UPDATE:
1:00 pm
Jimmy Granbery responded to The Tennessee Star’s inquiry about the ethics complaint on Wednesday afternoon.
“The complaint had no merit and was dismissed today 5-0 this morning,” Granbery said in an email.
10:20 am
This morning at 10:30 am, the Board of Ethical Conduct of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County will review an ethics complaint filed against Jimmy Granbery over allegations of conflict of interest in his role as Vice Chair for Development of the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency, and his role as owner of property within the 19 proposed Transit Oriented Development Districts of the Transit Plan that voters rejected on May 1, and his financial support for that plan.
The complaint, Anne Barnett v. Jimmy Granbery, was received by the Board of Ethical Conduct on April 25, and alleges the following:
Mr. Granberry is the Vice Chair for Development of MDHA, which is the exclusive master developer of the 19 proposed Transit Oriented Development Districts of the Transit Plan. Mr. Granbery has abused his position entrusted to him for his and his company’s own profit by failing to disclose his financial interest and ownership of properties in and around the locations of the proposed Transit Route Map and Transit Center locations. Mr. Granbery has been an outspoken supporter of the Transit Plan, and H.G. Realty Company has contributed money in the amount of $75,000 in support of the Transit Plan with the intention of encouraging passage, while simultaneously holding property in the same locations as the Transit Oriented Development Districts.
You can read the full complaint here:
[pdf-embedder url=”http://tennesseestar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Complaint.pdf”]
Sources tell The Tennessee Star that Metro Nashville’s Legal Department will present a finding at today’s hearing absolving Granbery of the conflict of interest charges.
The Star has asked Ms. Barnett and her attorney for comment, but has not received a response.
It is not clear how the Board of Ethical Conduct will rule on the complaint.
[…] Jimmy Granbery, CEO of HG Hill Realty PAC was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint filed with the Board of Ethical Conduct on April 25. The allegation in the complaint is that Granbery used his position as Vice Chair of MHDA, the […]
Not how it works, Caldwell. Nice synopsis of how the silver spoon made it into Cranberry’s mouth. No excuse for not recusing himself from promoting the proposal. In fact he should have declared his financial position to all long ago in the Tennessee Star. That whole deal reeked of cronyism. Lots of silver spoons, some accidental and some purposeful, to be found in that deal. Short of Berry being found out to also be abusing the public’s trust, that project would have succeeded. The measure failed by accidental discovery of travel expense fraud and any one else found guilty of breaching the public’s trust should be punished. Period. It is only fair.
So, Steve L.,if he had dislosed his pro transit penchant, his position on the MDHA and his position with and interest in the Hill Company “to The Tennessee Star” or simply had not contributed funds in support of the transit plan, would the voting result have been any different? Oh, that’s right, it was voted down anyway, almost 2 to 1. So how would further disclosure or abstention by Mr. Granbery have swung the vote the other way? This complaint is nonsense. Show me an actual vote as MDHA member that favored Hill Co. but hurt the people, then we might have something to chew on.
You won, isn’t that good enough?
He should be fired from H.G. Hill Realty for wasting 75,000 on a foolish transit plan that everyone knew would never pass.
Hill Realty is a family owned corporation. Jimmy was chosen by the family to preside over the Company’s business affairs years ago following the death of Mr. Hill and retirement of its revered senior executive. You can be sure that the investment in the failed transit plan was viewed as being in the best interests of the Company and was made with the approval of all stakeholders.
Whether the MHDA position would have presented a significant risk of conflict of interest or opportunity for profiteering would seem to be moot since the measure failed.