"We found out we had erred in not consulting with the city administrator and city council regarding an installation on city property," said principal planner Brian Roseth. "It was much like approving a project without the property owner's consent."
("Hard feelings over display of Jeffers bust in library garden," Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 21, 2006.)
Yet, the Tor House Foundation's desire to install a copy of a Robinson Jeffers bronze bust by sculptor Jo Davidson was known to the Carmel Art Board as early as August 2003 and the Planning Commission/Planning Staff as early as May 2004. Now, in April 2006, the Planning Commission recently rescinded their earlier December 2005 decision to grant the installation of the Tor House Foundation's Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden. Additionally, the City had apparently adopted a no-sculpture policy previously, since Piccadilly Park.
QUESTION: Given Brian Roseth's statement, is it plausible that for 2-3 years, since 2003/04, the Planning Staff knew of the Tor House Foundation's intent, while the City Administrator and City Council Members were obliviously ignorant until April 2006?
QUESTION: Are Carmelites to believe that since 2003/04, the Mayor never spoke to Tor House Foundation members to learn of the Tor House Foundation's desire to install the Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden?
QUESTION: Is this fiasco an example of micromanagement as described in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report, Finding 7. "Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest?"
1 comment:
To: Grand Jury Judge Silliman
CC: Grand Jury Chairperson
Subject: Carmel March 7, 2006 City Council Meeting
Date: 31 March 2006
A letter of response to the grand jury findings and recommendations was an agenda item during the referenced city council meeting.
Three citizens of Carmel discussed this response letter which you have probably now received. The president of the Carmel Residents Association (represents 500 plus members), my wife Roberta Miller, and myself all spoke to the city council on the 7th of March. I am enclosing my video recording of that section of the city council meeting. You can hear our comments on the response letter and the extraodinary comments made by the members of the city council after closing public comments. An official video recording can be reviewed at Carmel City Hall. A copy of my comments to the city council are also attached.
I think you will find that improvement in Carmel's open government did not happen as a result of your grand jury findings and recommendations.
In case you don't have the time to review the attached video or the official copy at city hall, I will give you some exact quotes by council member Gerard Rose, a lawyer.
Example 1: "One of the weaknesses of the grand jury systems is its run by a series of lay persons, who may or may not know how to research or do their homework."
Example 2: "The speakers tonight, in what sometimes appeared to be in a political vein, seem to suggest that there is some dire problem facing the city of Carmel vis a vie communication with the public on matters of public interest."
These three members of the public pointed out many factual errors in the city's response to the grand jury findings. We expected them to make corrections to the letter so their response was accurate. Instead the bottom line was they all approved sending the letter without changes.
Thank you for your attention,
Monte Miller
Carmel Resident
POB 3085, Carmel, CA 93921
attachment 1 My remarks to the Carmel City Council
attachment 2 Video recording of grand jury discussion portion of Council meeting
Attachment 1:
Monte Millers comments on Carmel City's Response to the 2005 Grand Jury Report
Its embarrassing to think this draft letter to the grand jury Judge has been seen by all the local cities. I hope you will take the public's comments and redeem Carmel's reputation by issuing a factually correct and succinct response to the grand jury.
I was disappointed at the tone and content of your draft letter responding to the Grand Jury Report. I was really upset by the letter being put on the consent calendar. Unless someone pulls it there would be no discussion by the council nor by the public. I would like an answer as to the purpose of this placement rather than as a regular agenda item.
My detailed comments are as follows.
1) The first 3 pages are full of extraneous data on the Brown Act and California code. Neither the council nor the Grand Jury Judge you are addressing need education on these topics. I suggest this section be deleted.
2) Thruout the answers to the findings and recommendations a theme is repeated over and over about how the public can speak at the appearance portion of the council meeting. I am not aware of major topics addressed at the appearance ever having a follow-up.
3) Comments on the findings:
a) Finding 1 is about gaining resolution of topics or issues presented by the public. The letter's Response 1 disagrees and states that any member of the public can request an item be placed on the agenda.
I tried to get the 6 months financial report and the audit report on the
Feb agenda so the public could ask questions about them . I sent a letter with this request to all members of the council, the city administrator, and the city attorney. I did not get any official response from the city nor the council. These topics were presented during the announcement portion of the Jan Council meeting which precludes public comments or questions. I did later get a copy of the audit, but the 6 months financial status report was not available from city hall.
b) Finding 3 is about follow-up of public comment during the appearance section. Response 3 states there is a procedure for this follow-up. I don't believe this procedure exists. Please furnish me a copy if it does.
c) Finding 6 and Recommendation 1 states that all cities have published procedures and forms for the public to place items on the agenda.
Response to finding 6 and Recommendation 1 - the city agrees with this. When I am finished my wife will tell you how erroneous these responses are. Plus my experience with requesting an agenda item.
d) Recommendation 5 requests that forms and procedures for public inputs into council agenda's should be at the council meetings. Response 5 states that this has been implemented. this is not true. There are no forms or procedures for the public to request an item be placed on the agenda.
In summary, the city is not conducting the publics business in a fair and open manner. This letter sure enhances this concept of how our city government is behaving. Please improve your approach to the public's need for an open government. Errors pointed out by me and others should be corrected before the letters is sent.
Thank You.
monte miller
Post a Comment