Tom Lynch resigns from RRROC, what's the world coming to?

Good grief, Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee members seem to be fleeing in droves! Could the long hours and no pay have something to do with it? After losing three members in less than a year (John Uniack, Chris Auzston, and Elio "Buck" Sierra), Tom Lynch tendered his formal resignation this evening. RRROC now has one vacancy each for the residential tenants and residential home owners categories.

During tonight's monthly RRROC meeting at the Guerneville Veterans Hall, Lynch explained that he wanted to avoid possible "conflicts of interest" due to his construction company's future projects (ooh! ooh! What are they?). His fellow RRROC members said they would miss him, and so will I. His jovial presence has calmed many contentious meetings. Dan Fein stated that "Tom is the longest-serving member of RRROC -- 25 years."

Lynch also currently serves on the Zoning Board. He first appeared on the local political scene as "Manure Man" in 1985, when he protested Santa Rosa's "accidentally" discharging 750 gallons of "effluent" into the Russian River by covering four entire city blocks around Santa Rosa's City Hall with manure. He almost made it to the City Hall steps before running out of you-know-what.

Oddly enough, Lynch was not pulled over by law enforcement, despite the fact that he was driving a tractor and broadcast manure spreader around Santa Rosa at three in the morning. Our very own aggressive, ticket-mongering CHP officer -- who currently rules River Road with an iron fist -- probably still wore diapers back in those halcyon days.

On a positive note, RRROC voted to FINALLY approve the Design Guidelines document for the Russian River Corridor, provisional on a few "insubstantial" changes, plus further discussion on recommended architectural styles (based on ones which have historically existed in the area), as suggested by RRROC member Catherine Young. She was concerned that the lovely, Beaux-Arts style of the "Bank Building" in Guerneville would be disallowed for future projects because it wasn't specifically included on the list (for some interesting insights about why the "Bank Building" was abandoned over 20 years ago, read local author Stephen Pizzo's book Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans).

Gee, the Design Guidelines only took 9 years to complete. But it was definitely worth the wait. I should know, because Yolanda Solano from the Permit and Resources Management Department read all 56 pages aloud to us during the meeting. I now understand why my 8-year-old daughter needs me to read her to sleep. Yet many folks expressed appreciation for the vastly-improved, simpler, more accessible, and better organized document Solano presented. She responded graciously by giving credit to the Design Guidelines Task Group* for their extensive reviews and recommendations.

RRROC also formally approved the list of individuals appointed to the Brand Working Task Group by Kathleen Kane from the Community Development Commission (CDC) . The newly-created task group will work with the County's consultant, Great Destination Strategies (GDS) and the CDC towards providing advice and feedback towards developing, branding, and facilitating our local tourism industry. For some reason, this makes me cringe, even though I know that tourism is our economic life-blood.

The Brand Working Task group will include some of the most dynamic business people in our community, including Margaret Kennett, Jan Russel, Peter Hacket, Lynette McClean, Justin Lacy, Kim Holliday, Robin Johnson, Phillip Hampton, Camille La Grande, and Lynn Crescione.

Speaking of Lynn Crescione, she totally kicks butt as the new RRROC chairperson. Meetings used to drone on and on for as long as four hours. Nowadays, decisions are quickly made, and meetings last two hours maximum. This may have something to do with the fact that budget cuts have tightened funding guidelines. Nonetheless, Crescione deserves major high-fives for achieving briefer, more tightly-focused meetings.

In addition, Jennifer Howse from the CDC reported on the following projects:

• $4 million in redevelopment funds are available for non-housing projects and $800K for housing-related projects this year.
• Sweet Water Springs' improvements are moving along.
• the Guerneville River Park's clean-up is completed.
• the RiverKeeper's park is connected to a new and more reliable water supply.
• 24 businesses have applied for commercial rehabilitation loans and seven have been approved for design grants.
• Two housing rehabilitation projects are in the development stage. No new loans have been approved.
  
• The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Graffiti Abatement Program will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in October. If approved, the program will receive funding.
• The Fife Creek Commons (formerly known as the 5th & Mill Affordable Housing Project) has begun. The mediation, final report, relocation of the Marshall House, and grading permit paperwork have been completed. Financing is expected to close by early October.
• Improvements to the Rusky Rika Dacha apartment complex on River Rd. have been completed.
• Great Destinations Strategies (GDS) will hold a public meeting on November 3rd to discuss brand concepts.
  

