HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0515 Documents Submitted at Mtg
Nevada St LID Hearing
art bullock, 2007May15
It would be alleged legal error for council to proceed in this hearing for several reasons.
1. It would be legal error for council to proceed with Nevada LID until all 8 conflicts of interest by Public
Works Director and Nevada St LID property owner Paula Brown are properly disclosed and disposed of as
required by Oregon's ethics law, ORS ch 244. City of Ashland admitted to the court, in writing, that every
councilor, the city recorder, and the city attorney knew of 8 conflicts of interest for Brown. At last check, none
of these known conflicts of interest has been disclosed as required by law. These conflicts are numerous
and substantial, affecting the design, costs, and cost-sharing distribution for Nevada LID.
2. Council Communication Packet is incorrect, biased, and prejudicial. Instead of addressing the key issue
of Brown's undisclosed 8 conflicts of interest, City claimed in the Council Communication Packet 'numerous'
court cases with more than 80 alleged errors. This is incorrect and prejudicial. The writ of review petition
alleged 49 errors, later restated as 23 errors. There were 3 cases, 2 of which were consolidated and
currently pending in Court of Appeals. Petitioner won the writ of review case on 2 key errors, with several
others pending before Court of Appeals. The writ of review case proved in circuit court multiple violations of
law by city council.
3. If council proceeds with final assessment, council will be doing the same thing council asked Mt. Ashland
Association to NOT do-- which is to proceed with substantial risk based on a lower court ruling while the case
is being appealed. Because Nevada LID is in Court of Appeals, this LID may be voided with the decision to
remand the LID. If appellate courts require the LID to be voided, all the money collected in this LID may need
to be returned to property owners. Like Mt. Ashland Association, council would be risking a great deal of
money in administrative time and costs by proceeding prior to the final ruling.
4. The cost-sharing distribution shows that Ashland taxpayers have illegally subsidized the Billings Ranch
development in Nevada St LID. One legal error proved in court was that Ashland taxpayers subsidized the
Billings development by thousands of dollars. Because of the improper percentage distribution and the
resulting cap, more than $35,000 of Ashland taxpayer money was spent to subsidize Billings development,
after the developer improved the Public Works Director's property inside Nevada LID. Circuit Court found
this LID used illegal percentages. In deposition, Jim Olson said that Paula Brown set the percentages, that
she told him what percentages to use, that he knew them to violate Resolution 1999-09, and that he did not
tell this to council (thus Ashland taxpayers and Nevada LID property owners) because it was not his place to
do so. Paula Brown's decision personally benefited her and the Billings developer who improved her
property inside Nevada LID, all without disclosure of her conflicts of interest as required by law.
5. Findings improperly claimed that Brown's conflicts of interest were inconsequential. It would be legal
error to make such a leap of faith. Brown's conflicts of interest have never been disclosed as required by
law, and have never been disposed of, so it's not possible to make any conclusion regarding the effects of
disclosure and disposal on the LID decision.
6. Paula Brown personally guided and managed Nevada LID from the beginning through 2004Sep7, when
the author disclosed to council that Brown had multiple conflicts of interest. Brown and her subordinate
Olson used her position to require Billings developer Mike Peru to pour a sidewalk at Brown's house, then
Brown used that sidewalk to give herself a half-assessment in the 2004Sep7 decision. Other alleged errors
are as attached from the Nevada LID court case.
7. The finding that Paula Brown delegated Nevada LID decisions to Jim Olson is incorrect, as shown by
his testimony under oath. Evidence showed that Brown guided the entire process, attending Nevada Citizens
Panel meetings, writing emails to her superiors, and directing her subordinate's decisions regarding costs and
design, and received special arrangements at her house inside Nevada LID as a result of decisions made by
her department.
8. The finding that Paula Brown delegated decisions to James Olson is an improper disposal of a conflict of
interest. An employee has no authority to dispose of her own conflict of interest. That must be done by the
appointing authority, which in this case is mayor and council. It would be legal error for council and mayor to
claim that Brown did their job for it.
9. Council and mayor failed to disclose the key ex parte communication, ostensibly from Brown regarding
Nevada LID (see attached) where the author said the Engineering Department's role is to "go through the
motions" of neighborhood meetings, etc.. The sender and recipient of this communication have been
removed from the document. Council has not disclosed the context of this document, its author, and its
recipients, and the document portion that's been removed.
10. The goals listed in the staff communication packet were not the project goals. These goals were added
by Public Works after the design to justify Paula Brown's already completed design, in a closed meeting that
Brown ran. Council set the goal, which was to provide a safe route to Helman Elementary School as part of
the Safe Routes To School program, providing sidewalks near schools around town.
11. If would be legal error to proceed until City remedies the fact that City admitted, and the Court found,
that Mark Knox had used City computer resources for his personal interests in Nevada LID. Record showed
that Knox sent multiple emails in pursuit of his personal agenda and interests in Nevada LID. Brown told me
that Knox repeatedly lobbied her, during work time, in the Community Development Building where both
worked, to take certain steps in Nevada LID that he wanted, and that she stopped responding to his pressure
because he was a property owner. Hartzell told me that Knox had requested that Council go on a tour of the
Billings subdivision area, which Knox would lead. City's admission that Knox used City resources to pursue
his personal interests in Nevada LID has allegedly biased councilors and prejudiced this decision. The record
is further biased because ex parte contact between Knox and councilors/mayor has not been properly
disclosed with opportunity to rebut. None of these admissions and/or allegations have been properly
remedied.
12. Financial costs for Nevada LID were inflated to illegally absorb costs for sidewalk repair in other parts of
Ashland. When the Nevada St LID contract was bid, it was grouped with (a) a downtown bumpouts project
and (b) a miscellaneous sidewalk repair project. Project (b) was to repair sidewalk concrete that had
crumpled in several different places around Ashland. Project (b) was not approved by Council, yet costs for
some sidewalk repair were charged Nevada St LID's budget, though nowhere near Nevada Street. Council
Communication Packet said that City was legally liable for sidewalk damage in front of City property, so
Council charged the costs for repairing sidewalks on City property to Nevada LID. Those costs have not
been identified or isolated. Project (b) should have been handled as a separate project and budget instead
of charging those sidewalk costs to Nevada LID.
