America's Best Small Towns to Visit, SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE features “America's Best Small Towns to Visit” 2012, 2013 and 2014. SMITHSONIAN “worked with the geographical information systems company Esri, which analyzed tons of data to find towns or cities of fewer than 15,000 residents where cultural opportunities abound, at least on a per capita basis” in 2014.

The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2014

1. Chautauqua, NY
2. Healdsburg, CA
3. Williamsburg, VA
4. Steamboat Springs, CO
5. Woods Hole, MA
6. Marietta, OH
7. Beaufort, SC
8. Sedona, AZ
9. Nebraska City, NE
10. Lanesboro, MN
11. Spring Green, WI
12. Havre de Grace, MD
13. Columbia, PA
14. Mount Dora, FL
15. Ketchum, ID
16. Montpelier, VT
17. Harrodsburg, KY
18. Silver City, NM
19. Decorah, IA
20. The Dalles, OR

The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2013, SMITHSONIAN “sought a statistical answer to this question by asking the geographic information company Esri to search its databases for small towns and cities—this time, with populations of less than 15,000—that have exceptional concentrations of museums, art galleries, orchestras, theaters, historic sites and other cultural blessings.”

The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2013

1. Gettysburg, PA
2. Cleveland, MS
3. St. Augustine, FL
4. Baraboo, WI
5. Astoria, OR
6. Petoskey, MI
7. Fairfield, IA
8. Los Alamos, NM
9. Sitka, AK
10. Provincetown, MA
11. Galena, IL
12. Sausalito, CA
13. Hanover, NH
14. Oberlin, OH
15. Jackson, WY
16. Lexington, VA
17. Abilene, KS
18. Lihue, HI
19. Fredericksburg, TX
20. Glenwood Springs, CO

The 20 Best Small Towns in America of 2012, SMITHSONIAN “asked the geographic information systems company Esri to search its data bases for high concentrations of museums, historic sites, botanic gardens, resident orchestras, art galleries and other cultural assets common to big cities. But we focused on towns with populations less than 25,000, so travelers could experience what might be called enlightened good times in an unhurried, charming setting.”

The 20 Best Small Towns in America of 2012

1. Great Barrington, MA Big-city smart meets New England natural in an art-rich mountain setting.
2. Taos, NM Modern art, ancient history and counter culture in the luminous high desert.
3. Red Bank, NJ Willie Nelson sings and Basie swings in a riverfront town graced by Victoriana.
4. Mill Valley, CA A Bay Area enclave that put mellow on the map keeps its funky vibe.
5. Gig Harbor, WA Take numerous art galleries. Add sailboats and local wines. Stir. Enjoy.
6. Durango, CO All aboard for mountain fun, plus classical tunes and—gasp—vaudeville.
7. Butler, PA An old-time rural hub as down-to-earth as its most famous product—the Jeep
8. Marfa, TX With mock couture, edgy movies and ironic motels, it’s no cow town.
9. Naples, FL World-class music, design to die for and palm trees
10. Staunton, VA A Shenandoah mix of Confederate relics and Elizabethan theater.
11. Brattleboro, VT
12. Princeton, NJ
13. Brunswick, ME
14. Siloam Springs, AR
15. Menomonie, WI
16. Key West, FL
17. Laguna Beach, CA
18. Ashland, OR
19. Beckley City, WV
20. Oxford, MS 

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea touts “Travel+Leisure magazine recently recognized Carmel-by-the-Sea as one of the most romantic cities in the world - ahead of Florence, Italy and just behind Paris and Venice. In 2013, Conde Nast Traveler readers ranked Carmel as their 6th favorite city in the United States” on the City’s website. Alas, residents and visitors of the City would be better served by city government if the city council and city administration emulated Smithsonian Magazine’s “Best Small Towns to Visit.” Accordingly, if the city council and city administrator were less concerned about budget presentation awards and financial balance sheets and more concerned with the maintenance, upkeep and accessibility of all of Carmel-by-the-Sea's historical, cultural and environmental assets, then perhaps Carmel-by-the-Sea would deserve to be on Smithsonian Magazine’s list of the “Best Small Towns to Visit.”

