Editordude: On Monday, July 23, we posted a “Reader Rant” by Point Loman Michael Winn entitled, “Peninsula Planners Promote Increased Density in Point Loma”. At the end of his rant, Winn refers to a letter sent by the Board to Councilwoman Lorie Zapf which he criticizes.
Here is a short response by Robert Goldyn, the Chair of the Peninsula Community Planning Board, to Winn’s post:
The Peninsula Community Planning Board would like to respond to a false accusation as stated in this article.
“The most troubling paragraph in this letter suggests that the PCPB plans to act in a way that could make it easier to violate Brown Act provisions for open government.” – This statement refers to the request from the PCPB to the city to keep the PCPB in the loop of information received on the property.
The request in the letter was to send information to the chair of the board who operates under the email pcpbsd@gmail.com. This is not a single individual board member’s personal address, and it is accessed by more than a single board member. This is the email address for the PCPB, and access privileges to this email address are provided for the chair and the 2 vice-chairs.
We could go on to debate the entire article as false accusations, but the article reads clear to be one-sided accusations and statements from an individual community member. We hope the community can understand that we are working with you to help protect and preserve the Peninsula community now and for future generations.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Re Mr. Goldyn’s “rant defense” is simply incredible. PCPB’s letter EXPLICITLY requests that Ms. Zapf, Mr. Pavco, Housing Commission and San Diego Parks and Recreation Department “solicit and convey to the PCPB Chairman…any updates regarding it’s due diligence process (for development of the Famosa Canyon open space). This literally means negotiation can occur between the Housing Commission and PCPB Chairman and these parties and discussion with the board without public notice or participation is a violation of the Brown Act? PCPB’s charter doesn’t allow this.
I am going to have to disagree with Michael on this one. I have read the letter and all it seems to convey is that the PCPB wants information and to please send it to the chair’s attention. This worry may be a hangover from the previous chair, no longer on the board, who made it a practice of meeting privately with city official, without the PCPB’s approval. Deals were made in that manner and there was reason for anger. The new chair, Robert Goldyn, has made a big effort to make all of the board’s business as public as anyone could, there is a vast difference. I have yet to see any evidence of secret meetings with the city as happened before. I think the worry over this wording may be overdone. If any evidence of this kind of behavior is uncovered, that would be the time to get upset. Words on paper are often misinterpreted and past experiences can color perception. At this point, I think Goldyn should be given the benefit of doubt.
Geoff, The letter instructs Zapf and Pavco to “solicit and convey” to the Chair–not to the board, to the Chair. (the email address isn’t material) It is a violation of the Brown Act for Robert Goldyn to discuss any matter before the board with any other board members outside a public hearing. Since the Chair is prohibited from discussing anything with the other board members, all communications should be sent to the board AND ONLY COMMUNICATIONS THE BOARD HAS ALREADY VOTED ARE POSSIBLE.
1. The letter describes two-way communication between Goldyn and the city.
2. Brown Act prohibits the Chair from discussing with members.
Geoff, Robert Goldyn may be someone you know and like personally, but you know the public demanded PCPB withdraw their request that the Housing Commission develop Famosa. Instead of acting to stop the process, this letter mis-cites Measure M to establish a reason for continuing due diligence. If PCPB really means to honor the will of the community, then this letter is at best, disingenuous.