Worthington conflict of interest

I served on the CIC for nine years. During my first few years, a member who served on the CIC as a specialist in commercial real estate (a broker) was a great asset to the board as he provided good insight. He resigned from the CIC board when he learned he had an opportunity to bid on a development project in Worthington. It wasn’t a sure thing – and in the end he didn’t end up representing the project that ended up never existing.

My point is, at the mere possibility of a conflict of interest, he decided to resign because of that potential conflict. He still gave advice and feedback as a resident – and it was welcomed.

Now we have a member of the CIC board who serves that same role, but takes every chance to benefit professionally and financially from the advice he gives as an official representative of the city. The CIC advises the city on development policies (e.g. zoning) and projects. They spend city funds to purchase land for the purpose of leveraging land costs for prospective developers.

The Dispatch recently wrote an article about an ethical complaint against Matt Gregory.

I think Matt’s service to the CIC board has been helpful in many ways. However, he started turning the helpfulness into profit by using his position to become the broker for several top-dollar Worthington sites (e.g. High Street Gateway aka Five Guys Building).

The Dispatch article was about the Northeast Corridor Steering Committee on which Matt served. In my opinion, his service was welcome UNTIL he used his influence to include one of his clients in the corridor study – the “Harding property.”

Why does this matter?

The Steering Committee makes visionary recommendations and policy plan suggestions to city council. Council typically approves any steering committee’s recommendations (as they did in this case). Part of the plan is for the city – likely via the CIC – to purchase land for prospective targeted developers to develop specific uses and projects in the corridor.

For example, if Mark Wahlberg Chevy decides to move out of Worthington, they could sell their prime real estate. Matt Gregory (the broker) could represent the seller as the broker. Now let’s say a developer is interested in buying the Chevy parcel but needs the adjacent property to build the project they envision for the site. Matt Gregory (the city official) requests the CIC uses the full force of the city for the CIC to purchase the adjacent property. Then Matt Gregory (the broker) tells the developer he (the city official) can get the adjacent property and encourage the city to give it away for a song.

This is the kind of thing that happens.

Is it borderline illegal? Maybe.

Is it unethical? You tell me.

Does it go against the Ohio Ethics Commission? Probably not since technically CICs and steering committees don’t have to follow those ethics rules.

However, the ethics commission said it best, “Even if it's not illegal, why are you giving people ammunition that they can use against you?'”

Sidenote: Why is the Ethics Commission telling Matt Gregory that they would not investigate this? Either Matt has an inside scoop from someone at Ethics (which ironically is extremely unethical), or he didn’t actually hear from anyone.