COMMENTARY: One Million Dollars Shortfall Shibboleth

• In a slow economic recovery post-recession, the last action local government should advocate is taking money from the productive, wealth-creating private sector and appropriating it to government. With the number of “for lease” empty business spaces in the commercial district, our city government does not provide an incentive to business owners to open a business in Carmel with talk of government increasing taxes and fees on businesses and individuals. Let the economic recovery continue prior to considering any and all increase in tax rates and fees. Note: Even in the current slow economic recovery, the State of California had a recent “mini-boom” in tax revenue in the amount of $11.8 billion in two months, according to the WSJ.

• A consultant’s study of the Police Department should be conducted to determine if the City requires one third of its city employees in the Police Department for the Police Department to fulfill its mission and determine options for cost-saving police services, similar to the study of the Fire Department. Conventional wisdom is that the City cannot afford a stand-alone Fire Department, yet the City has a stand-alone Police Department which costs much more to operate than the Fire Department. In addition, the Public Safety Director position was originally created to avoid the hiring of an independent fire chief which was only later understood to be a violation of the law, not because there was a desire to integrate public safety functions.
Note: Just because the City had one hundred city employees at one time does not mean the city requires one hundred city employees now or at a future date to meet the needs of the city. The policy of eliminating city employees, particularly senior management city employees, was not to decrease costs primarily, rather it was the mayor’s (and council’s) policy decision to centralize power in the city administrator and mayor.

• Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers should ask themselves how it is that our city has one of the highest per capita spending levels of any city in the State of California, yet basis public asset stewardship responsibilities have not been accomplished and there are no future plans to address those stewardship responsibilities.

• In the context of the city council voting unanimously to authorize CSAC-EIA to pay $867,876.72 to settle claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation by a former city employee, not accepting responsibility for City Hall’s decade-long “hostile workplace environment,” not hiring a Human Resources Manager to implement the City Harassment Prevention Policy, wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars on an “over lawyered” and not adopted revised Harassment Prevention Policy, the mayor and interim city administrator not answering basis questions from citizens on city council agenda items, street maintenance issues, regional water project issues, et cetera, city council members deserve a vote of no confidence at this time.

• Once a permanent city administrator is hired, the city council could work towards gaining a vote of confidence in their actions if council members publicly recognize the failure of past city councils’ policy of centralizing power in the city administrator and mayor and provide policy direction to the new city administrator to proceed with searches for a Community Planning & Building Director, Public Works Director, Human Resources Manager and Community & Cultural Director. With knowledgeable, experienced Directors/Managers, citizens would have confidence in the decisions of the city council with regard to the operation of our city government.

COMMENTARY: Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. and the Museum Foundation of Pacific Grove, Inc. Should Open their Board Meetings to the Public

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) and the Monterey Foundation of Pacific Grove, Inc. (MFPG) can best fulfill their obligations to the public trust and be accountable to the communities they each serve by having their monthly board meetings open to the public. Opening all board meetings to the public, not merely one annual meeting in the case of SCC or semi-annual Community Days in the case of MFPG, would communicate to the public that Board Members understand their obligation to conduct activities with transparency, integrity and accountability. Moreover, in the context of both nonprofit public benefit corporations under agreement to receive approximately $6.5 million of taxpayer monies during the Term of the Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and SCC (2004 – 2012) and approximately $2.25 million of taxpayer monies during the initial Term of the Agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and MFPG (2009 – 2024), members of the public should have the opportunity to observe decision-making processes in order to gain an understanding of the rationale for plans and decisions.

Importantly, SCC and the MFPG should honor the spirit of California’s sunshine law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, by taking the advice of David Hosley, Ph.D., an advocate of open board meetings for nonprofit organizations. Writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Stanford University, Hosley advocates placing the commitment to have open meetings in the organization’s by-laws, developing policies about public comment, communicating meeting dates and times on a regular basis through a newsletter, e-letter, website and posting a summary of action items and significant reports on the organization’s website.