13. Procedural and substantive errors that repeated previous errors, as alleged in Court, are repeated here
through Exhibits 1-10 on the attached computer files.
Alleged Bias For Kate Jackson
art bullock, 2007May15
This document alleges actual bias for Kate Jackson
and asks that she be recused. Jackson has repeatedly
demonstrated personal bias against the author, a party
in this matter. Jackson has also demonstrated
prejudgment bias. Under Oregon law, Jackson's bias
requires recusal. If she fails to recuse herself, the other
5 councilors are asked to recuse her by roll call vote.
1. Recusal due to personal bias.
Jackson shows personal animosity, yelling at me
repeatedly in public during canvassing, spreading false
information, making personal attacks, and working to
discredit me. Jackson's personal bias against me means
she is not an impartial decisionmaker for this planning
action, because I am a party to the appeal.
I'm the publisher of a newspaper called ...OfThe
People. The most recent edition reported on the first
page, above the fold, that Jackson as councilor, moved
to put on the ballot a charter granting council the power
to sell Lithia Park. This means Jackson, recently elected
with major financial contributions from developers, would
have the power to sell part or all of Lithia Park to a
developer if joined by 3 other council votes.
Jackson has viciously and personally attack me,
including public attacks of yelling at me on the street
while she canvassed to get her charter version passed.
On Sat 2007Apr24, while I distributed my newspaper
to Quiet Village, Jackson came to the neighborhood.
She saw me at an intersection, and yelled at me across
the intersection in an angry, hostile tone of voice.
Saying nothing, I crossed the street and moved to
another street.
Jackson then came to the street that I had moved to.
When she arrived, to avoid conflict, I stopped on the
other side of the street, waiting for her to complete her
drop of flyers promoting the charter version giving her
and 3 others the power to sell Lithia Park. She
continued her verbal harassment. I was on the other
side of the street, houses away. She would drop her
flyers, and as she returned to the street between each
house, would yell angrily at me across the street,
taunting me as if to provoke a conflict, yelling that I was
going to pick up her flyers, etc.. Through all her yelling
and provocation, I said nothing, and resumed my work
after she left.
On Sun 2007 Apr25, I RSVP'd to the host of a meeting
on the ballot measures, who invited me to attend the
session at his home. When I arrived, he said Jackson
told them I was following her, though she failed to
explain that she arrived on a street where I was already
distributing my paper. She said she didn't want me to
speak to the visitors. I was allowed to listen to her many
false comments about the charter ballot measures, and
wasn't allowed to speak. She used her fear tactics to
stop any dissenting voice to her factually incorrect
comments. She didn't mention that she had repeatedly
yelled at me on the street, though I had said nothing.
Jackson is apparently working for a PAC (Political
Action Committee) called Committee For Responsible
Government, which advocates support for one or both
ballot measures. She is actively using PAC-paid
materials to do her work.
After working to prevent the truth about the ballot
measures from coming out, Jackson proceeded to use
taxpayer-paid resources to attack me by name on City's
Iistserve, falsely claiming that I was using fear tactics.
She is twisting the situation 1800. My newspaper
properly reported factual information about her motion,
her vote, and her proposed power shift from the voters to
her and 3 other council members.
While relying on the PAC to support her work,
Jackson is now violating the law by using government
resources and City's listserve to personally attack me
with false information, and advocate for her cause, using
her position in the government and taxpayer resources
for her personal agenda.
She is spreading false rumors and false information,
and acting to prevent me from factually correcting her
repeated misinformation about the ballot measures she
is campaigning for. She is actively working to personally
attack me in public, to discredit me, and to use her
political power, PAC material, and taxpayer resources in
City government to attack me and discredit me.
Jackson is not an impartial decision maker. Because
of her personal bias against me, she should be recused.
2. Recusal due to prejudgment bias.
Jackson also shows prejudgment bias, which is
separate and cumulative grounds for recusal. Jackson
told the Mountain Meadows Democrats meeting on the
charter (2007 Apr24) that she ignored the Ashland
Charter because it was out of date, and gave the group
a specific section that she ignored. She laughed at the
charter, claiming it wasn't a working document.
Ashland Charter requires that Jackson swear to an
oath of office that she will uphold the Ashland Charter,
as well as the constitutions of State or Oregon and the
United States of America. Yet she maintains, in public,
tl1at she ignores the Ashland Charter because it's
outdated. This is a violation of her oath of office.
We are a nation of laws. Instead of laughing at the
Ashland Charter, she's required by oath to uphold it,
whether or not she agrees with it.
Jackson's public position that she ignores the Ashland
Charter because it's outdated is prejudgment bias
because it shows she's willing to violate her oath of
office when it suits her to ignore the law.
Several key issues for Nevada LID show that Jackson
has avoided direct application of applicable law. Her
avoidance of applicable law shows prejudgment bias.
3. Jackson's failure as appointing authority.
As councilor, Jackson is Paula Brown's appointing
authority. Brown is required by Oregon law to disclose
all conflicts of interest in Nevada LID, yet Jackson fails to
require her to do so. City admitted in writing, as found
by Jackson County Circuit Court, that Jackson knew of 8
conflicts of interest for Brown. As her appointing
authority, she's required by law to dispose of her
conflicts of interest after disclosure, and has failed to do
so, damaging me and others in the majority who
opposed Brown's proposal for Nevada LID.
4. Jackson's email to Brown.
In Nevada LID, Jackson refused to stop the personal
attacks from city staff, instead writing that she was angry
at those who attacked staff, when the facts showed the
opposite. Her email showed undisclosed ex parte
contact, personal bias, twisting of the facts 1800, and
prejudgment bias.
This email and other allegations and evidence are
attached in the computer files from the Nevada LID court
case.
5. Jackson
In Nevada LID, Jackson was personally involved,
attending meetings and guiding the project.
