OIC on the Stand: Exhibit B and C

The courtroom doors swing shut. The prosecutor rises once more.

A Financial Auditor takes the stand, sworn to testify. What follows is not rumor, not speculation, but evidence entered into the record.

Today the case turns to OIC, its leadership, its ledgers, and the uneasy lines that bind public office to private control.

Exhibit B: OIC Leadership
Prosecutor:
“Mr. Witness, please tell the court, what is OIC?”

Financial Auditor:
“OIC is the Opportunities Industrialization Center, a nonprofit founded to provide job training, healthcare, and community programs for under-resourced residents. It has grown into a major institution in this city.”

Prosecutor:
“And who guides OIC?”

Financial Auditor:
“OIC is led by board leadership and an executive president, both of whom are also sitting council members, the defendants. They occupy seats on City Council while also steering the organization that receives city funds and public grants.”

Prosecutor:
“Have there been examples of this overlap in practice?”

Financial Auditor:
“Yes. In one widely circulated account, the city transferred property to OIC at roughly half its appraised value with promises of development that never materialized.

In addition, council records show recurring allocations to OIC as a designated partner in housing and training initiatives. The defendants formally recuse themselves from votes, but their dual roles remain central to the process.”

The prosecutor places the file on the evidence table. The judge enters it into the record as Exhibit B.

Exhibit C: The Money Trail
Prosecutor:
“Mr. Auditor, you have reviewed OIC’s federal filings. What do those records reveal?”

Financial Auditor:
“They reveal the scale of the organization. In the most recent filings, OIC reported annual revenue exceeding thirty million dollars, with assets surpassing fifteen million. Year after year, revenues have risen by double digits.”

Prosecutor:
“And how are those funds distributed?”

Financial Auditor:
“Approximately eighty-eight percent goes into program expenses, which appears commendable. But that still leaves millions in discretionary flow, overseen by leadership whose positions straddle both City Hall and OIC.”

Prosecutor:
“Let us turn to compensation.”

Financial Auditor:
“The president and chief executive, one of the defendants, received over two hundred seventeen thousand dollars in salary.

Other senior executives, including medical and operations officers, received between one hundred twenty thousand and two hundred fifty-five thousand dollars annually.”

Prosecutor:
“Is this unusual?”

Financial Auditor (measured):
“No. These salaries are not excessive for executives running a nonprofit of this size. But here is the concern. The same individuals who lead OIC also hold elected power.

They vote on budgets, they influence grants, they oversee taxpayer allocations. Even with recusals, the overlap cannot be ignored. The appearance of conflict alone is enough to weaken confidence in public trust.”

The testimony ends. The record is marked. What lingers is not the sound of the gavel, but the weight of what has been said. The overlap, the influence, the appearance of conflict, now preserved in the court’s files, waiting for judgment still to come.

The court has entered Exhibits B and C. But the day’s testimony is not over. When the court reconvenes on Thursday, August 28, more evidence will be heard: reports, audits, and a deeper look into how public trust has been tested.