From: Dan Huff
Sent: Wed May 17 09:18:51 2017
To: Sadie Cramer; Gerald Fisher
Subject: FW:
Importance: Normal
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Thompson [mailto:jthompson@cityofmolalla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:20 PM
To: Cindy Dragowsky <cdragowsky@cityofmolalla.com>; D Palumbo
<dpalumbo@cityofmolalla.com>; K Swigart <kswigart@cityofmolalla.com>; Glen
Boreth <gboreth@cityofmolalla.com>; Leota Childress
<lchildress@cityofmolalla.com>; Elizabeth Klein <eklein@cityofmolalla.com>
Cc: Dan Huff <dhuff@cityofmolalla.com>; Chad Jacobs <chad@gov-law.com>
Subject:
Councilors,
PLEASE NOTE, THIS IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION, NOT FOR DISCUSSION. IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. PLEASE RESERVE DISCUSSION AND
DELIBERATION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC MEETING LAW.
Dan and I spoke with Chad this afternoon to provide come clarification on a
few issues, and I am copying him on this communication so he can comment if
I present anything in error.
With regard to my request for consent to terminate a planning commissioner,
I kept my communication with Council and with Ms. Cain brief and succinct,
and included an audio recording which I believe wholeheartedly merited my
request. I understand some did not have the opportunity to review the
recording. I would ask that you do so. I also kept my email brief, and asked
that discussion be limited to the Council meeting to keep us compliant with
public meeting laws. I take great care to comply with the law. I sought
legal opinion, which I have shared, on the content of my previous email
before sending it to you all and Ms. Cain.
With that said, Council expressed an interest in hearing both sides. Ms.
Cain made some accusations at the meeting, which I will address to the best
of my ability, and I will present my side.
First and foremost, as a city, we need a functioning planning commission.
You will hear in the tape that the meeting is prematurely adjourned due to
Ms. Cain’s actions, and with her encouragement. Therefore, the planning
commission, in my opinion, is not functioning. That is aside from whether or
not there was any merit to Ms. Cain’s claims. Ms. Botsford contacted me
regarding her concerns, I also spoke to two other members of the planning
commission expressing similar concerns. I secured the audio recording, and I
share the concerns.
Secondly, and building on the first point, as does the Council, the planning
commissioners need to treat each other with respect. The lack of respect
displayed by Ms. Cain during the meeting was a cause of the derailment of
planning commission business. Please, listen to the recording and make your
own determination, but know that 3 of 4 other commissioners have expressed
concerns about their ability to work with Ms. Cain.
As with Council, if you want something done, it is up to you to present the
item to your peers, convince them that your idea is the right course of
action, and then convince them to take action. Standing on a soapbox,
throwing a tantrum, etc., are not actions befitting a planning commissioner,
a city councilor, or any member of any of our boards or commissions.
Frankly, it is embarrassing. I take pride in what we do. I will not stand
idly by while someone acting on behalf of the city is behaving in an
embarrassing fashion. I will take whatever steps are available to me in
order to fix the issue, as I have done, and as I humbly request that you
help me see to completion. In fact, I have every intention of attending the
next planning commission meeting and personally apologizing to the planning
commission for failing as mayor to address their concern at the meeting last
night. My failure to adequately present their concerns, and my reasoning for
requesting your consent to terminate Ms. Cain’s appointment, ultimately led
to my failure to do what needs to be done. I own that. It is my failure; not
a failure of Council. I simply failed to convince you all of the need. It
was my responsibility, therefore the failure is my own. The reality of how
that works seemed entirely lost from the planning commission meeting. I
sincerely hope you will provide me the support necessary to address the
situation in the near future.
Above and beyond the issues of respect and decorum as mentioned, which in my
opinion alone merit the need for my request for consent to terminate her
appointment, there is a problem with the context of Ms. Cain’s presented
issue at the meeting. As you heard confirmed at the last meeting by the
representative from the State, Ms. Botsford, nor any other member of the CCC
(Citizen Code Committee) was under any obligation to report back to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has no authority over the CCC.
The Planning Commission also has no authority over the PMT (Project
Management Team). Therefore, Ms. Cain demanding that the drafts of the model
code be pulled back until the Planning Commission approved them were totally
out of line. It is not their responsibility, nor right, to approve the
draft. Ms. Cain’s assertion that staff or the PMT did anything wrong by not
“red-lining” the document is not only wrong, but out of line. She can
certainly make suggestions to the content or regarding the process, but that
is the extent of her authority. In reality, that is the extent of her
individual authority in whole, suggestions. As a planning commissioner, she
only has any authority when exercised by vote of the planning commission,
just as we only have authority when exercised by vote of the Council. Below
is verbatim from an email Ms. Cain sent to the planning commission and the
CCC, demonstrating her lack of understanding of the process:
“Aldo, after reviewing Mr. Avison's (CCC member) suggestions for
improvements to our City of Molalla Code Draft #1, I have a concern that has
come to light, please explain to me why Draft #2 (you sent to the
Commissioners yesterday evening and is publicly posted on the Molalla
website) includes what he mentions in his suggestions provided to us here.
