ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there will appear the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and September 25, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Sell Flanders and a precedent is set to carve up another large chunk of our park. The public loses recreational, educational and environmental treasures.” (09/21/2009)
• “I always thought that the city leaders were to be stewards of the public's land, not the agents of their demise.” (09/21/2009)
• ”Land matters. If a piece of our city is taken away, if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (09/19/2009)
• “The park thus would lose its most dramatic area with incomparable views of the Carmel Mission, and the littoral of the Carmel River entering the Pacific with Carmel Bay and Point Lobos in the background.” (September 18, 2009)
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Monterey County Weekly, The Public Voice Letters, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 (WHAT’S AT STAKE, Margaret L. Purchase | Carmel-by-the-Sea
The Monterey County Herald, 09/21/2009 (Save Carmel park, vote no on Measure I, Margaret L. Purchase Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, 09/19/2009 (Don't sell off Carmel parkland, Roberta Miller Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009 (‘Simple solution,’ Olof Dahlstrand, Carmel) pg. 28A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
Sunday, September 27, 2009
UPDATE III: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there will appear the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and September 25, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
Saturday, September 26, 2009
REBUTTAL: VOTE YES ON MEASURE I ADVERTISEMENT, Committee for AYE on Measure I
ABSTRACT: In the 25 September 2009 issue of The Carmel Pine Cone, an advertisement, “SELL THE FLANDERS HOUSE AND SAVE THE PARK VOTE YES ON MEASURE I,” paid for by the Committee for AYE on Measure I, appeared on page 2A. The contents of the advertisement are reproduced. The advertisement’s claims are rebutted, including a rebuttal to ‘Sell the House and Save the Park,’ as follows: Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the Flanders Mansion Property is “parkland.” Ergo, selling the “house” is selling parkland, not saving parkland.
SELL THE FLANDERS HOUSE AND SAVE THE PARK
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
Our mission statement:
Sell the House and Save the Park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
Vote Yes to Preserve:
• The Park
• The Mission Trails
• The Wildlife
• The Residential Character
• The Historic Family Home
• The Financial Health of Carmel
Join us The Friends of Flanders in preserving the park and vote the responsible choice.
ON NOVEMEBER 3RD OR BY ABSENTEE BALLOT:
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
This ad sponsored by the committee for:
Aye on Measure I
Paid for the Committee for AYE on Measure I
(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, September 25, 2009, Pg. 2)
REBUTTAL:
• ‘Sell the House and Save the Park’
Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the Flanders Mansion Property is “parkland.” Ergo, selling the “house” is selling parkland, not saving parkland.
And contrary to the inference that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would be budgeted for the maintenance of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the monies from the sale of the Property would go into the City’s General Fund, not earmarked for Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Given the City has failed to fund and implement provisions pertinent to Mission Trail Nature Preserve from the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan, it is doubtful the City would use the proceeds from the sale to adequately maintain our largest park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
The Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan indicates that the Flanders Mansion is an “intrinsic part of the preserve and the surrounding area.” Significantly, the loss of the Flanders Mansion from City control represents “a significant and unavoidable impact that would conflict with policies that are intended to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to parkland.”
Moreover, while the Flanders Mansion Property (1.252 acres) represents only 4% of the total Mission Trail Nature Preserve acreage, the loss of this acreage represents a disproportionate loss to Mission Trail Nature Preserve, as the Flanders Mansion is the focal point and differentiates the Preserve from all the other City parks.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
The statement that the "Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536" is fallacious. Approximately $105,000 was expended, not as a result of litigation, but rather as a legally required expenditure for a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report in order to sell the Flanders Mansion Property. Moreover, approximately $425,000 was expended by the City for the RDEIR, RFEIR, Consultant Planning Services, Economic Analysis Project and Site Evaluation and Construction Cost and attorney fees as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after Judge Robert O’Farrell’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Note: Mayor Sue McCloud caused a lawsuit to be filed against the City when she advocated for the hiring of attorney William B. Conners to argue the Flanders Mansion Property was not “parkland” and the City was therefore not legally required to conduct a vote of the people. Moreover, a Monterey County Superior Court judge had to order the City to comply with the law and conduct a vote on the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
While the Committee for AYE on Measure I advertisement states over $785,536 “should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents,” the City has not identified specific projects to fund from the proceeds of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
Note: Years ago, Mayor Sue McCloud stated publicly that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion would fund the Carmel Fire Station Seismic Retrofit Project; however, General Fund revenues had already been budgeted for that Project.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
A precedent was established, when in 1972, a Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council made the decision to merge the Flanders Parcel and the Doolittle Parcel to form Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Accordingly, since 1972, the Flanders Mansion has been a public asset in the context of the City’s largest park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Moreover, a responsibility of our elected representatives is to act as good stewards of public properties. In this instance, that means using taxpayer dollars to preserve publicly owned parkland and maintain and determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not need to raise “much needed funds,” rather Carmelites need the City to competently manage our taxpayer dollars. For example, as set forth in Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513), the City mismanaged taxpayer revenues by allegedly compensating city employees who failed to earn or merit additional compensation. Note: The City has a 2009/10 General Fund Budget of $13,741,050 and $10.5 million in reserve funds.
SELL THE FLANDERS HOUSE AND SAVE THE PARK
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
Our mission statement:
Sell the House and Save the Park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
Vote Yes to Preserve:
• The Park
• The Mission Trails
• The Wildlife
• The Residential Character
• The Historic Family Home
• The Financial Health of Carmel
Join us The Friends of Flanders in preserving the park and vote the responsible choice.
ON NOVEMEBER 3RD OR BY ABSENTEE BALLOT:
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
This ad sponsored by the committee for:
Aye on Measure I
Paid for the Committee for AYE on Measure I
(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, September 25, 2009, Pg. 2)
REBUTTAL:
• ‘Sell the House and Save the Park’
Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the Flanders Mansion Property is “parkland.” Ergo, selling the “house” is selling parkland, not saving parkland.
And contrary to the inference that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would be budgeted for the maintenance of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the monies from the sale of the Property would go into the City’s General Fund, not earmarked for Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Given the City has failed to fund and implement provisions pertinent to Mission Trail Nature Preserve from the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan, it is doubtful the City would use the proceeds from the sale to adequately maintain our largest park.
• Only 1.25 acres will be sold while the remaining 31.15 acres of land and trails will be maintained as parkland for all Carmel residents to enjoy.
The Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan indicates that the Flanders Mansion is an “intrinsic part of the preserve and the surrounding area.” Significantly, the loss of the Flanders Mansion from City control represents “a significant and unavoidable impact that would conflict with policies that are intended to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to parkland.”
Moreover, while the Flanders Mansion Property (1.252 acres) represents only 4% of the total Mission Trail Nature Preserve acreage, the loss of this acreage represents a disproportionate loss to Mission Trail Nature Preserve, as the Flanders Mansion is the focal point and differentiates the Preserve from all the other City parks.
• The Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536 and is rising: Money that should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents.
The statement that the "Flanders litigation has cost Carmel taxpayers over $785,536" is fallacious. Approximately $105,000 was expended, not as a result of litigation, but rather as a legally required expenditure for a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report in order to sell the Flanders Mansion Property. Moreover, approximately $425,000 was expended by the City for the RDEIR, RFEIR, Consultant Planning Services, Economic Analysis Project and Site Evaluation and Construction Cost and attorney fees as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after Judge Robert O’Farrell’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Note: Mayor Sue McCloud caused a lawsuit to be filed against the City when she advocated for the hiring of attorney William B. Conners to argue the Flanders Mansion Property was not “parkland” and the City was therefore not legally required to conduct a vote of the people. Moreover, a Monterey County Superior Court judge had to order the City to comply with the law and conduct a vote on the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
While the Committee for AYE on Measure I advertisement states over $785,536 “should be spent on useful projects for the community of Carmel and its residents,” the City has not identified specific projects to fund from the proceeds of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
Note: Years ago, Mayor Sue McCloud stated publicly that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion would fund the Carmel Fire Station Seismic Retrofit Project; however, General Fund revenues had already been budgeted for that Project.
• Selling the house for single-family use as it was intended, will give a family the chance to care for and restore the home, and will raise much needed funds for Carmel.
A precedent was established, when in 1972, a Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council made the decision to merge the Flanders Parcel and the Doolittle Parcel to form Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Accordingly, since 1972, the Flanders Mansion has been a public asset in the context of the City’s largest park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Moreover, a responsibility of our elected representatives is to act as good stewards of public properties. In this instance, that means using taxpayer dollars to preserve publicly owned parkland and maintain and determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not need to raise “much needed funds,” rather Carmelites need the City to competently manage our taxpayer dollars. For example, as set forth in Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513), the City mismanaged taxpayer revenues by allegedly compensating city employees who failed to earn or merit additional compensation. Note: The City has a 2009/10 General Fund Budget of $13,741,050 and $10.5 million in reserve funds.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Third Annual Carmel’s Authors & Ideas Conference
WHO: Carmel residents Jim and Cindy McGillen, Founders
WHAT: The Third Annual Carmel Authors and Ideas Festival; featuring twnety-nine award winning authors
AUTHORS (listed alphabetically, links to websites):
TRIP ADLER, CEO and co-founder of Scribd, “the largest social publishing company in the world, the website where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents."
REZA ASLAN, Assistant Professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara and contributor to the Daily Beast.
CARA BLACK, author of mystery novels set in Paris featuring detective Aimée Leduc.
LOUANN BRIZENDINE, M.D., Founder and Director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic, specializes in the relationship dynamics that result from the neurobiology of male and female brains.
STUART L. BROWN, M.D., Founder of The National Institute for Play, a 501c(3) non-profit public benefit corporation committed "to bringing the unrealized knowledge, practices and benefits of play into public life."
