If at first you don’t agree, revise history

Next up to bat is Barbara Kerr who writes on her own website about her take on the events at the last Measure A Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting aka the Futile Exercise in Compromise (FEC), under the scary title heading “Censorship” she says:

The forum on Measure A that was proposed by the Planning Board has now become a public hearing on a new Housing Element. Because of the efforts on the part of the three members of the Planning Board who were appointed to an ad hoc committee to design a forum, this upcoming hearing on the Housing Element will allow no presentations which are favorable to Measure A.

Anne Cook, the now-president of the Planning Board had led the effort to get that board to put on a forum on Measure A. She had referred to correspondence from HOMES, an anti Measure A group. At the March 26, 2007 Planning Board meeting she apologized to staff for pushing them to the point of putting this item ( developing a Measure A workshop) on the agenda. While the Planning Director cautioned that the expense of a forum would cut into funds for other planning efforts, Andrew Thomas , an employee of the department, broke in with his one-step-at a time plan. He supported that the formation of a subcommittee of the board be established to return to the board to present logistics for the forum and proposals for its structure. His proposal, which was approved by the board, was appealed to the City Council.

The City Council denied the appeal on May 15, 2007. However, they decided to add three members of the appellants to the ad hoc committee. The approved motion stated that the workshop (forum) deliverables were to be establishing facts, limitations, and benefits of Measure A in the context of the Housing element and transportation. At this point the workshop was still to be one on Measure A.

During the ad hoc committee meetings, the Planning Director stated that the expense of the workshop would be funded with the money set aside for the public hearing on the proposed Housing Element. As I understood it, she further stated that the workshop would be a public hearing for the Housing Element. The purpose of the workshop had changed from an educational forum on Measure A. This is a very important point because the Housing Element is a governing policy document of the City of Alameda.

At the second ad hoc committee meeting the three Planning Board members refused to live up to an agreements reached in the first ad hoc committee meeting and in the beginning of the second meeting. Those agreements were to allow each side to pick their own speakers. Furthermore the Planning Board members backed out on a committee agreement to have open public input at workshop. They instead substituted the small-groups format for open public discussion. The small-groups format is easily manipulated by the facilitator, and the unedited opinions of the public never get to the City Council. The refusal to allow any speakers to be chosen by the pro Measure a members of the committee and the elimination of open public input led to an impasse.

This impasse was bought to the City Council during oral communications on July 17, 2007. The Council majority appeared to me to be comfortable with a format which would not allow any pro-Measure A presentations, and that the purpose of the forum would no longer be Measure A. Even though the benefits of Measure A were part of the Council motion, those benefits will not be presented if the only speakers allowed will be chosen by anti Measure A forces.

This is one of those situations where if you say it repeatedly and loudly enough, maybe people will start believing you.  In fact, I have now heard the contention so many times that the Planning Board members substituted the public input/comment for small group breakout sessions that I couldn’t be completely sure that my memory was correct on that statement being incorrect.  Whew, did that make sense?  So I checked the notes I had typed up, including the two written out forum proposals by Diane Coler-Dark and Anne Cook, and even went back to the tape to double check that my memory was not growing faulty in my old age and sure enough, there it was: Public Comment.

So I’m not sure if the Appellant side/Pro-Measure A side/whateveryouwanttocallthem was listening when Anne C. presented the alternate format or if they were too busy saying “No No No!” in their heads and composing responses rather than paying attention.  So this is the list as written by Anne C., copied as precisely as I could, the hours are a little wonky, but the list is pretty accurate the spacing might be off and I’m sure given more than 5 minutes a more precise format could be fleshed out:

                                                                                   6 hours*

History of Measure A                                              
          Woody Minor (1995)
          -> present
          As applied
         Settle agreements

Housing Element
          1 ½ Panel of presenters
         ½ – 45 min – small groups                            3 hours
         Report
         ½ Panel again to talk

Transit and Transportation
        Panel
        Small Group                                                      2 hours
        Reconvene and Report Back
        Public Comment

Yes, your eyes do not deceive you, it says “Public Comment,” in fact, I was so concerned that maybe I had written it down wrong I went and checked the tapes, sure enough, there it was:

Anne C. starts writing down the format at 33:12 and 37:12 she begins writing “Public Comment” to include as part of this alternate format.   So who are you going to believe? 

Also, I find found this portion of a comment by David K. interesting:

I am certainly in favor of a discussion on conditional MA exemptions, and could see myself supporting one. I am totally against the attitude the PB is now taking. Who cares what the forum is called, or what the teams are called that each “Gang of 3” assembles? Speaker, panelist, presenter, who cares? An opinion pitcher by any other name is still an opinion pitcher. Let each “Gang of 3” name their own team and label them however they choose. This is not part of the issue. Why such a dizzy, mind-bending argument over nothing? Move on.

Obviously, David K. thought that the semantic argument over “speaker” vs. “presenter” vs. “panelist” was one that the Planning Board members were engaging in.  When, in fact, it was one of the very first issues that came up from the other side.   Right out of the gate, as also referenced by SDR, after Facilitator David Early was trying to rattle off the list of items they had agreed to at the last meeting, number two being that they would “have a panel discussion” and Diane C-D immediately said “No!” to that which then led to the semantic runaround.

The whole thing kicks off at around 5:40

Oh and I also forgot the “discussion” early on where the Appellant side/Pro-Measure A side/whateveryouwanttocallthem determined that the list written up by David E was incorrect (starts around 9:40).  When you hear that side talk about the PB members “refusing to live up to their agreements,” the meeting begins with the non-PB members not even agreeing that they had agreed to attempt to come to consensus on the speakers names first.   Pat B. announces that Cathy Woodbury sent out something different and when referred back to Cathy W. she says that the format she sent out was basically the same thing as the list David E. had written up. 

And while Barbara K. ominously concludes that:

Even though the benefits of Measure A were part of the Council motion, those benefits will not be presented if the only speakers allowed will be chosen by anti Measure A forces.

Personally, I have more faith that the PB members of the committee would choose a diverse set of speakers representing a number of viewpoints than I would trust the non-PB members to choose a diverse set of speakers.   And for those who would insist on characterizing the PB members as the ones that held up the meeting, I ask you this:  At what point during any of the meetings did the appellant side ever concede any issue?   At what point did the appellant side ever try to approach any issue with compromise and consensus in mind?  And if those that were there have forgotten, then rewatch the tapes.