ABSTRACT: A Committee of the Board of Directors of the Carmel Residents Association prepared a Report entitled “CARMEL’S HARASSMENT SUIT,” dated November 11, 2010, based on information provided by the City through a Public Records Act request. The Report addresses the following questions: What events preceded the settlement of Miller’s harassment suit against the city? Did the city administration follow its published procedures in managing Miller’s harassment complaints? How adequate was the city’s investigation of Miller’s complaints? What were the terms of the settlement and release agreement between Miller and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? How much did it cost the city to defend the lawsuit? What are the provisions regarding termination in the city administrator’s Employment Agreement? The Report is uploaded. NEW INFORMATION HIGHLIGHTS are presented.
CRAReport_CarmelHarassmentSuit
CARMEL’S HARASSMENT SUIT
A Report Prepared for Members of the Carmel Residents Association
By a Committee of the Board of Directors
November 11, 2010
NEW INFORMATION HIGHLIGHTS:
What events preceded the settlement of Miller’s harassment suit against the city?
• On June 23, 2008, the city referred Miller’s complaints to Liebert, Cassidy, and Whitmore (LCW), the legal firm customarily retained to deal with personnel matters. LCW, in turn, subsequently engaged Karen Kramer to investigate the complaints.
Did the city administration follow its published procedures in managing Miller’s harassment complaints?
• The city’s procedures specified that if the alleged harasser was the city administrator, complaints should be addressed to the city council’s personnel committee. However no such committee existed.
• From the outset, the mayor and city council violated stated procedures that required the recipient of complaints to “Listen to the complainant’s allegations and discuss the actions complained of with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved.”
• Further violation of city procedures related to the requirement, “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…” Miller remained under Guillen’s supervision throughout her final months as a city employee.
• City policy also required that “Investigations will be timely and extensive as required.” As will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report, the investigation of Miller’s complaints was cursory at best. With respect to timeliness, the policy referred to acting “immediately,” which the policy suggested meant within three days. Yet, the first real action on the May 20 complaint letter was referral to the LCW law firm on June 24. Six weeks later, LCW engaged Kramer as investigator…Her billing records show further delays-she did not conduct her first investigative interview until October 30. Her final report was submitted on January 16, 2009.
How adequate was the city’s investigation of Miller’s complaints?
• In describing her investigative procedures, Kramer said that initially she would “determine whether or not I needed to obtain any documents from the complainant or the employer.” Yet in her deposition she responded, “No” to the question, “At any point in your work in this matter did you ask the city to put together all the documents relating to the claim and give them to you?”
• Later in her deposition, questions focused on Miller’s October 23 letter—the most detailed specification of her complaints. Kramer conceded that she had reviewed that letter and that it offered “definitely more detail than I had prior to that time.” Yet she responded, “I don’t think so” to the question, “… Her billing records also show that she spent 0.4 hours in total reviewing or doing any follow up on the lengthy Miller statement.
• Presumably Kramer’s investigation began with her retention in August. Yet she did not review the city’s harassment policy until October or November. She stated, “I don’t think I reviewed the policy as of October 21, 2008.” She acknowledged that she received the policy on November 10, and that it took her ten minutes to read it.
• The following exchanges in her deposition are significant:
Q. “Did you ever see any of Jane Miller’s emails?’
A. “No.”
Q. “Did you ever see any of Rich Guillen’s emails to Jane Miller?”
A. “No.”
• The most damning evidence against Guillen we have seen is found in the Kramer deposition transcript. In her interview with Guillen, he denied ever using the offensive statements in his emails that were cited in Miller’s complaint letters.
• Kramer interviewed a total of 12 witnesses between October 30 and December 3, 2008. According to Miller’s attorney, no more than one individual on a list of potential witnesses she submitted were ever interviewed. The persons to be interviewed were selected by city staff who reported directly to Guillen. Despite a judge’s opinion that Miller’s case shared common elements with the previously settled claims of four former employees, none of those employees was interviewed. With perhaps one exception, no other former employees were interviewed. This represents another serious violation of city policies that require “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.”
• Kramer’s final report was delivered on January 16, 2009, almost eight months after Miller’s initial letter of complaint. Despite the specification in her retention letter from LCW, “Transcribed witness statements or signed notes should be included with your report,” she conceded in her deposition that “I did not provide transcribed witness statements or signed notes.”
What were the terms of the settlement and release agreement between Miller and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• The agreement does not impose any constraints on the release of information related to the suit by either Miller or the city.
How much did it cost the city to defend the lawsuit?
• The largest share of the total cost has probably been covered by CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, the city’s insurer. “CSAC” stands for “County Supervisors Association of California,” also known as “California State Association of Counties”. Its Excess Insurance Authority was established by a joint powers agreement “entered into by the member counties and member public entities in order to develop and fund insurance services.”
A $10,000 deductible was paid by the city. The $600,000 settlement to Miller was covered by insurance. CSAC claims that this settlement alone will not influence future premiums.
• Payments to the two legal firms that primarily represented the city have totaled $226,447 as of August 31, 2010, with LCW paid $85,395 and Kennedy, Archer, and Harray paid $14l,051. CSAC paid all bills from the latter firm, but we don’t know what portion of LCW’s bills were covered by insurance.
• The suit was filed on June 17, 2009. It was reported to CSAC on July 27. The insurer considered this to be timely reporting.
• City policies require that all complaints that may lead to litigation must be reported to the insurer within three days. Yet, 14 months elapsed between the receipt of Miller’s first complaint letter and the ultimate reporting of the case to the insurer.
• The total cost of Kramer’s investigation was $15,678. According to a letter from CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, they do not “launch an independent investigation” but “are provided copies of the investigation conducted by the entity.”
What are the provisions regarding termination in the city administrator’s Employment Agreement?
• The city administrator is an “at will” employee whose employment may be terminated by the city council without cause. There is no express or implied promise made for any form of continued employment.
• Deliberations and decisions by the city regarding termination shall be made in closed session in accordance with the Brown Act. Except where the administrator is charged with or alleged to have committed criminal misconduct or acts involving moral turpitude, the city shall provide the opportunity to resign in lieu of being terminated, and the parties shall cooperate regarding public announcements about his or her separation from the city.