In sum, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) and the Museum Foundation of Pacific Grove, Inc. (MFPG) opening their board meetings to the public for the purpose of giving interested members of the public the opportunity to observe decision-making processes and gain an understanding of the rationale for decisions would encourage public participation and support and ultimately go a long way towards ensuring the long-term success of SCC’s management of Sunset Center and the MFPG’s management of the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History.


Related Link: Pacific Grove museum board member resigns
Frustrated over procedures
By KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer, 03/15/2011

COMMENTARY: Imagine a Centennial Celebration in a Renovated Forest Theater as an Honor Befitting the Legacy of Our Community Theater, Our ‘Cultural Icon’

Walt de Faria, president of the Forest Theater Foundation recently stated, as follows:

“The legacy is that (the Forest Theater has) preserved community involvement in theater. It alone has kept theater alive in Carmel and on the Monterey Peninsula all these years.”

In honor of the 100th anniversary of the Forest Theater, (our “cultural icon”), the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has scheduled a “centennial celebration” of the Forest Theater on the afternoon of Sunday, August 29, 2010. This celebration is “to remind people that since 1910 there has been ongoing theater here that has provided entertainment for visitors and residents alike,” stated Mayor Sue McCloud.

However, imagine a Centennial Celebration befitting Frank Devendorf and Frank Powers, founder of the City/owner of the original land and founder of the City, respectively, Herbert Heron, founder of the Forest Theater and all actors, directors and theater-goers, past and present, in a renovated Forest Theater.

In the past ten years specifically, there have been several opportunities for the mayor and council to fulfill their stewardship responsibilities by committing to, budgeting for and implementing a renovation plan, Yet, these opportunities were never acted upon; they therefore represent missed opportunities, as the following events demonstrate:

• Beginning in 2001, the mayor and city council had opportunities to budget for the renovation of the Forest Theater in phases over multiple years as outlined by the city-commissioned Forest Theater Facility Master Plan, prepared by local architect Brian Congleton.

• In December 2008, the mayor and council unanimously adopted a Resolution entering into an agreement with RFM Architects for a Schematic Design. As the accompanying staff report stated: “The estimated time to complete the schematic design is three months. RFM recognizes the urgency of moving the project along quickly so that the renovation can be completed by the 2010 season (or the 100th anniversary of the Forest Theater).” And “the goal of completing the renovation by May 2010, the project must commence post haste so construction can be under way by April 2009.”

• In late 2009, the mayor and council approved a contract with William J. Camille, Project Management Consultant, for Forest Theater Renovation Construction Phasing and Cost Planning breakdown of theater architect Richard McCann’s Schematic Design of the Forest Theater. The contract included a preliminary review of Camille's findings with the city, a final report, and presentation to the City Council to be completed in one month, but only the oral preliminary review was presented to the mayor, council member Karen Sharp and city administrator.

• With the city council's adoption of the Triennial Budget FY 2010/11 thru 2012/13 in June 2010, there are no monies budgeted for a Forest Theater Capital Project for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 through Fiscal Year 2014-2015.

In conclusion, while a celebration honoring the 100th anniversary of the historic Forest Theater is to be applauded, it is important to realize that the city’s original intention was to celebrate the occasion in a renovated Forest Theater. To wit, a Forest Theater renovation plan was to be adopted by the mayor and council in early 2009, commencement of renovation construction by April 2009 and completion of the Forest Theater renovation by May 2010, in time for the 100th anniversary on July 9, 2010. Yet as described, the mayor and council over years and years have missed opportunities and thereby failed to provide the requisite leadership and stewardship to make the renovation of the Forest Theater a reality.