As documented for Hartzell and Chapman, Jackson
has not disclosed her extensive ex parte communication
with Brown and/or Olson and/or Knox and/or any other
property owner with opportunity for rebuttal. She has
failed to do this for 4 quasi-judicial hearings, including
the 2007May1 hearing.
6. Conclusion.
The evidence shows Jackson's actual bias, personal
animosity and personal bias, and prejudgment bias in
her willingness to ignore city law when she considers it
outdated. She is personally and repeatedly attacking me
in public streets, on City's Iistserve, and in a meeting to
discuss her charter version that would give her and 3
others the power to sell Lithia Park to developers. She
has put forth false information and false facts to attack
me rather than address her legal responsibilities to
dispose of 8 conflicts of interest, all known to Jackson,
for Public Works Director Paula Brown, a property owner
in Nevada LID. She has refused to disclose her
extensive ex parte contact and personal involvement.
Oregon law requires an impartial quasi-judicial
decisionmaker, without personal animosity toward a
party or prejudgment bias. Jackson is not impartial. She
should be recused.
Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in
appearance of propriety over public interest in
efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that
readjudication is required regardless of whether
decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety
is present." 1 000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco
County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39,1987.
Alleged Bias For David Chapman
art bullock, 2007May15
David Chapman should be recused in the
quasi-judicial hearing for Nevada LID for actual bias.
Chapman has personal bias and prejudgment bias in
Nevada St UD. If he declines to recuse himself, this is a
request that council recuse him by reI! cal! vote.
Chapman should state for the record the date and
circumstances wtien he first learned that Brown was an
LID property owner, making all communication between
Chapman and Brown ex parte.
1. Chapman was peiSonally involved in Nevada LID.
Chapman acted as facilitator of Nevada Citizens
Panel meetings, and was personally involved in the
design and process. Several in the group, after learning
that Chapman was going behind their back to
communicate and strategize with Jim Olson. found
Chapman to be biased, and asked that he be replaced.
Chapman's personal involvement showed bias.
When he was 'facilitator', Chapman allowed
government empioyees to verbaiiy attack attendees. in
meeting after meeting, he refused to stop the repeated
vemal attacks on those who opposed City's push for
bumpouts. The verbal attacks were so extreme that
some long-tenure neighbors moved out of Ashland.
Because of Chapman's persona! involvement in the
design and process of Nevada St LID, he is not an
impartial decision maker.
2. Chapman failed as appointing authority.
As councilor, Chapman is Brown's appointing
authority. Brown is required by Oregon law to disclose
aD conflicts of interest in Nevada LID, yet Chapman fails
to require her to do so. As her appOinting authority,
Chapman is required by law to dispose of Brown's
contracts of interest after Brown's disclosure, and has
failed to require such disclosure. Chapman should be
recused for personal and prejudgment bias based on his
failure to properly act as Brown's appointing authority.
3. Chapman failed to disclose ex parte with Brown.
Chapman and Brown worked closely on Nevada 8t
UD for months. V';hen the official property owner list
became public, the neighborhood discovered that Brown
was a property owner in the LID and hadn't disclosed
this. This meant al1 communication between Chapman
and Brown for years related to Nevada LID was ex parte.
Chapman is required by law to disclose all ex parte
contact with Brown, including Brown's conflicts of
interest, and has not done so. Chapman has failed to
put into the public record, with opportunity to rebui, the
content of several months of face-to-face, telephone,
emall, and other communication with Brown, directly and
indirectly, related to Nevada LID, including funding,
Brown's conflict of interest, bike lanes, bicycle safety,
Billings subdivision involvement, cost-sharing distribution
between property owners and City, etc..
4. Chapman failed to disclose ex parte with Olson.
Chapman also worked closely with Brown's
subordinate, Nevada LID project manager James Olson.
Olson's deposition testimony showed that he acted as
Brown's subordinate and agent to knowingly violate the
law regarding cost-sharing percentages and thereby
provide a financial benefit to Brown and the Billings
developer who improved Brown's property by building on
h:- p-o--..t" - c-n-- "-&a:-:-g w-II -n~ 0.....--
I;:) I JJl::,l, d It:: !\..t::, I t::l 111111 dll, dl U 1I1t::1
improvements. City admitted, and the court found, that
this financiai benefit was iiiegal. Because the record
shows that Olson acted as an agent for Brown's
personal financial interests, Chapman should disclose as
ex parte, all off-record communication with Olson.
5. Chapman failed to disclose ex parte with Knox.
Chapman talked extensively with Mark Knox and
other neighbors in Nevada LID. Chapman knew that
Knox was a city employee and Nevada. LID property
owner, yet failed to disclose communication with
Knox as ex parte.
6. Chapman denied the right to rebut
As counciior, ChaPJJlan is responsibie for aliowing
opportunity for any party to rebut his ex parte contact
with Brown, and to introduce evidence of ex parte
contact if he fails to do so. He denied the right for me
and other parties to do so by not requiring an opportunity
to rebut in the Nevada LID quasi-judicial hearings.
At all 3 recent Nevada LID hearings, Chapman
",_c..__~ &- all-..... --:-""l......_~ &- --'-ut h:s e....-n-:..e
't::IU~ lV IV_ V...,.....UUI"'1 lV It::U I A't:: I;:)IV ,
undisclosed ex parte contact. On 2007May1, Chapman
refused to allow opportunity to rebut his e:ll.1ensive,
undisclosed ex parte contact before the public hearing
began.
7. Chapman has prejudgment bias on improvements..
Chapman also has prejudgment bias based on his
argument to council that council shouldn't follow the
Ashland Street Standards Handbook, which is ruling law
for street improvements. Chapman's oath of office
iequiies that he follow the la'w, w1iethei Oi not he agrees
with the law.
Alleged Bias For Cate Hartzell
art bullock, 2007May15
Cate Hartzell should be recused in the quasi-judicial
hearing for Nevada LID for actual bias. HartzeH has
personal bias and prejudgment bias in Nevada St LID. If
she declines to recuse herself, this is a request that
councH recuse her by roll call vote. Hartzell should state
for the record the date and circumstances when she first
learned that Brown was an LID property owner, making
al communication between HartzeH and Brown ex parte.