Unless terminated for cause while the administrator is still willing and able to perform assigned duties, the city agrees to make a payment equal to six months of the then current aggregate salary. This payment will release the city from any further obligations. If the administrator is terminated because of conviction of any felony, or any crime involving moral turpitude or any offense involving a violation of official duties, or if the city determines that the administrator has misappropriated public funds, commingled public funds with personal funds, or engaged in willful corrupt conduct in office, then the city shall have no obligation to continue the administrator’s employment or to pay severance
• Summary
On May 20, 2008, the attorney representing Jane Miller, Carmel’s human resources manager, addressed a letter to the mayor and city council complaining of harassment by Rich Guillen, the city administrator. That letter was forwarded to the city attorney and, for response, to the city administrator, the alleged harasser. No other immediate response was forthcoming. Five weeks later, the city referred the matter to the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Whitman. After another six weeks elapsed, LCW engaged Karen Kramer as investigator. Her first investigative interviews occurred at the end of October and her final report was submitted the following January. In the meantime, having received no direct response from the city, Miller referred her complaints to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and, eventually filed a suit against the city in June of 2009. A settlement of the suit was achieved in June of 2010.
From the outset, the city violated stated harassment policies and procedures in managing Miller’s complaints. For example:
• The city failed to respond to the initial statement of complaints with “discretion, sensitivity, and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved.”
• Policies prescribe immediate referral to a nonexistent council personnel committee. Instead complaints were referred for response to the alleged harasser.
• Policies require that “investigations will be timely and extensive as required.” The investigation essentially began five months after the complaints were filed and was cursory at best. The report on the investigation was submitted eight months after the initial letter of complaint.
The many shortcomings in the investigation include:
• The investigator failed to review many significant documents, most importantly the emails from Guillen to Miller that were so prominent among her complaints.
• The investigator failed to interview several important witnesses, including former employees and those recommended by Miller.
• The investigator accepted untruths from the city administrator without checking their veracity.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
City’s Tactic in Flanders Appeal: DELAY
UPDATE: (as of 4 January 2011)
The City failed to file its opening brief by the due date of 27 December 2010. The Court grants appellants a 15-day grace period; the City must file its opening brief by Thursday, 13 January 2011.
Date 12/29/2010
Description Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
Notes Defendant and Appellant: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Attorney: Richard Harray
Description Appeal dismissed for failure to file opening brief.
Due Date 01/13/2011
ABSTRACT: In late March 2010, attorney Richard Harray stated that the City would appeal Judge Kay Kingsley’s decision in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M99437) to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Furthermore, it was reported that Harray stated “he doesn’t plan to wait” the full 60 days to file an appeal. However, the City failed to submit proposal or a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court and Harray later requested an “extension of time” on 20 October 2010. Accordingly, the Court assigned Defendant and Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a new date of 27 December 2010 for the filing of appellant’s appendix and opening brief. Information, including selected excerpts, from the California Court of Appeal web site is provided.
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Docket (Register of Actions)
The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Number H035818
Date: 07/16/2010
Description: Notice of appeal lodged/received.
Notes: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., filed 07/07/10
Date: 08/20/2010
Notes: Briefing sequence order filed. The parties having failed to submit proposals for a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court, the court orders the following: Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall file an opening brief within 40 days of filing of the record on appeal. Appellant The Flanders Foundation shall file a combined respondent's and opening brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days of filing of appellant's opening brief. Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. shall file a combined reply and respondent's brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days after filing of the combined respondent's and opening brief. Appellant The Flanders Foundation may file a reply brief 20 days thereafter.
Date: 10/20/2010
Notes: Stipulation of extension of time filed to:
Future Scheduled Actions
Description: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed.
Due Date: 12/27/2010
ADDENDUM:
Case Summary
Trial Court Case: M99437
Court of Appeal Case: H035818
Division:
Case Caption: The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 07/07/2010
E-mail Notification 6th Appellate District
The City failed to file its opening brief by the due date of 27 December 2010. The Court grants appellants a 15-day grace period; the City must file its opening brief by Thursday, 13 January 2011.
Date 12/29/2010
Description Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
Notes Defendant and Appellant: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Attorney: Richard Harray
Description Appeal dismissed for failure to file opening brief.
Due Date 01/13/2011
ABSTRACT: In late March 2010, attorney Richard Harray stated that the City would appeal Judge Kay Kingsley’s decision in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M99437) to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Furthermore, it was reported that Harray stated “he doesn’t plan to wait” the full 60 days to file an appeal. However, the City failed to submit proposal or a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court and Harray later requested an “extension of time” on 20 October 2010. Accordingly, the Court assigned Defendant and Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a new date of 27 December 2010 for the filing of appellant’s appendix and opening brief. Information, including selected excerpts, from the California Court of Appeal web site is provided.
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Docket (Register of Actions)
The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Number H035818
Date: 07/16/2010
Description: Notice of appeal lodged/received.
Notes: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., filed 07/07/10
Date: 08/20/2010
Notes: Briefing sequence order filed. The parties having failed to submit proposals for a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court, the court orders the following: Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall file an opening brief within 40 days of filing of the record on appeal. Appellant The Flanders Foundation shall file a combined respondent's and opening brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days of filing of appellant's opening brief. Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. shall file a combined reply and respondent's brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days after filing of the combined respondent's and opening brief. Appellant The Flanders Foundation may file a reply brief 20 days thereafter.
Date: 10/20/2010
Notes: Stipulation of extension of time filed to:
Future Scheduled Actions
Description: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed.
Due Date: 12/27/2010
ADDENDUM:
Case Summary
Trial Court Case: M99437
Court of Appeal Case: H035818
Division:
Case Caption: The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 07/07/2010
E-mail Notification 6th Appellate District
Thursday, November 18, 2010
COMMENTARY Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson’s Legacy: Protect and Serve the Mayor
In evaluating the nine-year tenure of George Rawson as Police Chief and then Public Safety Director/Police Chief, it is appropriate to judge his tenure according to the standards articulated by him at the time of his hiring in November 2001. Rawson characterized police work as a “higher calling-serving the public” and a “servant style of leadership” where “you need to be concerned about and support employees.” He emphasized Organization Values, including a commitment to “integrity, ethics and professional behavior.” Yet as the years passed, it appears George Rawson acted more in the service of the mayor and less in the service of the public, did not show concern, support or sensitivity to at least one city employee, namely Jane Miller, and did not always act with “integrity, ethics and professional behavior.”
