Email concerns: George Roupe










Commissioners' Email On Fencing Becomes Subject Of Debate

Letter's appropriateness and accuracy are issues

Commission will rehear

By Kara Chalmers

On Jan. 25, Planning Commissioner George Roupe learned that two of his fellow commissioners had emailed City Council members concerning a Jan. 12 Planning Commission decision, without including him and three other commissioners in the distribution.

The appropriateness of the action had weighed on his mind ever since. Then he read the actual email and its accuracy began to weigh on his mind as well, he said.

The decision in question was the approval of an amendment to the hillside fencing ordinance, increasing the amount of allowable fenced area from 4,000 square feet to 20 percent of a total property.

Roupe aired his concerns, at the end of a Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting, under "commission items" on the agenda. The day before, he notified commissioners of his plans in order to give everyone a chance to come prepared, he said. According to Roupe, he raised the issue to ensure his concerns were recorded before the commission re-deliberates the fencing issue, to give fellow commissioners who didn't get the email a chance to comment and to let the authors of the email know his concerns.

"I feel that the letter was inappropriate and inaccurate," he said. If the points in the email were to be a subject of discussion at the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting Jan. 25, all commissioners should have been given a hard copy at the beginning of the meeting, if not sooner, he said.

One of the authors of the email, Commissioner Cynthia Barry, was not present at the Feb. 9 meeting, and the other author, Commissioner Erna Jackman, then said she felt a more appropriate venue for the discussion of the email would be the commission's March retreat. But she said later, "...the City Council is the court of appeals for commissioners to go to when there's a problem."

Jackman said the only reason she and Barry did not email the entire Planning Commission as well as the council was that they thought in doing so they would have violated the Brown Act, which defines the rules for public meetings.

But according to City Attorney Richard Taylor, the two commissioners could have emailed the rest of the commission without violating the Brown Act. The document became public as soon as it was sent to the council, he said, and since the item was no longer before the Planning Commission, the two commissioners were essentially the same as two regular citizens.

In the email, the two commissioners wrote that, partly because of the late hour of deliberations, the commission did not spend enough time discussing the rationale for a change in the ordinance, a cap on the amount of allowable fenced area, the agricultural exception, or the negative declaration. In the email, they faulted Community Development Director James Walgren for not reading two letters, one from Commissioner Lisa Kurasch and one from a resident, into the record word-for-word.

However, the standard practice of recording letters is to read just the name, address and the main points of letters, according to both Walgren and City Clerk Susan Ramos. Jackman said that the gist of one letter was not quite conveyed and something was lost in the summary.

Hillside fencing came to the forefront in September when residents attended a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting to ask the city to relax its fencing rules. Exceptions to the current ordinance can be made in cases when the fence is hidden from public streets by vegetation or topography and in cases where safety calls for it. Council members suggested then that increasing the allowable fenced area might help cut down on the number of requests for exceptions that the city was receiving.

On Jan. 12, the Planning Commission voted 5-0-1to recommend the amendment to the City Council. (Kurasch was absent; Barry abstained. At the Jan. 25 joint commission/council meeting, she said she had abstained because she was uncomfortable with the process and the decision.) In addition, the commission recommended that a third exception, agricultural uses, be added to the list.

At the Jan. 12 meeting, Commissioner Barry made a motion that the Planning Commission follow a "deliberation format" she had created to come to their decision, but no one seconded the motion.

After the meeting, Barry and Jackman, who decided she wanted to change her vote, sent the council an email from Kurasch's computer. The email, which contained Barry's deliberation format, asked the council to remand the decision back to the Planning Commission.

On Jan. 25, the council did just that since the majority didn't think enough in-depth discussion had taken place during the Planning Commission's decision-making process. Also at the Jan. 25 meeting Kurasch explained that she, too, was unhappy with the commission's Jan. 12 approval of the amendment.

"I was surprised the decision was made rather quickly," she said. "I never expected it would be over in one hearing ... . This is going to affect a lot of people; it's not just one property."

Kurasch said she didn't think the discussion went far enough. "For me, it was all about 'process.' I can agree to disagree, but I have to know we made our decision using the best process possible, even if it means spending more time."

On Feb. 9, Roupe carefully went over the email, point by point, and other commissioners voiced their thoughts as well. He was not the only commissioner disturbed by it. Commissioner Margaret Patrick was very clear in her response to Kurasch's suggestion that the commission rehear the issue while keeping Barry's deliberation format in mind.

"What [the email] basically says to me is that you don't like my decision," she said. "You think I made a lousy decision, you think I made it based on no information, or very little information, which is certainly your prerogative to believe. But then to force me, the majority, to rehear it in a manner that you prescribe bothers me a great deal," she said.

In a later interview, Commission Chairwoman Mary-Lynne Bernald brought up her broader concerns about the email. "Several commissioners appear to have a direct line to certain City Council members, and when these few commissioners don't agree with the Planning Commission's decisions, they circumvent the process and surreptitiously contact the City Council." She said she finds this ethically troublesome and counterproductive.

"We had hoped to have an open and non-confrontational forum Feb. 9 but, unfortunately, Commissioners Jackman and Kurasch refused to participate in an open dialogue with their fellow commissioners."

Commissioner Chuck Page said he was also disappointed with council members who did not acknowledge they had received an email or distribute it at the joint meeting. Bernald agreed.

"Our current council has touted the importance of open government, yet certain members are acting contrary to their own mandates," she said. "The integrity of city government is seriously damaged when a small number of elected and appointed members refuse to act in a forthright manner."

According to Kurasch, if someone wants to send a communication to the council, he or she should feel free. She said that the Feb. 9 meeting may have been an inappropriate venue for the discussion on the email, because Barry was not present and because, at times during that discussion, specific fencing issues came up.

"This was conducted and directed as if it was a hearing," she said of the discussion Feb. 9. She said she felt strained in having to say more than once that she didn't think it was fair to comment, especially since she was not an author of the email. She also said she felt intimidated. "Four people were very adamant in their views," she said. "I didn't want to try."

Kurasch said that, in time for discussion at the Planning Commission's March retreat, which is public, she will ask that a facilitator view the videotapes of the commission meetings of Jan. 12, Jan. 25 and Feb. 9. She said she would like to discuss the commission decision process, defining the commission's role and vision for the city at the retreat.

While the two commissioners who wrote the email took issue with the decision process the Planning Commission followed Jan. 12, Page noted that the final decision on the amendment will be made by the council, since the Planning Commission only has the power to recommend.

In response to the email's charge that the fencing item was considered at a very late hour and that the commissioners were tired and did not spend enough time on the issue, Roupe said the commission spent a considerable amount of time discussing it.

"Often our sessions run to 11 o'clock, sometimes even later," Roupe said. "So I don't see that this was a major departure from our more routine debate. The matter did receive a fair and open discussion."

A point addressed in the email was that the commission did not discuss or vote on a cap on the amount of allowable fenced land. "There was discussion of the cap and there was ample opportunity to have it brought to a vote if that had been the will of the commission," Roupe said. "It was discussed ... . I don't know what more could have been done."

Photos: Great Race and Highway 9 closure

Editorial: Yes on Measure N

Obituaries

Saratoga Sampler

Sports Briefs

High school soccer

High school basketball