County Commissioner Ed Peterson wrote me a second email (see unedited text). Below is my complete response. I ask that the Board correct four specific statements about the soccer proposal which I consider false and to formally address four ethical Standards which I believe government officials might have violated.

I ask that the corrected information be immediately and widely disseminated to help voters in their decision how to vote on Nov 7 on the soccer bond proposal.

Mr. Peterson's text is in blue.

Dear Commissioner Peterson,

Thank you for replying to my email. I have copied the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and I request of the Board that it quickly confirm if the following statements are false and, if they are false, to widely publicize that fact and provide accurate information. These statements are all by Johnson County government officials. Dissemination of false information, and also not correcting it, even if due to negligence, is a violation of the Johnson County Code of Ethics.

The false information is:

1. "In order to meet national tournament requirements, at least 20 fields must be located on the same site.".

   US Youth Soccer National Tournament requirements are 6 fields, 2 practice areas, then 2 fields for every region, all at the same site. If all 4 regions participated at the same time, this would be 16 fields. Cownie Soccer Park, in Des Moines, Iowa, just held US Youth Soccer Nationals with 12 fields. Regional Tournaments require 22 fields, but they do not have to be at the same site. Whatever other reasons JCPRD might have had for co-locating 24 fields, it was not a requirement.

   The JCPRD website continues to post the false information in its FAQ 14.

2. "The land in question is already zoned for mixed-use and could potentially result in a dense development that would include high-rise offices buildings and condominiums."

   All of the land is zoned Rural (RURJ). All of the land for the soccer fields is Master Planned residential or park. Of the 294 acres for the soccer park, the stadium, and the commercial, only 45 are Master Planned for Mixed Use - 234 acres are residential, 9 acres are park, and 6 acres are highway right of way.

   The false information was stated by Mr. James Azeltine, JCPRD Secretary, in a Letter To Editor published in the Kansas City Star - Blue Valley/Leawood NeighborhoodNews October 21.

3. "...to be able to accommodate the growing needs of approximately 46,000 youth between the ages of 4 and 18 who already enjoy the benefits of soccer in Johnson County, a minimum of 20 fields must be constructed as soon as possible."

   This is the statement originally published on the JCPRD website and widely publicized by the JCPRD. The City of Overland Park continues to rely on this original statement. It is posted on their website as of Oct 29. Mr. Meadors told NeighborhoodNet the number 46,000 youth should be dropped by 40%, but said additional youth might be at soccer camps. The JCPRD Soccer Q&A page on its website now says "thousands" and prior to that I believe had dropped it to "tens of thousands". On Friday evening, October 27 on KCPT television Commissioner Lindstrom stated in a public forum as a County Commissioner that there were "tens of thousands", which would mean at least 20,000 (but would also conform to the false 46,000 citizens had earlier heard from JCPRD).

   According to Kansas Dept of Education, total school enrollment for Johnson County, 2005-2006 was 93,316 Kindergarten through high school, public and nonpublic schools. I question the newest estimate of over 20,000, because I doubt that more than 20% are playing on soccer fields in any given year.

   Regardless, the statement that there were 46,000 was false and never publicly stated to be false, other than in an email to NeighborhoodNet in which Mr Meadors denies that 46,000 is wrong, even as he states the number should be dropped by 40%.

4. "the Olathe site featured 62 acres"

   This is a quote from the Kansas City Star which attributes this information to Mr. Meadors. Tim McKee, vice president for economic development at the Olathe Chamber of Commerce, says 148 acres were available.

I believe Mr. Michael Meadors, Director Of Johnson County Park and Recreation Division and Mr. James Azeltine, JCPRD Secretary, have made these false statements to the public which have a material bearing on whether a Johnson County citizen would decide to vote for or against the soccer bond proposal. They have been widely publicized. The gentlemen may have made these statements through negligence. When the statements were shown to be false, neither they nor others in the County government told the public that the statements had been false. This, if true, even if by negligence, violates Ethics Standard 901.

