|
|
Published August 20, 2008
|
Council Campaign Starts on a Negative Note
|
| By Lee Borrowman |
|
|
Less than a week after the filing deadline for City Council candidates, the first volley of the campaign was launched in Orinda. On August 13, challenger Robert Larsen sent a public letter to incumbent Steve Glazer demanding full disclosure of Glazer’s financial involvement with the Wilder development at Gateway. Glazer has recused himself from discussions and votes relating to the project and Larsen has been a harsh critic of this decision for the past couple of years.
Larsen’s letter reads, “I believe you are obligated to disclose why you recuse yourself from any matters concerning Wilder. I have reviewed your Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests, which requires the disclosure of direct financial relationships) for the current election year and for all previous years of your service on the Council; I see no mention of your affiliation with Wilder.”
Glazer stated firmly, “I have had and I continue to have a business relationship with a financial partner involved in the Wilder project. For that reason, I have recused myself from taking part in discussions and decisions regarding that project. I have consistently held this position during my four years on the City Council.” As for the Form 700, Glazer says, “I’ve fully complied with the law.”
In a written statement issued last week Larsen further stated, “Councilmember Glazer plans on continuing his business with the largest development in this City’s history while walking out of Council meetings anytime the subject comes up for the next four years.”
Glazer says he does not understand why Larsen is targeting him. “Mr. Larsen has similar conflicts with the Wilder project and now states that he will recuse himself. In previous public statements, Larsen has said that I should ignore the law and vote on Wilder matters. Now he says I am correct to recuse myself and if he is elected, he will do the same.”
Larsen, a resident of the Sunrise Hills neighborhood near the development, was a vocal opponent of the Wilder project. He stated last week that he, too, would have to recuse himself from issues pertaining to Wilder: “Over the past several years our property experienced some damage. We made a claim against Wilder for these damages. Wilder denied any responsibility. We reached an agreement with Wilder regarding these damages (which includes) a provision that we would never voice any opposition with respect to Wilder.”
Should Larsen be elected, another potential conflict of interest would be the proximity of his residence to Wilder; councilmembers must recuse themselves from discussion of any development project within 500 feet of their residence.
Larsen’s recent statements seem to indicate that he believes Glazer’s conflict of interest with Wilder should prevent him from serving on the Council. Unfortunately, Larsen left town shortly after issuing his statements and as of press time he had not responded to requests for clarification of his position.
Glazer, on the other hand, had much to say. “Mr. Larsen has continually harassed me at numerous Council meetings on this matter… the law on recusal is straightforward. If you have a professional or personal conflict on any matter before the Council you must recuse yourself. Our Council’s strict adherence to these rules is what builds citizen trust that Council decisions will always serve the interest of the residents rather than a private concern. The residents would be better served with a discussion of the issues rather than (Larsen’s) harsh and baseless personal attacks.”
The Nuts and Bolts:
Steve Glazer first formally recused himself from Wilder discussions at the Council meeting of February 1, 2005. According to the minutes of that meeting, Glazer disclosed that after the Montanera project (an earlier incarnation of the project that is now known as Wilder) received final City approval for the development plan, he was approached in March of 2001 to work with the project. His company, which provides strategic and communications consulting, spent about 22 months assisting with State and Federal environmental reviews until the project was changed and the environmental impacts were reduced. A modified development application was subsequently submitted. Although this involvement did not necessarily disqualify him from participating in the Wilder discussions because it had been more than twelve months since his employ and he did not have a financial interest in the outcome, Glazer was concerned that, “The perception is as important as the reality.” He said at that time, “Public confidence in government is based upon the belief that the elected representatives have only one boss -- the citizenry, the voters, the taxpayers." Glazer decided it would not be "ethical or right to participate in the discussion and review" of the project. Glazer disclosed an additional conflict in July, 2005. Glazer explained that while involved on a project outside of Orinda he found that an individual with a financial interest in that project also had an interest in the Wilder development. Larsen has addressed the Council on the conflict of interest issue on more than one occasion. According to the minutes, on December 19, 2006, he stated has not understood why Glazer had recused himself on Gateway matters as he believed it was important for all Councilmembers to act on the issue. On March 6, 2007, Larsen noted the Mayor had announced his recusal (from Wilder issues) due to past business relations with the developer, but he felt that the State did not require this type of recusal Having initially recused himself from the issue, Glazer is obligated to continue to do so. That Glazer subsequently entered a relationship with an entity that has an interest in Wilder is in addition to the original cause and he has routinely cited both conflicts when recusing himself from those discussions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Reach Lee Borrowman at: lee@lamorindaweekly.com |
|
|
Lamorinda Weekly, Moraga CA