FRANCES DINKELSPIEL, a fifth-generation Californian who grew up in San Francisco, author of Towers of Gold: How One Jewish Immigrant Named Isaias Hellman Created California, published by St. Martins Press in November 2008.
RODES FISHBURNE, "a lifelong angler, he worked for five seasons as a fly-fishing guide in Alaska," author of the best-selling novel Going to See the Elephant.
DON GEORGE, a pioneering and award-winning travel journalist; the Adventure Collection’s Web Editor in Chief and the creator and host of Don’s Place, a multi-faceted web site that focuses on the world of adventure travel.
ELIZABETH GILBERT, Author of Pilgrims, a collection of short stories; Stern Men, novel about lobster fishing territory wars off the coast of Maine; The Last American Man, biography of Eustace Conway, an eclectic modern day woodsman and Eat, Pray, Love, about the year she spent traveling the world alone after a difficult divorce.
CARL HIAASEN, "America's finest satirical novelist...the blazing conscience of the Sunshine State."
NEAL HOTELLING, an "authority on the history of world-famous Pebble Beach."
TOM JOHNSON, Director of the Program for Culture & Conflict Studies. Naval Postgraduate School; the program coordinates anthropological research activities on the human terrain of Central and South Asia, he teaches courses on Afghanistan, Central Asian crises, politics, terrorism, and security.
DAVID KENNEDY, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University; Research includes integration of economic and cultural analysis with social and political history.
MICHAEL KRASNY KQED Radio's Michael Krasny is one of the country's leading interviewers of literary luminaries, author of Off Mike A Memoir of Talk Radio and Literary Life.
RICHARD LEDERER, "a fly-by-the-roof-of-the-mouth user- friendly English teacher, Wizard of Idiom, Attila the Pun, and Conan the Grammarian," author of A Treasury for Dog Lovers and A Treasury for Cat Lovers.
FREDERIC LUSKIN, Ph.D., Director of the Stanford Forgiveness Projects, an ongoing series of workshops and research projects that investigate the effectiveness of his forgiveness methods on a variety of populations.
SHANA MAHAFFEY, author of Sounds Like Crazy, a "darkly comic and ultimately healing story about Holly Miller, an Emmy Award winning cartoon voiceover performer who has actual voices in her head, multiple personalities who make her career a huge success, and shield her from a terrible secret in her past."
BILL MILLIKEN, "a tireless advocate for disenfranchised youth and one of the foremost pioneers in the movement to connect schools with community resources to help troubled students graduate and succeed in life," author of The Last Dropout: Stop the Epidemic!
GREG MORTENSON Co-founder (with Dr. Jean Hoerni) and Executive Director of nonprofit Central Asia Institute, promotes community-based education and literacy programs, especially for girls, in remote mountain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Founder of Pennies For Peace and co-author of the #1 New York Times best-seller, Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School At A Time.
P. J. O’ROURKE, "America’s premier political satirist." Best-selling author of 12 books, including Parliament of Whores, Give War a Chance, Eat the Rich, The CEO of the Sofa, Holidays in Hell, Peace Kills and On the Wealth of Nations. Of his 2009 release, Driving Like Crazy: Thirty Years of Vehicular Hell-bending, Celebrating America the Way It's Supposed To Be -- With an Oil Well in Every Backyard, a Cadillac Escalade in Every Carport, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Mowing Our Lawn.
FRANK PORTMAN, author of the best-selling young adult novel King Dork.
CARLOS PRIETO, "...a true champion of the cello. A creative artist, scholar and storyteller, Carlos has been a prolific contributor to the flow of music throughout the western hemisphere, premiering compositions of some of the greatest contemporary composers and helping to nurture and develop an entire generation of Latin America's most talented musicians." Prieto has written six books: "Russian Letters", "Around the World with the Cello", "From the USSR to Russia", "The Adventures of a Cello" – translated into English, Russian and Portuguese, "Paths and Images of Music" and "5000 Years of Words."
DAVID ROCHE, Motivational keynote speaker and humorist, Roche has "transformed the challenges and gifts of living with a facial disfigurement into a compelling message that uplifts and delights audiences around the world.”
KEMBLE SCOTT, bestselling author of the novels The Sower and SoMa and editor the weekly literary newsletter THE LIT GUIDE.
SHELBY STEELE Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Steele specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action.
Steele received the National Book Critic's Circle Award in 1990 in the general nonfiction category for his book The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. Other books by Steele include A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win (Free Press, 2007), White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (HarperCollins 2006) and A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America.
LOUISE STEINMAN, a writer and literary curator. “Her work frequently deals with memory, history and reconciliation;” books include The Souvenir: A Daughter Discovers Her Father's War, chronicles "her quest to return a war 'souvenir' to its owner and-- in the process-- illuminates how war changed one generation and shaped another and The Knowing Body: The Artist As Storyteller in Contemporary Performance, based on two decades of Louise’s experience as a performer/director with So&So&So&So interdisciplinary theater troupe, and as a dance/theater critic..."
DAVID L. ULIN, a writer based in Los Angeles, “Ulin presents both a personal and a cultural account of earthquakes and attempts to predict them ranging from the superstitious to the scientific. Among his topics are three April earthquakes, the history of seismology, and before and after science;” books include Writing Los Angeles: A Literary Anthology, The Myth of Solid Ground: Earthquakes, Prediction, and the Fault Line Between Reason and Faith and Another City: Writing from Los Angeles.
ABRAHAM VERGHESE, Board-certified in internal medicine and in pulmonary and infectious diseases, Verghese is known for his acclaimed non-fiction work, including My Own Country, which was based on his experiences as a physician treating persons with HIV in Johnson City, Tennessee, The Tennis Partner and Cutting for Stone.
RICK WARTZMAN, director of Claremont Graduate University’s Drucker Institute, "established in May 2006 with the mission of taking Peter Drucker’s ideas and ideals to new audiences by new means."
WHEN: Friday, September 25 – Sunday, 27, 2009
WHERE: Sunset Center Theater
E/s San Carlos St @ 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
TICKETS: EVENT TICKET $550.00 each (includes facility handling charge); Includes one seat for all Festival general sessions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please call 831-626-6243 or email info@carmelauthors.com
WHAT: The Third Annual Carmel Authors and Ideas Festival; featuring twnety-nine award winning authors
AUTHORS (listed alphabetically, links to websites):
TRIP ADLER, CEO and co-founder of Scribd, “the largest social publishing company in the world, the website where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents."
REZA ASLAN, Assistant Professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara and contributor to the Daily Beast.
CARA BLACK, author of mystery novels set in Paris featuring detective Aimée Leduc.
LOUANN BRIZENDINE, M.D., Founder and Director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic, specializes in the relationship dynamics that result from the neurobiology of male and female brains.
STUART L. BROWN, M.D., Founder of The National Institute for Play, a 501c(3) non-profit public benefit corporation committed "to bringing the unrealized knowledge, practices and benefits of play into public life."
FRANCES DINKELSPIEL, a fifth-generation Californian who grew up in San Francisco, author of Towers of Gold: How One Jewish Immigrant Named Isaias Hellman Created California, published by St. Martins Press in November 2008.
RODES FISHBURNE, "a lifelong angler, he worked for five seasons as a fly-fishing guide in Alaska," author of the best-selling novel Going to See the Elephant.
DON GEORGE, a pioneering and award-winning travel journalist; the Adventure Collection’s Web Editor in Chief and the creator and host of Don’s Place, a multi-faceted web site that focuses on the world of adventure travel.
ELIZABETH GILBERT, Author of Pilgrims, a collection of short stories; Stern Men, novel about lobster fishing territory wars off the coast of Maine; The Last American Man, biography of Eustace Conway, an eclectic modern day woodsman and Eat, Pray, Love, about the year she spent traveling the world alone after a difficult divorce.
CARL HIAASEN, "America's finest satirical novelist...the blazing conscience of the Sunshine State."
NEAL HOTELLING, an "authority on the history of world-famous Pebble Beach."
TOM JOHNSON, Director of the Program for Culture & Conflict Studies. Naval Postgraduate School; the program coordinates anthropological research activities on the human terrain of Central and South Asia, he teaches courses on Afghanistan, Central Asian crises, politics, terrorism, and security.
DAVID KENNEDY, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University; Research includes integration of economic and cultural analysis with social and political history.
MICHAEL KRASNY KQED Radio's Michael Krasny is one of the country's leading interviewers of literary luminaries, author of Off Mike A Memoir of Talk Radio and Literary Life.
RICHARD LEDERER, "a fly-by-the-roof-of-the-mouth user- friendly English teacher, Wizard of Idiom, Attila the Pun, and Conan the Grammarian," author of A Treasury for Dog Lovers and A Treasury for Cat Lovers.
FREDERIC LUSKIN, Ph.D., Director of the Stanford Forgiveness Projects, an ongoing series of workshops and research projects that investigate the effectiveness of his forgiveness methods on a variety of populations.
SHANA MAHAFFEY, author of Sounds Like Crazy, a "darkly comic and ultimately healing story about Holly Miller, an Emmy Award winning cartoon voiceover performer who has actual voices in her head, multiple personalities who make her career a huge success, and shield her from a terrible secret in her past."
BILL MILLIKEN, "a tireless advocate for disenfranchised youth and one of the foremost pioneers in the movement to connect schools with community resources to help troubled students graduate and succeed in life," author of The Last Dropout: Stop the Epidemic!
GREG MORTENSON Co-founder (with Dr. Jean Hoerni) and Executive Director of nonprofit Central Asia Institute, promotes community-based education and literacy programs, especially for girls, in remote mountain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Founder of Pennies For Peace and co-author of the #1 New York Times best-seller, Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School At A Time.