1. Hartzel was personally involved in Nevada UD.
Hartzell acted as facilitator of 4 Nevada Citizens
Panel meetings, and was personally involved in the
design and process. Several in the group, deciding that
Hartzell was guiding them to accept Public Works
Director Paula Brown's approach, found HartzeH to be
biased, and asked that she be replaced with a neutral
facilitator. Hartzelfs personal involvement showed bias.
2. Hartze" failed as Brown's appointing authority.
As councilor, Hartzell is Brown's appointing authority.
Brown is required by Oregon law to disclose all conflicts
of interest in Nevada LID, yet Hartzell fails to require her
to do so. City admitted in writing, as found by Jackson
County Circuit Court, that Hartzell knew of 8 conflicts of
interest for Brown. As her appointing authority, Hartzell
is required by law to dispose of Brown's conflicts of
interest after Brown's disclosure, and has failed to
require such disclosure. Hartzell should be recused for
personal and prejudgment bias based on her failure to
properly act as Brown's appointing authority.
3. Hartzell failed to disclose ex pa.... willi Brown.
Hartzeft and Brown worked closely on Nevada St UD
for months. When the official property owner list
became pubflC. the neighborhood discovered that Brown
was a property owner in the LID and hadn't disclosed
this. This meant all communication between HartzeD and
Brown for years related to Nevada LID was ex parte. .
Hartzeft is required by law to disclose all ex parte
oontaet with Brown, including Brown's conflicts of
interest, and has not done so. Hartzell has failed to put
into the public record, with opportunity to rebut, the
content of several years of face-to-face, telephone,
email, and other communication with Brown, directly and
indirectly, related to Nevada LID, including funding,
Brown's conflict of interest, bike lanes, bicycle safety,
Billings subdivision invotvement, cost-sharing distribution
between property owners and City, etc..
Hartzen's communication with Brown is so extensive
that ifs practically impossible for Hartzell to satisfy the
law requiring her to put into the record for rebuttal the
content of ex parte with Brown.
After my disclosure of Brown's property ownefShip in
Nevada LID, Hartzell told me she confronted Brown and
demanded to know why she had withheld that
information from council, saying it was grounds for
termination. HartzeH is required by law to put the entire
contents of this and other ex parte contad in the record
for rebuttal, and has failed to do so.
4. Hartzel failed to disclose ex pa.... wiIh Olson.
Hartzell also worked closely with Brown's subordinate,
Nevada LID project manager James Olson. Olson's
deposition testimony showed that he acted as Brown's
subordinate and agent to knowingly violate the law
regarding cost-sharing percentages and thereby provide
a financial benefit to Brown and the Billings developer
who improved Brown's property by building on her
property a fence, retaining waU, and other improvements.
City admitted, and the court found, that this financial
benefit was illegal. Because the record shows that
Olson acted as an agent for Brown's personal financial
interests, HartzeH should disclose as ex parte, al
off-record communication with Olson.
5. Hartzell failed to disclose ex parte with Knox.
Hartzell told me that she and other councilors had
received multiple emaiIs from City Planning Dept
employee Malit Knox, who also owned property in
Nevada UD. Hartzel said that Knox bad oIfenNI to
take councilors 011 a tour of Slings Ranch
subdivision aIM, which includes Nevada Sf, to show
them pI'C)IJIe-. Hartzell knew that Knox was a cay
employee and Nevada LID property owner, yet taled
to disclose communication willi Knox _ ex .......
6. Hartzel failed to respond to records request
Hartzell failed to respond to my written publiC records
request for copies of ber emaiI correspondence and
other contact willi Bmwn and Knox, and any other
property owners in Nevada lID.
7. Hartzell's relationship with Brown indicates bias.
Hartzel's boss-subordinate relationship with Brown
further clouded the sauation and increased bias.
8. Hartze" denied the right to rebut.
As councilor, Hartzell is responsible for allowing
opportunity for any party to rebut her ex parte contact
with Brown, and to introduce evidence of ex parte
contad if she fails to do so. She denied the right for me
and other parties to do so by not requiring an opportunity
to rebut in the 4 Nevada LID quasi-judicial hearings.
At all 4 Nevada LID hearings, Hartzell refused to allow
opportunity to rebut her extensive, undisclosed ex parte
contact. On 2007May1, HartzeH refused to allow
opportunity to rebut her extensive. undisclosed. ex parte
contact before the public hearing began.
Alleged Bias For Cate Hartzell
art bullock, 2007May15
Cate Hartzell should be recused in the quasi-judicial
hearing for Nevada LID for actual bias. Hartzell has
personal bias and prejudgment bias in Nevada St LID. If
she declines to recuse herself, this is a request that
council recuse her by roll call vote. Hartzell should state
for the record the date and circumstances when she first
learned that Brown was an LID property owner, making
all communication between Hartzell and Brown ex parte.
1. Hartzell was personally involved In Nevada LID.
Hartzell acted as facilitator of 4 Nevada Citizens
Panel meetings, and was personally involved in the
design and process. Several in the group, deciding that
Hartzell was guiding them to accept Public Works
Director Paula Brown's approach, found HartzeU to be
biased, and asked that she be replaced with a neutral
facilitator. Hartzell's personal involvement showed bias.
2. Hartzell failed as Brown's appointing authority.
As councilor, Hartzell is Brown's appointing authority.
Brown is required by Oregon law to disclose all conflicts
of interest in Nevada LID, yet Hartzell fails to require her
to do so. City admitted in writing, as found by Jackson
County Circuit Court, that Hartzell knew of 8 conflicts of
interest for Brown. As her appointing authority, Hartzell
is required by law to dispose of Brown's conflicts of
interest after Brown's disclosure, and has failed to
require such disclosure. Hartzell should be recused for
personal and prejudgment bias based on her failure to
properly act as Brown's appointing authority.
3. HartzeD failed to disclose ex pa.... with Brown.
Hartzell and Brown worked closely on Nevada 8t LID
for months. When the official property owner list
became public, the neighborhood discovered that Brown
was a property owner in the LID and hadn't disclosed
this. This meant all communication between Hartzell and
Brown for years related to Nevada LID was ex parte. .