ADDENDUM:

Forest Theater Renovation Plans July 2009
Forest Theater Renovation Plans July 2009
RFM Architects
Richard F. McCann, President, Principle-In-Charge

City of Carmel celebrates historic outdoor Forest Theater's centennial anniversary
Carmel celebrates historic Forest Theater's centennial anniversary
By LILY DAYTON Herald Correspondent, The Monterey County Herald, 08/26/2010

COMMENTARY: The Personal Vendettas of Mayor Sue McCloud

Personal Vendetta: Revenge (synonym vengeance) is a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a (real or perceived) grievance.

Despite Mayor Sue McCloud’s consistent rhetoric for the past ten years about “common sense and mutual respect for one another’s views” and moving “forward together,” Sue McCloud has hyper-polarized our community by vilifying individuals with accusations of “character assassination,” “personal attack,” assailing individuals' arguments as “misinformation” and pursuing personal vendettas.

Case Study I: John Mandurrago, Property Owner and Developer

Years ago as a Planning Commissioner, Sue McCloud wrote and distributed a fax to her fellow planning commissioners regarding a proposed project which concluded “if we all hang together on this we can kill this project.” Not only was this act a violation of the Brown Act, but she later as mayor pursued a personal vendetta against John Mandurrago. In a recent letter to the editor, John Mandurrago explained, as follows:

Having lived and done business in Carmel for over 22 years, I have watched Mayor Sue McCloud pursue personal vendettas and expose Carmel to extraordinary legal liability.

In 1999, for example, a Carmel City Hall employee handed me a fax that was addressed to all planning commissioners discussing one of my projects. The fax was sent by Sue McCloud and, after putting forth substantive arguments against my project, it concluded “if we all hang together on this we can kill this project.”

Several elected Carmel officials told me McCloud’s fax was unethical conduct and a violation of the Brown Act. I was quickly offered a settlement in exchange for not suing the city. This is why McCloud was not reappointed to the planning commission.

Shortly after McCloud was elected mayor, Rich Guillen asked me to meet with him and McCloud at Carmel City Hall. McCloud had a scowl on her face, leaned over the table, and threatened me. She said “things are going to be different from now on.”

Carmel residents and Carmel business owners deserve an ethical mayor. Sue McCloud is not an ethical mayor.

Moreover, John Mandurrago’s Petition filed in Monterey County Superior Court against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on February 27, 2009 (M97273), states, as follows:

Carmel’s almost four year delay in certification of the EIR is wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective EIR requirements based on vindictive ill will aimed at Petitioner and his project and is intended to delay and ultimately deny the Project based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements “such as loss of great architecture” when the City has no written regulation, policy, resolution, General Plan, zoning ordinance, or any factual documentation to support this funding of unmitigated substantive adverse impact in the environment pursuant to CEQA.

The above recited actions of Respondents’ and Defendants’ in depriving Petitioner of his state and federal protected constitutional rights were done with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to Petitioner’s rights requiring putative damages to be imposed.

Case Study II: Melanie Billig, President of Flanders Foundation

If the criteria used to determine the fate of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property had involved the integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and planning policy, namely the elimination of in-holdings, not the creation of in-holdings, then Mayor Sue McCloud would have solicited proposals for the lease use of the Flanders Mansion, placed the proposals on a public meeting agenda for public consideration and negotiated in good faith with representatives of the Flanders Foundation. Instead, for ten years, Mayor Sue McCloud campaigned exclusively for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property resulting in two “rubberstamp” city councils voting in 2005 and 2009 to authorize the sale of the Property; and even after a Monterey County Superior Court Judge ruled in 2007 against the City in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M76728), the mayor continued authorizing expenditures of taxpayer dollars toward the sale of the Property, rather than consider lease options. Therefore, a reasonable inference is that Sue McCloud was guided by personal animosity towards the individual behind the lease use of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property, Flanders Foundation President Melanie Billig.

