Novasel unable to participate in Meyers plan
El Dorado County Supervisor Sue Novasel, who as a candidate for office said she would be the voice for Meyers when it came to the area plan, has been silenced.
Sue Novasel
This is because she has a conflict of interest. Her 11.5 percent share of a parcel within the commercial core in Meyers is the stumbling block.
This means Novasel will have to recuse herself anytime the supervisors discuss the issue and she will not be able to vote on the plan. She can, however, still talk to residents and others about it.
Robyn Drivon, county counsel, also determined there is no conflict for Novasel to continue serving on the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District board.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
Recall !
Recall ! Without her vote, she is useless to us !
How many voters knew she owned so much of Meyers, and what was/is her hidden agenda to further the value of her property ?
Looks really shady !
We should have elected Curtzwiler !
What good is talking to residents if you can’t talk to the other supervisors?
What a shame.
loan shark biz
“How many voters knew she owned so much of Meyers”
the sentence is a bit ambiguous. Is it 11% of a parcel, or 11% of the Meyers commercial core?
Good question, ljames. I hope it gets answered soon….
Let’s lay the cards on the table. If it is only 11% of one parcel (no size or location given) it may be no big deal. OK Sue, time for full and complete disclosure. Transparency or obscuration, it is your choice.
5
All she needs to do is deed the 11.5% ownership to one (or more) of her children and the problem is solved. This isn’t that big a deal but it is enough to cause a conflict of interest and force her to recuse herself on those associated votes. I think Hal Cole did something similar when he wanted to ensure being able to vote on the Aspens Housing Project.
Have to admit – it does seem ridiculous to have a new Supervisor that cannot represent her constituency on probably “the key issue” facing her district.
I suggest scrapping the plan entirely until we get another supervisor and legitimate representation.
Sue has apparently suggested our alternative representative is Brendan Ferry.
Brendan has a proven history of fashioning this plan with TRPA (Adam Lewandowski )to suit their own agenda behind closed doors.
Couldn’t have imagined things getting worse after Santiago’s traitorous activities behind closed doors.
But here we are ……. Typical Tahoe !
Huge conflict seen here. What a surprise. Recall and put Kenny in.
skibum for prez
and you folks thought She was going to save Meyers?
it’s all part of the Big Plan – the Marvelous Makeover.
The Meyers Roundtable (and subsequent iterations) has been Sue’s baby from it’s inception, and the plans have always been conveniently beneficial to her personally. There is nothing new here. The Park involvement has implications that will lead to conflict as well, despite county counsel’s lack of understanding.
She’s tied to the Westgate bldg which would be upzoned – more units, more height, more uses – by the new zoning TRPA placed on Meyers once an area plan was adopted. New zoning can’t take effect until an area plan is adopted.
Even if she gets rid of her part of the Westgate Bldg. isn’t the fact that they are money lenders and stand to benefit from any possible development, enough to keep her out of the voting process???
You have to wonder if the election outcome would have been different – had this been disclosed before. How many signatures does it take for a recall? It sounds like it is time….
What a shame, I like Sue and Bob but this can’t stand.
Funny how the October surprise dug-up Kenny’s supposed unemployment scandal but missed the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Sue, do the right thing and step down. If you stay in office you will be railroading the people who trusted you to represent them. We need a strong voice on this issue and you leave us with none. You were not transparent about your conflict of interest, which in my opinion, tarnishes your credibility with the people you are supposed to be the voice for. If you won’t let someone else step in who can be a trusted voice for Meyers residents then I urge voters to recall you.
4-mer: I agree with you not a big deal, deed it to her kids and lets just get it RIGHT for Meyers, the people of Meyers. Sue will do that.
I don’t think deeding it to her kids will remove the conflict. It would still be in the family and her decisions would sway.
She should do the RIGHT THING and step down….or be recalled. I will sign. This town is too small for people like her that are careless with the truth.
Sue, I didn’t vote for you, but those who did put their TRUST in YOU. Are you really no better than the loons in the white house?!?!
This is pure Bunk. I voted for this woman and what a sham. I am disgusted.
I am also urging a RECALL
Gaspen Aspen:
Deeding it to her kids will remove the conflict because she won’t have ownership. When an elected representative needs to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest it’s due to their personal ownership and not that of a relative. I would venture to guess that this matter is being resolved as people are blogging about it on this website.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Deeding the interest to children may remove conflict of interest in a legal sense but what mother wouldn’t vote in the best interest of her children? I don’t think it would change anything.
In comments prior to the election I think someone did bring up possible conflict of interest with regard to her husband’s business. Apparently no one picked up on it enough to think it through.
its bad enough that I can’t vote for city council .. Now this?… Makes me not want to vote at all!
4mer, I think you may be missing part of the issue. The cat is out of the bag now. She may be able to resolve the legal conflict of interest but , you can not mitigate mistrust and skepticism with a slight of hand deed transfer.
Really??
Politicians can also be swayed by a good friend’s or a neighbor’s interest, but how far past a legal requirement do you draw the line? Before a voter casts their ballot they need to do their homework and part of the selection process should include consideration of the character and integrity of the individuals running for office and which candidate(s) they believe would best place the well-being of all their constituents before only those of their family and good friends.
RVH:
I just don’t think this is that big a deal. People smart enough to acquire assets place them in Trusts to pass on to their children and I’d be willing to bet this asset is part of a Trust with Novasel, her spouse and their kids as Trustees. I don’t find this to be as mistrustful as a lot of other posters.
All of you come to the tahoe Paradise Park board meeting march 26. It is such a mess a a fiscal disaster that she has caused . She hides it all and it is huge conflict of interest with her involvement with the grass roots effort to take the park over. Stay tuned you have no idea how corrupt she has been. Her best friend is barbara banner and that is who is backing meyers development and sue husband under a different name.
Arrogance will not be alleviated by a trust or any other legal machinations. The pattern is clear, at least to me. Mrs. Novasel has already betrayed her constituents by suggesting a new tax for snow removal after three years of non-existent snow removal. The waste needs to be addressed first. Then, the corruption. Fix the problems, don’t tax us to pay for them. Details, taken one at a time, don’t seem too bad. Taken as a pattern of business-as-usual, they are devastating. The County is facing a $ 20 million shortfall due to the BOS ignoring the reality of waste and corruption. It cannot continue, we can’t afford it.