P. J. O’ROURKE, "America’s premier political satirist." Best-selling author of 12 books, including Parliament of Whores, Give War a Chance, Eat the Rich, The CEO of the Sofa, Holidays in Hell, Peace Kills and On the Wealth of Nations. Of his 2009 release, Driving Like Crazy: Thirty Years of Vehicular Hell-bending, Celebrating America the Way It's Supposed To Be -- With an Oil Well in Every Backyard, a Cadillac Escalade in Every Carport, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Mowing Our Lawn.
FRANK PORTMAN, author of the best-selling young adult novel King Dork.
CARLOS PRIETO, "...a true champion of the cello. A creative artist, scholar and storyteller, Carlos has been a prolific contributor to the flow of music throughout the western hemisphere, premiering compositions of some of the greatest contemporary composers and helping to nurture and develop an entire generation of Latin America's most talented musicians." Prieto has written six books: "Russian Letters", "Around the World with the Cello", "From the USSR to Russia", "The Adventures of a Cello" – translated into English, Russian and Portuguese, "Paths and Images of Music" and "5000 Years of Words."
DAVID ROCHE, Motivational keynote speaker and humorist, Roche has "transformed the challenges and gifts of living with a facial disfigurement into a compelling message that uplifts and delights audiences around the world.”
KEMBLE SCOTT, bestselling author of the novels The Sower and SoMa and editor the weekly literary newsletter THE LIT GUIDE.
SHELBY STEELE Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Steele specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action.
Steele received the National Book Critic's Circle Award in 1990 in the general nonfiction category for his book The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. Other books by Steele include A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win (Free Press, 2007), White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (HarperCollins 2006) and A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America.
LOUISE STEINMAN, a writer and literary curator. “Her work frequently deals with memory, history and reconciliation;” books include The Souvenir: A Daughter Discovers Her Father's War, chronicles "her quest to return a war 'souvenir' to its owner and-- in the process-- illuminates how war changed one generation and shaped another and The Knowing Body: The Artist As Storyteller in Contemporary Performance, based on two decades of Louise’s experience as a performer/director with So&So&So&So interdisciplinary theater troupe, and as a dance/theater critic..."
DAVID L. ULIN, a writer based in Los Angeles, “Ulin presents both a personal and a cultural account of earthquakes and attempts to predict them ranging from the superstitious to the scientific. Among his topics are three April earthquakes, the history of seismology, and before and after science;” books include Writing Los Angeles: A Literary Anthology, The Myth of Solid Ground: Earthquakes, Prediction, and the Fault Line Between Reason and Faith and Another City: Writing from Los Angeles.
ABRAHAM VERGHESE, Board-certified in internal medicine and in pulmonary and infectious diseases, Verghese is known for his acclaimed non-fiction work, including My Own Country, which was based on his experiences as a physician treating persons with HIV in Johnson City, Tennessee, The Tennis Partner and Cutting for Stone.
RICK WARTZMAN, director of Claremont Graduate University’s Drucker Institute, "established in May 2006 with the mission of taking Peter Drucker’s ideas and ideals to new audiences by new means."
WHEN: Friday, September 25 – Sunday, 27, 2009
WHERE: Sunset Center Theater
E/s San Carlos St @ 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
TICKETS: EVENT TICKET $550.00 each (includes facility handling charge); Includes one seat for all Festival general sessions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please call 831-626-6243 or email info@carmelauthors.com
Sunday, September 20, 2009
REBUTTAL: ‘Sell Flanders Mansion,’ William Doolittle
ABSTRACT: In the Friday, 18 September 2009 edition of The Carmel Pine Cone, Carmelite William Doolitte expressed his opinions on the Flanders Mansion Property, formerly a part of Paul and Grace Flanders property prior to it being merged with William Doolittle’s property to become Mission Trail Nature Preserve in 1972. Each of Doolittle’s statements is reproduced accompanied by rebuttals.
William Doolittle: “The house has been more than adequately studied, in terms of a realistic use,” he said this week. “Access is always going to be a factor, and impact on the neighborhood really limits what can be done with the property.”
Rebuttal: While there have been Task Forces to study uses for the Flanders Mansion is the past, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor, Mayor Sue McCloud has refused to meet and confer with representatives of the Flanders Foundation to explore reasonable public uses for the Flanders Mansion. (The Flanders Foundation obtained non-profit 501(c)3 status in 1999; its Mission is to “preserve, enhance, and maintain the Flanders mansion property as an historical, cultural, and educational resource for the benefit of residents and visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea.”) It appears that since the Flanders Mansion has been used by the Carmel Art Institute, Carmel Heritage, Carmel’s Historic Survey Committee, the Arboretum Committee and the Alliance on Aging for the benefit of the public in the past, a public use could be found today if our city government leaders had the political will.
William Doolittle: “It’s time to be realistic about this, because I don’t think they’ll ever come up with a use that will satisfy or make the neighbors comfortable.”
Rebuttal: The owners of the Flanders Mansion Property are the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, not the residents of Hatton Fields. And while the concerns of Hatton Fields residents should be considered, Hatton Fields residents should not have veto power over a reasonable public use of the Flanders Mansion.
William Doolittle: Doolittle said he thinks foundation president Melanie Billig and her supporters should have focused on saving the mansion by collecting funds to buy it and fix it up, rather than on suing the city at the expense of taxpayers.
“This group that wants to save Flanders Mansion, if they had started raising money 10 years ago, they probably would have been able to raise enough by now to acquire it for themselves,” he said.
Rebuttal: William Doolittle, former president of the Campaign for Sunset (a $21.1 million capital campaign for the renovation of the Sunset Center in partnership with the City), should know that the Flanders Foundation had an informal arrangement with the City that the Foundation would abstain from soliciting donations for the rehabilitation of the Flanders Mansion for the duration of the Campaign for Sunset because of the finite, limited number of potential donors.
More importantly though, the issue in not about the Flanders Foundation acquiring the Flanders Mansion “for themselves,” rather the issue is about the City honoring its stewardship responsibilities and using taxpayer monies to maintain, determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit of Carmelites and the public at large.
William Doolittle: And while opponents of the sale argue it would remove “the heart” of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Doolittle disagreed.
“Considering the community hasn’t had access to the house for so many years, it’s not like we’re being denied something we had access to before,” he said. “We’ve never really had access to the house, and I think the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park.”
Rebuttal: Arguing that because the community has not had access to the Flanders Mansion “for so many years,” the community isn’t “being denied something we had access to before,” implies that the City’s past poor management of Flanders Mansion, i.e., not maintaining the structure per Municipal Code and not determining and implementing a reasonable public use, is a reason to sell the property. This is akin to saying our city government is so incompetent in managing a public asset for the benefit of the public, our city government must therefore sell it, instead of being responsible stewards of the Flanders Mansion Property.
When William Doolittle stated he thinks “the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park,” does he understand that the separation does not create a parcel contiguous with the two properties on either side, rather the separation creates a private inholding, a parcel surrounded entirely by parkland? Generally speaking, the elimination of inholdings is the aim of planning policy, not the creation of inholdings because inholdings can create problems, including potential disputes between private owners and public park users, et cetera.
(Source: Mission Trail park benefactor says, ‘Sell Flanders Mansion,’ MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009, 6A)
William Doolittle: “The house has been more than adequately studied, in terms of a realistic use,” he said this week. “Access is always going to be a factor, and impact on the neighborhood really limits what can be done with the property.”
Rebuttal: While there have been Task Forces to study uses for the Flanders Mansion is the past, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor, Mayor Sue McCloud has refused to meet and confer with representatives of the Flanders Foundation to explore reasonable public uses for the Flanders Mansion. (The Flanders Foundation obtained non-profit 501(c)3 status in 1999; its Mission is to “preserve, enhance, and maintain the Flanders mansion property as an historical, cultural, and educational resource for the benefit of residents and visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea.”) It appears that since the Flanders Mansion has been used by the Carmel Art Institute, Carmel Heritage, Carmel’s Historic Survey Committee, the Arboretum Committee and the Alliance on Aging for the benefit of the public in the past, a public use could be found today if our city government leaders had the political will.
William Doolittle: “It’s time to be realistic about this, because I don’t think they’ll ever come up with a use that will satisfy or make the neighbors comfortable.”
Rebuttal: The owners of the Flanders Mansion Property are the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, not the residents of Hatton Fields. And while the concerns of Hatton Fields residents should be considered, Hatton Fields residents should not have veto power over a reasonable public use of the Flanders Mansion.
William Doolittle: Doolittle said he thinks foundation president Melanie Billig and her supporters should have focused on saving the mansion by collecting funds to buy it and fix it up, rather than on suing the city at the expense of taxpayers.
“This group that wants to save Flanders Mansion, if they had started raising money 10 years ago, they probably would have been able to raise enough by now to acquire it for themselves,” he said.
Rebuttal: William Doolittle, former president of the Campaign for Sunset (a $21.1 million capital campaign for the renovation of the Sunset Center in partnership with the City), should know that the Flanders Foundation had an informal arrangement with the City that the Foundation would abstain from soliciting donations for the rehabilitation of the Flanders Mansion for the duration of the Campaign for Sunset because of the finite, limited number of potential donors.
More importantly though, the issue in not about the Flanders Foundation acquiring the Flanders Mansion “for themselves,” rather the issue is about the City honoring its stewardship responsibilities and using taxpayer monies to maintain, determine and implement a public use for the Flanders Mansion for the benefit of Carmelites and the public at large.
William Doolittle: And while opponents of the sale argue it would remove “the heart” of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Doolittle disagreed.
“Considering the community hasn’t had access to the house for so many years, it’s not like we’re being denied something we had access to before,” he said. “We’ve never really had access to the house, and I think the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park.”
