MICA has too many unknowns

It is time that the city offer full, honest disclosure regarding MICA. There remain too many unanswered contradictions.

MICA maintains that the project will be built without expense to the city yet lists a $2 million contribution from the city in its budget proposal. Chip Corder, Noel Treat, and Jane Brahm, honorable people all, profess no knowledge of such a commitment. Mr. Corder further states that the city simply does not have the $2 million. John G. Hill states in a letter that there is no “official” commitment, implying that an undisclosed, unofficial commitment does exist.

Jim Kelly of 4Culture states “to not include a modest level of commitment from Mercer Island would diminish the credibility with other Capital Funders.” It is a strange concept to establish credibility by purposeful misrepresentation.

MICA lists several corporate donors in its representation to 4Culture. A simple phone call to the global philanthropy department of a corporation for which MICA listed a very specific contribution amount reveals that there has been no MICA application for funds or donation pledged. The person further states “it is well known that we do not contribute to local arts projects.” Such misleading listing of potential contributors on the part of MICA to attract other donors is a clear violation of the Association of Fundraising Professionals code of ethics. The city would become a party to unethical conduct should it precipitously sign a lease requested by MICA to assist fundraising.

In its budget, MICA lists the city of Mercer Island as a potential source of operating funds. Based upon the inaccurate listing of potential capital donors, one must assume that MICA’s projected revenue forecasts are equally misleading and would create another potential drain on city funds. This is particularly disturbing given the fact that the proposed lease, as written, actually rewards MICA if it defaults. When asked by City Council what protection the city had from such a default, the answer from Mr. Hill was “my good faith.” Yipes!

The city has maintained that permitting and wetlands mitigation would be the responsibility of MICA.  However, the Washington State Department of Ecology has clearly stated as recently as Dec. 29 that since the project as proposed is on city property, the mitigation responsibility rests with Mercer Island. Experts state that such mitigation, if possible, would be extremely expensive.

Carv Zwingle