VPAF Financial Statements Face Increase Scrutiny

That is the headline that should have appeared above the story on the growing flap over VPAF financial disclosures, or rather the lack thereof. Now most people know that the Times-Dispatch is solidly in the VPAF camp. We know this because of the little tag at the end of all stories regarding the VPAF:

"J. Stewart Bryan, chairman of Media General Inc. and the former publisher of The Times-Dispatch, is a member of the foundation's board and is active in its fundraising."

Fair enough. But is necessary to thoroughly misrepresent what it is that is actually being reported? The T-D Headline for this story reads:

Wilder criticizes arts group
Says financial report to city lacking, vows no more city funds"

David Ress then goes on, at great length, to present this as another round of Wilder instigated confrontation with Brad Armstrong and the VPAF. There is a lot of Wilder said this and Armstrong said that, and a general rehashing of the conflict before Ress gets around to mentioning what this story really is about. The release of VPAF financial statements by Save Richmond that seriously challenge the credibility of previous VPAF statements regarding its finances and cast doubt on the financial viability of the Performing Arts Center. In fact, Ress doesn't get around to mentioning this until paragraph 23 by my count.

"Wilder said he thinks the foundation is holding out on him, especially after arts-center critics released financial documents the foundation provided to state officials last month. Those bank and brokerage account statements are meant to support the foundation's bid for some of the $8.5 million of matching funds the state has promised."

Guess what? The statements released to the state don't match the reports provided to the city. Nor do they support the public statements Brad Armstrong.

As with most stories involving the VPAF and Mayor Wilder, there are some real gems.

"Bank accounts will go up and down month by month, but if we had $10 million in the bank I wouldn't feel any more confident than I do now in our pledges."

That's good to hear, but I imagine the people paying higher meal taxes might feel better about VPAF pledges if there were $10 million in the bank.

"His stance surprised City Councilman William J. Pantele, who sits on the foundation's board as a representative of the city. Pantele was appointed to that post as part of the council's agreement to extend a fundraising deadline for the foundation from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2006. Wilder opposed that move."

"I think it is premature" to talk about cutting the foundation off, Pantele said. "They're in the middle of a capital campaign . . . there seems to be some fundraising momentum."

Actually, it is time to start talking about cutting the foundation off. It's past time. And hasn't Pantele figured out that he and the rest of council will never be able to anticipate the Mayor?

It's comforting that this all mightbe coming to a head. Save Richmond isn't going to go away and the increased focus on this fiasco will make it impossible for the Times-Dispatch to whitewash this any longer. Though I suspect they will try. But SR isn't going to let that slide:

"Here’s a dose of reality for Cuthrell: We will be submitting FOIA requests and posting a true picture of VAPAF’s finances every single time the foundation goes to the Commonwealth for matching funds. "

In case the VPAF hasn't figured it out yet, their days of operating in the shadows as a quasi-private organization are over. If there is any real commitment to the lofty goals of the VPAF, then the only way forward is transparency. Full-disclosure is the tool that Brad Armstrong and the VPAF Board will have to use to build public support for this venture and to rebuild a workable relationship with the city. It’s the only tool they have to do that. But they don't have it in them. Besides, if the VPAF were to decide to deal with this mess, then the next step will be a restructuring of the organization. And the first resignation the Board should seek, and the one Mayor Wilder should insist on as a condition to move forward with public money, is Brad Armstrong’s.

But it's going to be much messier and fun than that.