________________________________________
* The following individuals have served on the Design Guidelines Task Group: Jon DeSalvio, Lynn Crescione, Catherine Young, George Zastrow, Carl Combs, Mitch Gordon, and Gillian Hayes.

Hot & Steamy RRROC Stuff: The Smoking Emails

Below, please find the hot & steamy RRROC "smoking emails" (the supposed "evidence" for Mr. Guccione's complaint against RRROC for alleged Brown Act violations). They're buried on the RRROC Web site, but I'm posting them here for the convenience of anyone who has the desire, fortitude, & impeturbable digestive system required for their perusal.

The cast of characters (as seen in the email headers & body of the emails) are as follows:

• Dan Fein: Chairman of RRROC
• John Uniack: RRROC member & community watch dog/legal eagle
• Boris Sztorch: CDC Redevelopment Manager
• Ken Wikle: RRROC member
• Brown Act: A California Law which requires that the meetings of elected officials be open to the public & that the public be guaranteed the right to speak. Apparently Mr. Guccione believes that the following emails count as a "meeting," although no meeting agenda items were discussed.
• P&P: Policies & Procedures. A legal document which governs how RRROC meetings are to be conducted & who's allowed to do what.
  

These email messages consist of an argument between Mr. Fein & Mr. Uniack. Mr. Fein had sent an email to RRROC & CDC members calling for a special RRROC meeting, in addition to the regular monthly one. Mr. Fein believed this meeting was necessary because several agenda items had been postponed (sometimes repeatedly) due to lack of time ... despite the fact that meetings were often running past midnight! Mr. Uniack protested the calling of this meeting on the grounds that Mr. Fein, in the capacity of Chairman, does not have the authority to call a special meeting.

The special RRROC meeting was held in September & the public was duly notified. I believe this meeting was entirely necessary. Mr. Fein's calling a special meeting -- & the resulting emails -- do not seem at all improper in my eyes. These items deserved their (often long-overdue) time for public discussion. Continuing to unduly postpone discussion of these issues would have been highly unjust & hence may have provoked resentment against RRROC at best & Brown Act complaints at worst.

If we truly care about the values embraced by the Brown Act, then we need to tolerate the necessity of occasional extra (aka "Special") meetings & be willing to either attend these meetings or respect the decisions of those who bother to do so.

So ... gulp down a glass of water, along with the antidepressants, digestive medications, or high-proof alcohol shot of your choice & read on, if you dare.

---

From: Boris Sztorch
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Dan Fein
Subject: Email re: Special Meeting

Hi Dan,

See you've read the following email from John Uniack regarding the legality of calling a Special Meeting. What are your thoughts?

>>> JohnnyU 8/6/2007 4:37 PM >>>

Hi Boris,

I got an email Friday informing me of a special RRROC meeting called by the RRROC chair Dan Fein with an agenda decided and guests invited by Chair Dan Fein. The chair position on the RRROC is a meeting facilitator position that was given agenda approval, with the vice chair, by the RRROC to make sure that the agenda for the upcoming meeting was as stated at the end of the last meeting and to approve written agenda item requests.

Please read section 7.4 of the policy and procedures paragraph two which states that requested items will be placed on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting. The chair does not have authority to call a special meeting for items that he has withheld from the regular agenda, in fact he has no authority to withhold RRROC related items from the regular agenda period. If the RRROC wants the chair to have this kind of power it must be put in the policies and procedures document. Any non-emergency special meeting of the RRROC must be an agenized item on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting with the time and place decided by a member vote.

thanks
John U

---

From: Dan Fein
To: Boris Sztorch
CC: John Uniak, Ken Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:40:33 -0700

Boris,

I respectfully disagree with John’s interpretations.

1) The same article of the P&P that John’s email references says that an “Emergency Meeting” can be called with 24 hour notice. There is no other discussion about what constitutes an emergency meeting, when it can be held or for what purpose, or who can call it. Here is what the Brown Act says:

“The Brown Act provides for three different types of meetings. Regular meetings occur at a time and

location generally set by ordinance, resolution, or by-laws. At least 72 hours prior to a regular

meeting, an agenda must be posted which contains a brief general description of each item to be

transacted or discussed at the meeting. Special meetings may be called at any time but notice must be

received at least 24 hours prior to the meeting by all members of the body and by all media outlets that

have requested notice in writing. Emergency meetings, which are extraordinarily rare, may be called

upon one-hour notice to media outlets that have requested notice in writing.”

