Strong opinions are found on either side of the question of whether Doug Kuepers has a conflict of interest in his dual roles as a member of the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport Commission and president of Kuepers Inc. Architects and Builders.
Kuepers’ firm has been hired as the airport’s on-site manager by SEH Inc. SEH Inc. is the firm the airport commission hired as the consulting engineer on the project.
We’ll be interested in Brainerd City Attorney Tom Fitzpatrick’s opinion, which is expected to be ready by May 2. The longtime city attorney has already contacted the state attorney general’s office and the League of Minnesota Cities in his efforts to determine the correct answer.
One point which is clear to us is that there’s a crying need for the airport commission and any other governing board to have a formal, written conflict of interest policy for members. We know certain nonprofit boards have such policies and some even require members to sign a statement stating any potential conflicts they might have. Transparency should be a top priority for councils, county boards and commissions. We’d even suggest that when a panel member abstains because of a conflict of interest that the member state the reason for the abstention and that it be noted in the minutes.
Adopting a formal conflict of interest policy would be a helpful guide for new members . It would give them a policy to point to if they were ever questioned about why they made a certain vote. Also, it could be revised as new situations came up.
It’s impossible, particularly in a small town, to find a knowledgeable, community-oriented person to serve on a board who has absolutely no potential for conflict of interest. Still, the adoption of a conflict of interest policy can go a long way toward avoiding problematic situations such as the one the airport commission and the city council are wrestling with now.
Comments (3)
Add commentLet’s see now… January 2010:
Let’s see now…
January 2010: Kuepers voted for Independent Fee Review of SEH’s proposal for plans and specs of the current remodel.
Feb 2010: Kuepers voted to receive IFR and accept SEH’s bid of $541,500 for plans and specs.
March 2010: Kuepers reviewed the RFQ’s received and recommended SEH’s RFQ for SEH to remain as the Airport Commission’s CIP Consulting Engineering firm for 5 years in accordance with the FAA rules.
May 2010: It was agreed that the construction management firm should be separate from the firm that was awarded the project. SEH would solicit proposals from several firms.
(This is the on-site management position the Airport Commission agreed SEH should seek out and SEH hired Kuepers Construction.)
In a letter from Joel Dresel, Sr. Principal (SEH), to Airport Commission Chair Pfingsten, Dresel indicated the time period SEH accepted proposals for the on-site project manager was from April 8, 2010, to May 28, 2010.
SEH was accepting proposals for the on-site project manager prior to the Airport Commission agreeing to the position.
October 2010: Kuepers agreed to the 5 year CIP Capital Improvement Project plan…these plans will require engineering services and SEH was accepted as the 5 year CIP Consulting Engineer recommended by Kuepers in March.
Kuepers voted to approve the Federal Grant of $7.23 million. These dollars will pay SEH, which in turn pay Kuepers.
In a letter from Joel Dresel, Sr. Principal (SEH), to Airport Commission Chair Pfingsten, Dresel indicated Kuepers was hired by SEH on October 1, 2010. Kuepers voted to accept the grant on 10/05/10…subsequent to his being hired by SEH.
After all this…and there’s still Strong opinions found on either side of the question of whether Doug Kuepers has a conflict of interest in his dual roles as a member of the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport Commission and president of Kuepers Inc?
Why haven’t you offered your opinion on this "conflict of interest" issue Brainerd Dispatch?
Just haven't got what it takes...do you.
If you try hard enough, I guess you can find justification with any obvious conflict of interest, made especially easier if you wait for Attorney Fitzpatrick’s opinion.
Jeff Czeczok
wow dispatch
way to go-get way behind on an issue then scramble to get in front-you are as guilty as the moroon city council!
Equates to corruption complicity.
{“We’ll be interested in Brainerd City Attorney Tom Fitzpatrick’s opinion, which is expected to be ready by May 2. The longtime city attorney has already contacted the state attorney general’s office and the League of Minnesota Cities in his efforts to determine the correct answer.”}
Really? You’re interested in the City Attorney’s opinion?
Fitzpatrick first learned of concerns on this issue publicly on April 4th. The City Council President stated it “will “ be on the April 18th agenda.
Letters from Olson and Goedker dated March 31st and April 7th, requested him to look into the issue and indicated he was doing just that.
Fitzpatrick informed the Council on Monday, April 18th during the Council meeting…as reported by the Dispatch:
{“Fitzpatrick said the matter was directed to him last Wednesday and his approach, as it has been with all questions that come before him, is to thoroughly research the background.”}
Fitzpatrick falsely stated when he received the request to “look into the issue” and you are indicating your willingness to consider his opinion?
If Fitzpatrick would simply follow his own advice, this would’ve been settled Monday night.
The advice he’s provided to the Council in the past went like this:
“To avoid conflict of interest, avoid anything resembling a conflict of interest.”
This has been stated as a reminder at least twice since April 4th, and I’ve yet to read it in this newspaper.
Right now, Fitzpatrick’s efforts are focused on locating anything that will afford him an opinion allowing this conflict to continue.
Approving the continuing conflict, equates to corruption complicity.
JVCzeczok