Architects are logical candidates to sit on the Savannah Historic District Board of Review.
The board’s job involves review architectural drawings and deciding whether those plans meet the standards in the ordinance.
But in serving on the board, members forfeit the right to present projects as a petitioner. Doing so would constitute a conflict of interest, according to the board’s bylaws, because of the influence it could have on other members of the board.
One board member has proposed amending those bylaws. Jerry Lominack stated during Wednesday’s review board meeting the conflict of interest language “discriminates against the people among the best suited to serve on the board.”
Lominack, an architect with Lominack Kolman Smith Architects, is pushing for a change that would allow board members to recuse themselves from the board in order to present petitions. The board member would still be prohibited from deliberating and voting on the petition.
“When an architect is working closely with a client there is a rapport and an understanding that no one else has and it is impossible to transfer that information to someone else,” Lominack said. “It puts architects at a competitive disadvantage. Imagine telling a client ‘I’d be glad to do your project but can’t present it.’”
The issue sparked a spirited debate at the close of Wednesday’s monthly meeting. Board members acknowledged the logic both for and against the bylaw change.
The conflict of interest language was added to the ordinance in 2008 because of concerns about influence. Board members did occasionally present petitions prior to the addition of the provision.
The 11-member panel includes three licensed architects and a fourth member who works as a project manager for an architecture firm. Those board members regularly recluse themselves when petitions involving their firms are presented, with one of their co-workers, a contractor or the property owner himself representing the project.
If a board member were allowed to present, the public could “perceive votes as a ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours later’ type of situation,” said board member Reed Engle. One board member acknowledged his discomfort with a vote Wednesday involving a project done by another board member’s firm, even with that board member not presenting.
“We need to operate above board,” said Zena McClain, a board member and attorney and the board’s parliamentarian.
The board will vote on the amendment at the May meeting.