What our P&P calls an “Emergency Meeting” follows the Brown Act rules about “Special Meetings”, which can be called at any time up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting. In fact, the P&P do not refer to “Emergency Meetings” anywhere other than in item 7.2, however there are several references to “Special Meetings”. This is an internal inconsistency that should be addressed at some point. John’s assertions that: “The chair does not have authority to call a special meeting” and “Any non-emergency special meeting of the RRROC must be an agenized item on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting with the time and place decided by a member vote” are not stated anywhere in the P&P and are contrary to the character of a special meeting as defined in the Brown Act.

2) The P&P do not state in any way what are the responsibilities and duties of the Chair other than to approve the agenda and to monitor the time of public comment. Lacking definition, it is up to the individual Chairperson to interpret and exercise those duties. I agree with John that one of the responsibilities of the Chair is to act as a facilitator, even though that is not stated in the P&P. Ultimately, the responsibility of the Chair must be to assure that RRROC succeeds at conducting its business and makes the best use of the time that is contributed by its members and by the public who participate. My personal measure of success for a RRROC Chair is how well the committee works as a team and what is accomplished during his/her tenure, and that’s how I’m interpreting my duties.

3) RRROC-related items have not been withheld from the agenda. Several items that have been requested have been postponed either by prioritization by the Chair and Vice-Chair or by the RRROC during meetings in which they were on the agenda. Some items have been postponed several times. Nothing in the P&P requires that agenda items be considered by the RRROC in the order that they are requested.

With respect to the upcoming special meeting, we (Chair and Vice-Chair) hope to address all outstanding RRROC-related items having to do with process and responsibilities of the RRROC. I consider this to be a more efficient use of time and resources than considering these items piecemeal. We have gone to lengths to assure that questions that have been raised by RRROC members and the public can be addressed by people with knowledge and authority to address them, and that all involved will have more than adequate time to prepare. Given the number of items, the complexity of some of the questions and the likely length of discussion, I expect that this will not be the last of the special meetings.

Best regards,

Dan Fein

---

From: John Uniak
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:43 PM
To: Dan Fein, Boris Sztorch
Cc: Kenneth Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

Hi, everyone
Since the start of this committee the main responsibility of the chair has been to conduct the meetings. The RRROC authorized the chair and vice chair to approve the agenda not write or delete items from the agenda. The RRROC agenda for its next meeting is set by the RRROC members at the end of each meeting. The chair has never asked for the authority to delete/deter agenda items, to call additional meetings or anything else. This is a democratic committee and the chair is not a dictatorial position. I suggest that the chair read P&P article 4-1&4. and present to the full committee what he wants for their review and approval.
Why was the need for a additional meeting not put on last months agenda? The committee could have discussed its need, format, agenda date, time and advisors if any. The agenda situation has deteriorated to the point where only the items that the chair wants on are included. The other RRROC members and the public do not know if the items that were approved for the next months agenda will appear or not or if they ever will appear on any RRROC agenda. The people whose items were not approved by the chair for placement on an agenda are not notified that their item was not included, nor given any reason why. Some of the current agenda problems must be placed on the CDC who has the responsibility for the preparation of the agenda and should be advising the chair.
My suggestion would be to follow the P&P and Roberts Rules. Anything not covered in these documents should be brought to the committee for approval.
Thanks for your time
John U

---

From: Dan Fein
To: John Uniak, Boris Sztorch
CC: Ken Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:42:00 -0700

Again, with all due respect John, your assertion that “The RRROC agenda for its next meeting is set by the RRROC members at the end of each meeting” is not supported by RRROC P&P. In fact, according to P&P requests for agenda items can be submitted as late as 5:00 on the first Thursday of the month.

The special meeting is necessary to attend to a number of outstanding issues, many of which are items you have requested to be included on our agenda. When we spoke on Saturday, I mentioned several items that will be included in the special meeting agenda. If there is an item that you have requested that I didn’t mention and that you want to be sure is included, please let me or Ken know.