Case Study III: Jane Miller, On-Leave Human Resources Manager

In on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s court file pertaining to her lawsuit against the City, information shows that four former senior management city employees had claims similar to Jane Miller, namely “hostile” work environment and being force into early retirement, and in at least two of those cases, the city employees waived claims to secure a monetary settlement. Furthermore, in all four cases, the City negotiated with the attorney for the four city employees until a settlement was reached. However, in the case of Jane Miller, the mayor and city council not only failed to response to Jane Miller's attorney’s May 2008 letter and Jane Miller’s October 2008 letter, but they failed to negotiate in good faith prior to Jane Miller filing her lawsuit against the City in June 2009. Additionally, Mayor Sue McCloud demeaned Jane Miller with her dismissive "it's nothing" characterization of Jane Miller's legal complaint. Therefore, a reasonable inference is that Sue McCloud’s decisions were guided by personal animosity towards the individual personifying city employees with complaints regarding “hostile” work environment and being forced into early retirement.

In conclusion, the mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea is expected to speak to all Carmelites, not merely to her supporters, and build consensus through argument and persuasion - not by vilifying individuals and pursing personal vendettas. Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud’s personal animus against individuals has guided her governmental decision-making, rather than an objective analysis of the merits of the issues, including the fates of the Walter Burde bank building and Flanders Mansion Parkland Property and the complaints by city employees of sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. To wit, 736 Carmel voters who voted for mayoral candidate Adam Moniz recognize the aforementioned, while the 847 Carmel voters who voted for incumbent Mayor Sue McCloud will someday in the future have to account for their support of the current mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Commentary: Two heroes named Jane Miller and Stephanie Pearce

THE DEEDS revealed and alleged in on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s letter to the Mayor and City Council, dated October 23, 2008, and legal complaint filed June 17, 2009 and Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M99513) court file are enough to make every Carmelite ashamed of the conduct of City Administrator Rich Guillen, Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Ken Talmage and Karen Sharp.

It’s horrible to contemplate what Jane Miller endured for years and years at City Hall. She “watched City Administrator Richard Guillen make professional decisions based upon favoritism, gender, age and inappropriate relationships. Guillen is a manipulative boss who needs attention from and cultivates relationships with women at work into something which can turn them into “work spouses.” When those women respond to his behavior, Guillen rewards them financially and professionally. On the other hand, Guillen gets rid of women employees if they don’t respond to his needs.” In April 2008, City Administrator Rich Guillen told her that he wanted to eliminate her position of Human Resources Manager, although he had no legitimate justifiable budgetary or organizational reason. “In a very poisonous way, Guillen combined work and his version of sexual attraction – frequently calling himself “the boss” as he referred to me as a “hottie” or his “blond worker bee.”” Additionally, “Guillen has made bad decisions regarding salaries and work responsibility based on favoritism that has not only created a discriminatory working environment but also has drained away City funds. The unprecedented raises, benefits and higher “Job Titles” he gave to Christie Miller (between 2003 and 2008, Guillen increased Christie Miller’s salary by about 83%) and Heidi Burch (between 2005 and 2008 Guillen increased Heidi Burch’s salary by about 70%) were decisions that were not supported in the budget or by their qualifications.”

As discouraging as the deeds themselves is the knowledge that City Administrator Rich Guillen has seemingly gotten away with it. He was never placed on administrative leave or terminated and remains city administrator. Moreover, the Mayor and City Council failed to respond to Jane Miller’s letter even in the face of Jane Miller’s plea of “what you cannot do is ignore the conditions that allowed Guillen to do what he has been doing. My career, my health, and the City’s well-being are at stake” and failed to expeditiously conduct a full, objective and independent investigation of her complaints. And so the Mayor and City Council have also seemingly gotten away with it as they have not been held accountable for their unethical, uncaring and incompetent conduct.

The fear that motivated Jane Miller to keep silent over the years, unfortunately, was not unfounded. While she now believes it was “a mistake” to not challenge Guillen “for his inappropriate actions,” her fear appears in retrospect to be well founded given the circle the wagons mentality of the Mayor and City Council and the dismissive “it’s nothing” attitude of Mayor Sue McCloud regarding Jane Miller’s complaint.

