Fortier changes financial forms after questioned by League
By Kathryn Reed
Claire Fortier received nearly $10,000 from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency last year. Now she is on the Governing Board of the bi-state regulatory agency and the League to Save to Lake Tahoe is going through TRPA documents to find out what all Fortier has done for TRPA.
Since the League brought the information to light, Fortier has since amended her financial disclosure forms.
Claire Fortier
“I’m not sure I did need to change it. That’s the big if. For the year before you are on the TRPA board you have to disclose what you made,” Fortier told Lake Tahoe News. “I amended my statement even though (the payment) was outside of a year.”
Fortier did the work for TRPA on behalf of her Reno-based company Laren Communications. The last check she received was in February 2010. A year later she was on the Governing Board, after being appointed to it by her colleagues on the South Lake Tahoe City Council, to which she was elected in November 2010.
“It’s not that she did anything wrong, but the fact she revised her disclosure statement (is something) the public should know,” Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League, told LTN.
Fortier also worked on a brochure for TRPA a few years ago regarding Pathways 2007.
“I absolutely believe they are going after me because I am calling them on having an unbendable stance that is stymieing our ability to fix ourselves, to fix Lake Tahoe,” Fortier said of the League.
Jeff Cowen, spokesman for TRPA, said the $9,681 worth of work Fortier did was research of the agency’s history so a presentation for that 40th anniversary could be put together. He said staff did not have time to do it.
“Claire Fortier did not have a contract with TRPA. Our purchase procedures call for a formal bid and contract when the expense is above $25,000 and this project’s total cost was under $10,000. The project Claire Fortier/Laren Inc. worked on for TRPA began with a scope of work which evolved over the course of the project,” Cowen said. “The project necessitated more of Claire’s time to complete the State of the Basin slideshow and report to the Governing Board, vs. the 24-page report and website we had initially scoped.”
She was paid an hourly rate.
“The League is glad Claire has stepped up and done the right thing in disclosing her financial dealings with the TRPA. We are encouraging her to be proactive about contacting the Fair Political Practices Commission and making sure she has made all the disclosures required by state law as well,” Nason said. “We are still concerned with the question why TRPA would spend almost $10,000 for historical research on its 40th anniversary. All that information has been assembled repeatedly in the past, in connection with the 30th, 25th, 20th, and 10th anniversaries of the agency. We will be seeking information about the contract, payments, and work product and expect to offer some suggestions about how the agency might operate more efficiently.”
Here are the forms involving Fortier:
And here is the end result of her work — the TRPA slide show.
Rochelle, could you tell me the last time Claire went to the bathroom? What she was wearing at the time? And what she was thinking? Get a life, Rochelle. You’re wasting my tax dollars on your selfish pursuits.
I would like to see the League to Save Lake Tahoe’s financial disclosure. Where does the money come from? Who are the large donors and, buy the way, where are their homes on the Lake?
Fortier is being hounded for going after the League for their irresponsible treatment on our environment and community. Watch what the League does, not what they say.
Bob and Mike, good morning. I have a question for each of you. Setting aside your disagreements with the League’s policy positions about limiting the urbanization of the Lake Tahoe Basin:
Do you really feel that slide show posted above justified nearly $10,000 in expense from taxpayer funds devoted to the protection of Lake Tahoe?
Sunshined is the best disinfectant.
The Leagues Board of Directors if anyone is interested.
Robert A. Damaschino / President
Scott Drummond / Vice President
Dennis Neeley / Treasurer
Catherine Marken Boyle / Secretary
David Brandenburger / Board member
William C. Callender / Board member
Darcie Goodman-Collins / board member
Anne C. Harper / Board member
Thomas Mertens / Board member
Lorie Sinnott / Board member
Ellen Rosenbaum / Board member
Mike Bradford is spot on.
Why is anyone making an issue of the fact that Claire (or anyone for that matter) was paid such a small sum to complete such a non-controversial task such as assembling a history package. Now that the silliness of this allegation is coming to light, the fingers are now pointing to the need to collect and organize the history.
Seriously?
Why don’t we focus on the League’s relentless tactics to stymie efforts to bring this town into the 21st century – and that includes efforts to incorporate sound environmental practices in proposed redevelopment. How can our community hope to thrive and elevate ourselves if every effort made is litigated to within an inch of its life, unless of course that development is sponsored by a member entity of the League.
Let’s start examining the true conflict of interest in this matter that is affecting our community.
Rochelle,
The answer to your question is: Yes. I believe the presentation was excellent and I learned a lot about Lake and TRPA history.
I have a question for you. Do you think the millions of dollars the League spends and requires environmentally beneficial projects to spend on your lawsuits is justified?
Additionally, why does the League defend the status quo?
One last question. What was the last environmental project the League completed and what were the benefits?
Thank you, Rochelle.
I think that Claire is right on – she’s stirring things up and rocking the boat, so the League is trying to dig up anything that could be possibly viewed as negative.
1) The work her company did was on the history of TRPA so that they could do a PR campaign on their 40th Anniversary. Nothing related to any projects.
2) The funds she was paid was more than 12 months prior to when she completed the disclosure form. I have not seen the form, but it sounds like this was the instruction to Governing Board members.
