Opinion: EDC wrong to encourage secrecy
By Dave Jinkens
In a stunning step backward from transparency the El Dorado County Planning Commission, holding a difficult to attend morning weekday workshop on the draft Meyers Area Plan at City Hall in South Lake Tahoe on Oct. 16, recommended that any new Meyers Area Advisory Council formed by the Board of Supervisor after adoption of a Meyers Area Plan not be subject to California’s Open Meeting Law, the Brown Act.
Three county supervisor appointed planning leaders present want any Meyers Area Council to work “informally” without notification requirements provided in state law for the news media and general public. Concerned Meyers Area residents present at the meeting were shocked at this disavowal of the public notification process by these county appointed leaders and their staff.
David Jinkens
The problem to date with the process used by the county of El Dorado in developing a Meyers Area Plan is that it has not a been transparent process. It has not complied with the customary and commonly used requirements of local government to notify the media and the general public under the Brown Act of area plan meetings, and it appears to be guided by back-door small group and special interest lobbying of county officials and staff outside of the public view.
The process used to date is not open and inclusive to the entire Meyers community. Sadly, some County government officials and staff to date have left the unfortunate impression that they know best what is good for Meyers, and they will decide what is best, not the community.
Concerned Meyers residents who have for months urged the Board of Supervisors and county staff to have a broader community-based and inclusive public input process were disappointed to learn their calls for democratic reform in the process have been ignored and will be perpetuated even after a new plan is adopted.
“If there is one thing the broader community appeared to support without question, it was that the future Meyers Advisory Council would be subject to the Brown Act,” said Meyers area resident Jennifer Quashnick.
Meyers resident and business owner Angie Olson said, “We were surprised to see the county staff present this as option to the Planning Commission, and even more so when they selected the non-transparent, non-public option.”
The South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce board of directors supports Meyers area residents and property owners who want a communitywide and unbiased Meyers survey to determine Meyers community views on a new plan. The South Tahoe chamber board does not wish to tell Meyers area residents what they need or want in a new plan. California’s South Tahoe chamber supports the right of Meyers Area residents to make that decision themselves in a democratic and transparent way.
In the end, it is the Meyers community as a whole that needs to decide their future, and they need their voice to be heard and listened to by county officials and their staff. The hope remains that the full Board of Supervisors will ultimately embrace open and legally noticed meetings and an inclusive Meyers Area Plan process.
On Oct. 28, the county of Board of Supervisors will hold a workshop on the Meyers Area Plan at City Hall in South Lake Tahoe and Meyers residents and property and business owners are encouraged to attend.
For more information about the concerns of Meyers community members, go online.
Dave Jinkens is the government affairs liaison volunteer for the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce.
Seems like a no-brainer to have a public process if they truly want to engage the public. Makes one wonder…
Seems like a no-brainer to have a public process if they truly want to engage the public.
This is a common and consistent complaint from Mr. Jinkens but he lacks specifics. A cursory review would show there have been plenty of community meetings that have been open to all kinds of comments. Mr Jinkens and the chamber should provide specifics with regard to transparency. Or is this a letter so both can be seen as relevant. Many times people don’t like what comes out of a meeting so the claim is made there is a lack of transparency Mr. Jinkens should know as there was plenty of times transparency with decisions made behind closed doors was lacking while he was city manager. The pot calling the process black.
Um Dave, did you ever figure out how the Chateau Project got started without the surety bond?
Hi Dave, Thanks for your comments.
I credit you Mr. Jinkens for staying involved and offering input in your retirement from City Mgr. But I sure wish you practiced what you preached.
Secrecy? I kept asking to see this consultants report that you used as an okay to ram thru 30%! raises for top City Mgt. (including yourself), and was always rebuffed. No hard copies anywhere and not on any website.
And I took time off work to come speaks as a citizen on a City Budget Matter. (Always been lectured that you can’t complain if you’re not involved.) The City Council voted the way I hoped, even though it was clear you were opposed.
When the City Council had a different composition a few months later, you were able to resubmit the matter onto the agenda. If not in secret, with such short notice I and others couldn’t change our schedules. Matter got reveresed, your way. (So much for encouraging input.)
So Yes, government and its decisions should take place out in the open and in a manner that encourages citizen involvement!
Thank you Dave. This is an important issue that goes well beyond Meyers.
Well said Dave – thank you again for helping !
WE of Meyers have already legitimately voted on key issues in this plan ( height, density etc.)that WAS part of a very recent and genuine attempt to rectify a public process. There were check marks by these issues we voted on to eliminate them from further debate.
Are we going to let our County Officials throw our right to public review and decision in the trash as if it never happened ?
I believe that Mr. Jenkins’ comments in this letter are excellent.
I know it is hard for some to parse these remarks from the residual anger still felt from Jenkin’s tenure as City Manager, but give him a break.
Certainly he had a lot people to please at the city, whose motives were patently questionable. Most are still in that organization.
Let us NOT forget the fact that Dave was not a voting part of the Chateau and all the other shenanigans that the City Council were involved in.
The last few years of EDC’s activity and actions at the BOS and administrative levels have been a travesty of self interest, self promotion, cronyism and as the courts clarified, some criminal intent and activity.
We need a clean sweep and to begin to develop a leadership structure that works for the residents of the County, and not for themselves and large moneyed interests.
It may not be politically expedient for me to comment but I think Mr. Jinkens points out some things that need explaining. The one specific that bothers me is the attempt to not follow the Brown Act that requires proper notice of meetings. While it may serve to help those who have a different agenda for Meyers than the residents, hidden meetings and pointing fingers at Dave Jinkens still doesn’t answer the questions that he raises. Meyers residents feel like they are in a no man’s land being controlled by TRPA and a distant County Board. And they have no say in City matters. Is it too much to ask that this process be open and inclusive? I lived in Meyers for 30 years out of my 40 here. So I know what it feels like. Now I suppose I will be attacked rather than address the issues. Good for Dave Jinkens for speaking up.