Matter is Urgent

Citizens have begun voting on the soccer bond issue and should be informed of the accurate information. Each of these false statements could lead a citizen to believe this proposal was the best available option. Knowing they are false might lead to the conclusion this entire proposal should be rejected until a proper study can be done.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose this bond issue, you and the Board have a responsibility, and are required by the Code of Ethics, not to knowingly mislead the public or allow another government official to do so.

More important than that, telling the truth is the right thing to do.

Suggested Remedy

I believe a simple one page statement that these statements were wrong and providing the correct information would be sufficient if endorsed by the Board and sent to each of the major media serving Johnson County. Simply telling me, with my small website and limited audience, does not reasonably publicize it, nor does simply changing a page on the JCPRD website. Waiting until after Nov 7 also would not address the issue. Voters need to know the accurate answers. This should have already been done. I will be happy to provide information and sources to anyone looking into this.

Other Ethics Code Issues Not Addressed

Commissioner Peterson, after consideration of your email, I believe the Johnson County Code Of Ethics may have been violated in other ways than just those above, as I stated in my previous email. I hereby ask the Chair to have Johnson County government formally address each of my Ethics complaints described in my previous email. Below I have provided a more detailed reply to each of your points in your most recent email.

I ask you and the Chair to tell me if you intend to pursue my two requests: to correct the listed information publicly and to formally consider my concerns about violation of the Code of Ethics.

I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to my questions.

I am publishing this email on www.nbrhd.net, where you can also find extensive additional documentation.

Sincerely,
Bob Phillips

Peterson, Ed, BOC wrote:

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Before addressing the details of your last correspondence, I would like to ask your readers to be sure to consider the overall positive impact the youth soccer complex will have upon Johnson County and the surrounding neighborhoods. The facilities will be first class. The economic benefits of the complex will be substantial. While you and others disagree with some of the details such as the current zoning category for the property, the reality is that this facility is an investment that will produce great benefits for our community.

We do not agree on this, but I appreciate that people have differing points of view. I am not clear how you came to this point of view, unless you have more, and more accurate, information than the County has provided to me and the public.

I am pleased to support it and I am sorry that you choose to oppose it by denigrating public employees.

Raising an issue of ethics and providing the reason for doing so does not denigrate an employee in my opinion. That's one reason I was careful to state that I did not believe Commissioner Lindstrom's support of this soccer proposal had anything to do with his financial interests.

However, I understand you might think raising an ethics issue is denigrating an employee, and so ask you whether, if you felt the choice were between denigrating an employee or ignoring a possible violation of the code of ethics, you would choose to ignore the possible violation. This is a serious question that each individual has to consider. And it can be a difficult one. Courses in Ethics address it. I appreciate your dilemma.

In your reply to my request for a specific statement of the nature of Commissioner Lindstrom's alleged conflict of interest you state that you do not believe Commissioner Lindstrom has made one dime from his involvement in the youth soccer complex issue. You also state that you are not accusing Commissioner Lindstrom of any impropriety.

Unless the facts were confirmed and it were determined that the Code of Ethics had been violated, if they were, it would be inappropriate to accuse someone of impropriety, which is why I was careful not to do so. I do believe there is a reasonable basis for asking for an official with experience in Ethics violations to investigate the issues I have raised.

As I re-read your statements and mine, I notice that you focus on the phrase "conflict of interest", whereas I focus on what the Code of Ethics states and how I think individual statements may be getting violated. To this end, in the last email I took each statement of the Code of Ethics and identified specifically what part of it I was concerned about.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to review each of the statements of Code Of Ethics which I identified and why I thought it raised an issue. Then think through why you do not believe that specific instance is an issue. It might help both of us better understand the issues.

You further state that you do not believe Commissioner Lindstrom expects to earn any income in the future from the youth soccer complex initiative.