Hartzell is required by law to disclose all ex parte
contact with Brown, including Brown's conflicts of
interest, and has not done so. Hartzell has failed to put
into the public record, with opportunity to rebut, the
content of several years of face-te-face, telephone,
email, and other communication with BiOwn, directly and
indirectly, related to Nevada LID, including funding,
Brown's conflict of interest, bike lanes, bicycle safety,
Billings subdivision involvement, cost-sharing distribution
between property owners and City, etc..
Hartzelrs communication with Brown is so extensive
that it's practically impossible for Hartzell to satisfy the
law requiring her to put into the record for rebuttal the
content of ex parte with Brown.
After my disclosure of Brown's property ownership in
Nevada LID, Hartzell told me she confronted Brown and
demanded to know why she had withheld that
information from council, saying it was grounds for
termination. Hartzell is required by law to put the entire
contents of this and other ex parte contact in the record
for rebuttal, and has failed to do so.
4. Hartzell failed to disclose ex parte __ Olson.
Hartzell also worked closely with Brown's subordinate,
Nevada LID project manager James Olson. Olson's
deposition testimony showed that he acted as Brown's
subordinate and agent to knowingly violate the law
regarding cost-sharing percentages and thereby provide
a financial benefit to Brown and the Billings developer
who improved Brown's property by building on her
property a fence, retaining waU, and other improvements.
City admitted, and the court found, that this financial
benefit was illegal. Because the record shows that
Olson acted as an agent for Brown's personal financial
interests, Hartzell should disclose as ex parte, all
off-record communication with Olson.
5. Hartzell failed to disclose ex parte with Knox.
Hartzell told me that she and other councilors had
received multiple emails from City Planning Dept
employee Mark Knox, who also owned property in
Nevada UD. Hartzell said that Knox had offered to
take councilors on a tour of Billings Ranch
subdivision area, which includes Nevada St, to show
them problems.. HartzeU knew that Knox was a city
employee and Nevada UD property owner, yet failed
to disclose communication with Knox as ex parte.
6. Hartzell failed to respond to records request
Hartzell failed to respond to my written public records
request for copies of her email correspondence and
other contact with Brown and Knox, and any other
property owners in Nevada UD.
7. Hartzelfs relationship with Brown indicates bias.
Hartzelfs boss-subordinate relationship with Brown
further clouded the situation and increased bias.
8. Hartzell denied the right to rebut
As councilor, Hartzell is responsible for allowing
opportunity for any party to rebut her ex parte contact
with Brown, and to introduce evidence of ex parte
contact if she fails to do so. She denied the right for me
and other parties to do so by not requiring an opportunity
to rebut in the 4 Nevada LID quasi-judicial hearings.
At all 4 Nevada LID hearings, Hartzell refused to allow
opportunity to rebut her extensive, undisclosed ex parte
contact. On 2007May1, Hartzell refused to allow
opportunity to rebut her extensive, undisclosed ex parte
contact before the public hearing began.
Alleged Bias For John Morrison
art bullock, 2007May15
This document alleges that John Morrison has actual
bias and personal bias against the author, a party in this
matter. Under Oregon law, Morrison's bias requires that
he be recused. If he fails to recuse himself for any
reason, council is asked to recuse him by roll call vote.
Magic words aren't. Assistant city attorney Richard
Appicello has repeatedly told council you can avoid a
finding of actual bias by claiming you're unbiased. He
has failed to produce any statutory authority for this
claim. Under Oregon law, actual bias is a finding of fact.
If Morrison is biased, then no magic words from him or
City's legal department alters that fact. No assertions of
being unbiased, or apologies, or 'making up for it', or
rationalizations, or justifications of the bias, or herbal
potions, alters the fact of the bias. Councilors are asked
to not follow Appicello's "magic words" theory without
demonstrated statutory authority for his claim, which
goes against Oregon law.
Evidentiary hearing. Council needs to be aware of
the status of bias claims in Circuit Court. Under a writ of
review, Circuit Court and doesn't normally hear original
evidence. It makes an exception for bias, and may
conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine actual bias,
personal bias, prejudgment bias, etc.. If Morrison is not
recused and this matter goes to Circuit Court, any party
would be entitled to move for an evidentiary hearing,
including affidavits and deposition testimony, to establish
Morrison's actual bias and required recusal. These
hearings are expensive for all involved.
Evidence for Morrison's bias is as follows.
1. Personal attack in quasi-judicial hearing.
On Tue 2007 Apr3, during a quasi-judicial hearing on
Schofield/ Monte Vista LID, Morrison personally and
viciously attacked me verbally, on camera. It occurred
after I asserted a bias claim, which Morrison refused to
allow, claiming it had to be in writing. After a cou~cilor
asserted I had a legal right to speak and assert bias,
Morrison angrily allowed the testimony, then later
attacked me.
2. Arbitrary time limit for bias testimony.
When Morrison allowed my bias testimony, he
arbitrarily limited it to 3 minutes, denying me the ti~e
required to make the assertions, though I spoke qUickly
without repetition. Morrison used this tactic to prevent the
full testimony required for the claim. To the author's
knowledge, no one has ever been limited to 3 minutes to
make a conflict of interest/ex parte/bias claim, and
council has no such rule. The 'rule' was made up to stop
me from making a full claim.
3. Denial of right to speak.
When time came for the public hearing on the merits
of the LID decision, Morrison denied me the right to
speak, claiming I had already spoken. In effect, h.e
claimed I'd 'used up my public hearing time' by uSing 3
minutes to assert bias. A councilor said I had a right to
speak on the merits in the public hearing independent of
the bias discussion. Instead of allowing it, Morrison
launched into a vicious, angry, and prolonged personal
attack, making false claims and irrelevant claims ~aving
nothing to do with the LID. The hearing was televised
live, with several replay broadcasts.