Rebuttal: Arguing that because the community has not had access to the Flanders Mansion “for so many years,” the community isn’t “being denied something we had access to before,” implies that the City’s past poor management of Flanders Mansion, i.e., not maintaining the structure per Municipal Code and not determining and implementing a reasonable public use, is a reason to sell the property. This is akin to saying our city government is so incompetent in managing a public asset for the benefit of the public, our city government must therefore sell it, instead of being responsible stewards of the Flanders Mansion Property.
When William Doolittle stated he thinks “the property could be separated in such a way that it wouldn’t really have a negative impact on the park,” does he understand that the separation does not create a parcel contiguous with the two properties on either side, rather the separation creates a private inholding, a parcel surrounded entirely by parkland? Generally speaking, the elimination of inholdings is the aim of planning policy, not the creation of inholdings because inholdings can create problems, including potential disputes between private owners and public park users, et cetera.
(Source: Mission Trail park benefactor says, ‘Sell Flanders Mansion,’ MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009, 6A)
Saturday, September 19, 2009
‘Nothing’ versus ‘Nonsense’
ABSTRACT: Quotations from Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud and Michael Stamp, the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation, are juxtaposed. (Credit to Monterey County Weekly for reporting)
Mayor Sue McCloud, who usually humors Squid’s niggling questions, tried to make the whole mess go away: “You’re making a lot out of nothing, and I’m not gonna say anything more to you on this,” she said, and hung up.
(Source: CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, Monterey County Weekly, JULY 16, 2009)
Versus
The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea has filed a motion to disqualify Stamp from a lawsuit by Carmel Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, alleging Stamp has a conflict of interest because he’s represented the city on personnel matters in the past. “There is no conflict,” Stamp responds. “The claim is nonsense. The motion is frivolous.”
(Source: Updates, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009)
NOTE: Motion Hearing on the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, 2 October 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA.
(Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea M99513)
Mayor Sue McCloud, who usually humors Squid’s niggling questions, tried to make the whole mess go away: “You’re making a lot out of nothing, and I’m not gonna say anything more to you on this,” she said, and hung up.
(Source: CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, Monterey County Weekly, JULY 16, 2009)
Versus
The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea has filed a motion to disqualify Stamp from a lawsuit by Carmel Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, alleging Stamp has a conflict of interest because he’s represented the city on personnel matters in the past. “There is no conflict,” Stamp responds. “The claim is nonsense. The motion is frivolous.”
(Source: Updates, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009)
NOTE: Motion Hearing on the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, 2 October 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA.
(Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea M99513)
Friday, September 18, 2009
Analysis of CITY EXPENDITURES FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: In the context of a recent letter to the editor, The Monterey County Herald, written by Marikay Morris, the City’s expenditures for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property are presented and analyzed through COMMENTS, including the following: The largest share of the total $787,290.25 (as of the City’s August 2009 Check Register) expended by the City for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property has been as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after a Judge’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
On Tuesday, 15 September 2009, The Monterey County Herald published a letter to the editor entitled “Flanders Foundation running up tab” written by Marikay Morris. Morris wrote, in part, as follows:
“In response to the letter last week complaining that Carmel has spent almost $800,000 regarding the sale of Flanders Mansion, the focus should have been the people who instigated the lawsuit: The Flanders Foundation.”
“...The exceptional part of this case is that a very small minority continues to cost the public endless time and money.”
CITY EXPENDITURES FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY (as of City’s August 2009 Check Register)
Legal & Associated Expenditures:
Joel Franklin: $163,059.01
Susan Brandt-Hawley: $160,000.00
William B. Conners: $84,228.00
Subtotal: $407,287.01
Gianna Rocha (Transcription Services): $10,685
Mark Askew (Flanders Mansion Appraisal): $1,500.00
Subtotal: $12,185
Total Subtotal: $419,472.01
EIR Expenditures:
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $102,689.34 (DEIR & FEIR)
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $67,000 (RDEIR; per Resolution August 2008 not to exceed $67,000.00)
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $ 77,949.56 (RFEIR; per Resolution June 2009 not to exceed $77,572)
Subtotal: $247,638.90
Planning Consultant:
Monterey Bay Planning Services (Brian Roseth): $38,916.99
Subtotal: $38,916.99
Economic Analysis Project:
CBRE Consulting, Inc.: $52,483.72 (per Resolution August 2008, not to exceed $40,000.00)
CBRE Consulting, Inc.: $ 15,416.00 (per Resolution June 2009, not to exceed $23,000.00)
Subtotal: $67,899.72
Site Evaluation & Construction Cost Estimates:
Architectural Resources Group (ARG): $8,540.00 (per Resolution September 2008, not to exceed $11,500.00)
Subtotal: $8,540.00
Monterey County Recorder EIR Report Filing Fee: $2,818.25
Subtotal: $2,818.25
Meeting Notices:
Carmel Pine Cone: $249.90 (Flanders EIR Meeting Notice, 4/14/09)
$149.94 (Special Election Noticing)
Monterey County Herald: $1,789.54 (Flanders Mansion Meetings Public Notices)
Subtotal: $2,189.38
GRAND TOTAL: $787,290.25
COMMENTS:
• City expenditures for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property can be divided into three categories, as follows:
1. Expenditures associated with regulatory requirements, including the DEIR and FEIR, and appraisal; a total cost of approximately $105,000.
2. Expenditures associated with legal costs from the time of the Flanders Foundation filing their original lawsuit in 2005 to Judge Robert O’Farrell’s ruling in 2007; a total cost of approximately $245,000.
3. Expenditures associated with the City’s decision not to appeal Judge O’Farrell’s ruling and continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property; a total cost of approximately $425,500.
• Significantly, expenditures associated with the City’s decision to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after the Judge’s ruling in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea represent expenditures for the RDEIR, RFEIR, Consultant Planning Services, Economic Analysis Project and Site Evaluation and Construction Cost and attorney fees totaling approximately $425,500.
• The largest share of the total $787,290.25 expended by the City for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property has been as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after a Judge’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Yet, despite all the aforementioned facts and despite a Monterey County Superior Court Judge’s ruling against the City, Marikay Morris writes that “the focus should have been the people who instigated the lawsuit” and ““a very small minority continues to cost the public endless time and money,” which begs the question: Do the individuals in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property advocate the City violate municipal and state laws as a means to their end of selling the Flanders Mansion Property and do so with impunity?
On Tuesday, 15 September 2009, The Monterey County Herald published a letter to the editor entitled “Flanders Foundation running up tab” written by Marikay Morris. Morris wrote, in part, as follows:
“In response to the letter last week complaining that Carmel has spent almost $800,000 regarding the sale of Flanders Mansion, the focus should have been the people who instigated the lawsuit: The Flanders Foundation.”
“...The exceptional part of this case is that a very small minority continues to cost the public endless time and money.”
CITY EXPENDITURES FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY (as of City’s August 2009 Check Register)
Legal & Associated Expenditures:
Joel Franklin: $163,059.01
Susan Brandt-Hawley: $160,000.00
William B. Conners: $84,228.00
Subtotal: $407,287.01
Gianna Rocha (Transcription Services): $10,685
Mark Askew (Flanders Mansion Appraisal): $1,500.00
Subtotal: $12,185
Total Subtotal: $419,472.01
EIR Expenditures:
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $102,689.34 (DEIR & FEIR)
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $67,000 (RDEIR; per Resolution August 2008 not to exceed $67,000.00)
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.: $ 77,949.56 (RFEIR; per Resolution June 2009 not to exceed $77,572)
Subtotal: $247,638.90
Planning Consultant:
Monterey Bay Planning Services (Brian Roseth): $38,916.99
Subtotal: $38,916.99
Economic Analysis Project:
CBRE Consulting, Inc.: $52,483.72 (per Resolution August 2008, not to exceed $40,000.00)
CBRE Consulting, Inc.: $ 15,416.00 (per Resolution June 2009, not to exceed $23,000.00)
Subtotal: $67,899.72
Site Evaluation & Construction Cost Estimates:
Architectural Resources Group (ARG): $8,540.00 (per Resolution September 2008, not to exceed $11,500.00)
Subtotal: $8,540.00
Monterey County Recorder EIR Report Filing Fee: $2,818.25
Subtotal: $2,818.25
Meeting Notices:
Carmel Pine Cone: $249.90 (Flanders EIR Meeting Notice, 4/14/09)
$149.94 (Special Election Noticing)
Monterey County Herald: $1,789.54 (Flanders Mansion Meetings Public Notices)
Subtotal: $2,189.38
GRAND TOTAL: $787,290.25
COMMENTS:
• City expenditures for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property can be divided into three categories, as follows:
1. Expenditures associated with regulatory requirements, including the DEIR and FEIR, and appraisal; a total cost of approximately $105,000.
2. Expenditures associated with legal costs from the time of the Flanders Foundation filing their original lawsuit in 2005 to Judge Robert O’Farrell’s ruling in 2007; a total cost of approximately $245,000.
3. Expenditures associated with the City’s decision not to appeal Judge O’Farrell’s ruling and continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property; a total cost of approximately $425,500.
• Significantly, expenditures associated with the City’s decision to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after the Judge’s ruling in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea represent expenditures for the RDEIR, RFEIR, Consultant Planning Services, Economic Analysis Project and Site Evaluation and Construction Cost and attorney fees totaling approximately $425,500.
• The largest share of the total $787,290.25 expended by the City for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property has been as a result of the City’s decision to continue to pursue the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property after a Judge’s ruling finding in favor of the Flanders Foundation and against the City and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Yet, despite all the aforementioned facts and despite a Monterey County Superior Court Judge’s ruling against the City, Marikay Morris writes that “the focus should have been the people who instigated the lawsuit” and ““a very small minority continues to cost the public endless time and money,” which begs the question: Do the individuals in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property advocate the City violate municipal and state laws as a means to their end of selling the Flanders Mansion Property and do so with impunity?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
PART II: City’s Harassment Prevention Policy No. C93-02
ABSTRACT: As a follow-up to PART I, PART II presents a Carmelite’s questions on the City’s Harassment Prevention Policy emailed to the City and the City’s response. If and when responses are forthcoming from City Attorney Don Freeman and attorneys representing the City at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, their responses will be posted.
