Tag Archives: Richards Watson & Gershon

I’m Still Mad As Hell.

Posted on by

mad as hellLast week I shared a couple of issues I was having with how the City Attorney conducted themselves. Within moments of hitting the publish button two amazingly coincidental revelations were communicated to me.

Remarkably, after languishing on the bottom of the City Attorney’s in basket for over nine months, the Records Retention Schedule update miraculously was returned to the City Manager… done. Reviewed.

Now it can move on to Council for approval. Good news.

The other news, regarding amending the Brea Municipal Code, was unfortunately bad. Apparently, just two weeks ago, the Council reversed it’s majority support to revise the code to eliminate both unilateral dismissal by the appointing Council member and the inherent threat of violating the Constitutional rights of due process when dismissing Commissioner and Committee members.

Everything was on track since late January. The City Manager reconfirmed he was keeping pressure on the City Attorney… four times over five months. The goal: to remove portions of the BMC that violate the Constitutional right to due process of Commissioners and Committee members.

These coincidences are anything but.

This abrupt about face, I believe, is the result of heavy lobbying by the City Attorney not to “let that damned blogger tell us what to do.” After all, lawyers by their very nature are adversarial. They’re groomed to instantly take issue with every challenge. Their win-at-all-costs mentality causes them to spend far more time formulating their rebuttals than listening to the opposition.

I can just picture it. As soon as “Poking Holes In Markman & Flower” was published the behind-the-scenes battle to discredit and dismiss “that geezer on social media” went into overdrive.

The underlying theme to the City Attorney’s objection was expressed thus, “The odds this problem might ever occur again or that we would face due process litigation even in the distant future is so limited it’s a waste of time and energy to address Mr. Clark’s concerns.”

Really? Please explain to me when it is okay not to do the right thing because it’s too difficult or because the odds of getting caught are so slim.

When is due process not due process?

mad as hellNever. I believe the Constitutional protection of due process cannot be arbitrarily applied. The City Attorney also contends that due process only applies to city employees. If the founding fathers included a fair number of HR professionals, maybe that theory would hold water.

Well Mr. Markman, it doesn’t.

While there are due process issues associated with property rights, in this case retirement benefits, the violations I’m talking about have nothing to do with property.

I pointed out clearly to Council the procedural and substantive violations triggered by the BMC, specifically as it relates to prior notice, means of appeal and definition of duties. The BMC, in defining how a Commission or Committee member may be dismissed, does not include any provision for proper notice, a pathway for appeal nor does it define a single duty. No job description.

Here’s my challenge.

cityMy closing question to Mayor Hupp and MPT Parker, when we met on January 9, went something like this…

city“Are you telling me that, when I raised my hand and took the oath of office to support the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of California (no mention of the Brea Municipal Code by the way) that in the same breath I gave up all rights they provide?”

I’m still waiting for an answer. I’d interpreted their willingness to task the City Attorney with drafting amendments confirmation of their rejection of the idea… that civically minded folks would even consider giving up their Constitutional rights.

I know more than a few Commissioners and Committee members who might not have been so quick to raise their hands… to volunteer their time and energy in community service. I suspect many other Breans, considering applying for an appointment, will reconsider.

We should care about process and the rule of law.

This is a request to Council to reject the adversarial nonsense coming from the City Attorney and to put the amendments recommended on the General Session agenda in the very near future. You knew it was the right thing to do before…

I’m Mad As Hell, And I’m Not Going To Take This Anymore.

Posted on by

Mad is an understatement. Having pressed for answers, reasonable explanations and an understanding of how local government works I’ve come to a conclusion. It doesn’t. At least not in a way that most voters have hoped it would.

Let me share again former City Manager Tim O’Donnell’s favorite definition of leadership, “Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.” That made me mad as hell the moment I heard it. Hearing that launched Brea Matters and kept me going every time a door was slammed in my face as I sought the truth.

How many times have you been disappointed by something Council has decided, that a Commission or Committee has recommended or that staff has suggested? How many times have you let it slide only to find yourself disappointed about something else just days or weeks later?

See, it works. They know it works. They know they’re able to bend a rule, break a law or violate an ethical standard with little or no concern that they might be held accountable. That makes me mad. It should make you mad as well.

Maintaining public records.

Recently, Planning Staff admitted to deleting documents, a consultant’s proposal that pointed out an error in Staff’s thinking. It wasn’t what they wanted to hear or felt the Planning Commission had a right to hear. The City Attorney said they were within their authority and the matter was swept under the rug.

When this loophole in the city’s Records Retention Schedule was pointed out by Brea Matters, members of Council demanded that the loophole be closed. Then another discovery was made.

The Records Retention Schedule, unchanged since the last millennium, was updated by the City Clerk last year and submitted to the City Attorney for review. It had sat there collecting dust until Council’s demand brought it to the top of the pile.

Still, nothing has been done. “Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.” Dammit, I’m mad as hell.

Amending municipal code.

On September 28, Councilmember Vargas invoked an obscure, never before used, piece of the Brea Municipal Code and, without warning or prior notice, “fired” me from the Planning Commission (see details here). He citied causes not included in the municipal code.

Several months of haggling with the City Manager and City Attorney finally got me a face-to-face with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem on January 9 where I laid out my “case” that Brea Municipal Code inadvertently violated my Constitutional due process rights.

I had no interest in litigation. None. Still don’t. All I hoped for was to help initiate a change in the BMC that would protect the Constitutional rights of my friends and neighbors who might one day consider volunteering for a Commission or Committee… that would protect them from the sort of incompetent conduct I was subjected to.

A month later I was informed by the City Manager that the City Attorney had been instructed to draft amendments to the BMC, eliminating the due process issues, and that the amendments would be given to Council to approve within the month. That was February, this is June.