4. Unannounced new procedure.
Morrison's new process was not described in advance
so the parties could prepare. It was implemented
without forewarning or legal basis or explanation at the
time. Morrison never said during the bias discussion that
if I spoke then, I would lose my right to speak during the
public hearing on the merits. I wasn't given a choice .to
speak during the disclosure period or during the public
hearing, and if I had, I would have asserted such a
forced choice to be illegal, lacking authority. Required
disclosures occur before the public hearing. Morrison
used his unannounced decision to deny me all rights to
speak during the public hearing. He then used the time
that I would have spoken to personally attack me.
5. Justification based on political pressure.
Morrison claimed that he was getting calls 'every day'
to stop me from speaking. Morrison justified his decis.ion
to disallow exercising my constitutional right to speak In
a public hearing, based on pressure from unname~
individuals operating behind the scenes to tell MOrrison
to in effect 'shut him up'.
6. Second personal attack in the same hearing.
Public hearing closed without my testimony. As the
vote neared, one councilor said he was voting NO on
this LID on procedural grounds because Morrison had
denied me the right to speak on the merits. Morrison
launched into another personal attack, repeating and
magnifying his false claims and charges.
7. Denied right to rebut.
Though Morrison's testimony introduced new 'facts'
after the hearing opportunity closed, Morrison denied me
the right to rebut his false 'facts'. Though opposed by
the LID majority, council followed Morrison's angry
outbursts with a 4-2 vote, without my ever having
opportunity to address the merits of the LID or the false
claims in Morrison's personal attacks.
8. Another on-the-spot rule to stop testimony.
In 2006, Morrison illegally changed meeting procedure
to require the public to disclose, in writing, a decision-
maker's bias, conflict of interest, and ex parte
communication. Said rule was specifically targeted at
me, when I attempted to do so legally under Oregon law,
in Helman Springs Development planning action.
When I attempted to assert bias, ex parte contact, and
conflict of interest in that planning action, Morrison
invented a new rule that the public, not the
decision maker, had to submit the decision maker's
disclosure in writing at the hearing, though there was no
time to hand-write the claim and evidence, which he
refused to allow orally.
Acting without a council rule, Morrison declared that
parties to a quasi-judicial hearing had to submit claims of
bias, ex parte, and conflict of interest in advance of the
hearing. This is an illegal requirement with no
demonstrated statutory basis. Under Oregon law, every
quasi-judicial decisionmaker must recuse himself/herself
as necessary and to publicly state the reasons for
recusal. If they fail to properly disclose or recuse, the
public has an opportunity to request recusal and/or put
forward facts in support of such recusal.
For these claims, the public's role is strictly responsive.
If the decision maker does as the law requires, the public
has nothing to do, in advance or at the hearing. The
public's role only begins with the lack of proper
disclosure and recusal. Morrison exceeded his authority
to create an illegal and oppressive requirement to shift
the burden for disclosure from the decisionmaker to me.
Morrison invented his new rule specifically to prevent
my bias submission in the Helman Springs Development
planning action, after I attempted to introduce a conflict
of interest and bias claim in the appropriate time and
way. His arbitrary decision rule showed actual bias.
9. Unilateral disclosure decision.
Morrison implemented this new rule unilaterally,
without council discussion or approval. Council, not
mayor, has decision authority over council rules.
Morrison's unilateral actions prevented me from having
any public hearing testimony on the merits of Morrison's
new, illegal rule. Morrison continues to deny the
opportunity of a hearing on the merits for his rule.
10. Surprise procedures.
Morrison implemented this new rule without warning,
using a surprise tactic, knowing that I was going to
respond to the opportunity to address conflict of interest.
He knew this because I had filed some of the relevant
information with Jackson County Circuit Court in the
Nevada Street LID court case, and had attempted to
introduce same for the Helman Springs Development.
Morrison announced his new rule at the meeting where
it had first applied, claiming he would not accept any
verbal testimony, and that charges of ex parte contact,
conflict of interest, and bias had to be written and
submitted to the assistant city attorney rather than the
council. It wasn't possible on the spot to hand-write the
allegations in the time remaining before the
legally-required adjournment time. By his surprise tactic,
Morrison prevented the bias claim from being asserted.
11. Refusal to disclose COI at every meeting.
Morrison refused to require councilor Alex Amarotico's
conflict of interest (COI) to be disclosed at every
meeting, or at the start of the session, as required by
Oregon law. When I attempted to do so, and to rebut
the potential conflict of interest claim, he refused to allow
me to speak, claiming I hadn't submitted the charge in
writing in advance.
12. Attempt to shift blame.
In the Park St Apts planning action, Morrison voted to
approve findings that tried to blame me and another for
City's admitted failure to meet the 120-day deadline.
Morrison, who as mayor is responsible for council's
schedule and Planning Dept working within the law,
scheduled the appeal to council after City claimed the
120 days had expired. I, and another appellant, filed the
appeal in less time than the law allowed. Appicello, who
is supervised by Morrison, wrote the findings to blame
the appellants, then attempted to use the ensuing court
case to shift the financial responsibility for paying
attorney fees for missing the deadline to me and
another. The findings were false, not based on
substantial evidence in the record, and written to
damage me, and the other appellant. It's City's
responsibility to manage the schedule to finish all
appeals within 120 days. Instead, under Morrison's
direction, this particular planning application was delayed
until near the end of the period, and when the expected
appeal occurred, Morrison blamed me for missing the
deadline. In the ensuing writ of mandamus case, still
pending, under Morrison's guidance, Appicello tried to
shift the burden for any attorney fees required as a result
of missing the deadline to be paid by the appellants.
13. Handling of alleged improper roles.
In Jan2004, in the Nevada Citizens Panel, Morrison,
then councilor, attended a meeting where I presented a
handout alleging inappropriate roles for Planning
Department, Public Works Dept, and misuse of city
equipment and resources for personal use. Morrison
interrupted me, saying this was a legal matter and that
he would take care of it. He stopped the discussion,
then did nothing about it. As a result, others and I were
targets of repeated verbal assaults. These verbal
assaults during the meeting escalated to threats of
violence outside the meeting. A complaint to city
administrator Gino Grimaldi received no constructive
response. Morrison knew about the verbal assaults, took
responsibility to respond, then failed to act
constructively to stop the improper behavior.
