For the past two years I've had the pleasure of serving the public as a Clayton Planning Commissioner, considering land-use issues in our town. This was my first stint as a government official and has been an opportunity to give back to a community I deeply love.
As a child growing up in Clayton, I had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a Planning Commission’s labor long ago. I witnessed the results of thoughtful development as downtown Clayton evolved and neighborhoods were established. The town has retained its unique charm while striving to meet the needs of a modern society. I wanted to help create the next chapter in Clayton's deep history.
My desire to return to my home town prompted me to purchase a house close the heart of our community. As one of the younger homeowners in Clayton, I represent the future generation of citizens in the City of Clayton. And now my home ownership near downtown Clayton seemingly impedes my ability to serve the public.
The Clayton Community Church has a project currently before the Planning Commission, which if approved, will change the footprint of downtown Clayton. As city officials, we are appointed or elected to serve at the pleasure of the public. Therefore, public opinion means everything. And when there is potential conflict of interest in political life, the public becomes concerned (rightfully so).
As someone who lives so close to downtown Clayton and likewise the Clayton Community Church project, objections have been raised about my potential conflict of interest. So, in December 2010, I asked the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to review my situation. They ruled that since I did not live within the 500 feet of the Church project, there was not a material conflict of interest. However, since the Church is asking to use downtown parking spaces within 500 feet of my home, the character of my neighborhood may change and I therefore may have a financial conflict. I submitted this finding to the City of Clayton on March 24, 2011 and did not hear anything more on the issue...
Until 9:48am the morning of my interview to renew my seat on the Planning Commission. That's when Councilwoman Julie Pierce called me to investigate my potential conflict on the Clayton Community Church project. She asked me to provide her with the correspondence between the FPPC and me, which I promptly offered to her.
At 2:21pm, City Manager Gary Napper forwarded the City Council and me an email from our City Attorney, which expressed concern about one area of the Fair Political Practices Commission's findings on my situation. Two hours later I was standing before the City Council defending my ability to serve as a Clayton Planning Commissioner.
It’s unfortunate that neither Councilwoman Pierce nor the City Council provided me with a timely opportunity to respond to the concern about my potential conflict of interest on the Clayton Community Church project. With a 4-1 vote (Councilman Medrano supported me staying on the Commission), my term in office had ended effective June 30, 2011.
I have always held the position that while acting as a public official, one must set biases aside and serve in the best interest in the community. Therefore, holding myself accountable, I am seeking clarification from the Fair Political Practices Commission on my potential conflict on this project.
At the end of the day, however, this matter is not about me. This is about the ability of our community and government to consider, in a fair and open-minded manner, a vital development project before us. I love this community and would not want politics to impede important matters before the public. So for the timing being, I step aside as a City Planning Commissioner and encourage the Clayton community to get involved in determining the future of our town.
I wish the Planning Commission and City Staff the best in the road ahead and thank you for all for what you have taught me over the past two years.
