Ballpark Commission: To Be or Not to Be

In April of 2021, seeing an absence of any data whatsoever regarding how Polar Park was doing fiscally (or attendance-wise) or how the Pawtucket Red Sox were complying with the community benefits agreement signed with the city, I petitioned the city council the following:

Nicole Apostola request City Council request City Manager place easily accessible data on the city’s website concerning the funding, use and community benefit agreement for Polar Park that identifies 1) all funding sources for the project; 2) exact project costs, including any/all cost overruns; 3) documentation for gate receipts; 4) how hiring goals are being met; 5) tabulation of the community days and community meetings hosted and scheduled for the current year; 6) tabulation of the revenue-generating events the city is holding during the current year; 7) document usage of the city-designated ballpark suite; and 8) document game tickets given to Worcester Public Schools students.

None of these items were ever delivered, on the city website or otherwise.

Instead, at the same meeting I requested these informational items, a ballpark commission was proposed (held by Councilor King) and then approved by the Council at its next meeting.

A bit less than a year later, in February 2022, the Ballpark Commission held its first meeting.

What is (was) the purpose of the Ballpark Commission?

According to the city website:

• Monitor and administer the implementation and operation of the Governance Documents, including the Ballpark Lease Agreement and the financial status of the Ballpark Facilities.
• Promulgate reasonable rules and regulations regarding the use and operation of the Ballpark Facilities.
• Issue approvals, permits or licenses for the use of the Ballpark Facilities for “City Events.”
• Keep the City Manager informed of the activities and needs of the Ballpark Facilities and provide the City Manager with information developed by the Commission which would have a material impact on the community and/or financial success or status of the Ballpark Facilities.
• Prepare prompt and thorough responses to requests of the City Manager for reports, memoranda, opinions or other documents or actions.
• Perform other such duties as may be prescribed by law or requested by the City Manager.

How often did the Commission meet?

Sporadically at best. At the second meeting, there was discussion about the meeting frequency; it was proposed (but not voted on) that the commission should meet monthly at first, or perhaps monthly during baseball season, and then quarterly thereafter (in subsequent years, or in the off-season). The commission never met monthly during the baseball season; it is unclear how meeting times were set, but it was never regular.

Did the Ballpark Commission perform its functions?

The Ballpark Commission has never posted its minutes online, so I’ve watched every one of its meetings (except for the November 2021 meeting, which did not have video posted). “Proposed (but not voted on)” could be the motto of the Ballpark Commission.

From the start, it does not seem as if the commission members had a good sense of what their job was. As of the second meeting, only one commission member had taken the Open Meeting Law training that the city’s HR Department requested; they still needed training on Robert’s Rules and other aspects of serving on a city commission.

At that second meeting, a commissioner asked about the commission’s role in hotels and other development around the ballpark.

Answer: none, which the commissioner would have known that had they read the packet delivered describing the purpose of the commission.

Let’s review some specific purposes and how the ballpark commission failed to do anything about them.

Purpose: Issue approvals, permits or licenses for the use of the Ballpark Facilities for “City Events.”

As a reminder, in the Ballpark CBA, the city is entitled to 8 revenue-generating events a year, 10 community days a year, and 15 community meetings a year for the first five years the ballpark is open. We are now nearing the end of year three of that five-year agreement.

At the second meeting of the commission, they discussed the potential of having an events manager for the ballpark’s city events. There was discussion of an RFP for companies to present potential events, with the commission to approve.

At the commission’s third meeting, in May 2021, no one seems to have understood what “event manager” meant. Commissioner Mulhern had wanted an information coordinator, so that someone could compile requested community days and give the commission a report. It seems the city’s assumption was that the commission would need someone to actively solicit revenue-generating events, which would be used to pay down the bond.

While the prospect of an RFP or RFI for an event manager (or something like an event manager) was mentioned again, the idea seems to have gone away by 2023.

The city does not have the staff to put together revenue-generating events. Dr Charles Steinberg offered to help (at various meetings) in a vague way; considering that the WooSox themselves don’t have the number of events they need, it’s unclear how he would have helped, but it’s very clear that no one bothered to see how the WooSox might help the city with its own revenue-generating events.

