Councilor Silver Must Recuse!

recuse

verb

re·cuse ri-ˈkyüz

recused; recusing

transitive verb

: to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case

broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest

conflict of interest

noun phrase

: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust

example

The court order found a conflict of interest since the Attorney General’s Office previously provided legal advice on the grants to Health and Welfare. *

* NOTE – this is an on-point example of the current situation for Councilor Silver. He was previously a paid advocate for this property owner on this specific property.

Councilor Mitchell Silver MUST recuse himself from the upcoming rezoning case for the proposed 30-story tower at West Street

On October 23, 2023, prior to being elected to the City Council, Mitchell Silver, as an employee of McAdams, represented the West St property owner in a developer facilitated neighbors’ meeting for Z-54-22. The zoning case has been officially resubmitted and is now documented as case Z-12-25.

Silver also represented the West St property owner in front of both the Planning Commission and the City Council advocating against having the designation of Downtown Transition Area applied to the West St property.

You can watch both of the presentations below.

Ultimately, the City Council approved the addition of the Transition Area in February 2024.

It would be reasonable for you to believe that once Silver was elected to City Council in November 2024, just one year after being paid to represent the West St property owner, he would feel obligated to recuse himself from any future City Council actions related to this property.

But, Silver has stated publicly that he has no intention of recusing himself from voting on this rezoning case when it comes before the City Council.

This is an affront to all Raleigh residents and the decency and integrity we need from our leaders.

It is clear as day (from the facts and definitions and logic) he has a conflict of interest because he not only represented this property owner as recently as November 2023, he represented the property owner on this specific issue.

Silver can’t now make any reasonable argument that his conflict of interest has somehow evaporated because he is now a member of City Council and not currently a paid advocate for the property owner who is coming before him asking for his support on the very issue the property owner previously paid him to act as his advocate.

According to both the City and the McAdams websites, Silver is currently employed by McAdams. You can view both here: Councilor Mitchell Silver and McAdams.

American Institute of Certified Planners

From Silver’s resume on the City Council website:

Before joining McAdams, Mitchell served as the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation commissioner, chief planning officer, and planning director in Raleigh, NC, and president of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners.

See the following Articles about Silver and his “dedication” to the planners “Code of Ethics”:

“This was one of Mitch Silver’s main messages as he connected the dots between ethics and outcomes in the planning profession.” From Planning with a Purpose.

“The Rules of Conduct (Section B) is mandated behavior for members of AICP. The 2021 version improves the alignment of rules, clarifies types of employment and perceived conflict of interest,” From: Lead and Inspire with Purpose: AICP Code of Ethics Update

Conclusion

- Silver was paid on three different occasions as an employee of McAdams by the West Street property owner to represent the property owner on this specific proposal.
- Silver is still an employee of McAdams as documented on both the City Council and McAdams websites.
- As a member and past president of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Silver is bound by its Code of Ethics.

Silver was paid by this developer. He was paid to help push this specific rezoning through, and the money is still his — which means he retains a direct financial interest in the rezoning. It’s a textbook conflict of interest if he now votes on it as a “disinterested” public official.

Planning Commission meeting on CP-4-23 on 9/12/2023 at 1:34:31.