14. A new rule, applied only to me.
In summer and fall 2006, Morrison invented a new rule
that applied only to me. In the few minutes before a
summer council meeting, Morrison saw that I was going
to show a short video clip of the deposition of Nevada
LID project manager Jim Olson. Video showed that
Public Works Director Paula Brown had instructed him to
use cost-sharing percentages that favored her and the
Billings developer who improved her real estate property
inside Nevada LID, and that Olson knew those
percentages to be illegal when she directed him to use
them, yet failed to inform councilor property owners of
that key fact. When Morrison learned I was going to
expose the facts, he invented a new rule, applying only
to me, that I would henceforth not be allowed to use any
audiovisuals in my testimony. He claimed I could speak
and couldn't show any exhibits. He only applied that rule
to me, allowing others to use audiovisual aids to help
their presentation. He prevented me from presenting the
video clip at multiple council meetings, including the
court-ordering findings session on Nevada LID.
15. Failure as appointing authority.
As mayor, Morrison is Brown's boss. City admitted in
writing, as found by Jackson County Circuit Court, that
Morrison knew of 8 conflicts of interest for Brown. As
her appointing authority, he's required to dispose of her
conflicts of interest, yet he refuses to require disclosure
of her 8 conflicts of interest. He blatant refusal to follow
the law shows actual bias in this case.
16. Allow personal attacks on listserve.
In 2005, I formed a community organization that used
civil dialogue to reach consensus on 5 proposed
amendments to the Ashland City Charter. When the
community consensus was incompatible with City's
Charter Review Committee's answer, committee
members began personally attacking me and the civil
dialogue group. I met with Morrison and asked him as
mayor to stop use of tax money for broadcasting un-civil
discourse, filthy language, and personal attacks on City's
web site against me and AshlandConstitution.org. I
printed and gave to him emails from the corporate
charter committee, showing him the filthy language,
attribution of motives, name-calling, and false claims.
My requests to Morrison received no constructive
response, and the destructive comments continued until
the corporate committee stopped meeting in June 2005.
In spring 2007, when council put 2 charter measures on
the ballot, the attacks returned and escalated, personally
attacking me again by name, using tax money to
broadcast the attacks on multiple listserves. Morrison
failed to stop continued verbal abuse coming from
members of the corporation, and directed to me. Instead
he poured gas on the fire during the 2007 Apr3 hearing,
claiming I received 'special treatment'.
17. Failure to disclose personal involvement.
Morrison attended multiple meetings of Nevada
Citizens Panel, talked with many property owners, and
communicated regularly with Brown and her agent Jim
Olson. Morrison has refused to disclose his personal
involvement and his extensive ex parte contact in the
public record for opportunity to rebut.
18. Conclusion.
Evidence above shows Morrison has actual bias, with
personal animosity toward me. and prejudgment bias
based on his extensive ex parte contact He has used
this actual bias to abuse his power directed to me, and to
commit procedural injustices directed at me. Oregon law
requires a quasi-judicial hearing to have an impartial
decision maker, without personal animosity toward a
party or procedural prejudice. Morrison's outbursts,
personal attacks, invention of unfair procedures, surprise
tactics, and violation of the basic constitutional right to
speak during a public hearing provide adequate
evidence that Morrison is personally biased against me.
For more than 3 years, Morrison has shown personal
bias against me. His off-topic, personal attack outbursts
in the 2007 Apr3 council meeting show on video, during a
quasi-judicial hearing, his personal bias and his
willingness to invent rules on the spot to prevent my
testimony. Council should recuse Morrison from this
matter as having actual bias.
If necessary for quorum, Morrison should attend the
meeting as chair without participation or voting.
Oregon Supreme Court: "The public
interest in appearance of propriety over
public interest in efficiency is so great in
judicial proceedings that readjudication is
required regardless of whether decisions
were fair when appearance of impropriety
is present." 1000 Friends of Oregon v.
Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d
39, 1987.
MomUJ1\ ROSEB'SSPEECll.' PUBLIC FORUM, MAY lS,~001
i.,
If children were chained.up at.hOlle all ,day,. ]; wouldn't ,have to ::speak
more than once to this oouncil,before,itowould.be stopped.. ., r" .'H,;'
But it's animals '1 'II' pleading ,for. I've cupaiqned -,for '16 months,,-,fot a
chaining law. 'Half th.'coullcilortl oPJX?l'ethe ordinance. They-.ayor' --
hasn't told me yet WhElM he .stands .' i.. . -..., ".
What"s so d1ffercent about d9gs and.other;~an:wal f8ll11'yJieabers? -Why',~
ion't CounoH 'behaving 'thel::sam.w.aythey'WQu~d.i>fi thlJl:le' chaliined family
members were children? Why isn't this, like Chris Iverson said in
public:iforUll~-:a Dlam-dunk deal? '-,, ,'-'I. ' 'i' '" ,. ,; ,!
i ;.:
! :-.:
;. _,r
.,.
When someone i5 different from U5,:of.ten we don't .under81:i~nd thea..nI ",-II
think this is what causes racism and sexism. The black person looks
different, ::so the white person con::siders him inferior and discriminate::s ,
against him. The woman looks differentf so the man considers her
inferior and di::scriminate::s again::st her.
I think differences are also the basis of speciesism. [Hold up sign
saying "speciesism."} One dictionary says we're speciesist when we
di::scriminate againDt DOIIeone becauDe he'D of a different Dpecietl than we
are.
Animals are different frolll us in sOJlle ways. They say bow-wow or meow;
they don't talk like we do. They have furl we have ::skin. They wouldn't
pass our IQ tests. So S~e people think they're inferior and that they
don't deserve the thing::s that people de::serve.
But are animals really that different from us? Every time we think that
only we humans can do SOMething, science finds out that aniaals can do
it, too. Fir::st we thought only we had language. But ape::s can talk in
American Sign Language, and even make up words. Alexf a parrot, doesn't
jUDt mimic people. Be Dpeak::s word::s from hi::s heart.
If dogs and horseD had fingerD, or the right kind of vocal cordD, could
they talk in our language?
We used to think only 'We could do math. But chimps have added up
numerals. 1\lex the parrot can count items.