A Carmelite’s Email:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Subject: RE: Policy
RE: CITY POLICY NO. C93-02
1. Who conducts an investigation when the complainant is the Personnel Officer and the alleged harasser is the City Administrator? To whom does the Personnel Officer file his/her written complaint when the alleged harasser is the City Administrator?
2. In May and June 2008, who were the members of the City Council’s Personnel Committee?
3. Regarding the complainant being the Personnel Officer and the alleged harasser being the City Administrator, does the City make the assumption that a credible investigation can be conducted without the city administrator being placed on a leave of absence for the duration of the investigation?
4. Regarding inquiries for records pertaining to Jane Miller, does the City make the assumption that it is appropriate and ethical for the city clerk (‘Female B’) to be in charge of city records over the course of Jane Miller’s active lawsuit?
City’s Response:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
To: Heidi Burch
Subject: RE: Policy
I have forwarded your email to City Attorney Don Freeman as well as Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, as they are handling the current litigation about which you are inquiring.
Thank you,
Heidi
A Carmelite’s Email:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Subject: RE: Policy
RE: CITY POLICY NO. C93-02
1. Who conducts an investigation when the complainant is the Personnel Officer and the alleged harasser is the City Administrator? To whom does the Personnel Officer file his/her written complaint when the alleged harasser is the City Administrator?
2. In May and June 2008, who were the members of the City Council’s Personnel Committee?
3. Regarding the complainant being the Personnel Officer and the alleged harasser being the City Administrator, does the City make the assumption that a credible investigation can be conducted without the city administrator being placed on a leave of absence for the duration of the investigation?
4. Regarding inquiries for records pertaining to Jane Miller, does the City make the assumption that it is appropriate and ethical for the city clerk (‘Female B’) to be in charge of city records over the course of Jane Miller’s active lawsuit?
City’s Response:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
To: Heidi Burch
Subject: RE: Policy
I have forwarded your email to City Attorney Don Freeman as well as Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, as they are handling the current litigation about which you are inquiring.
Thank you,
Heidi
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
PART I: City’s Harassment Prevention Policy No. C93-02
ABSTRACT: Today, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Harassment Policy is reproduced as PART I. Interestingly, as it pertains to Human Resources Manager Jane Miller and her lawsuit against the City for sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment in employment and retaliation, the only section relevant to the City Administrator as “alleged harasser” is, as follows: If the alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process the employee shall file a formal, written complaint, pursuant to this Policy, with the Personnel Officer who shall conduct a formal investigation. Copies of the completed investigative report shall be distributed as follows:
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: The report shall be given to the City Council’s Personnel Committee. The Committee shall review the findings and make recommendations, if any, to the entire City Council.
Tomorrow, PART II will present questions on the City’s Harassment Policy emailed to the City and the City’s response.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY POLICY NO. C93-02
HARASSMENT PROHIBITED
PURPOSE
The policy of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that harassment in any form in the workplace is unacceptable and will not be condoned or tolerated. The purposes of this Policy are to provide working conditions free of any form of harassment; to establish a procedure by which individuals who feel they have been harassed in any manner can bring their complaint(s) to an appropriate authority without fear of retaliation; to establish a procedure by which complaints of harassment are promptly, thoroughly and fairly investigated; and to insure that individuals who are found to have violated this policy will be subjected to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the severity of the offense.
POLICY
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea prohibits any form of harassment and will not tolerate, condone or trivialize such actions by any employee, regardless of employment status. Additionally, such conduct is a violation of federal and state laws. Employees, applicants for employment, and others are to be free from harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
All employees who initiate or participate in the investigation of a compliant are protected from retaliation from any employee. Retaliation will be considered a serious act of misconduct.
Disciplinary action, up to and including termination, will be imposed in accordance with the established disciplinary process for behavior proven to have taken place in violation of this Policy.
Employees committing harassment as defined in this Policy are deemed by the City to be acting outside the scope of their employment.
APPLICATION OF POLICY
This Policy applies to all officers and employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including, but not limited to, full-time and part-time employees, permanent and temporary employees, employees covered or otherwise exempted from personnel rules or regulations, and employees working under contract for the City. For the purposes of this Policy, “employee” is defined as each of the above.
This Policy also applies to elected officials, their appointees and volunteers.
Harassment includes conduct directed by men toward women, men toward men, women toward men, and women toward women.
DEFINITION
Harassment includes, but is not limited to:
1. Verbal Harassment - For example: epithets, derogatory comments or slurs on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
2. Physical Harassment - For example: assault, impeding or blocking movement, or any physical interference with normal work or movement when directed at an individual on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
3. Visual Forms of Harassment - For example: derogatory posters, notices, bulletins, cartoons, or drawings on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
4. Sexual Favors – Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which is presented as an employment condition, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an offensive work environment.
EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS
Employees are encouraged and have an obligation to:
1. Promptly report what they believe to be harassing behavior to a supervisor, manager, administrator, or the Personnel Officer.
2. Cooperate in any investigation.
3. Refrain from filing any complaint or report of harassment know to, or believed by, the employee to be without merit.
RETALIATION
All employees are assured that they may make such reports and participate in any investigation without fear of retaliation by the City, department management, their immediate supervisor, or any other employee. Retaliation will be considered a serious act of misconduct. Anyone found to have committed any act(s) of retaliation will be subject to the applicable disciplinary process, up to and including termination.
COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Anyone who believes they have been subjected to any form of harassment should attempt to immediately resolve the compliant informally. The goal is to stop the harassing behavior promptly and establish a good working environment.
The Personnel Officer shall:
1. Be notified of all complaints of harassment
2. Investigate all written complaints of harassment
3. Document all complaints of harassment
If the Personnel Officer is the subject of the complaint, the matter will be investigated by the Assistant City Administrator.
For the purposes of this procedure ‘workdays’ shall include Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.., exclusive of holidays.
Informal Process
The following steps are recommended to informally address concerns and/or complaints of harassment:
STEP 1
1. The employee should attempt to resolve the issue informally within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. His/her immediate supervisor
b. Any supervisor and manager within or outside the department
c. Department Manager
d. Personnel Officer
e. Assistant City Administrator
STEP 2
1. If the employee feels Step 1 is inappropriate, too intimidating or threatening, the employee may, within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, request his/her immediate supervisor to arrange for:
a. A confidential meeting, scheduled within two (2) workdays of the request, where the employee can present his/her complaint to the harassing employee in the presence of their immediate supervisor(s). The complainant, if requested, may have a support person of his/her choice attend this meeting.
1) If the immediate supervisor(s) is/are identified as the harassing employee, the Personnel Officer shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
a) If the Personnel Officer is identified as the harassing employee the Assistant City Administrator shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
b. The results of this meeting shall be documented in writing and forwarded to the Personnel Office.
STEP 3
1. If the employee feels Step 2 is inappropriate, too intimidating or threatening, the employee may, within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, request his/her Department Manager to arrange for:
a. A confidential meeting, scheduled within two (2) workdays of the request, where the employee can present his/her complaint to the harassing employee in the presence of their Department Manager(s). The complainant, if requested, may have a support person of his/her choice attend this meeting.
1) If the Department Manager(s) is/are identified as the harassing employee, the Personnel Officer shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
a) If the Personnel Officer is identified as the harassing employee, the Assistant City Administrator shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
b. The results of this meeting shall be documented in writing and forwarded to the Personnel Office.
Formal Process
If alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process, the employee:
1. Shall file a written compliant with the Personnel Officer using the City’s Harassment Complaint Form. This written complaint shall be filed within ten (10) workdays of the incident. As employee’s failure to report the occurrence of the alleged harassment within the ten-workday period may be deemed a voluntary waiver of any City action.
a. The employee may seek the assistance from a support person of his/her choice when preparing the written complaint.
Within three (3) workdays of receipt of the completed Harassment Complaint Form the Personnel Officer shall meet with the complainant and, if requested, the complainant’s support person, and:
1. Inform the complainant about the City’s Harassment policies and complaint procedures and answer any questions that the complainant may have regarding the City’s policy;
2. Inform the complainant about the other available options such as filing with the state and federal compliance agencies;
3. Inform the complainant that under the City’s procedure, complaints may be considered untimely if the written compliant was not filed within (10) workdays of the alleged incident, and that allegations brought to state or federal compliance agencies may have different filing time limitations which should be confirmed by the complainant with the agencies;
4. Inform the complainant that while every reasonable effort will be made to protect the confidentiality and privacy of the individuals involved, the conduct of an investigation requires that the alleged harasser be informed of the allegations, and that witnesses be interviewed;
5. Listen to the complainant’s allegations and discuss the actions complained of with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved;
6. Ask the complainant what remedies he/she feels would resolve the complaint;
7. Advise the complainant that the meeting will be documented in writing, assigned a case number and filed in the Harassment Complaint File under the security of the Personnel Officer.
Within three (3) workdays of conducting the meeting with the complainant, the Personnel Officer shall schedule a meeting with the person who allegedly engaged in the harassment and:
1. Inform him/her of the basis for the complaint and the right to be represented by an individual of his/her choice through the process;
2. Give him/her an opportunity to respond to the complaint;
a. This person shall be given ten (10) workdays to respond in writing to the allegations and identify witnesses.