Based on George Rawson’s relationship with City Administrator Rich Guillen and his walking the business district every Friday with City Administrator Rich Guillen, it is inconceivable that he was unaware of the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” by several city employees from at least 2003. Yet inexplicably, under his command, at the height of the Jane Miller crisis, Cpl. Steve Rana expressed his opinion on behalf of the Carmel Police Officers Association at the 5 October 2010 City Council meeting regarding Police Department “morale” and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea being “one of the best places to work.” When Rawson was queried about how it was that a police officer felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting about “morale” and workplace, but had not felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting condemning sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and retaliation and support for a fellow city employee, namely Jane Miller, Rawson did not have the professional courtesy to reply. And he failed to reply as to whether or not he or anyone at the Police Department had taken the time to read Jane Miller’s court file.
In 2002, under Police Chief George Rawson’s command, police officers removed Livingston White Wright campaign signs from the public right-of-way during the campaign for mayor and city council.
In 2004, as Police Chief, George Rawson accepted the position of Public Safety Director to oversee the Carmel Fire and Police Departments, even though he lacked fire fighting training and experience. Moreover, the Public Safety Director position was created originally to avoid the hiring of an independent Fire Chief. Later, when it was discovered that the City had to have the fire department “under the charge of a chief who shall have had previous training and experience as a fireman,” per California Government Code Section 38611, Rawson kept the title of Public Safety Director.
During his tenure in 2007, the City “illegally” installed a speed hump, “a traffic control device,” on Dolores Street which was not approved by the city council or installed as an “emergency.” Furthermore, traffic studies involving radar tests conducted by the Police Department prior to the installation of the speed hump showed drivers did not “tend to speed.” Still, Police Chief George Rawson stated he favored “anything that improves safety and slows drivers.”
And most importantly, with regard to public safety, during George Rawson’s tenure, especially after the completion of CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel, June 12, 2007, the City formally withdrew from consolidation discussions with the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove, failed to educate Carmelites on all fire protection service options and failed to make substantive progress on a permanent fire protection services solution. In short, Rawson failed to persuade the mayor and city council members to contract with Monterey for fire protection services or implement another alternative.
In sum, Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson compromised himself and his position by seeming to implement the dictates of one person, namely Mayor Sue McCloud, and forgot the “mission” of the Carmel Policy Department to “protect and serve” all the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
NOTE: The Carmel Police Department confirmed the fact that Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson will be retiring on 3 December 2010.
Based on George Rawson’s relationship with City Administrator Rich Guillen and his walking the business district every Friday with City Administrator Rich Guillen, it is inconceivable that he was unaware of the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” by several city employees from at least 2003. Yet inexplicably, under his command, at the height of the Jane Miller crisis, Cpl. Steve Rana expressed his opinion on behalf of the Carmel Police Officers Association at the 5 October 2010 City Council meeting regarding Police Department “morale” and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea being “one of the best places to work.” When Rawson was queried about how it was that a police officer felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting about “morale” and workplace, but had not felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting condemning sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and retaliation and support for a fellow city employee, namely Jane Miller, Rawson did not have the professional courtesy to reply. And he failed to reply as to whether or not he or anyone at the Police Department had taken the time to read Jane Miller’s court file.
In 2002, under Police Chief George Rawson’s command, police officers removed Livingston White Wright campaign signs from the public right-of-way during the campaign for mayor and city council.
In 2004, as Police Chief, George Rawson accepted the position of Public Safety Director to oversee the Carmel Fire and Police Departments, even though he lacked fire fighting training and experience. Moreover, the Public Safety Director position was created originally to avoid the hiring of an independent Fire Chief. Later, when it was discovered that the City had to have the fire department “under the charge of a chief who shall have had previous training and experience as a fireman,” per California Government Code Section 38611, Rawson kept the title of Public Safety Director.
During his tenure in 2007, the City “illegally” installed a speed hump, “a traffic control device,” on Dolores Street which was not approved by the city council or installed as an “emergency.” Furthermore, traffic studies involving radar tests conducted by the Police Department prior to the installation of the speed hump showed drivers did not “tend to speed.” Still, Police Chief George Rawson stated he favored “anything that improves safety and slows drivers.”
And most importantly, with regard to public safety, during George Rawson’s tenure, especially after the completion of CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel, June 12, 2007, the City formally withdrew from consolidation discussions with the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove, failed to educate Carmelites on all fire protection service options and failed to make substantive progress on a permanent fire protection services solution. In short, Rawson failed to persuade the mayor and city council members to contract with Monterey for fire protection services or implement another alternative.
In sum, Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson compromised himself and his position by seeming to implement the dictates of one person, namely Mayor Sue McCloud, and forgot the “mission” of the Carmel Policy Department to “protect and serve” all the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
NOTE: The Carmel Police Department confirmed the fact that Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson will be retiring on 3 December 2010.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
COMMENTARY: Without Fear or Favor
No man or woman of integrity would participate in a city council meeting with City Administrator Rich Guillen knowing Rich Guillen has engaged in a pattern of unethical conduct over many, many years involving former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, former Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio, former Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue, former Library Director Margaret Pelikan, former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell, former city employee Christie Miller and Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch.
All men and women of integrity recognize that if the City Administrator lacks credibility with the public, then he/she must be removed or resign for the “good” of the City.
All men and women of integrity recognize that integrity means deeds must be commensurate with words. Words, in the form of opinions, do not stand alone; they must be accompanied by acts which support articulated opinions. Otherwise, words are meaningless.
All men and women of integrity expect their elected officials, namely Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and their appointed officials, namely Planning Commissioners Keith Paterson, Steve Hillyard, Jan Reimers, Victoria Beach and Steve Dallas, Forest & Beach Commissioners Les Kadis, Tom Leverone, Joe Ford, Todd Hornik and Vicki Lynch, Historic Resources Board Members Erik Dyar, Erl Lagerholm, Elinor Laiolo, Gregory Carper and Matthew Little, Community Activities and Cultural Commissioners Ruth Rachel, Dixie Dixon, Donna Jett, Clyde Klaumann and Conrad Kohrs and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Robert R. Irvine, Martha Mosher, Nancy Collins, Elisabeth Ungaretti and Michael Lynch to have a “zero tolerance” policy for sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. We further expect them to take seriously the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” of five former senior management city employees. Accordingly, we would expect them to act by signing a petition calling for the resignation or removal of City Administrator Rich Guillen for the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea and present the petition to Mayor Sue McCloud. And if City Administrator Rich Guillen did not resign or the City Council failed to vote to remove him, then the appointed city officials and council members in support of the resignation or removal of the city administrator would resign from their respective offices on principle.