Maybe animals have complex languages, only we can't understand them.
Maybe animals like dogs are not as diferent from us as we think. Wolves
have cultures like we do. Wolves living in one place develop different
hunting and sleeping habits from wolves living in another place. DOg5
can pass culture on to their young, too. For example, trained sheepdogs
teach pups to herd sheep.
We utled to think only we could make toolD--but apes can, too. AnimalD
have tricked each other, and sat and enjoyed the sunset.
We're not the only ones who can problem-solve: Dogs do that when they
do Dearch-and-reDcue. And like UD, dogtl can plan for the future--ever
seen one bury a bone?
Apes are scientifically recognized for t!he:Lr a~~. -England's faaoua "'"n
animal behaviori~t, Roger Mugford, told me he ~aw one dog lay out piee~
of plast)!itc" 'sticka, and 80 on to cre4ite .. diffe~nt'artistic ,patterA
each time. The dog never got,areward for doing,thia.
There '5 ;no 'attcibute that we know o.yond.a doubt that we "hay. and
an 1ma ls, don't. ' The wlJty "science . is. --901ng" 'W$' 111 ' ,t ind 'out yea rs, :f rOIl ,now. _ ,
that animals are far more than who we think theyar4.
(I1i11 we then loOk 'Dack,and ~ay;' "(I1hy did we tc.eat'thea likEt'ws ,did? .vhy
did ~ let people chain th_up like"priaonem in,'their ownhOliles?"
.J\' i;.' 'r. " ti: ;. 'd},-". . :)1 ) :~ l(-:t)~'
Why not give Ashland's animal faaily aeabecslthe benefit of th..doubt
now? Why not treat them a~ if they matter right no~-and pass a
chaining }sw to 'prot&btthe. fraa abuse?
.-: -;,
. '
m.,
~"~ I.
Thank you.\
, J
,',
,l
.. ~
.,11' ;
't';.
" .,
. J ~
j'
l' '
,nt'
,"
'4' .;:.; L
) ,', ";.
! ~. n'
'I :1.
,~ ,..I
..
j ,\
:" .;;t, i-
; h~
,'i '
~,
: ,; ~
. \. I ~
'.' "
:,i
Il,
f
, ,.
~, I : ~
i ~)
!l
. J
t ~ 1 ,;
:1" .. \ !\
, r'j j
,,' .
r' ~.
'.
I. i .
,1..'. '
C'."
, "
';1
Alternatives for Selection Process for City Attorney Interview Process
May 15,2007
DRAFT THOUGHTS ABOUT REVISED PROCESS
Change to a two step process
1. First Interviews - Scheduled for Friday, June 1,2007
A. Council Panel
B. Lawyer panel - citizens and other folks in the legal aspect
C. citizen! volunteer panel
Result of Step 1 is that the City Council selects two or three finalists to bring back for second
interview.
2. Second Interview- Potential dates are June 7, June 11, June 14, June 15
A. Moderated discussion, broadcast on RVTV as with Police Chief Interviews
B. Informal opportunity to meet senior staff (department heads)
C. Second Interview with full City Council - Council selects appointee.
Complete background checks and discussion to follow - Appointment on June 19 or July 17,
depending on speed of concluding negotiations with selected candidate.
Fiscal Impact of the Solar Project n on the City's Electric Utility and Participants
1. Energy Credit based on 10,IkWh for 10 yn, IS, for 10 yn, and Upfront Solar Rebate of
5123,000. .
ENGY Purchase
CREBcosts
Maintenance, etc
Annual Debt Service Payments
Total Cost over 10 years
Cost per year
Customer Payback Perspective:
Monthly Charge
Annual Cost
System Output Share
Annual Credit
Simple Payback
$ 78,472
$ 536,250
$ 40,000
($ 380.460)
$ 274,262
$ 27,426
= $ 8.50
= $102.00
= 350kWhlyr
= $35 for 10yrs & $52.50 for 10 yrs
='$510 +$35.00 = 14.6 yrs
$510 +$52.50 = 9.7 yrs
= 24.3 yrs
2. Energy Credit based on Retail Rates & Upfront Solar Rebate of 5123,000
ENG Purchase
CREB Costs
Maintenance, etc.
Annual Debt Service Payments
Total Cost over 10 yrs
Cost per year
Customer Payback Perspective:
Monthly Charge
Annual Costs
System Output Share
Annual Credit at wholesale rates
Simple Payback
$ 39,236
$ 536,250
$ 40,000
($ 380.460)
$ 235;026
$ 23,503
= $ 8.50
= $102.00
= 350kWh's
= $24.50 for 10 yrs and $52.50 for 10 yrs
= $510 + $24.50 = 20.8 yrs
$510 + $52.50 = 9.7 yrs
=?c 30.5 yrs
3. Energy Credit based on Wholesale Rates and Upfront Rebate
ENGY Purchase
CREB Costs
Maintenance, etc.
Annual Debt Service
Total Cost over 10 years
Cost per year
Customer Payback Perspective:
Monthly Charge
Annual Costs
System output Share
Annual credit at Wholesale rates
Simple Payback
o
$ 536,250
$ 40,000
($ 380.460)
$ 195,790
$ 19,579
= $ 8.50
= $102.00
= 350kWh~s
= $14 for 10 yrs & 1$42 for 10 yrs
= $510 + $14 = 36.4 yrs
$510 + $42 = 12.1 yrs
= 48.5 yrs
4. No Upfront Rebate & Energy Credit at Wholesale Rates
ENGY Purchase
CREB Costs
Maintenance, etc.
Annual Debt Service (500 shares)
Total Cost over 10 years
Cost per year
Customer Payback Perspective
Monthly Charge
Annual Costs
System output share
Annual Credit at wholesale
Simple Payback
o
= $536,250
= $ 40,000
=($510.000)
= $ 66,250
= $ 6,625
= $ 8.50
= $102.00
= 261 kWh's
=$10.44 for 10 yrs & $31.32 for 10 yrs
= $510 + $10.44 = 48.9 yrs
= $510 + $31.32 = 16.3 yrs
= 65.2 yrs