Dan Fein

---

From: John Uniak
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Dan Fein; 'Boris Sztorch'
Cc: 'Kenneth Wikle'
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

Dan your way of thinking is completely foreign to the concept of democracy. You have not been given the authority to do anything except to conduct RRROC meetings, check the agenda of accuracy and approve adding items that meet P&P requirements---approve the agenda---Have you read the Roberts Rules section on chairperson? Where did you see that you can do what you are doing? The P&P/bylaws tell you what you can do as chair. Anything that is not specifically stated in them is not allowed. There have been several instantences during your term as chair that your decisions have not been upheld. This has cost the RRROC time and creditability. It has caused many unnecessary agenda item requests. It has caused more public comment increasing meeting time. It has caused several items to be sent to the grand jury. I am trying to keep you from going beyond the point of no return. Why do do make decisions on your own that the committee would approve if you would just put them on the agenda? Please read the attachment from one of the Roberts Rules books that I have.

JohnnyU

---

From: Dan Fein
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:56 PM
To: 'JohnnyU'; 'Boris Sztorch'
Cc: 'Kenneth Wikle'
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

John,

Your opinion is duly noted.

If you would like to reword your statement as a decision for the RRROC to consider, please submit it as an agenda request, and I’ll be certain that it is included in the special meeting, time permitting. If time does not permit, we’ll include it in the regular September agenda.

Until a majority of the RRROC tells me otherwise, I will continue to conduct my chairmanship in the way that I deem to be most effective for the benefit of the RRROC and the community.

Dan

---

RRROC Elections: Why Are These People Smiling?

Lloyd Guccione -- who is running for Dan Fein's seat on the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) -- has run a huge quarter-page advertisement in this month's Russian River Monthly, which asks: "Why are these people smiling?"

The ad shows grinning photos of his supporters alongside the obligatory supportive quotes, & of course the answer to the above query is: "Two words. Lloyd Guccione."

To which MY visceral response is: Um ... I cannot even possibly fathom why "these" people -- or ANY people -- would be smiling about Mr. Guccione's campaign.

Mr. Guccione is a highly articulate, intelligent, logical, & thoughtful man who speaks up at RRROC meetings with long, majestic, poetic cadences with the most amazingly lovely, resonant baritone. Alas, the political views & intentions which manifest themselves through the instrument of that sonorous voice do not elicit smiles from me.

This gentleman has a high degree of intelligence, intensity, & integrity, & is highly regarded by some as a community watch-dog. His supporter, Lenny Weinstein, is even quoted in the ad as saying "Lloyd does a lot of homework to make sure that the public is well protected. Every community needs a muckracker."

But we already HAVE a devoted & vigilant watch dog in the person of John Uniack (currently serving on RRROC) -- who diligently crunches numbers & forcefully advocates adherence to proper & legal procedures while still managing to work effectively with members of RRROC & the community at large in a professional, courteous, & constructive manner. Unlike Mr. Guccione, Mr. Uniack often stands FOR things as well as AGAINST them.

My main problem with Mr. Guccione is that he does not behave in a constructive, courteous, or helpful manner. He repeatedly criticizes RRROC & points out problems without proposing any constructive solutions. He insults the personal integrity of RRROC members & launches frivolous legal actions instead of devoting his formidable intellectual energies & resources to helping the RRROC become more transparent. We're a small community & we NEED to be civil & kind towards one another. If Mr. Guccione cares so danged much, he should serve on a subcommittee or submit a proposal for project funding (um ... though I don't know WHAT, exactly such a project might be ... um ... an oversight committee for the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight committee?).

The formidable complexity of Mr. Guccione's mind prevents me from discerning what he actually wants & supports. But I have managed to form a pretty good idea of what he does NOT want or support. As far as I can tell, Mr. Guccione wants NO redevelopment funds to be spent on ANY projects whatsoever. Mr. Guccione takes NIMBY (an acronym for "not in my back yard") to a whole new level: BANANAs (which stands for "BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ANYWHERE, NEAR ANYTHING").

He talks an awful lot about spending our redevelopment tax dollars wisely, yet he also requires huge amounts of these tax dollars to be spent upon defending RRROC against lawsuits instigated by ... guess who? ... Mr. Guccione. Who has repeatedly taken legal action against RRROC for supposed petty infractions against various arcane procedural requirements, which Mr. Guccione attributes to evil & profiteering motives on the part of RRROC members. These allegations are repeatedly rejected by the courts, yet he persists in making them.