While these statements make clear that you do not have any basis for your allegation of conflict of interest and that you are not making any accusation of a conflict of interest,

It was at this point in your email that I realized part of our misunderstanding may be that you are focused primarily on the phrase "conflict of interest", while I am focused on specific statements of the Code of Ethics.

I nevertheless have looked into the connection between Mr. Lindstrom's Burger King interest and this soccer initiative and I can find no indication of impropriety.

Thank you for looking into Mr. Lindstrom's Burger King interest. I respect your opinion that after your investigation you have decided there is no indication of impropriety. You have not addressed my specific concerns, which is why I have asked the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners to initiate a formal review by someone who is unbiased, experienced in such inquiries, and responsible for doing them.

Mr. Lindstrom's holdings are detailed in his financial disclosure statement. He has made no secret of these interests. He has made the disclosures required by law. As you note in your email, the connection between youth soccer and Burger King occurs at the national level and Commissioner Lindstrom has no involvement with that.

Please provide the source of information for your statement that Commissioner Lindstrom has had no involvement with the connection between Burger King, for which he is a franchisee with 4 stores, and the MLS and Youth Soccer. I did not note it in my email. In his financial disclosure statements, did he note the ties between Burger King, the US Youth Soccer Association, and Major League Soccer to which the Wizards soccer team belongs?

You also draw a connection between MLS and Burger King through an agreement that does not yet exist according to your email. I submit that an agreement not yet in existence and this remote is pure speculation and not a basis for concern and certainly should not be the basis for a public accusation of improper conduct.

My email stated:

Burger King is not only the "official quick-serve restaurant partner" to US Youth Soccer Association, to which most of our area kids clubs belong, but it is also a "corporate partner" of Major League Soccer (MLS) to which the Wizards soccer team belongs. This was not speculation.

You recite several provisions of the ethical codes of Johnson County.

The reason I cited them was for clarity, so we would all be working from the same page. It is also why I think it would be valuable for you to review each one I indicated and the issue I raised.

One of your concerns is that Commissioner Lindstrom's Burger King holdings prevent or interfere with his oversight responsibilities, particularly controlling the accuracy of information. I could find no evidence that Burger King or any other financial interest of Commissioner Lindstrom played a role in the selection of information to be presented. So if mistakes were made, they were just that: mistakes.

As I hope I made clear at the beginning of this email, these are not simply mistakes. They are false information disseminated widely by government officials with the corrections, if made at all, not disseminated widely. The mistakes I have noted all would support passage of this proposal and the mistakes are made by government officials who advocate passage of the proposal. As far as I can tell, those responsible for oversight have done essentially nothing to correct the problem. If true, this violates Statement 901 of the Code of Ethics.

You would have Commissioner Lindstrom make additional disclosures or disclaimers to further alert the public. One has to question what additional statements should be made. You know about his Burger King holdings; you have investigated them and you conclude that Commissioner Lindstrom has done nothing improper.

I do not see any basis to your claims that Commissioner Lindstrom has a conflict of interest or that he has engaged in improper conduct.

You have admitted that he has done nothing improper. I trust this will put an end to these allegations

I appreciate that you have reached this conclusion. Since you have not yet addressed the concerns I raised with each of the 4 statements of the Code of Ethics I detailed in the last email, I trust you can appreciate that I do not accept your dismissal of these concerns.

and that from this point forward you can devote your efforts to defeat this measure to the merits of the issue.

I continue to attempt to defeat this measure based on its merits. Getting our government officials to correct false statements about its merits and widely disseminate the corrections is one of these efforts. One avenue I am using is to remind our government officials that their Code of Ethics states:

"STANDARD 901: AT ALL TIMES DISPLAY THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR HER DUTIES AND NEVER KNOWINGLY NOR NEGLIGENTLY MISLEAD OR ALLOW OTHERS TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...."

I would appreciate it if you would help in this matter as I requested at the start of this email.

Again, thank you for taking the time to address these issues as best you can.

Sincerely,
Bob Phillips

Ed Peterson