3. Inform him/her that if a response to the complaint is not received within ten (10) workdays, the complaint may be considered valid, and the appropriate disciplinary action may be taken in accordance with the applicable procedures outlined in the Municipal Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
a. Disciplinary action is subject to the appropriate appeals process.
INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES
Investigations will be timely and as extensive as required, based upon the nature of the allegations. All persons named as potential witnesses and those who may have information relevant to the issues of the complaint will be contacted and interviewed during the course of the investigation.
All investigations shall be documented in writing and will be handled with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity to those involved. Every reasonable effort will be made to restrict information on the specifics of the complaint to those who are participating in the investigation: the complainant, the alleged harasser, witnesses, and department management.
All persons contacted or interviewed during the investigation will be requested not to discuss the subject matter of the investigation in order to protect the privacy of all those participating in the investigation.
If during the course of the investigation, the alleged harassment is reported to be continuing, the Personnel Officer shall notify the Assistant City Administrator who shall take such emergency or temporary action as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
1. It is the policy of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea that if the person alleged to be engaged in the harassment is the complainant’s supervisor, the complainant shall be removed from direct supervision of that supervisor and that supervisor shall not participate in performance reviews of the employee, pending the outcome of the investigation.
This action shall not be considered punitive but shall be considered a protective measure for all involved.
If, at the conclusion of the investigation, it is found that harassment occurred, the Personnel Officer shall forward the findings, which are not subject to appeal, along with any recommendations to the appropriate management level for implementation of the disciplinary process, if any.
1. The type of disciplinary action recommended shall be commensurate with the severity of the offense and in accordance with the City’s approved disciplinary action procedures, and must result in prompt and effective remedial actions.
a. Disciplinary action is subject to the applicable appeals process.
At the conclusion of the investigation the complainant(s) shall be advised by the Personnel Officer of the disposition of the complaint. If it has been determined that harassment has occurred the complainant(s) shall be notified regarding:
1. Steps taken to correct the harassment;
2. Action the complainant should take if the harassing behavior recurs;
If discipline is imposed on the harasser, the specific manner of discipline imposed shall not be communicated to the complainant.
Supervisory and management personnel shall conduct follow-up inquiries with the involved employees to determine if the alleged conduct has stopped or has resumed. These inquiries shall be documented in writing.
COMPLAINTS AGAINST VOLUNTEERS, AND/OR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES
This policy applies equally to volunteers, appointees of the City Council including members of Boards, Commissions and Committees, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the City Treasurer.
Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above shall notify the Personnel Officer who shall first try to resolve the matter informally.
Any employee who files a complaint against the above officials is assured of protection against retaliation by that official under City policies as well as state and federal regulations.
Informal Process: The following steps are recommended to informally end the harassment:
1. Resolve the complaint informally by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. Department Manager
b. Assistant City Administrator
c. Personnel Officer
If the alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process the employee shall file a formal, written complaint, pursuant to this Policy, with the Personnel Officer who shall conduct a formal investigation. Copies of the completed investigative report shall be distributed as follows:
1. If the alleged harasser is a volunteer: The report shall be forwarded to the appropriate management employee in charge of supervising the volunteer who shall take appropriate action, if any.
2. If the alleged harasser is a member of a Board, Commission, or Committee, or is the City Attorney, the City Engineer, or City Treasurer: The report shall be given to the Mayor, and City Administrator. The Mayor will oversee the implementation of appropriate disciplinary action, if any.
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: The report shall be given to the City Council’s Personnel Committee. The Committee shall review the findings and make recommendations, if any, to the entire City Council.
COMPLAINTS AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS
This policy applies equally to the Mayor and members of the City Council. Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above shall notify the Personnel Officer, who shall first try to resolve the matter informally.
Any employee who files a complaint against the above officials is assured of protection against retaliation by that official under City policies as well as state and federal regulations.
Informal Process: The following steps are recommended to informally end the harassment:
1. Resolve the complaint informally by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. Department Manager
b. Assistant City Administrator
c. Personnel Officer
d. City Administrator
COMPLAINTS AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS
Formal Process:
If alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process, the employee shall file a formal, written complaint, pursuant to this Policy, with the Personnel Officer who shall conduct a formal investigation.
If it becomes clear that an allegation against the Mayor and/or a member of the City Council appears to have substance and an internal resolution is not possible, the complainant will be so notified and referred to the state and federal compliance agencies. This referral will be made because the City has no administrative control over elected officials. Consequently, were remedial action found to be appropriate, the City would be unable to provide an effective remedy to the complainant.
STATE AND FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AGENCIES
Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted so as to deny the right of any employee who believes he/she has been harassed to file a compliant with the state and /or federal compliance agencies and/or in state of federal court. However, time limits for filing complaints with compliance agencies vary and employees should check directly with those agencies for specific information.
The state and federal compliance agencies may be contacted at the following addresses:
(State) Department of Fair Employment and Housing
111 North Market Street, #810
San Jose, CA. 95113-1102
(408) 277-1264
(Federal) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
901 Market Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA. 94103
(415) 744-6500 or 1 (800) 669-3362
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: The report shall be given to the City Council’s Personnel Committee. The Committee shall review the findings and make recommendations, if any, to the entire City Council.
Tomorrow, PART II will present questions on the City’s Harassment Policy emailed to the City and the City’s response.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY POLICY NO. C93-02
HARASSMENT PROHIBITED
PURPOSE
The policy of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that harassment in any form in the workplace is unacceptable and will not be condoned or tolerated. The purposes of this Policy are to provide working conditions free of any form of harassment; to establish a procedure by which individuals who feel they have been harassed in any manner can bring their complaint(s) to an appropriate authority without fear of retaliation; to establish a procedure by which complaints of harassment are promptly, thoroughly and fairly investigated; and to insure that individuals who are found to have violated this policy will be subjected to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the severity of the offense.
POLICY
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea prohibits any form of harassment and will not tolerate, condone or trivialize such actions by any employee, regardless of employment status. Additionally, such conduct is a violation of federal and state laws. Employees, applicants for employment, and others are to be free from harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
All employees who initiate or participate in the investigation of a compliant are protected from retaliation from any employee. Retaliation will be considered a serious act of misconduct.
Disciplinary action, up to and including termination, will be imposed in accordance with the established disciplinary process for behavior proven to have taken place in violation of this Policy.
Employees committing harassment as defined in this Policy are deemed by the City to be acting outside the scope of their employment.
APPLICATION OF POLICY
This Policy applies to all officers and employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including, but not limited to, full-time and part-time employees, permanent and temporary employees, employees covered or otherwise exempted from personnel rules or regulations, and employees working under contract for the City. For the purposes of this Policy, “employee” is defined as each of the above.
This Policy also applies to elected officials, their appointees and volunteers.
Harassment includes conduct directed by men toward women, men toward men, women toward men, and women toward women.
DEFINITION
Harassment includes, but is not limited to:
1. Verbal Harassment - For example: epithets, derogatory comments or slurs on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
2. Physical Harassment - For example: assault, impeding or blocking movement, or any physical interference with normal work or movement when directed at an individual on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
3. Visual Forms of Harassment - For example: derogatory posters, notices, bulletins, cartoons, or drawings on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, pregnancy, age, or for asserting family care leave rights.
4. Sexual Favors – Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which is presented as an employment condition, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an offensive work environment.
EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS
Employees are encouraged and have an obligation to:
1. Promptly report what they believe to be harassing behavior to a supervisor, manager, administrator, or the Personnel Officer.
2. Cooperate in any investigation.
3. Refrain from filing any complaint or report of harassment know to, or believed by, the employee to be without merit.
RETALIATION
All employees are assured that they may make such reports and participate in any investigation without fear of retaliation by the City, department management, their immediate supervisor, or any other employee. Retaliation will be considered a serious act of misconduct. Anyone found to have committed any act(s) of retaliation will be subject to the applicable disciplinary process, up to and including termination.
COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Anyone who believes they have been subjected to any form of harassment should attempt to immediately resolve the compliant informally. The goal is to stop the harassing behavior promptly and establish a good working environment.
The Personnel Officer shall:
1. Be notified of all complaints of harassment
2. Investigate all written complaints of harassment
3. Document all complaints of harassment
If the Personnel Officer is the subject of the complaint, the matter will be investigated by the Assistant City Administrator.
For the purposes of this procedure ‘workdays’ shall include Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.., exclusive of holidays.
Informal Process
The following steps are recommended to informally address concerns and/or complaints of harassment:
STEP 1
1. The employee should attempt to resolve the issue informally within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. His/her immediate supervisor
b. Any supervisor and manager within or outside the department
c. Department Manager
d. Personnel Officer
e. Assistant City Administrator
STEP 2
1. If the employee feels Step 1 is inappropriate, too intimidating or threatening, the employee may, within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, request his/her immediate supervisor to arrange for:
a. A confidential meeting, scheduled within two (2) workdays of the request, where the employee can present his/her complaint to the harassing employee in the presence of their immediate supervisor(s). The complainant, if requested, may have a support person of his/her choice attend this meeting.
1) If the immediate supervisor(s) is/are identified as the harassing employee, the Personnel Officer shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
a) If the Personnel Officer is identified as the harassing employee the Assistant City Administrator shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
b. The results of this meeting shall be documented in writing and forwarded to the Personnel Office.
STEP 3
1. If the employee feels Step 2 is inappropriate, too intimidating or threatening, the employee may, within two (2) workdays of the alleged incident, request his/her Department Manager to arrange for:
a. A confidential meeting, scheduled within two (2) workdays of the request, where the employee can present his/her complaint to the harassing employee in the presence of their Department Manager(s). The complainant, if requested, may have a support person of his/her choice attend this meeting.
1) If the Department Manager(s) is/are identified as the harassing employee, the Personnel Officer shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
a) If the Personnel Officer is identified as the harassing employee, the Assistant City Administrator shall arrange for and conduct this meeting.
b. The results of this meeting shall be documented in writing and forwarded to the Personnel Office.