All men and women of integrity value principle over politics and the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea over any single elected official’s ambitions and agenda.
All men and women of integrity would not characterize this crisis as a “controversy” in order to rationalize the need to bury the proper resolution of the future city employment of Rich Guillen in order to address other important issues.
Finally, elected and appointed officials would do the right thing if we, their constituents, expected and demanded it of them.
All men and women of integrity recognize that if the City Administrator lacks credibility with the public, then he/she must be removed or resign for the “good” of the City.
All men and women of integrity recognize that integrity means deeds must be commensurate with words. Words, in the form of opinions, do not stand alone; they must be accompanied by acts which support articulated opinions. Otherwise, words are meaningless.
All men and women of integrity expect their elected officials, namely Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and their appointed officials, namely Planning Commissioners Keith Paterson, Steve Hillyard, Jan Reimers, Victoria Beach and Steve Dallas, Forest & Beach Commissioners Les Kadis, Tom Leverone, Joe Ford, Todd Hornik and Vicki Lynch, Historic Resources Board Members Erik Dyar, Erl Lagerholm, Elinor Laiolo, Gregory Carper and Matthew Little, Community Activities and Cultural Commissioners Ruth Rachel, Dixie Dixon, Donna Jett, Clyde Klaumann and Conrad Kohrs and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Robert R. Irvine, Martha Mosher, Nancy Collins, Elisabeth Ungaretti and Michael Lynch to have a “zero tolerance” policy for sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. We further expect them to take seriously the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” of five former senior management city employees. Accordingly, we would expect them to act by signing a petition calling for the resignation or removal of City Administrator Rich Guillen for the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea and present the petition to Mayor Sue McCloud. And if City Administrator Rich Guillen did not resign or the City Council failed to vote to remove him, then the appointed city officials and council members in support of the resignation or removal of the city administrator would resign from their respective offices on principle.
All men and women of integrity value principle over politics and the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea over any single elected official’s ambitions and agenda.
All men and women of integrity would not characterize this crisis as a “controversy” in order to rationalize the need to bury the proper resolution of the future city employment of Rich Guillen in order to address other important issues.
Finally, elected and appointed officials would do the right thing if we, their constituents, expected and demanded it of them.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
'MINUTES' for Four Noteworthy 2 November 2010 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
3. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
City Administrator Rich Guillen announced this agenda item continued due to the inability of Interim Finance Manager Laura Dadiw to attend the City Council meeting.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Conroy reviewed the Options for the Council to consider regarding the appeal, as follows:
Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal in full
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Jason Burnett and Mayor Sue McCloud regarding setbacks.
The appellant, Barbara Livingston, addressed the public, Council and staff and Dick Stiles read Livingston’s statement citing CEQA low threshold requirements for EIRs and Planning Commissioners Bill Strid and Jan Reimers expressed advocacy for an EIR for the Carmel Sands project. Livingston also requested a three dimensional model to better visualize the project.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Catherine Compagno, owner of Village Court on Mission Street, spoke in favor of a boutique hotel and an EIR.
Resident Jim Wright expressed concerns about Carmel Sands project compatibility with the zoning code.
Monta Potter, CEO Carmel Chamber of Commerce, read from two letters from property owners included in Agenda Packet in support of the Carmel Sands project.
Mike Brown, resident and business owner, expressed concerns about the precedence established for such a large project and urged an EIR.
A former business owner on Mission Street expressed support for an EIR and concerns about traffic.
Thompson Lange, owner of Homescapes and Chair of the Economic Advisory Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project.
Tom Glidden, General Manager, La Playa Hotel, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a high-end project. Glidden also expressed the idea of Carmel lodgings not being competitive with other tourist destinations lodgings.
Jordan Daniels, Green Building Committee Member and consultant, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a “sustainable” project.
Lucia Dahlstrand expressed her husband architect Olof Dahlstand’s support for an EIR in order to produce “the best possible result.”
Amanda LeVett, owner of four Carmel inns, expressed property management and hospitality views in support of the Carmel Sands project.
A resident expressed concerns about the appellant’s appeal and support of not requiring an EIR due to the staff and consultant determining no cumulative impacts anticipated and support of the Carmel Sands project.
Carrie Thies, resident, hotel owner, President Carmel Innkeepers Association, requested the Council deny the appeal. Thies stated that the Carmel Sands project as a high end hotel is “great for hospitality, it’s great for the City.”
Linda Anderson, resident, clarified that the appeal is not meant to stop a first class hotel from being built.
Monte Miller, resident, expressed concerns about the proposed conference rooms and restaurant and advocated for a redesign.
Matthew Little, Sr. expressed not “living the dream” of remodeling the Carmel Sands when he was owner of the hotel and expressed support of the Carmel Sands project.
Matthew Little, Jr. expressed right of the property owner to rebuild the property.
David Howe, managing partner of Carmel Sands Partners (“a handful of investors),” expressed their intention to upgrade the property in “a meaningful way.” Rowe cited the 14 July 2010 approval of Carmel Sands project by the Planning Commission, environmental review performed by independent consultant concluding upgrade would not result in long-term environmental impacts and recommended a MND. Howe also cited the project’s “benefit to the community,” fee income to the City and TOT anticipated to be five times the current transient occupancy tax revenue amount.
Art Coon, Miller, Starr & Regalia, attorney for Carmel Sands Lodge Partners, LLC, stated that the Carmel Sands is a redevelopment and smart growth project. Coon stated his support for the MND and cited legal cases supporting denial of the appeal.
Carmel Sands project architect Eric Miller highlighted working with the Planning Commission and general public for over two years, significant and major changes to the project during the planning phase in response to concerns by neighbors and the Planning Commission and the fact that the project is consistent with all design guidelines.
