Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Story on Planning Commission Brown Act violations over on Patch

Just finished a three-part series on alleged Brown Act violations by the Planning Commission. Poll to come. If anyone wants to submit an opinion piece, please do.


Camden Swita
Editor, Pacifica


Anonymous said...

Who runs this city? The Planning Commission or City Council?

Anonymous said...

Since the planning commission is populated with NIMBY puppets that were appointed by council, that's a silly question.

Kathy Meeh said...

From Part 3 of the article (above), the comment from Planning Commission Chairman Richard Campbell appears to be not-accountable and "politically motivated". Although, he was absent from the meeting (too bad), his stated article comment deems the Brown Act irregularities or violations (3 mentioned) which occurred at the Planning Commission: "minor".

He said: “To my understanding, to the extent that this was a Brown Act violation it was a minor violation and the complaint is to make the proverbial mountain out of the molehill,” Campbell said. “There is a contingent of folks out there still smarting over the loss of Measure L (which would have allowed the City Council to approve the construction of mixed-use residential and commercial developments in the Quarry) and they’ll stop at nothing to try to score political points on a minor issue like this.”

If the conspiratorial conditions exist leading to the Brown Act irregularities or violations (3 mentioned), as described by the article, there is nothing "minor" about this.

From the Planning Commission Campbell, Gordon and Langille are all attorneys. Of the citizen speakers Verby is an attorney, has been a judge; Bohner is an attorney, was at one time the attorney for this city. All city commissions and committees receive a copy of the Brown Act, and should receive an orientation. And from a regulatory view, you would think a "room full of attorneys" should also be held to a higher standard.

Campbell's suggested retaliation comment, appears to be nothing other than deflection from the issue at hand: Brown Act irregularities or violations.

The unrelated Measure L quarry development defeat (2006) occurred 5 years ago, and to my recall did not receive Planning Commission project review. Or, is Campbell saying he was against that Measure or similar quarry development then, now, or in the future? If so, given City General Plan guidelines to build that area (past and future)-- to the extent Campbell objects to quarry development (his possible alluded to bias), shouldn't he recuse himself from any such future development action or discussion?

Some British Dude said...

Here here, Kathy