|
Community discusses subcommittee membership policies, standing
rules
By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun
CAMPO — An issue that arose at the most
recent Campo/Lake Morena Planning Group meeting, has sparked a
spate of discussion amongst residents in the area as well as
other communities in the Back Country.
“I know this is a touchy situation, but I wanted to
discuss this,” said CLMPG Chairwoman Bev Esry. “I’ve had many
people come to me on this one, and it’s been talked about for
quite some time.”
The planning group members sat at the head of the room,
dimly lit by the glow of flashlights. The group held its Aug. 28
meeting by the light of generator- and flashlights; some poorly
scheduled electrical maintenance leaving the members and about
30 attendees in the dark.
The topic: Adopting standing rules governing the
membership on the group’s subcommittees.
The issue for many members of the planning group and the
community, raised at the meeting, is the membership and voting
power of non-residents, and paid project consultants, on
subcommittees.
“It’s up to the community to safeguard what little bit
of say we do have,” Esry said. “We could have a big project come
out tomorrow, they have a bunch of paid consultants that get on
our committees, and that whole committee is then skewed to that
project.”
The concern is that many planning group members take
the recommendations from the subcommittees as absolute.
“I tend to take the votes from the subcommittees as
face value,” said member Bob Shea. “I don’t take the time to
pick every vote apart and see who voted which way and then judge
why they voted that way.”
Esry suggested that the same rules should apply to
subcommittees as to the planning group. This would mean that
members of the groups would be required to be a resident of, and
registered voter in, the Campo/Lake Morena area. Member Bill
Slaff added that members must be actual residents of the area,
not just landowners.
“At election time, we don’t get to vote on issues on
property we have other places. I just think that it should be
the same rules for the membership on these groups,” he said.
“We don’t want to exclude anyone from the
subcommittees,” Esry said. “You’re free to come and give input,
but when it comes down to the vote, that’s only for the
community.”
Doug Paul, Star Ranch project consultant, landowner and
subcommittee member, took offense to the proposal by some of the
members of the group to exclude his vote on subcommittees.
“I am not a resident, but I am a landowner and a
taxpayer out here,” he said. “And I’m sure I pay a lot more
taxes than many people here.”
Paul was concerned that this exclusion of voting
members of the subcommittee would, for him, be taxation without
representation. He argued that if people don’t have a vote, why
would they come to the meetings and offer input.
“The biggest issue I’ve seen out here, is that it’s
always the same group of people that come out to all of these
meetings,” said board member Shirley Driscoll. She raised
concerns that this small group of people are leading the
decision making process for the planning group and the community
as a whole.
Before bringing the issue to the board, members talked
with county staff about the situation.
“We talked to county about having paid consultants from
projects as voting members of our subcommittees and they were
surprised that we did that,” Esry said. “They said that our
subcommittees are really something for our community members.”
According to county staff, the governing rules for the
group; the I-1 policy is only in effect if the group has not
adopted its own standing rules. Board member Larry Johnson
looked more closely at the issue and found that the majority of
other groups do have standing rules that allow them to create a
list of criteria for membership on subcommittees.
“They want the people who live in the community to have
the dominant voice in that area,” Johnson said.
The county’s I-1 policy states that membership, “is
open to all interested citizens.”
“That’s about as definitive as it gets,” Johnson said.
Johnson also said, however, that the planning group’s
groundwater subcommittee is another issue. That committee in
particular encompasses a large part of the Back Country, not
just Campo and Lake Morena. Residents from Jacumba, Pine Valley
and Boulevard, including sponsor group chairs, are all current
members of that subcommittee.
In this case, it is important to have that outside
input on the group.
“Lots of these consultants that come to these meetings
are also professionals, and they can be a wealth of information
— that’s a real asset right there,” Shea said.
Sid Fox, a resident of Boulevard and member of the
groundwater subcommittee is one person who brings a wealth of
information to the group.
“That is a very technical subcommittee, and I dare say
that I may be the only citizen in this area that has any idea
what groundwater is about,” he said. Fox spent his career as a
hydrogeologist in the area.
Board member Joe Carmody also raised concerns about
exclusion from groups.
“This is an advisory subcommittee to our advisory
board. I don’t see the need to go to the extent we are talking
about to exclude people. I think we need to have a participatory
government,” he said.
Debate continued at the dimly lit meeting until nearly
10 p.m. as board members and residents discussed the issue at
length. The group decided to take time to discuss the issue
further and return to vote next month.
The Campo/Lake Morena planning group enjoys great
participation from local resident, unlike some groups, who often
conduct meetings in front of only a few citizens and one sleepy
reporter. The room is often full with upwards of 30 residents in
attendance, able to offer their concerns, criticism and
opinions.
The group is looking for input from residents about
this particular issue. Esry has requested that any input on the
subcommittee membership be submitted to her via e-mail at
bevesry@hughes.net.
A copy of the current I-1 policy governing
subcommittees can be downloaded at
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/cob/policy/I-1.pdf.
 E-mail
Christy Scott
|
