Assembly vote to remove Sharp fails

MAT-SU -- After a two-week hiatus, Mat-Su Borough Assembly members once again took up a charge to oust assembly-appointed planning commissioner Lee Sharp from his position on the commission.

At the March 4 meeting, Assembly Member Kelly Lankford Ladere moved to request Sharp's removal from the commission, then immediately postponed that request until the March 18 meeting. Her request came after six borough residents testified about happenings at the March 3 planning commission meeting. At that meeting, testifiers alleged, Sharp continued asking questions about matters pertaining to litigation after being asked repeatedly to stop by the borough attorney.

The borough attorney's office holds that Sharp has a conflict of interest in ongoing North Star Speedway matters, and although the assembly did agree that Anderson should draft a letter encouraging Sharp to recuse himself on matters pertaining to North Star Speedway, there weren't sufficient votes to carry Ladere's motion to remove Sharp from the commission. Such a motion needs five of seven votes to pass and, as the assembly, Tuesday, had only six members, Colver and Kvalheim's votes in opposition to removing Sharp were enough to keep him on as a commissioner. Sharp, who was not at the Tuesday meeting, said he couldn't comment on the events at press time.

"I have to listen to the tapes to see what actually went on," Sharp said.

Sharp, at the commission's previous meeting, had asked that borough staff bring forward information about outstanding code compliance enforcement orders, specifically relating to North Star Speedway. A transcript of the tape shows that borough assistant attorney Elizabeth Friedman at one time during a report of outstanding enforcement orders and pending litigation about North Star Speedway cautioned Code Compliance Officer Ken Hudson not to comment on pending litigation. No further such cautions were made.

At the March 4 meeting, Borough Mayor Tim Anderson vetoed the postponement, effectively forcing assembly members to vote on Sharp's position that evening. Three assembly members walked out without voting on the issue, and the matter was automatically tabled until the March 18 meeting, as the meeting had to adjourn, for lack of a quorum.

When the matter was picked up once again Tuesday, the discussion that took place at the planning commission's March 3 meeting seemed to no longer be the most important issue at hand. The commission had met March 17 and, shortly before the meeting, a letter from Paul Nangle and Associates, attorneys for North Star Speedway, changed the format of the discussion.

The letter, addressed to Sharp and sent on behalf of North Star, asked that Sharp recuse himself for three reasons. Sharp had, the letter charged, "made public comments against the Speedway" and "attended BOAA [Board of Appeals and Adjustments] hearings on the Speedway." The letter also questions whether it was appropriate for Sharp to disclose whether he had, in the past or currently, "provided any person or entity legal advice or consulting pertaining to the racetrack."

At the commission meeting, Borough Attorney Teresa Williams told Sharp he should recuse himself and avoid voting or discussing issues pertaining to North Star Speedway.

"I had a conversation with him … and he indicated he will not step down on any issues pertaining to the racetrack," Williams said.

Ladere again said she felt Sharp should be removed from the commission, and made a motion to that end.

"I feel very, very strongly … that we asked our legal counsel to serve us, and they do, to the capacity we could hope for," Ladere said. "I think it would be in very unusual circumstances that we wouldn't comply."

Assembly Member Jody Simpson agreed with Ladere, calling Sharp's behavior problematic, controversial and disruptive to the planning commission's work.

Assembly Member Jim Colver said he wasn't sure Sharp was at fault.

"It's apparent there's a disagreement between him and yourself," Colver told Williams.

Assembly Member Talis Colberg said he had come to the table with the intent of supporting Sharp, but the new information had brought forward new doubts.

"It's certain to me that Mr. Sharp's intent was to look at issues that were not under appeal," Colberg said of the goings-on at the March 3 meeting. "… This is quite different … it may very well be there's a reason to ask someone to step aside."

Assembly Member Mary Kvalheim asked if Williams knew if Sharp was currently a practicing attorney.

"My understanding is that he's retired, but I don't know the status of his license," Williams said.

Sharp, in an interview Wednesday, said he formally retired in 2000 or 2001 and took retired status with the Alaska Bar Association, and did not renew his license. Sharp said he was not sure of the process to become reinstated as an active member and did not plan to do so.

Simpson asked Williams if she had discussed the matter with the bar counsel for the state. Williams said her assistant had called that office and, using a hypothetical situation, had discussed the matter.

"His answer at that time was yes [it was a conflict]," Williams said. "He called back today and modified his answer."

Williams was apparently referring to Steven Van Goor, who provides informal advice on ethics for the Alaska Bar Association. The association, according to information on its Web site, serves under the auspices of the Alaska Supreme Court and oversees admission to the bar, as well as disciplinary actions to its members, among other duties.

Sharp said he was confused as to why the association had been called in the first place. The borough attorneys, he said, were saying that Sharp had a conflict of interest, but the association only deals with conflicts pertaining to the attorneys' professional organization, not with municipalities.

"This was a little puzzling to me, because it's our ordinance which tells us when it's a conflict of interest," Sharp said. "At one point, I asked what the bar counsel had to do with this."

Borough code outlines several instances that could be called conflicts of interest. Municipal officers can not use their official position for personal gain or to receive unwarranted treatment from anyone. They may not take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the municipal officer has a personal or financial interest; they may not attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate; they may not appear on behalf of a private or public interest before any borough agency, board, commission or committee, or represent a private or public interest of the borough to which the borough is a party.

A later section of code states that a municipal officer shall excuse himself on any matter or proceeding … when the matter or proceeding involves any person who is, or has been, a client of the officer or the officer's firm or partnership within the 12-month period immediately preceding the date of the action.

Williams said Sharp's alleged conflict stems from 1998-1999, when he represented Michelle Church in Alaska Superior Court over matters pertaining to North Star Speedway. The allegation, Sharp said, left him wondering how it would have crossed the line in either borough code or with the Alaska Bar Association's rules governing professional behavior.

"Really, it doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether you have a substantive financial interest," Sharp said. "[According to the bar association,] if you represent a client in a matter in private practice, you may not take action on the matter when it comes before you in public office. When I explained all the facts to Mr. Van Goor, he concluded that there wouldn't be a conflict."

Sharp explained that the potential for conflict had been resolved because the matter he represented Church in had been decided. That issue, Sharp said, was whether North Star was entitled to a non-conforming use permit.

"The issue was the non-conforming use itself," Sharp said. "That's no longer a live issue -- it's [the non-conforming use permit has] been issued. This legislation simply affects how a racetrack can modify its permit. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the permit."

At the March 17 meeting, a matter Sharp had brought to the table at the March 3 meeting was up for public hearing -- a revision of the non-conforming use modification process.

This is the third time the revision has been before the commission. It was introduced at the commission's Feb. 17 meeting, and the first public hearing was scheduled for March 3. At that meeting, Friedman expressed some reservations about the ordinance, so the ordinance was postponed to the March 17 meeting.

"In the meantime, I drafted some changes to the amendment," Sharp said, with the intent of clearing up some of Friedman's concerns.

The proposed changes, he said, were sent out to some commission members via e-mail on March 14, and others did not receive them until the meeting. Sharp said it was his intent to request a further postponement to allow commissioners a chance to review the amendments. The matter is scheduled to come back before the commission at its next meeting.

And, apparently, Sharp will be there as well.