I agree that RRROC & the CDC need to improve their communications & public outreach (though they have taken many steps in the right direction) & have repeatedly urged them to do so in this blog & in person at the RRROC meetings. But I don't feel that these lapses result from sinister motives. The fact is: RRROC members do not get paid, have a lot of redevelopment stuff on their plates (in addition to their "real" lives), & they're doing the best they can. County Development Commission (CDC) officials are also overworked & underpaid & they have to stay at RRROC meetings until past midnight, too. I'm sure their spouses & children love that.

So ... when we vote for our RRROC representatives, do you want to vote for Dan Fein, Catherine Young, George Zastrow, & other colleagues whose seats are up for grabs & who've actually managed to get some stuff done? Or do you want to vote for Mr. Fein's opponent, Lloyd Guccione, who has consistently & forcefully opposed almost every single public improvement which has been proposed for funding over the past few years & who has repeatedly WASTED the LOCAL TAX DOLLARS he is so desirous of managing wisely by launching unjustified lawsuits which repeatedly bite the hand that's trying to feed us & which has often proven more than willing to allow us to define the terms upon which we are fed?

Like most of my fellow river rats & rattinas, I want to preserve the qualities we all love about this area, including our abundant natural beauty & more laid-back way of life. I don't want our downtowns to become chi chi Theissenvilles, or to promote huge housing developments which will turn us into a sprawling suburb of Santa Rosa. But nobody is proposing any projects that could even remotely lead to these undesirable outcomes.

I love our cool, green, serpentine river & our majestic redwoods, but I also like things like parks, roads, functional water pipes, affordable loans & grants for raising people's homes above the floodline, removal of abandoned vehicles & other trash, rehabilitation for the buildings which house important local institutions like the Koret Club & River Child Care Services, & other things that we need & cannot afford without redevelopment funds.

Once again, I am obliged to disclose the fact that Dan Fein hired me to create his campaign Web site. But I wouldn't have done so if I hadn't already decided to support him.

RRROC Elections: & The Vote-Worthy Incumbents Are ...

In my previous posting, I encouraged my readers (both of them) to vote for the incumbents in the upcoming RRROC election on December 11th, 2007 & explained why. These folks are committed, caring, & work well together. These currently serving RRROC members who wish to retain their seats (heaven knows why -- it's an awfully thankless & unpaid job) are:

• Business Owners/Operators: Lynn Crescione & George Zastrow
  
• Residential Property Owners: Dan Fein
• Residential Tenants: Catherine Young

Additional RRROC members still serving out their terms (& who are hence not running for re-election) are: Ken Wikel (business owners); Tom Lynch (who is running for Mike Reilly's post as County Supervisor) & John Uniack (residential property owners); & John DeSalvio & Sheila Peterson (residential tenants).

These folks have worked awfully well together to pass through a variety of worthy projects which have drawn wide support from the community -- including the following:

• Funding for our beloved community radio station, KGGV FM;
• Renovations to the Koret Club (now called the Monte Rio Community Center) & the River Child Care Services building;
• Creation of two attractive parks alongside the Russian River in Guerneville;
• Construction of our first public restroom at the Guerneville River Park;
• Elimination of "urban blight" (um, don't they mean RURAL blight?) via the Spring Clean-Up, & removal of abandoned vehicles & unsafe abandoned buildings;

The currently-serving members have fought for -- & received -- unprecendented levels of provision for public input in the design & implementation of these projects. I'm sure the challengers are equally caring & passionate & have worthy qualifications, but things are balanced & going well & why rock the boat at this point?

Current RRROC Chair, Dan Fein, & Catherine Young particularly stand out in my mind as people who have supported redevelopment project proposals while also insisting upon -- & receiving -- provisions for public outreach & local control. I am also highly impressed with John Uniack (whose seat is not up for grabs this year), for his rigorous insistence upon the exercise of due diligence concerning the legal & financial aspects of redevelopment. I also adore Tom Lynch & Ken Wikle, who passionately advocate for public restrooms, affordable housing, & other much-needed community infrastructure.

Once again, I feel ethically obliged to publicly express my support for Dan Fein, who wishes to serve on RRROC for another term. Current legal provisions prohibit him from acting as Chair again. But that's okay. Mr. Fein is well connected, acts well as a team player, & does not exhibit any major attachment to his chairperson-ship.