So for Jane Miller, her years of silence are understandable. Even now, she surely did not want to file a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and revisit what happened to her at City Hall in a forthcoming jury trial on September 20, 2010.

And for former city employee Stephanie Pearce, her recent letters to the editor about Carmel lacking “integrity” describe a city government which is “badly broken.” She recounted “hostile punitive actions” carried out by City Administrator Rich Guillen against long time dedicated city employees (and approved by Mayor Sue McCloud), “personal vendettas” against individual employees and a mayor working “hand in glove” with the city administrator “whose inappropriate and unprofessional relationships have created a city workplace imbued with an atmosphere of stress, hostility and fear.” Moreover, Stephanie Pearce wrote that “the open scandal that has pervaded city hall and demoralized city staff is not just “negativity” that must be kept confidential pending legal resolution. It is an egregious betrayal of the public trust to allow creation and continuance of a hostile workplace environment, showing profound lack of respect for city workers.”

And so for Stephanie Pearce, there was plenty of motivation to let the whole thing stay in the past.

Yet there they were, Jane Miller and Stephanie Pearce, one filing a public lawsuit and the other writing letters to the editor, informing the public of Carmel’s lack of integrity.

For this, Jane Miller and Stephanie Pearce deserve the community’s deepest thanks. They are risking a lot, and they are doing it for everyone else’s honor and integrity.

COMMENTARY: Termination & Resignations Necessary to Uphold Integrity of Public Trust Offices

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Code of Ethics states, in part, as follows:

“Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).”

Given the severity of the credible allegations of Human Resources Manager Jane Kingsley Miller regarding the intolerable and unacceptable workplace environment at City Hall created by City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud, it is imperative that the following actions occur immediately:

• A Special City Council Meeting is convened for the purpose of voting to terminate Rich Guillen from employment as city administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage tender their resignations as city council members of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

For arguably at least the last two years, Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage knew, or should have known, about the workplace environment at City Hall. Their actions, including but not limited to, voting to approve an increase in Rich Guillen’s salary and benefits during this period, and inactions, including but not limited to, failing to investigate Jane Miller’s serious complaints, represent an irreparable breach of public trust and “an injustice for all.”

Moreover, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and her selection of Rich Guillen as city administrator, our city government has been a government of, by, and for Sue McCloud. Now, it is time for Camelites to restore our city government to a government of the people, by the people, for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by demanding the termination from city employment of Rich Guillen as city administrator and the resignations of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage because elected officials and city employees are answerable and accountable to the people from whom all legitimate power emanates and for whom government exists. Otherwise, the constitutional principle that public office and public service is a public trust is nonexistence.

COMMENTARY: City Government Culture of Harassment, Ill Will, Retaliation, Vindictiveness & “Evil Motive or Intent”

While it is beyond the scope of this commentary to comment on the allegations of John Mandurrago that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Council, et al. violated the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code housing statures, his constitutionally protected rights under the color of state laws, his Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States rights, including violations of substantive and procedural due process rights, it is within the scope of this commentary to comment on how this latest legal compliant against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea displays a disturbing pattern of abuse and misuse of power against citizens and residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

As the mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Sue McCloud has the power and responsibility to make certain that the City adheres to municipal, state and federal laws and individuals are not deprived of their rights and privileges afforded to them by state laws and the Constitution of the United States. Yet, during her nearly nine year tenure as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City has sanctioned violations of municipal, state and federal laws (M76728) and as John Mandurrago alleges in Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M97273) more violations of state and federal laws. Furthermore, John Mandurrago’s compliant against the City characterizes Carmel’s actions as not only “illegal,” but intended to “delay, harass, as well as deny the Project as the City’s method to retaliate against Petitioner;” “vindictive and ill will at Petitioner intended to delay and ultimate deny the Project based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirement;” intended to harm Petitioner in that Petitioner was subjected to “humiliation and indignity” and “mental pain and suffering;” and done with “evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to petitioner’s rights.” Finally, in additional to general damages, Mandurrago seeks putative damages, as follows: “For punitive damages in an amount appropriate for Respondents’ and Defendants’ actions, wrongful conduct, and to set an example to other cities that delaying qualified housing development projects based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements is not an accepted practice, particularly when Petitioner’s due process rights protected by Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment are deprived under the color of state action.”