Carolyn Hardy, resident, requested the City Attorney address requirements for an EIR.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston, appellant, expressed the Council’s role to protect Carmel’s character, concerns about mass, bulk and density, and cited General Plan Policies 1-27, 1-72 and 1-74.
City Attorney Don Freeman cited “substantial evidence” for an EIR in the record as a “whole.” “Substantial evidence” defined as “may have a significant environmental impact” which means enough relevant information that “a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from Mayor Sue McCloud regarding construction truck impacts and traffic and public safety impacts, from City Council Member Ken Talmage regarding setbacks and design guidelines concerning monolithic, uniform appearance and from City Council Member Karen Sharp regarding exterior finish colors. City Council Member Jason Burnett stated his concern regarding a systematic approach for considering appellant’s appeal on issues of traffic and parking, noise, canyon effect, views, greenhouse gases and other emissions, mass and scale, additional rooms and construction truck impacts. The Mayor and Council Members decided by consensus that there was no evidence in the record of significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated for the aforementioned issues.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT, HAZDOVAC, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Council Member Ken Talmage spoke to the 5’ setback on San Carlos Street and the exterior finish which is contrary to the design guidelines. Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy explained the Planning Commission’s decision regarding exterior finish and color was based on the design being more authentic than contrived or artificial.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project with the modification of the 5’ setback and deny the appeal, subject to modifications of the Planning Commission regarding exterior finish issues, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT, HAZDOVAC, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
B. Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Jon Giffen, Kennedy, Archer & Harray shareholder and attorney, stated his firm was hired to draft a harassment prevention policy for the City which revises the existing policy. The objectives include “prohibit all unlawful workplace harassment,” provide for several reporting persons, prevent retaliation, promise confidentiality, and require an immediate investigation of claims. Changes include encouraging employees to communicate with the offending person immediately and the addition of the vice mayor as a reporting person. The twelve-page policy consists of a definitions section, complaint procedure section including employee, supervisor and investigator responsibilities, and penalties section.
To Council Member Jason Burnett’s question about the policy, Jon Giffen stated that this is a revised policy of the “revised policy” which contains minor modifications, except for the timing of written reports by investigators which now states reports completed “at the conclusion of the investigation.”
Mayor McCloud asked about obligations to report harassment to which Jon Giffen responded that all instances of harassment should be reported.
Council Member Karen Sharp asked about 40 years and older to which Jon Giffen responded it is required by law, based on age.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
James Emery, resident, cited needed corrections including a compromise between confidentiality and transparency, include emails and the need for an unbiased investigator. Emery concluded that in the Jane Miller case the council violated the policy.
Adam Moniz, resident, asked what currently happens to a person who violates the City’s existing policy. Since four of five council members have had commentaries published in The Monterey County Herald, Moniz asked the mayor and council members to please state their respective positions “on what you think should be done in the Miller-Guillen matter.”
Carolyn Hardy, resident, voiced concerns about the elimination of the Personnel Committee. Hardy advocated for input from employees on the revised policy and the Council selecting Personnel Committee members. She expressed concern about the burden of the duty to complain by the person being harassed. She cited the inclusion in the policy of victims of harassments also including observers of harassment. She advocated for administrative leave for the alleged harasser until at least the investigation was completed.
Mike Brown, resident and business owner, asked how much the revised policy costs.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Don Freeman addressed city employees’ “bundle of rights.” The cost is “not to exceed $5000.” The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are only reporting people and their duty and obligation is to call a council meeting to inform the council of the complaint. Administrative leave would be paid and could be included. Freeman expressed his desire to circulate revised policy to employees, on the City website, et cetera, for input and establish a timeline for adoption. He expressed supervisor prohibition of relationship with subordinate could also be included in the policy.
Council Member Ken Talmage expressed opposition to circulating the revised draft until a second draft is completed and then circulate the second draft. City Attorney Don Freeman agreed. Jon Giffen stated that is will take a “couple of days” to complete the second draft. Council Member Ken Talmage expressed his concern about making the victim’s reporting of harassment to the supervisor mandatory to which Council Member Jason Burnett offered the use of discretionary, not mandatory, verbiage. Council Member Karen Sharp expressed her concern about including false accusations “because that does happen as well.” Council Member Jason Burnett expressed concern about including mandatory sexual harassment training.
F. Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater
City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the staff report. The alternatives included either the staff preparation of a RFP and subsequent council review of proposals or negotiation for an amended lease with PacRep for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.
Council Member Ken Talmage stated that there are no legal contracts in effect.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to the public.
Stephen Moorer acknowledged that PacRep does not currently have a lease for the Indoor Forest Theater. Moorer expressed his desire to have the SODA program at the Indoor Forest Theater. He clarified that he and Marsha Hovick have discussed the consolidation of programs once her legacy was at an end. He also stated that PacRep has been financially supporting CET by paying monthly rent to the City.
Alex Heid, representing the Board of CET, stated that “we have a proved winner with PacRep,” a legacy with the Hovicks which we would like to continue, such as melding the two organizations together. He stated that he doubted the Forest Theater Guild had the capacity to manage and operate the Indoor Forest Theater. He stated that an RFP “could delay the process of what Steven wants to do.”
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Ken Talmage stated the need to have language in the lease about carrying liability insurance and responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the Indoor Forest Theater facility. The lease has been a three-year lease. Council Member Burnett expressed his disappointment about the Forest Theater Guild not being there to represent their view.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved the City negotiate a lease for the CET facility with PacRep with consideration of a revised rental fee structure, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
3. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
City Administrator Rich Guillen announced this agenda item continued due to the inability of Interim Finance Manager Laura Dadiw to attend the City Council meeting.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Conroy reviewed the Options for the Council to consider regarding the appeal, as follows:
Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal in full
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Jason Burnett and Mayor Sue McCloud regarding setbacks.
The appellant, Barbara Livingston, addressed the public, Council and staff and Dick Stiles read Livingston’s statement citing CEQA low threshold requirements for EIRs and Planning Commissioners Bill Strid and Jan Reimers expressed advocacy for an EIR for the Carmel Sands project. Livingston also requested a three dimensional model to better visualize the project.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Catherine Compagno, owner of Village Court on Mission Street, spoke in favor of a boutique hotel and an EIR.
Resident Jim Wright expressed concerns about Carmel Sands project compatibility with the zoning code.