Regarding Community Days, the commission seemed very concerned about getting the word out to various community groups, but never prioritized the creation of a form or a process. Commissioners who had served on different commissions, most prominently Commissioner Harrity, mentioned that there should be a deadline for applications, to give the commission time to talk to the groups at a meeting, but that never happened.

Instead, there was a haphazard approach to approving community events. At some point, there was an informal meeting (which was mentioned at the February 2023 meeting) in which it was decided that the chair could approve community days in the absence of the full commission when there were last-minute requests. No one seemed concerned (a) that there was a potential Open Meeting Law violation with an “informal meeting” to discuss commission policy; (b) that there would be no public process for approving community days; and (c) that groups could just claim an emergency and get a community day approved quickly.

In fact, the Police vs. Fire Baseball Classic was not approved by the commission but by Dr Charles himself. When pressed by Commissioner Dixon at the May 2022 meeting, Dr Steinberg said that he had had a conversation with then-chief Sargent in 2018 and promised the police chief a community day for this game. But no commissioner pressed further. At what point could Steinberg, or anyone at the team, reserve community days because of promises made years before? No one seemed to care.

Again, this commission was not concerned with public process or any sort of transparency. There were no real rules for deciding community days and no recognition of the importance of revenue-generating days. When the form for requesting a city event was finally created in February 2023, a year after the commission was created, it sounds as if Commissioner Dixon (on the phone) tried to ask a question and that the vote takes place as he asks.

Purpose: Monitor and administer the implementation and operation of the Governance Documents, including the Ballpark Lease Agreement and the financial status of the Ballpark Facilities.

At the May 2022 commission meeting, there is an informal proposal for quarterly team reports or financial statements about how much is in the capital accounts (which will be needed for capital investments or approvals). There is no formal motion or vote and the need for the commission to provide any sort of financial oversight of the ballpark is quickly forgotten.

Instead, they are treated to long digressions from Dr Charles about how he hopes to get The Dropkick Murphys to hold a concert in Worcester…in 2025.

Purpose: Keep the City Manager informed of the activities and needs of the Ballpark Facilities and provide the City Manager with information developed by the Commission which would have a material impact on the community and/or financial success or status of the Ballpark Facilities.

In September 2022, residents of the city found that due to an architectural issue involving door height, Polar Park would not be able to host concerts and other similar large events.

Were I serving on a commission and had to find out major news from the paper of record rather than the ball team, I’d come into our next meeting making sure that this was the first item addressed and expecting real answers.

Instead, at the October 2022 commission meeting, the first meeting after the news broke, it took forty minutes for a commissioner to mention doors, and they only discussed egress to the park. That’s right, no commissioner was angry, and no commissioner even asked about why the park wasn’t holding the major events it was supposed to.

They did request a summary of community days and revenue days — but they haven’t posted minutes or video of their November 2022 meeting, so who knows if they got that report? Chances are they forgot about it, just like they forgot about the need to have a professional manage revenue days.

Wow.

Yes, wow, indeed.

I’m a big fan of well-run meetings, and these meetings were anything but.

The chair, former city solicitor Moore, frankly allowed the meetings to be a free-for-all. Rather than making sure that every meeting addressed at least one of the commission’s purposes, Moore did not ask commissioners if they were making a formal motion, and he allowed a non-public process wherein he (and he alone) could approve community days outside of scheduled meetings.

So – should we get rid of the Ballpark Commission?

That’s such an important question that the City Council is going to meet tomorrow night to discuss that topic, and that topic only.

Is there any way that the City Council, a body that can’t even figure out how to evaluate its lone employee, would somehow find its way to provide appropriate oversight to the ballpark?

If the Council had taken what I requested two and a half years ago, or if the Ballpark Commission had looked at that as a model for the regular reports it was due, then perhaps we would not be in the situation we are in. It doesn’t take a lot of time or brainpower to come up with questions to ask the WooSox or city administration about the state of the ballpark. It does, however, require a fortitude that few of our elected officials currently possess.