Because they were never discussed with the Planning Commissioners at a
Planning Commission meeting, it would appear only with the CCC, and yet
included and submitted into Draft #2?
Again, Planning Commissioners just received Draft #2 from you on Tuesday,
May 2, 2017 at 3:44pm and Mr. Avison sent his suggesion on Draft #1 to us on
Tuesday, May 2, 2017 7:54pm 'after' you sent Draft #2 to the Planning
Commissioners and posted Draft #2 on the website with many of those
suggestions included in it, thus the Planning Commission phase bypassed.
This is a violation of protocol and before the changes from the CCC can be
included and made apart of the draft they need to be discussed with the
Planning Commission. Please take down Draft #2 until we can review Mr.
Avison's suggestions at the Planning Commission and discuss with him his
suggestion if he chooses to attend our meeting and participate in same to
answer any questions we may have regarding his suggestions.
Additionally, there are numerous changes in Draft #2 that are not red-lined.
both are unacceptable practices regarding transparency, not only to the
Planning Commissioner, but to City Council members and the City of Molalla
residents.”
I do not have a transcript of her testimony from the last meeting, so I will
attempt to address Ms. Cain’s concerns and accusation by memory.
With regard to the SEI (Statement of Economic Interests) issue. There was an
issue with the SEI Filings. Dan can clarify, but as I understand it the
issue was on the State end as they changed systems, and the city recorder
has been working with them to correct the issue.
ORS 227.030 (4) “No more than two voting members of the commission may
engage principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for
profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or officers or
employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying,
selling or developing of real estate for profit. No more than two members
shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or
profession.”
In addition to the above refuting Ms. Cain’s assertion that somehow someone
involved in real estate is specifically prohibited from being on the
planning commission, the recent training provided by our City Attorney to us
covered elements such as “ex parte communication”, “potential conflict of
interest”, and “actual conflict of interest”. I do not know what property
Commissioner Chapin owns or does not own, but, even if he owns property
within the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) he still is in no way in violation of
ethics laws simply from participating as a member of the planning
commission. Such an assertion simply speaks to a lack of understanding of
the law, or potentially a malicious attempt to malign someone. If
Commissioner Chapin does own property within the City’s UGB, and the
planning commission were to have some sort of vote regarding the UGB area
that his property was in, he would need to declare a potential or an actual
conflict of interest, but is under no requirement to do so otherwise. The
same would be true if Commissioner Chapin owned property in an area outside
the UGB and a proposal to expand the UGB were to come before the commission
which included the area where his property was located. The allegations of
improprieties are simply untrue. I am confident any such claim to any other
authority will come to the same conclusion.
With regard to the allegation of improprieties on the part of Commissioner
Botsford, Chapin, and Burk, for discussion of “liaisons” to different boards
and commissions. “Liaison” is a bad term, as that is really not what they
are. They are a member of those committees. As I mentioned in the meeting,
there is no process requiring the planning commission to take a vote to
appoint a member to the Citizen Code Committee. The IGA specifies that the
group should include a member of the planning commission. Commissioner
Botsford is a planning commissioner. With there not being a requirement of a
planning commission vote, it is not planning commission business, and
therefore discussion of it does not violate public meeting law. It would
have essentially been a discussion of interests in other activities. Just
because someone does not like a process, the process does not necessarily
become illegal. Appointments to boards and commissions are made by the mayor
with the concurrence of the council, as per our charter. The PC does not
have jurisdiction over the decision, so they are free to discuss it, just as
they would be free to discuss any other issue before the council which they
had no jurisdiction of. Claiming this is "ex parte contact" demonstrates a
lack of understanding of what "ex parte contact" means.
I doubt the claims the Ethics Commission is investigating are true. First,
the subject of any such investigation would be notified. Secondly, they are
not the body responsible for enforcement of violations of public meeting
laws (for that, the person believing a violation occurred would have to file
a lawsuit in Circuit Court, per
http://www.doj.state.or.us/public_records/citizens_guide.shtml), they only
enforce violations of the executive session provisions of the public meeting
laws, which the allegations do not pertain to.
Her assertion that a member of the community was maligned at an April
meeting is a matter that I believe we should look into and make our own
determination on, but, the results of such inquiry are in my opinion
separate and aside from this matter, and should have no bearing (Dan has
provided his review of his comments on the issue).
Ms. Cain has also demonstrated insubordination. She previously contacted the
city attorney, was advised she did not have the authority to do so, and then
went on to contact the city attorney a second time.
In conclusion, Ms. Cain has been advised of her role and responsibilities,
process, etc. She has approached communication with others in a manner which
in my opinion does not reflect appropriately on the City or her position.
Even though I have personally attempted to be of assistance in helping her
to understand and perform her responsibilities as a planning commissioner, I
have at this point lost all confidence in her ability to do so. I believe
the rest of the planning commission has also lost all confidence in her,
which will only serve to further inhibit the commission’s ability to get
work done. I would not have brought this matter to Council in the fashion
that I did if I did not believe it was absolutely necessary. I hope to have
your consent at the next meeting.
Best Regards,
Jimmy L. Thompson
Mayor
City of Molalla