censored presents its annual report on the big stories ignored or overlooked by the mainstream media".