Conflicts galore...

Another week has gone by and yes, the Marina City Council has had another meeting. Trust me on this one when I say they keep getting more and more interesting. If I recall, the resounding cry from the supporters of Councilmen O’Connell, Brown and Mayor Delgado has been for more transparency and fewer conflicts of interest (however real or perceived).  So what to make of the events at the last Council meeting?

A few weeks ago the Marina City Council voted on and approved a very modest (1.8%) rent increase for the residence of Preston and Abrams Parks. This was done after market surveys and testimony from the property management firm and was passed by the Council. So last week Councilman O’Connell decided he was taking too much heat for this vote so he requested the City Council revisit this item, which is his right.

What happened from here is disturbing. Councilman O’Connell proceeded to “grill” the property manager (Alliance), but never seemed to grasp or want to grasp the answers to his questions. Instead he decided to introduce a long motion with multiple parts that would roll back the rents, fire the City’s liaison, make himself the Council liaison to the renters, take funds from the reserve account to cover the difference in the City’s budget and introduce a new rent formula to calculate future rents. Clearly, this motion was set up in advance… which raises a whole lot of questions about process, but that’s another story.

Quite simply, this motion is a complete disaster. This omnibus motion should never have been made. Many of the parts are worthy of considerable discussion and have deep consequences that the Councilman clearly does not understand. The Council could decide to roll back the rents but that has some unintended consequences. I am sure that these items will come up again on Tuesday night as the Council continues the agenda from last week, so I will not detail all the issues here.

My concern is the profound conflict of interest that is imbedded in his motion.

As a Marina City Councilman, each council member has a fiduciary responsibility as the Agency - for oversight - of the property manager (Alliance). As the City’s representative to FOR A, Councilman O’Connell also has a fiduciary responsibility for the Property Owner (FOR A) for oversight of the Agency (The City of Marina). However now Councilman O’Connell wants to act as an advocate for the property renters against the property manager (Alliance) and also act as an advocate against the Agency (City of Marina) and the Owner (FOR A). The motion to change the rental policy and the recalculation of the formula for rents will negatively affect the financials of both the agency (City of Marina) and the Owner (FOR A). One other point: Councilman O’Connell is also a party to the arbitration hearings between the City of Marina and FOR A - which adds another layer to this complex issue.

So the question to get answered is:  to whom does Councilman O’Connell have fiduciary responsibilities to?

- Is it the Property Owner (FOR A)?

- Is it the Agency (City of Marina)?

- Is it the property manager (Alliance)?

- Or Is it the renters as their advocate?

Can one person have such conflicting roles and not put himself and all the parties represented in jeopardy?

Perhaps these are the questions that should be raised at Tuesday night’s Council meeting.

More later

Finalize Cypress Knolls now!

Congratulations to the Marina City Council!

This is not something you hear very often anymore but it is, in fact, warranted in this case. Last Tuesday night the City Council decided to bring back the Cypress Knolls development proposal for consideration. While it was not an easy process they ended up in the right place.

The next step is to listen not only to the will of the citizens of Marina and two City Councils but to honor the long standing process that a City government must abide by. The creation of the RFP for the Cypress Knolls senior development spanned two City Councils.  They took plenty of testimony and decided that any proposal must include a full continuum of care, include plenty of affordable housing, and try to minimize any potential changes to the current EIR on the project. The City of Marina even settled a lawsuit based on the current EIR. After sending this request out to the general development community, two development groups responded with very specific proposals.

Without going through all the steps that got us to this point, it appears that one development group remains standing. This group answered all the questions, has proven its ability to finance through the ENA process, was thoroughly vetted by the City’s financial consultants (Kayser Marston), is environmentally sensitive and most importantly they provided all the elements that the Community and two Councils asked for in the proposal.

So here we are with a decision to make. Does the Marina City Council honor its requests and follow the long standing process that makes the RFP system work for all forms of government? Or does the City Council do as the Mayor wants and throw out the entire process and start over with a smaller project that has serious economic questions about its viability?

After two developers and the City has spent well over $1,000,000 to get us to this point, do we allow the Mayor the right to veto something this important to the community and over their wishes because he wants something different? Do we open the City up for protracted litigation that could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars because we did not honor our word?

Of course, we could choose another path for now but what if the Mayor changes his mind again? What if the result of a new RFP does not yield a single qualified developer? This would result in another decade of blight and continued environmental damage without any project, but maybe that is the real goal.

It is time for this Council to listen to what the community wanted from the beginning. Choose the qualified developer for Cypress Knolls, honor the process and move on.

More later

Transparency

Transparency, as used in the humanities and in a social context more generally, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.

Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments. However, politics can be observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"^[1] and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit,^[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.^[3]

^{____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________}

I define these two particular words because they are used a lot these days. It seems that every action taken by almost any individual or group is seen as political. It is also the claim that everything in this political context is done in the name of transparency. It is also true that the group with political power claims to be the most transparent but usually is accused, by those in the minority, of being anything but transparent.

It is in this context that we find ourselves in Marina today. Specifically in regards to the closed session meetings held by our City Council. I think the community would be amazed at the sheer number of closed session meetings that our City Council has held this year alone. These meetings are held with little notice (more later) and with little reported on the results of these meetings.

This past Friday night’s closed session is a perfect example. Yes, there was one, didn’t you get the notice? It was announced at the City Council meeting on Tuesday as a continuation of that nights closed session regarding our City Managers labor negotiations. However, by Friday afternoon it was amended to also include a performance evaluation of the City Manager as well.

Now I would argue that the two items should never be on the same agenda but that is my opinion. I just don’t think you hold anyone’s review over their head when you are asking them to reopen their contract. I would also guess that not many labor attorneys in this world would either.

Now, however nefarious or benign the intent of adding the second item to the agenda was, it should be done with full and proper notice. While the item was added on Thursday afternoon, it fell under the emergency meeting clause of the Brown act. This was far from an emergency and should have been done under the regular posting rules for all meetings.

So here is a simple solution. Let’s have the City Council pass an ordinance that all meetings be posted with the 72 hour rule. If there is an emergency meeting required, it too must be posted on the City’s website and e-mailed to all those on the City’s e-mail list. No more simply posting it on the Council Chambers wall the day before.

This solution will bring us back to the intent of the Brown act, use the technology we have today and make both sides of any subject politically transparent. You see, finding simple solutions without making everything political is not that difficult if you all work for the common good of the community.

More later

The Declaration of Independence

Happy 4th of July!

---

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton