Trying to Make Sense of the Smith Baker and a Smith Baker-Motion-Maker
“Recap” is misleading. In truth, I watched last night’s meeting for one reason – to see how the following motions would play out:
C. Yem – Req. City Mgr. have the appropriate department provide the City Council on Smith Baker’s containment, remediation and demolition costs along with timeline
C. Yem – Req. City Mgr. have the appropriate department provide the City Council with any plan to save historical artifacts or retaining walls of the Smith Baker Center.
Alas, nothing happened. The motions were withdrawn. Apparently, at the last minute – as at least one citizen came out in the cold to speak. To understand my interest, we need to go back to March 15, 2024 when another Councilor Yem/Smith Baker motion was published on the agenda:
C. Yem – Req. City Mgr. have the appropriate department provide a structural engineer report on the Smith Baker Center to the Council.
Four days later, at the Council Meeting of March 19, 2024 Councilor Yem implored the city to invest in the report. The rest of the council agreed and the City hired an engineering firm at a cost of about $40,000. What I (and likely others), didn’t know at the time, is that March 15, 2024 was also the day when something called the Smith Baker Preservation Corporation (“SBPC”) was organized in the Commonwealth. As per their Articles of Organization, the SBPC was organized “for the purpose of historic preservation, and later for the management of a performing arts venue.”
Of note, the Vice President of the SBPC was and is Councilor Paul Ratha Yem.
This brings us to last week’s meeting – the council received a copy of the Smith Baker Structural Assessment. The report, though very well done, confirmed what we either knew or assumed to be true – the building is a mess, and likely a dangerous mess. During councilor comments, Councilor Yem noted that the city was in possession of a troubled piece of real estate. Councilor Yem stated that the city “did not have to take on the task of renovating the Smith Baker Center.” Rather, he spoke in glowing terms about “a group” “who calls itself the Smith Baker Preservation Corp” that wants to purchase the building. Later, he stated that the city had a “unique opportunity to work with” this corporation and that the city should “give” it to the corporation, as the city has “enough to deal with.” At no point, on March 19, 2024 or on January 14 of 2025 did Councilor Yem reveal that HE’S THE VICE [freaking] PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION that seeks to take possession of the property!
As this was playing out in real time, I had no idea either. Councilor Gitschier let the cat out of the bag and asked City Solicitor Corey Williams whether Councilor Yem should recuse himself. Solicitor Williams confirmed that, if true, the Councilor should recuse himself. Councilor Yem ultimately recused himself from the vote to tear the building down.
The state’s conflict of interest laws contemplate these exact situations:
A municipal employee who is an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee of a business organization may not participate in matters affecting the financial interest of that person or organization.
Further:
Participation includes not only voting on a matter, but also formal and informal lobbying of colleagues, reviewing, discussing, giving advice and/or making recommendations on particular matters. Therefore, a municipal employee will be deemed to have participated in a particular matter if he discusses the matter, even if he abstains from the vote of the board.
In light of the above, I nearly spit out the coffee I wasn’t even drinking when I figured out what Councilor Gitschier was talking about. I did the same last Friday when I saw the two motions that kicked off this blog. I have no reason to believe that Councilor Yem’s motivations are anything but noble. But (A) how could he not know this doesn’t quite look right, (B) why didn’t he just disclose his interest in the SBPC? and (C) why is he still filing Smith Baker motions?
As per Mayor Rourke, there was some suggestion that the motions would be filed next week. Something to keep an eye one.