Monta Potter, CEO Carmel Chamber of Commerce, read from two letters from property owners included in Agenda Packet in support of the Carmel Sands project.
Mike Brown, resident and business owner, expressed concerns about the precedence established for such a large project and urged an EIR.
A former business owner on Mission Street expressed support for an EIR and concerns about traffic.
Thompson Lange, owner of Homescapes and Chair of the Economic Advisory Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project.
Tom Glidden, General Manager, La Playa Hotel, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a high-end project. Glidden also expressed the idea of Carmel lodgings not being competitive with other tourist destinations lodgings.
Jordan Daniels, Green Building Committee Member and consultant, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a “sustainable” project.
Lucia Dahlstrand expressed her husband architect Olof Dahlstand’s support for an EIR in order to produce “the best possible result.”
Amanda LeVett, owner of four Carmel inns, expressed property management and hospitality views in support of the Carmel Sands project.
A resident expressed concerns about the appellant’s appeal and support of not requiring an EIR due to the staff and consultant determining no cumulative impacts anticipated and support of the Carmel Sands project.
Carrie Thies, resident, hotel owner, President Carmel Innkeepers Association, requested the Council deny the appeal. Thies stated that the Carmel Sands project as a high end hotel is “great for hospitality, it’s great for the City.”
Linda Anderson, resident, clarified that the appeal is not meant to stop a first class hotel from being built.
Monte Miller, resident, expressed concerns about the proposed conference rooms and restaurant and advocated for a redesign.
Matthew Little, Sr. expressed not “living the dream” of remodeling the Carmel Sands when he was owner of the hotel and expressed support of the Carmel Sands project.
Matthew Little, Jr. expressed right of the property owner to rebuild the property.
David Howe, managing partner of Carmel Sands Partners (“a handful of investors),” expressed their intention to upgrade the property in “a meaningful way.” Rowe cited the 14 July 2010 approval of Carmel Sands project by the Planning Commission, environmental review performed by independent consultant concluding upgrade would not result in long-term environmental impacts and recommended a MND. Howe also cited the project’s “benefit to the community,” fee income to the City and TOT anticipated to be five times the current transient occupancy tax revenue amount.
Art Coon, Miller, Starr & Regalia, attorney for Carmel Sands Lodge Partners, LLC, stated that the Carmel Sands is a redevelopment and smart growth project. Coon stated his support for the MND and cited legal cases supporting denial of the appeal.
Carmel Sands project architect Eric Miller highlighted working with the Planning Commission and general public for over two years, significant and major changes to the project during the planning phase in response to concerns by neighbors and the Planning Commission and the fact that the project is consistent with all design guidelines.
Carolyn Hardy, resident, requested the City Attorney address requirements for an EIR.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston, appellant, expressed the Council’s role to protect Carmel’s character, concerns about mass, bulk and density, and cited General Plan Policies 1-27, 1-72 and 1-74.
City Attorney Don Freeman cited “substantial evidence” for an EIR in the record as a “whole.” “Substantial evidence” defined as “may have a significant environmental impact” which means enough relevant information that “a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from Mayor Sue McCloud regarding construction truck impacts and traffic and public safety impacts, from City Council Member Ken Talmage regarding setbacks and design guidelines concerning monolithic, uniform appearance and from City Council Member Karen Sharp regarding exterior finish colors. City Council Member Jason Burnett stated his concern regarding a systematic approach for considering appellant’s appeal on issues of traffic and parking, noise, canyon effect, views, greenhouse gases and other emissions, mass and scale, additional rooms and construction truck impacts. The Mayor and Council Members decided by consensus that there was no evidence in the record of significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated for the aforementioned issues.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT, HAZDOVAC, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Council Member Ken Talmage spoke to the 5’ setback on San Carlos Street and the exterior finish which is contrary to the design guidelines. Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy explained the Planning Commission’s decision regarding exterior finish and color was based on the design being more authentic than contrived or artificial.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project with the modification of the 5’ setback and deny the appeal, subject to modifications of the Planning Commission regarding exterior finish issues, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT, HAZDOVAC, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
B. Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Jon Giffen, Kennedy, Archer & Harray shareholder and attorney, stated his firm was hired to draft a harassment prevention policy for the City which revises the existing policy. The objectives include “prohibit all unlawful workplace harassment,” provide for several reporting persons, prevent retaliation, promise confidentiality, and require an immediate investigation of claims. Changes include encouraging employees to communicate with the offending person immediately and the addition of the vice mayor as a reporting person. The twelve-page policy consists of a definitions section, complaint procedure section including employee, supervisor and investigator responsibilities, and penalties section.
To Council Member Jason Burnett’s question about the policy, Jon Giffen stated that this is a revised policy of the “revised policy” which contains minor modifications, except for the timing of written reports by investigators which now states reports completed “at the conclusion of the investigation.”
Mayor McCloud asked about obligations to report harassment to which Jon Giffen responded that all instances of harassment should be reported.
Council Member Karen Sharp asked about 40 years and older to which Jon Giffen responded it is required by law, based on age.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
James Emery, resident, cited needed corrections including a compromise between confidentiality and transparency, include emails and the need for an unbiased investigator. Emery concluded that in the Jane Miller case the council violated the policy.
Adam Moniz, resident, asked what currently happens to a person who violates the City’s existing policy. Since four of five council members have had commentaries published in The Monterey County Herald, Moniz asked the mayor and council members to please state their respective positions “on what you think should be done in the Miller-Guillen matter.”
Carolyn Hardy, resident, voiced concerns about the elimination of the Personnel Committee. Hardy advocated for input from employees on the revised policy and the Council selecting Personnel Committee members. She expressed concern about the burden of the duty to complain by the person being harassed. She cited the inclusion in the policy of victims of harassments also including observers of harassment. She advocated for administrative leave for the alleged harasser until at least the investigation was completed.
Mike Brown, resident and business owner, asked how much the revised policy costs.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Don Freeman addressed city employees’ “bundle of rights.” The cost is “not to exceed $5000.” The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are only reporting people and their duty and obligation is to call a council meeting to inform the council of the complaint. Administrative leave would be paid and could be included. Freeman expressed his desire to circulate revised policy to employees, on the City website, et cetera, for input and establish a timeline for adoption. He expressed supervisor prohibition of relationship with subordinate could also be included in the policy.
Council Member Ken Talmage expressed opposition to circulating the revised draft until a second draft is completed and then circulate the second draft. City Attorney Don Freeman agreed. Jon Giffen stated that is will take a “couple of days” to complete the second draft. Council Member Ken Talmage expressed his concern about making the victim’s reporting of harassment to the supervisor mandatory to which Council Member Jason Burnett offered the use of discretionary, not mandatory, verbiage. Council Member Karen Sharp expressed her concern about including false accusations “because that does happen as well.” Council Member Jason Burnett expressed concern about including mandatory sexual harassment training.
F. Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater
City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the staff report. The alternatives included either the staff preparation of a RFP and subsequent council review of proposals or negotiation for an amended lease with PacRep for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.
Council Member Ken Talmage stated that there are no legal contracts in effect.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to the public.
Stephen Moorer acknowledged that PacRep does not currently have a lease for the Indoor Forest Theater. Moorer expressed his desire to have the SODA program at the Indoor Forest Theater. He clarified that he and Marsha Hovick have discussed the consolidation of programs once her legacy was at an end. He also stated that PacRep has been financially supporting CET by paying monthly rent to the City.
Alex Heid, representing the Board of CET, stated that “we have a proved winner with PacRep,” a legacy with the Hovicks which we would like to continue, such as melding the two organizations together. He stated that he doubted the Forest Theater Guild had the capacity to manage and operate the Indoor Forest Theater. He stated that an RFP “could delay the process of what Steven wants to do.”
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Ken Talmage stated the need to have language in the lease about carrying liability insurance and responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the Indoor Forest Theater facility. The lease has been a three-year lease. Council Member Burnett expressed his disappointment about the Forest Theater Guild not being there to represent their view.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved the City negotiate a lease for the CET facility with PacRep with consideration of a revised rental fee structure, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Carmel Art Association Presents WASSERMAN SOLO SHOW ‘90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION,’ HYBL SOLO SHOW ‘CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME’& GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & LOFTON
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 WASSERMAN SOLO SHOW ‘90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION,’ HYBL SOLO SHOW ‘CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME’& GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & LOFTON
SOLO SHOW: 90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION: NEW WORKS (Center Room):
Painter, Sculptor Gerald Wasserman exhibits “90th Birthday Exhibition: New Works,” comprised of abstract paintings, oil on canvas. View Wasserman’s brief biography and Recent Solo Shows and Awards. And view twelve painting images from “New Work - 90th Birthday Exhibition,” including “Eurydice’s Address,” “Persephone’s Plan,” “The Golden Crown,” “Athene,” “Zeus,” “Helene,” “321,” “Apollo,” “Kouros,” “Pericles Power,” “Ariadne’s Arc” and “Euripides Euros.”
SOLO SHOW “CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits “Celebrating Darwin: How a Population of Abstract Forms Diversified Over Time," a series of paintings on one motif, a linear abstraction of a palm frond (and its mirror image). View Hybl’s brief biography and three painting images, including “Evolution," “Some Red" and "Big Picture."
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Miguel Dominguez exhibits landscapes inspired by the Central Coast in watercolor and acrylic. View Dominguez’s brief biography and three watercolor images, including “Evening's Departure," Two Egrets” and "Lupin Canyon.” And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of five painting images, including “Poppy Blossoms,” “Old Roost,” “Misty Sunrise,” “Twins” and “Elk’s Winter.”
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits California vineyards and valleys. View Jelmini’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including 'Path to the Mustard Field,’ ‘The Grand Valley' and 'Golden Day.’ And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of six painting images, including “Vineyard Hymm,” “Vineyard Varieties,” “Summer Fields,” “Path Through the Vines,” “Vineyard Light” and “Rhythms.” And “Wildflowers & Wild Flowers" – July/August 2010 of twenty-three painting images, including “Path to the Mustard Fields,” “Wildflower Orchard,” “Daydream,” “Wildflowers & Oaks,” “Early Spring Wildflowers,” “Mustard Fields,” “Amazing Grace,” “Towards Point Lobos,” “Roses Among the Vines,” “Iris Dance,” “Poppies,” “Flower Rap,” “Happy Day,” “My Friend’s Bouquet,” “Picnic,” “Carousel,” “Quiet Day,” “A Bouquet in Blue & White,” “Pansies in Blue & White,” “Pansies,” “Garden Party,” “Spring Iris” and “The Bouquets.”
Painter Melissa Lofton exhibits new artworks in oil. View Lofton’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including "Pond V", "Untidaled" and "Tree in Field.” And view "I N B R E A T H" October 2009 Show of eight painting images, including “Hillside,” “Sedges and Pond,” “Violet Madrones,” “Bluffs and Fog,” “Madrones Along the Road,” “Long Ridge, 7 A.M.,” “Palo Corona” and “Rowboats.”
Opening Reception, Saturday, November 6, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
“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 WASSERMAN SOLO SHOW ‘90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION,’ HYBL SOLO SHOW ‘CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME’& GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & LOFTON
SOLO SHOW: 90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION: NEW WORKS (Center Room):
Painter, Sculptor Gerald Wasserman exhibits “90th Birthday Exhibition: New Works,” comprised of abstract paintings, oil on canvas. View Wasserman’s brief biography and Recent Solo Shows and Awards. And view twelve painting images from “New Work - 90th Birthday Exhibition,” including “Eurydice’s Address,” “Persephone’s Plan,” “The Golden Crown,” “Athene,” “Zeus,” “Helene,” “321,” “Apollo,” “Kouros,” “Pericles Power,” “Ariadne’s Arc” and “Euripides Euros.”
SOLO SHOW “CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits “Celebrating Darwin: How a Population of Abstract Forms Diversified Over Time," a series of paintings on one motif, a linear abstraction of a palm frond (and its mirror image). View Hybl’s brief biography and three painting images, including “Evolution," “Some Red" and "Big Picture."
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Miguel Dominguez exhibits landscapes inspired by the Central Coast in watercolor and acrylic. View Dominguez’s brief biography and three watercolor images, including “Evening's Departure," Two Egrets” and "Lupin Canyon.” And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of five painting images, including “Poppy Blossoms,” “Old Roost,” “Misty Sunrise,” “Twins” and “Elk’s Winter.”
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits California vineyards and valleys. View Jelmini’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including 'Path to the Mustard Field,’ ‘The Grand Valley' and 'Golden Day.’ And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of six painting images, including “Vineyard Hymm,” “Vineyard Varieties,” “Summer Fields,” “Path Through the Vines,” “Vineyard Light” and “Rhythms.” And “Wildflowers & Wild Flowers" – July/August 2010 of twenty-three painting images, including “Path to the Mustard Fields,” “Wildflower Orchard,” “Daydream,” “Wildflowers & Oaks,” “Early Spring Wildflowers,” “Mustard Fields,” “Amazing Grace,” “Towards Point Lobos,” “Roses Among the Vines,” “Iris Dance,” “Poppies,” “Flower Rap,” “Happy Day,” “My Friend’s Bouquet,” “Picnic,” “Carousel,” “Quiet Day,” “A Bouquet in Blue & White,” “Pansies in Blue & White,” “Pansies,” “Garden Party,” “Spring Iris” and “The Bouquets.”
Painter Melissa Lofton exhibits new artworks in oil. View Lofton’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including "Pond V", "Untidaled" and "Tree in Field.” And view "I N B R E A T H" October 2009 Show of eight painting images, including “Hillside,” “Sedges and Pond,” “Violet Madrones,” “Bluffs and Fog,” “Madrones Along the Road,” “Long Ridge, 7 A.M.,” “Palo Corona” and “Rowboats.”
Opening Reception, Saturday, November 6, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
KSBW: 'Fate Of Carmel City Administrator Could Be Decided'
UPDATE: NO RESIGNATION, NO COMMENTS, NO ACTION........5 hours 43 minutes Council Meeting ending @ 10:17 P.M.
City Official Never Put On Administrative Leave
City Settled Sexual Harassment Suit For $600,000
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
POSTED: 11:20 pm PDT November 2, 2010
UPDATED: 11:56 pm PDT November 2, 2010
Fate Of Carmel City Administrator Could Be Decided
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
Reporter Stephanie Chuang
Duration: 1:28
POSTED: 6:07 pm PDT November 2, 2010
UPDATED: 6:32 pm PDT November 2, 2010
Mystery Surrounds Carmel City Administrator Status
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
Reporter: May Chow
Duration: 2:43
POSTED: 5:59 pm PDT September 23, 2010
UPDATED: 6:31 pm PDT September 23, 2010
ADDENDUM:
Live and Archived Streaming Media
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Carmel City Admin. Decision Likely Stalls
Posted: Sep 30, 2010 4:06 PM PDT Updated: Oct 11, 2010 9:42 AM PDT
Submitted by Matt de Nesnera, Central Coast News Reporter
CENTRAL COAST NEWS KION 46
Carmel Town Hall on Sexual Harassment Suit
Posted: Aug 02, 2010 7:26 AM PDT Updated: Aug 02, 2010 7:21 PM PDT
Submitted by Matt de Nesnera, Central Coast News Reporter
CENTRAL COAST NEWS KION 46
City Official Never Put On Administrative Leave
City Settled Sexual Harassment Suit For $600,000
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
POSTED: 11:20 pm PDT November 2, 2010
UPDATED: 11:56 pm PDT November 2, 2010
Fate Of Carmel City Administrator Could Be Decided
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
Reporter Stephanie Chuang
Duration: 1:28
POSTED: 6:07 pm PDT November 2, 2010
UPDATED: 6:32 pm PDT November 2, 2010
Mystery Surrounds Carmel City Administrator Status
KSBW.com
ACTION NEWS 8
Reporter: May Chow
Duration: 2:43
POSTED: 5:59 pm PDT September 23, 2010
UPDATED: 6:31 pm PDT September 23, 2010
ADDENDUM:
Live and Archived Streaming Media
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Carmel City Admin. Decision Likely Stalls
Posted: Sep 30, 2010 4:06 PM PDT Updated: Oct 11, 2010 9:42 AM PDT
Submitted by Matt de Nesnera, Central Coast News Reporter
CENTRAL COAST NEWS KION 46
Carmel Town Hall on Sexual Harassment Suit
Posted: Aug 02, 2010 7:26 AM PDT Updated: Aug 02, 2010 7:21 PM PDT
Submitted by Matt de Nesnera, Central Coast News Reporter
CENTRAL COAST NEWS KION 46
COUNCILMEN JASON BURNETT & KEN TALMAGE: ‘Guillen's actions demand resignation for good of Carmel’ Guest Commentary, The Monterey County Herald
ABSTRACT: The Monterey County Herald today published a Guest Commentary by City Councilmen Jason Burnett and Ken Talmage; the Guest Commentary is entitled: “Guillen's actions demand resignation for good of Carmel.” HIGHLIGHTS from the Guest Commentary are presented. In their Guest Commentary, Burnett and Talmage conclude “Rich Guillen should resign.”
Guillen's actions demand resignation for good of Carmel
By JASON BURNETT and KEN TALMAGE
Guest commentary, 11/02/2010
HIGHLIGHTS:
”Carmel City Administrator Rich Guillen should resign for the good of our community.”
“For several reasons, we have come to the conclusion that Guillen should resign. He was not truthful with the private investigator and the council. Guillen exhibited poor judgment and violated Carmel's written ethics policy. Guillen's actions did not meet the ethical standards expected of public officials and our city administrator.”
“In sum, Guillen no longer has the credibility to serve effectively as city administrator.”
“The question now is, what is best for our town and community going forward? The time for further discussion of this matter has passed. Now is the time for action. Rich Guillen should resign.”
Guillen's actions demand resignation for good of Carmel
By JASON BURNETT and KEN TALMAGE
Guest commentary, 11/02/2010
HIGHLIGHTS:
”Carmel City Administrator Rich Guillen should resign for the good of our community.”
“For several reasons, we have come to the conclusion that Guillen should resign. He was not truthful with the private investigator and the council. Guillen exhibited poor judgment and violated Carmel's written ethics policy. Guillen's actions did not meet the ethical standards expected of public officials and our city administrator.”
“In sum, Guillen no longer has the credibility to serve effectively as city administrator.”
“The question now is, what is best for our town and community going forward? The time for further discussion of this matter has passed. Now is the time for action. Rich Guillen should resign.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)