Formal Process
If alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process, the employee:
1. Shall file a written compliant with the Personnel Officer using the City’s Harassment Complaint Form. This written complaint shall be filed within ten (10) workdays of the incident. As employee’s failure to report the occurrence of the alleged harassment within the ten-workday period may be deemed a voluntary waiver of any City action.
a. The employee may seek the assistance from a support person of his/her choice when preparing the written complaint.
Within three (3) workdays of receipt of the completed Harassment Complaint Form the Personnel Officer shall meet with the complainant and, if requested, the complainant’s support person, and:
1. Inform the complainant about the City’s Harassment policies and complaint procedures and answer any questions that the complainant may have regarding the City’s policy;
2. Inform the complainant about the other available options such as filing with the state and federal compliance agencies;
3. Inform the complainant that under the City’s procedure, complaints may be considered untimely if the written compliant was not filed within (10) workdays of the alleged incident, and that allegations brought to state or federal compliance agencies may have different filing time limitations which should be confirmed by the complainant with the agencies;
4. Inform the complainant that while every reasonable effort will be made to protect the confidentiality and privacy of the individuals involved, the conduct of an investigation requires that the alleged harasser be informed of the allegations, and that witnesses be interviewed;
5. Listen to the complainant’s allegations and discuss the actions complained of with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved;
6. Ask the complainant what remedies he/she feels would resolve the complaint;
7. Advise the complainant that the meeting will be documented in writing, assigned a case number and filed in the Harassment Complaint File under the security of the Personnel Officer.
Within three (3) workdays of conducting the meeting with the complainant, the Personnel Officer shall schedule a meeting with the person who allegedly engaged in the harassment and:
1. Inform him/her of the basis for the complaint and the right to be represented by an individual of his/her choice through the process;
2. Give him/her an opportunity to respond to the complaint;
a. This person shall be given ten (10) workdays to respond in writing to the allegations and identify witnesses.
3. Inform him/her that if a response to the complaint is not received within ten (10) workdays, the complaint may be considered valid, and the appropriate disciplinary action may be taken in accordance with the applicable procedures outlined in the Municipal Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
a. Disciplinary action is subject to the appropriate appeals process.
INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES
Investigations will be timely and as extensive as required, based upon the nature of the allegations. All persons named as potential witnesses and those who may have information relevant to the issues of the complaint will be contacted and interviewed during the course of the investigation.
All investigations shall be documented in writing and will be handled with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity to those involved. Every reasonable effort will be made to restrict information on the specifics of the complaint to those who are participating in the investigation: the complainant, the alleged harasser, witnesses, and department management.
All persons contacted or interviewed during the investigation will be requested not to discuss the subject matter of the investigation in order to protect the privacy of all those participating in the investigation.
If during the course of the investigation, the alleged harassment is reported to be continuing, the Personnel Officer shall notify the Assistant City Administrator who shall take such emergency or temporary action as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
1. It is the policy of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea that if the person alleged to be engaged in the harassment is the complainant’s supervisor, the complainant shall be removed from direct supervision of that supervisor and that supervisor shall not participate in performance reviews of the employee, pending the outcome of the investigation.
This action shall not be considered punitive but shall be considered a protective measure for all involved.
If, at the conclusion of the investigation, it is found that harassment occurred, the Personnel Officer shall forward the findings, which are not subject to appeal, along with any recommendations to the appropriate management level for implementation of the disciplinary process, if any.
1. The type of disciplinary action recommended shall be commensurate with the severity of the offense and in accordance with the City’s approved disciplinary action procedures, and must result in prompt and effective remedial actions.
a. Disciplinary action is subject to the applicable appeals process.
At the conclusion of the investigation the complainant(s) shall be advised by the Personnel Officer of the disposition of the complaint. If it has been determined that harassment has occurred the complainant(s) shall be notified regarding:
1. Steps taken to correct the harassment;
2. Action the complainant should take if the harassing behavior recurs;
If discipline is imposed on the harasser, the specific manner of discipline imposed shall not be communicated to the complainant.
Supervisory and management personnel shall conduct follow-up inquiries with the involved employees to determine if the alleged conduct has stopped or has resumed. These inquiries shall be documented in writing.
COMPLAINTS AGAINST VOLUNTEERS, AND/OR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES
This policy applies equally to volunteers, appointees of the City Council including members of Boards, Commissions and Committees, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the City Treasurer.
Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above shall notify the Personnel Officer who shall first try to resolve the matter informally.
Any employee who files a complaint against the above officials is assured of protection against retaliation by that official under City policies as well as state and federal regulations.
Informal Process: The following steps are recommended to informally end the harassment:
1. Resolve the complaint informally by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. Department Manager
b. Assistant City Administrator
c. Personnel Officer
If the alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process the employee shall file a formal, written complaint, pursuant to this Policy, with the Personnel Officer who shall conduct a formal investigation. Copies of the completed investigative report shall be distributed as follows:
1. If the alleged harasser is a volunteer: The report shall be forwarded to the appropriate management employee in charge of supervising the volunteer who shall take appropriate action, if any.
2. If the alleged harasser is a member of a Board, Commission, or Committee, or is the City Attorney, the City Engineer, or City Treasurer: The report shall be given to the Mayor, and City Administrator. The Mayor will oversee the implementation of appropriate disciplinary action, if any.
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: The report shall be given to the City Council’s Personnel Committee. The Committee shall review the findings and make recommendations, if any, to the entire City Council.
COMPLAINTS AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS
This policy applies equally to the Mayor and members of the City Council. Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above shall notify the Personnel Officer, who shall first try to resolve the matter informally.
Any employee who files a complaint against the above officials is assured of protection against retaliation by that official under City policies as well as state and federal regulations.
Informal Process: The following steps are recommended to informally end the harassment:
1. Resolve the complaint informally by expressing his/her discomfort with the behavior to the offender in a constructive manner. If the employee would like support, he/she may seek support from:
a. Department Manager
b. Assistant City Administrator
c. Personnel Officer
d. City Administrator
COMPLAINTS AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS
Formal Process:
If alleged harassment continues after using the informal process, or if the offended employee chooses not to follow the informal process, the employee shall file a formal, written complaint, pursuant to this Policy, with the Personnel Officer who shall conduct a formal investigation.
If it becomes clear that an allegation against the Mayor and/or a member of the City Council appears to have substance and an internal resolution is not possible, the complainant will be so notified and referred to the state and federal compliance agencies. This referral will be made because the City has no administrative control over elected officials. Consequently, were remedial action found to be appropriate, the City would be unable to provide an effective remedy to the complainant.
STATE AND FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AGENCIES
Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted so as to deny the right of any employee who believes he/she has been harassed to file a compliant with the state and /or federal compliance agencies and/or in state of federal court. However, time limits for filing complaints with compliance agencies vary and employees should check directly with those agencies for specific information.
The state and federal compliance agencies may be contacted at the following addresses:
(State) Department of Fair Employment and Housing
111 North Market Street, #810
San Jose, CA. 95113-1102
(408) 277-1264
(Federal) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
901 Market Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA. 94103
(415) 744-6500 or 1 (800) 669-3362
Sunday, September 13, 2009
UPDATE II: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS AGAINST & FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there will appear the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY and SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and September 11, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Mission Trail Nature Preserve Pedestrian Footbridge
ABSTRACT: At the January 8, 2008 City Council Meeting, the City Council accepted a $10,000 grant that was awarded by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. At the same City Council meeting, the Council also approved FY 2007-08 mid-year budget adjustments which included $5,000 City matching funds for this project to cover environmental review and permit fees. The project was scheduled for the spring of 2008; it was completed Sunday, 30 August 2009. The Agenda Item Summary and Resolution are reproduced.
Mission Trail Nature Preserve Pedestrian Footbridge
Doolittle Trail (east of Rio Road Entrance)
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CARMEL 2009
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Seal
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Seal
Preserving & Protecting Parks & Open Space
(Placard on Bridge, on left bridge post in photo)
CITY COUNCIL: $10,000 Grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
CITY COUNCIL: $10,000 Grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Meeting Date: 8 January, 2008
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a $10,000 grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) for construction of a new pedestrian footbridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve (MTNP) and authorizing a transfer from the Capital Improvement Reserve until grant funds are reimbursed.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied to the MPRPD in August of this year for a grant to construct a new pedestrian bridge in MTNP. The MPRPD has awarded a grant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in the amount of $10,000 for the new bridge.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $5,000 (mid-year request for permits and foundation engineering)
Grant Funds: $10,000
Staff Recommendation: Accept the grant award of $10,000 from the MPRPD for a construction of new pedestrian footbridge in MTNP.
Important Considerations: The grant agreement between the City and the MPRPD and the grant guidelines are attached. The MPRPD grant is supported on a reimbursement level. A transfer from the Capital Improvement Reserve Account to a general fund account will allow the proper designation of project expenditures to support reimbursement requests. A map of MTNP with the proposed bridge location is also attached.
Decision Record: The MPRPD grant application was authorized by the City Council on their meeting of 7 August 2007 per Resolution 2007-51.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2008-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IN MISSION TRAIL NATURE PRESERVE AND AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESERVE UNTIL GRANT FUNDS ARE REIMBURSED
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District is awarding grants for parks, open space, and coastal preservation projects within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied for a grant to construct a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District has awarded a grant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in the amount of $10,000 for construction of a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the grant is paid on a reimbursement basis and a transfer of $10,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve to a project account will allow proper designation of expenses to support reimbursement requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Accept the grant of $10,000 from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for construction of a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to enter a grant agreement between the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.
3. Authorize a transfer of $10,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Account to general fund account 01-87601 designated for the grant project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 8th day of January 2008, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sue McCloud, Mayor
Mission Trail Nature Preserve Pedestrian FootbridgeDoolittle Trail (east of Rio Road Entrance)
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CARMEL 2009
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Seal
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Seal
Preserving & Protecting Parks & Open Space
(Placard on Bridge, on left bridge post in photo)
CITY COUNCIL: $10,000 Grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
CITY COUNCIL: $10,000 Grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Meeting Date: 8 January, 2008
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a $10,000 grant from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) for construction of a new pedestrian footbridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve (MTNP) and authorizing a transfer from the Capital Improvement Reserve until grant funds are reimbursed.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied to the MPRPD in August of this year for a grant to construct a new pedestrian bridge in MTNP. The MPRPD has awarded a grant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in the amount of $10,000 for the new bridge.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $5,000 (mid-year request for permits and foundation engineering)
Grant Funds: $10,000
Staff Recommendation: Accept the grant award of $10,000 from the MPRPD for a construction of new pedestrian footbridge in MTNP.
Important Considerations: The grant agreement between the City and the MPRPD and the grant guidelines are attached. The MPRPD grant is supported on a reimbursement level. A transfer from the Capital Improvement Reserve Account to a general fund account will allow the proper designation of project expenditures to support reimbursement requests. A map of MTNP with the proposed bridge location is also attached.
Decision Record: The MPRPD grant application was authorized by the City Council on their meeting of 7 August 2007 per Resolution 2007-51.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2008-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IN MISSION TRAIL NATURE PRESERVE AND AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESERVE UNTIL GRANT FUNDS ARE REIMBURSED
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District is awarding grants for parks, open space, and coastal preservation projects within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied for a grant to construct a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District has awarded a grant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in the amount of $10,000 for construction of a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve; and
WHEREAS, the grant is paid on a reimbursement basis and a transfer of $10,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve to a project account will allow proper designation of expenses to support reimbursement requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Accept the grant of $10,000 from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for construction of a pedestrian bridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to enter a grant agreement between the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.
3. Authorize a transfer of $10,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Account to general fund account 01-87601 designated for the grant project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 8th day of January 2008, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sue McCloud, Mayor
Monday, September 07, 2009
Carmel Art Association Presents STONE'S SOLO SHOW, TAKIGAWA'S & ST. MARY'S TWO-PERSON SHOW & GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING CARROLL, DOMINQUEZ & MEHEEN
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents WILLIAM F. STONE'S SOLO SHOW, TAKIGAWA'S & ST. MARY'S TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING CARROLL, DOMINQUEZ & MEHEEN
Thursday, September 3 – Tuesday, October 6, 2009
SOLO SHOW “ABSTRACT AT 80: PAST & PRESENT” (Beardsley Room, South Wall)
The late artist William F. Stone, Jr.’s exhibition will present watercolor paintings of ports and boats in harbors and dry dock; street scenes, alleyways and familiar sights and landmarks around the Monterey Peninsula in a semi-abstract style. View William F. Stone, Jr.'s "Abstract at 80: Past & Present" paintings and view Stone's biography.
TWO-PERSON SHOW: “WAVES OF THE PAST” (Center Room):
Painter Pamela Takigawa exhibits paintings and sculptor Michael St. Mary exhibits sculpture. View one painting by Pamela Takigawa. View Michael St. Mary’s brief biography,artist's statement and four sculpture pieces, including "Starseed" (Black Walnut), "Ova" (Pecan), "Trilocus" (Napoleon Marble) and "Unison 2" (Pecan).
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Pamela Carroll exhibits realistic oil paintings in the Pictorial illusionist style. View exhibition paintings.
Miguel Dominguez exhibits landscapes in watercolor. View exhibition paintings.
Alicia Meheen exhibits landscapes painted en plein air in watercolor. View exhibition paintings and view artist's statement and brief biography.
Opening Reception - Saturday, September 5, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
NOTE:
Panel Discussion: Pamela Carroll, Alicia Meheen and Miguel Dominguez will talk about their art during a panel discussion in conjunction with their Gallery Showcase exhibit this month on Wednesday, September 9, 7:00 P.M.
Moderated by Dick Crispo. Free, no reservations necessary.
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents WILLIAM F. STONE'S SOLO SHOW, TAKIGAWA'S & ST. MARY'S TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING CARROLL, DOMINQUEZ & MEHEEN
Thursday, September 3 – Tuesday, October 6, 2009
SOLO SHOW “ABSTRACT AT 80: PAST & PRESENT” (Beardsley Room, South Wall)
The late artist William F. Stone, Jr.’s exhibition will present watercolor paintings of ports and boats in harbors and dry dock; street scenes, alleyways and familiar sights and landmarks around the Monterey Peninsula in a semi-abstract style. View William F. Stone, Jr.'s "Abstract at 80: Past & Present" paintings and view Stone's biography.
TWO-PERSON SHOW: “WAVES OF THE PAST” (Center Room):
Painter Pamela Takigawa exhibits paintings and sculptor Michael St. Mary exhibits sculpture. View one painting by Pamela Takigawa. View Michael St. Mary’s brief biography,artist's statement and four sculpture pieces, including "Starseed" (Black Walnut), "Ova" (Pecan), "Trilocus" (Napoleon Marble) and "Unison 2" (Pecan).
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Pamela Carroll exhibits realistic oil paintings in the Pictorial illusionist style. View exhibition paintings.
Miguel Dominguez exhibits landscapes in watercolor. View exhibition paintings.
Alicia Meheen exhibits landscapes painted en plein air in watercolor. View exhibition paintings and view artist's statement and brief biography.
Opening Reception - Saturday, September 5, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
NOTE:
Panel Discussion: Pamela Carroll, Alicia Meheen and Miguel Dominguez will talk about their art during a panel discussion in conjunction with their Gallery Showcase exhibit this month on Wednesday, September 9, 7:00 P.M.
Moderated by Dick Crispo. Free, no reservations necessary.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Contradictory City Employees’ Statements?
ABSTRACT: On the one hand, three former Carmel-by-the-Sea employees and a long-time employee corroborated the allegations made by Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to reporting in the Monterey County Weekly. Quotations are presented. On the other hand, according to the City’s MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, dated September 1, 2009, the City asserts that upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, i.e., May 2008, the City hired an “outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims.” “The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated.” A COMMENT and two Questions are presented.
And while most current city employees are keeping quiet, three former employees who spoke with the Weekly on condition of anonymity backed up Miller’s claim, saying it’s mostly consistent with their experiences working under Guillen.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
(Source: Monterey County, Confidential – Carmel Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Three former city employees, all of whom asked not to be identified by name, say the complaint is consistent with their impressions of Guillen’s workplace demeanor.
“The reason I quit was because of the way the city was going under his direction,” one says. “He was creating a divide-and-conquer kind of favoritism.”
“There were a lot of rumors going around,” says a second. “He did show favoritism to women he liked, to pull them to his side. He had pet names for people he favored, always women.”
“GUILLEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE FEMALES WERE PROTECTED WHEN THEY ENGAGED IN A SEXUALLY CHARGED MANNER.”
“I’m not in the least surprised that Guillen would have problems with subordinates,” adds a third. “It was fairly ugly there, and I suspect it still is.”
(Source: Hot Carmel Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, June 25, 2009)
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
(Source: Case No. M99513, MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, September 1, 2009)
COMMENT:
• Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaint against the City includes the assertion that on or about May 20, 2008, attorney Michael Stamp wrote a letter to the mayor and city council advising them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response. The complaint further asserts that City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he would respond to the letter; however, that letter, and subsequent correspondence, received no response from the City, according to the lawsuit.
Questions: If as asserted, the City hired an “outside investigator” “upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations” and the investigator concluded the “Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated,” then why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman communicate that information to attorney Michael Stamp, as he promised he would respond to attorney Stamp’s May 2008 letter? And instead of stating it’s “nothing,” why didn’t Mayor Sue McCloud respond to Squid Fry by stating an investigation had been conducted and the allegations were determined to be “unsubstantiated?”
And while most current city employees are keeping quiet, three former employees who spoke with the Weekly on condition of anonymity backed up Miller’s claim, saying it’s mostly consistent with their experiences working under Guillen.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
(Source: Monterey County, Confidential – Carmel Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Three former city employees, all of whom asked not to be identified by name, say the complaint is consistent with their impressions of Guillen’s workplace demeanor.
“The reason I quit was because of the way the city was going under his direction,” one says. “He was creating a divide-and-conquer kind of favoritism.”
“There were a lot of rumors going around,” says a second. “He did show favoritism to women he liked, to pull them to his side. He had pet names for people he favored, always women.”
“GUILLEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE FEMALES WERE PROTECTED WHEN THEY ENGAGED IN A SEXUALLY CHARGED MANNER.”
“I’m not in the least surprised that Guillen would have problems with subordinates,” adds a third. “It was fairly ugly there, and I suspect it still is.”
(Source: Hot Carmel Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, June 25, 2009)
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
(Source: Case No. M99513, MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, September 1, 2009)
COMMENT:
• Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaint against the City includes the assertion that on or about May 20, 2008, attorney Michael Stamp wrote a letter to the mayor and city council advising them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response. The complaint further asserts that City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he would respond to the letter; however, that letter, and subsequent correspondence, received no response from the City, according to the lawsuit.
Questions: If as asserted, the City hired an “outside investigator” “upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations” and the investigator concluded the “Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated,” then why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman communicate that information to attorney Michael Stamp, as he promised he would respond to attorney Stamp’s May 2008 letter? And instead of stating it’s “nothing,” why didn’t Mayor Sue McCloud respond to Squid Fry by stating an investigation had been conducted and the allegations were determined to be “unsubstantiated?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)