Unfortunately, this latest compliant against the City highlights other cases where the City has engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory and wrongful acts, namely by violating the California Environmental Quality Act, Government Code and Municipal Code in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M76728) and where Mayor Sue McCloud has engaged in harassment, ill will and vindictiveness against Carmelite Susan Page as she sanctioned the delay of her application before the Forest and Beach Commission, voided her permit without cause and substituted language in the permit not approved by the City Council.

In closing, regardless of the legal outcome of Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., all Carmelites should challenge, confront and condemn city actions which can be construed as actions characterized by harassment, ill will, retaliation, vindictiveness and “evil motive or intent,” all Carmelites!

ADDENDUM:Mandurrago sues city over bank building demolition, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 6, 2009

COMMENTARY The Superior Alternative: Lease the Flanders Mansion to the Flanders Foundation

Since its formation as a non-profit organization in 1999, the Flanders Foundation, an organization dedicated to restoring, enhancing and maintaining “the Flanders Mansion property in the public domain as a historical, cultural and educational resource for the benefit of the community,” has repeatedly contacted the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the express purpose of discussing a public-private partnership for the long-term “low-intensity” public use of the Flanders Mansion. Yet, despite the Flanders Foundation having a business plan, operating plan, marketing plan, financial plan and the support of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the State Office of Historic Preservation, Mayor Sue McCloud has obstinately refused to meet with members of the Flanders Foundation to discuss a public-private partnership for the Flanders Mansion. To wit, Mayor Sue McCloud has placed her own personal, misguided agenda of selling the Flanders Mansion ahead of her duty and responsibility as mayor of treating the city-owned National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion as an inheritance to be passed on to another generation of Carmelites in a better state than when she assumed stewardship of the Flanders Mansion in 2000.

Moreover, in the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property (RDEIR), the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea identified one primary objective and six secondary objectives, as follows:

The primary purpose of the proposed sale is “to divest the City of the Flanders Mansion Property which is in need of significant short-term and long-term repair and rehabilitation.”

In addition, the City cited six secondary objectives:

1) To ensure that the Flanders Mansion is preserved as an historic resource;

2) To ensure that the Flanders Mansion building and property are put to productive use;

3) To ensure that future use of the Flanders Mansion and property will not cause significant traffic, parking, or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood;

4) To ensure that future use will not significantly disrupt the public’s enjoyment of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve or the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden;

5) To ensure that environmental resources of the park are protected; and

6) To ensure that the Flanders Mansion parcel continues to provide the public with as many park benefits as are practical.

All of the six secondary project objectives can be accomplished through the leasing of the Flanders Mansion to the Flanders Foundation. Importantly, leasing the Flanders Mansion to the Flanders Foundation would avoid the identified “significant” and “unavoidable” adverse environmental impacts associated with the permanent loss of parkland. And, since the Flanders Mansion parcel has historically been an integral component of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve, leasing the Flanders Mansion to the Flanders Foundation would maintain the geographical integrity of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve, the city’s largest park. As to the primary objective, divestment of the Flanders Mansion because of repair and rehabilitation requirements, this represents an abdication of the duties and responsibilities of the City Council to comply with the Municipal Code and, most importantly, a failure to honor their responsibility as stewards of public buildings, property and parkland.

Lastly, the Flanders Foundation deserves acknowledgement from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and a commitment by the City to meet with members of the Flanders Foundation for the purpose of discussing a public-private partnership involving the leasing of the Flanders Mansion to the Flanders Foundation to ensure the Flanders Mansion remains a publically owned building and the integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve is maintained now and into the future.