On three subsequent occasions I was told that the amendments would be on the agenda in the next meeting or two. I fully expected to see the item on this week’s agenda. Nope. Nothing. “Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.” Again, I’m mad as hell.

City Hall priorities.

On April 7 I published a blog headlined “Corruption’s Partner Is Our Own Indifference.” The admonition expressed was clearly made towards Brea Matters readers with the reminder that our continued indifference to what goes on in city hall is the catalyst from which corruption is born. The word corruption never again appears in the piece.

The City Attorney, I’ve been told, read that word and went ballistic.

Over the next six days, the City Attorney and staff conducted legal research, wrote an eight page memo to the City Manager, City Council and others (more like a manifesto obviously pointed directly at Brea Matters) and engaged the city’s Marketing Department to see that it was circulated on social media to the broadest extent possible.

Six days. Not six months… six days! They’ve been sitting on the Records Retention Schedule for almost nine months, on the BMC amendments for five months but they can somehow fire off a memo attacking Brea Matters in six days?

Who’s setting priorities down at city hall? “Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.” I think I have every right to be mad as hell.

A call to action.

Council reads Brea Matters. Faithfully if not supportively. So I’ll take this opportunity to make a couple of suggestions.

Please, with all the authority you can muster, instruct the City Manager … once again, to tell the City Attorney to get off his ass (sorry Gramma). Obviously unable to determine which assignments should take precedence over others, it’s time to step in and retake control.

Please, take a look at how long it’s been since Council and the City Manager made any attempt to confirm that Richards, Watson, Gershon (RWG), and more specifically James Markman, are Brea’s best choice as City Attorney. Maybe it’s time we sent out an RFP for City Attorney to see if there might not be better choices for Brea.

Still mad as hell.

One more time, let me remind everyone. Leadership IS NOT disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb. Here are a few thoughts that do a better job of defining leadership.

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” — John Quincy Adams

“Leadership: The capacity and will to rally people to a common purpose together with the character that inspires confidence and trust.” — Bernard Montgomery

“Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen, despite the obstacles.” — John Kotter

“Leadership is about service to others and a commitment to developing more servants as leaders. It involves co-creation of a commitment to a mission.” — Robert Greenleaf

What sort of leader do we want?

I believe we want leaders who create an inspiring vision of the future, who motivate and inspire us to engage with that vision and who have the skills to deliver that vision.

Write that down in big bold easy-to-read letters. Stick it on your fridge where you will see it every day. When election day rolls around again… remember it.

Hines: A Tale Of Two Cities.

Posted on by

HinesIt was the worst of times… period. We’re fighting a war on two fronts and threatened with losing both. On one side Breans are going head-to-head with Hines Properties, a megacorp hell bent on building a hulking monstrosity on St. College north of Birch. On the other we have a runaway Planning department who seems to consider themselves above the law, repeatedly overreaching their authority.

Neither situation bodes well for the people of Brea. The fact that both are connected makes the threat exponentially larger. As the policy and procedural issues can only be addressed by City Council I’ll leave that for another blog and focus on the development issues that need to be solved by the Planning Commission.

Reining in Hines.

At their April meeting, under the less than subtle steering of Chairman McGrade, the Planning Commission ended up desperately trying to patch one small element of the Brea Place project and calling it done.

Commissioner Schlotterbeck made the observation that the project fell short, by about 20%, of complying with our 14 year old General Plan’s maximum density guideline. Next thing you know the much larger southern building and the hotel were tucked aside, seemingly approved and focus was turned to the northern building… Building B.

In a miraculous demonstration of redesigning-on-the-fly, the Hines architect made most of the fourth floor disappear and reduced the building’s density by almost 20%. That’s 22 apartments for those who nitpick numbers. Commissioner Schlotterbeck was quick to point out that the disappearing act also removed parking for 38 units, throwing the building into noncompliance with the 1.78 spaces per unit parking requirement.

Maximum vs. minimum standards.

So, the push seems to be to stay within maximum allowed density while meeting a minimum parking standard. Ok, I’ll say what you’re thinking. What the hell? This is like getting open heart surgery done on a low bid basis.

Why do these city planners think the best policy is to always operate at the fringes of acceptability? Why is building as close as possible to the maximum allowable density the best idea? Why are parking conditions always targeting the fewest number of spaces that might accommodate the demand?

How about building comfortably below the maximum density and designing a parking plan that would actually meet peak demand? What a novel damned idea.

Speaking of minimum standards.

While we’re on the subject, it’s this same unsupportable mentality that led to adopting an addendum to a 14 year old General Plan EIR as the best way to comply with CEQA. Again, operating at the very fringe.

Going with the addendum is the weakest, least defensible means of minimizing or mitigating environmental impact. Hell, the addendum claims there isn’t sufficient environmental impact to warrant doing a new EIR. Circular logic. Inexcusable.

Once again staff dances on the edge of rational choices. Why? To cut public comment out of the conversation? To fast track the project and save Hines the $1.5 million cost of an EIR so staff could extort it later to help defray the cost of some politician’s pipe dream or rock garden?

Drawing a line in the sand.

HinesHey… Commissioners, Planners and Mr. Ninty-Five Billion Dollar Out-of-town Developer… we’re putting you on notice. Nothing less than a blanket 20% reduction in density across the entire project is acceptable. Nada. Nothing.

And that’s the starting line… not the finish line. We still need to talk traffic, parking, building mass and setbacks, in lieu fees and retail that won’t cannibalize local business.

You walked out of the April meeting fist bumping and trading high fives. Listen carefully, you never count your money when sitting’ at the table, there’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

Markman & Flower