3) She did not have to, but revised the form so that the public could know exactly what was going on. She’s showing us she has nothing to hide, and I disagree that by amending the form, she’s admitting guilt. I applaud Claire on doing that!
League to Save Lake Tahoe, why don’t you, instead of attempting smear campaigns, focus on yourselves – be transparent and honest and promote to the local public what you’re doing and why? Is it true that the philosophy of the League is to prevent any new development and redevelopment? It certainly appears that way. If so, why? The local public would respect you more if you were just up front and honest.
Now i understand why nothing ever gets done in this one horse town.
Bradford nailed it.
I am very glad to see the respondents thinking critically regarding this article. It gives me hope that reason still exists in this town.
Look what Ms. Nason says here, “The League is glad Claire has stepped up and done the right thing in disclosing her financial dealings with the TRPA.”
And, “It’s not that she did anything wrong, but the fact she revised her disclosure statement (is something) the public should know,”
In the article, The League uses language to imply or insinuate Claire’s “guilt”, and innocence at the same time. The quotes from the League even seem crafted to read as though they have blown the lid off of some “scandal” involving a City Council member. This is framing, and attorneys do it all the time. A strong point of the League: attorneys.
This is simply an attack on Claire (or any member of the Council, for that matter), by an organization forced onto it’s heels by it’s own irrelevancy. Carl Ribaudo nailed it as well in his last op-ed in the Trib with “If they fail to adjust their mission, they will become irrelevant.”
League, please answer Mr. Bradford’s questions in a public forum.
“What was the last environmental project the League completed and what were the benefits?”
You don’t seem to understand what they do….
Well, if our business leaders think that slide show was worth $10,000, we may have a clue as to why our economy is in so much trouble.
As for the League’s work: for many years the League funded Tahoe’s coalition advocacy for sensitive lands conservation, for forest and meadow restoration projects, and for alternatives to the private automobile (bike paths and transit), etc. Those efforts brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to those efforts – one of the few bright spots in the local economy.
We have also FOR DECADES been Tahoe’s main advocate for limiting urban development – keeping it within urban boundaries, limiting tall and and high-density buildings to core business areas, seeking TRANSFER of development, rather than additional development, to transform sprawl into compact walkable areas.
You have every right to disagree with our perspective and our policy positions. You may think it is somehow destructive of the League to seek enforcement of the laws that protect Lake Tahoe.
But accusing us of dishonesty and other unspecified misfeasance, because we are seeking public disclosure of how public funds were spent, suggests a misplaced sense of ownership of those funds.
Local government is not a subsidiary of select business and property interests. It is supposed to operate IN PUBLIC and for the benefit of all.
We have every right to ask questions when it appears that funds are being wasted and/or used for undisclosed purposes. Since the slide show and its price are both available above, people can judge for themselves whether there is reason to be concerned in this case.
Mike , you can answer that question yourself by visiting the League’s website and taking a look at their accomplishments over the years and their current priorities.
Also, you should look up the definition of advocacy, as the League is primarily an environmental advocacy organization.
I’d like to clarify the facts relating to the web posts on Claire Fortier’s project with the TRPA in 2009 and early 2010.
Claire Fortier’s company Laren Inc. was not paid $10,000 to produce a slideshow. Rather, her work involved extensive archival research, synthesis, and analysis which assisted TRPA staff in creating a 70-slide multi-media presentation and report which went to the TRPA Governing Board in March 2010. Initially, the scope of work for the project involved a print publication, corresponding web site, and historical display but the project evolved in a different direction because of TRPA’s shrinking budgets along with other factors. One of these factors includes the death of TRPA’s Public Information Officer who worked on this project and was unable to complete many of the project elements initially envisioned. The work Claire Fortier delivered has provided important context to the Agency’s regional plan update and is available for public review.
I hope this helps inform the discussion around this topic.
Rochelle,
Unfortunately for all of the residents of the Basin the League’s idea of “advocacy” has become simple obstructionism.
I did not see my questions answered. Why not?
Claire Fortier did nothing wrong! I’d take 10k if the TRPA offered it to me!
League you should answer Mr. Bradford’s questions. I mean you sort of did. You basically don’t do anything but obstruct! And you do it in an underhanded way!
But the League is right in one way: TRPA, that you spent 10k on something like this shows how out of touch you are!
TRPA’s response trying to clear this up, giving the facts, shows exactly how Rochelle operates. She doesn’t speak for the taxpayers, or advocate for what we need or what, if she did, she would hear what we have to say which is get out of the way lady. You don’t live here, you are not the “lake’s protector” we are. We sacrifice for this lake everyday. We suffer for it, we protect it.
If you had an answer to Mr. Bradford’s question, you’d answer it. He asked if you think the millions of dollars the League spends on lawsuits is justified and I add, do the lawsuits improve the environment? How so? What projects has the league financially contributed to and supported? You sue every project no matter how great the improvement to the environment.
League, lake tahoe doesn’t need saving, it’ll be here for generations to come clear as a bell, but only if we clean up the place and fix up the building around the lake, before long they’ll be falling into the lake. Get out of the way lady.