Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19780628 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 78-14 ,A- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S June 28 , 1978 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice President Katherine Duffy at 7 :35 P.M. Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Katherine Duffy, Richard Bishop, Barbara Green and Edward Shelley Members Absent: Harry Turner and Daniel Wendin Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Jon Olson, Nancy McComb, Stanley Norton, Jannie George, Pat Starrett, Julie Batenburg and Cynthia DiGiovanni APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 14 , 1978 E. Shelley requested that the minutes reflect he was absent from the vote in the motion on page three. K. Duffy requested striking 111% of" and inserting the word "property" before "tax revenue" on page four, line seven under item VIII. Motion: N. Hanko moved approval of the minutes of June 14 , 1978 as amended. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. George referred the Board to a Written Communication from the Cupertino Historical Historical Society, Inc. , dated June 15, 1978 suggesting that there be no name change made in the District' s "Pichetti Ranch" site. K. Duffy stated the consensus that staff reply that no name change is contem- plated. Meeting 78-14 Page two IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA H. Grench said that with the passage of SB 154 and the moni- toring of the follow-up bill he felt there were some implications that the Board might want to dicuss and possibly -take action-on. He recommended the item Fund Allocation and Interim Spending Plan for Fiscal Year 1978-79 be placed on the agenda under Old Business with Action Requested. K. Duffy stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted with the addition. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications at this time. VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Conflict of Interest Code S. Norton introduced memorandum (M-78-129) dated June 21, 1978 requesting adoption of a resolution adopting a con- flict of interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 , as revised by the California Fair Political Practices Commission to become effective July 7 , 1978 . The changes he specifically mentioned were - the land acqui- sition planning area as shown on the District' s Master Plan is the basis for determining reportability of real property interests, one' s residence need not be reported, explanations or definitions of reportable investments and reportable sources of income are included. K. Duffy suggested that the numeralization form in CATEGORY I be the same as in CATEGORIES II and III. R. Bishop suggested a change in wording in CATEGORY III - A, striking "investments" and inserting " sources of income" . N. Hanko stated she felt that interest in real property which is used principally as the resident of the designated position should be disclosed but the value omitted. She requested this disclosure be reinserted in CATEGORY I - B - 4 . Motion: N. Hanko moved approval of Resolution 78-14 , a Reso- lution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Adopting a Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as Revised by the California Fair Political Practices Commission as amended on page 2 , CATEGORY- I-B-4 and with the foregoing changes suggested by K. Duffy and R. Bishop. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Meeting 78-14 Page three Discussion: E. Shelley suggested omitting number 4 since he felt the matter is covered under CATEGORY I A - 1. Gordon Jennings, 1141 Woodside Road, Woodside, expressed disagreement with the amendment as he felt it appeared that people living in the valley urban areas have interests that conflict with the interests of the large land owners in the hills. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto said he favored the amendment. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES : N. Hanko, K. Duffy, R. Bishop and B. Green; NO: E. Shelley; ABSENT: H. Turner and D. Wendin. VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Fund Allocation and Interim Spending Plan for Fiscal Year 1978-79 H. Grench reviewed the progress of SB 154 and the followup bill SB 2212. He explained the $4 per $100 assessed valuation allocation of funds would give the District approximately $890, 000 total from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Due to an inequity in the method of apportionment, the District would receive 260 of the property tax instead of 38% like other agencies. He said some of the inequity may be offset by the distribution of the State' s surplus funds which will be allocated directly to the District by the State since the District is a,imulti-county agency. In discussing the matter of reserves, he advised that there are problems for agencies who cannot show that their reserves are restricted to meet specific contractual obligations. H. Grench distributed copies of SB 154 and a draft resolu- tion confirming the District's contractual obligations and commitments for Board consideration and possible action. He emphasized that although the District has reserves, it has approximately $9 million in contractural obligations and an additional $2.4 million, although not spent, committed. He recommended the Board approve the resolution. The meeting recessed at 8 :50 P.M. and reconvened at 9 :06 P.M. H. Grench reviewed the resolution and inserted the word "restricted" in Section Four, line two after "(or accounts)" The names "Long Ridge Open Space Preserve" and "Hassler Property" were also added in Section Three, having been inadvertently omitted. Meeting 78-14 Page four Anticipated Projects and Establishing Reserves Therefor. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Proposed Extension of Purchase Agreement and Escrow Closure for Long Ridge Ranch Acquisition H. Grench introduced a memorandum (M-78-130) dated June 23 , 1978 :recommending approval of a 30 day extension of the Eqng Ridge Ranch purchase agreement until July 31, 1978 and extension of escrow closure date until August 31, 1978 . H. Grench said that in view of the action in allocating money to restricted reserves, he recommended only extending the escrow closing and not the contract agreement. He also advised that an addition to the claims list in the amount needed for Long Ridge Ranch would be required. Motion; E. Shelley moved to proceed with the Long Ridge Ranch Agreement, notwithstanding Clause 7 of the agreement, but to extend closure of escrow until August 31 , 1978 . B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Appointment of Peace officers J. Olson introduced memorandum (M-78-126) dated June 21, 1978 recommending the Board adopt a resolution appointing rangers Wendy Leiber and David B. Camp as peace officers pursuant to Section 830. 3 (m) of the Penal Code of the State of California. Motion: E. Shelley moved approval of Resolution 78-16, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Mid- peninsula Regional Open Space District Appoint- ing Peace Officers. Richard Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: Mark Schneider, 1759 Woodside Road, Redwood City, inquired about the District' s attitude regarding the arming of their peace officers. J. Olson responded that the Board and staff concurred in philosophically opposing the District' s rangers being armed. he added -that the rangers are primarily confronted with "park type problems" and that,. if necessary, local police are called. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 78-14 Page five D. Authorization to Repair Montebello Road J. Olson introduced memorandum (M-78-131) dated June 23, recommending that the Board authorize staff to expend up to $4 ,500 for the regrading and maintenance of Montebello Road. He explained that the portion to be regraded extends from Page Mill Road to the Black Mountain Summit - a distance of 2.1 miles. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph would be paying $4,425 and Tom Harrington $500 for their proportionate shares in the expenses. J. Olson said there are two other limited users being contacted to solicit their contributions and those contributions would lower the District' s expenses by $500 - $1, 000. He added that the request is consistent with the policy of public safety, and the repairs should last from 3 to 5 years. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board authorize the staff to spend up to $4 , 500 to regrad and maintain that 2.1 mile portion of Monte Bello Road from Page Mill Road to the Black Mountain Summit. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. State College Site H. Grench reported that during his June 27 trip to Sacramento, he testified before the Senate Governmental Operations com- mittee regarding Senator Arlen Gregoriols bill on the State College Site. They were not successful in getting the bill out of committee so Senator Gregorio will try again in August. B. Trail from Page Mill Road to Saratoga Gap G. Jennings reported that he had been on the trail over the weekend and saw approximately 40 hikers, and said the trail appears to be getting a lot of public use. IX. CLAIMS H. Grench advised the Board of an addition of Number 1039 in the amount of $500,000, to First American Title Company for the Long Ridge Ranch acquisition. Motion: B. Green moved approval of the revised claims (C- 78-12) dated June 28, 1978, as presented. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 78-14 Page six X. EXECUTIVE SESSION K. Duffy advised there would be a motion made after Execu- tive Session to continue the meeting to Thursday, June 29, 1978, 7 :30 P.M. at the District offices. If no information, related to Proposition 13 , is received from Sacramento necessitating the continuance, it will not be necessary to attend the meeting, and the Clerk will cancel it. The Board recessed to Executive Session at 9 :43 P.M. to discuss land negotiations. The Board reconvened at 10:27 P.M. to continue the meeting. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District be continued to Thursday, June 29, 1978 , 7 :30 P.M. , 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los Altos, CA. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. XI. JUNE 29, 1978 - CONTINUANCE OF MEETING A. Crosley announced that due to the lack of a quorum, the continuation of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the midpeninsula Regional open Space District was cancelled and adjourned at 7 :35 P.M. Jennie George Deputy District Clerk Transcript of a Portion of The Minutes of June 28 , 1978 Stan I think you have our communication, along with the version of the Code showing the form in which it was adopted initially by you some months ago, showing also changes made by the FPPC at its last meeting. Those changes were made following a number of consultations between their counsel and me, and I 've explained in our memo to you the general gist of those changes. I think they are all in the right direction. Apparently there' s an effort on these on the FPPC level to not require reporting of assets of land hold- ings, income sources, that kind of thing. There is no conceivable relevance to the functions of the particular local agency in question. Kay Not reporting. Stan Not requiring those to be reported, and it' s in that vein that their counsel, with my concurrence, limited the areas of reporting. In some cases I think they' ll be substan- tial, depending on your own situation, but we feel that Code is drafted, particularly in Exhibit A, that sets forth the particular real property interests , the category of investments, category of sources of income, are all now limited to areas of conflict which might well arise in the case of a special district such as ours - primarily devoted to land acquisition concerns. The main changes except for some what I 'd call technical or minor changes : first in Category I, Interest in Real Property, the new language would limit reporting to interests in land in the land acquisition planning area shown on our Master Plan and other properties within two miles essentially of the area. This deletes that for practical purposes any interests in land in the urbanized area where we wouldn't be buying land. The last phrase says "which is contemplated for use by the District" - would cover an interest in a site for which we might aspire to locate an office so that would be the one exception to the interest in urbanized land where, for example, we were going to consider leasing an office situated on land in which one of you had interest and that would become a discloseable interest, but other than that you wouldn't disclose except where you might have and interest or we, actually some of the staff, who are involved in this should have an interest in the vicinity foothills and baylands planning area of the District. CategoryII- Investments - Again, fairly narrowly limits the reportable interests to investments in four categories : First, of an entity or company of the type with which within the last few years contracted with the District for ser- vices, supplies, materials , etc. Secondly,investments in entities which engage in building construction or design. Third, entities which engage in brokerage or real property. Finally, entities which prepare EIR or land appraisals. Category III - Sources of Income very closley parallels the last one I mentioned. Income from sources which within Page two the last 12 months contract with the District to provide services, etc; income from sources which engage in building construction or design; sources which engage in brokerage real property; and finally, sources which prepare EIRs or appraisals. The remaining explanatory under Exhibit A remains essentially unchanged. Kay I have one problem with the form - the first Category I - which has an interest in real property are reportable if (1) , (2) , (3) , the other ones you did it - are reportable (a) and (b) because of - you read (1) it' s reportable if (2) the fair market value is greated than $1,000 without the restrictions from number (1) . 1 assume if it's not in the . . . Stan Yeah, that's a numbering porblem looks like to me. We lastminute change. Kay It should be like Category II , form of it. Stan Right, it should be. (2) would become (b) Kay Such investments in such property (whatever it is) are reportable if Stan I think that change could be made then and I agree with you there should be, so with that change making it para- llel to Categories II and III, I would recommend the adoption or actually the adoption of the revised Code as revised and approved by the FPPC. Dick I have a question under Category III on Sources of Income- It seems to be three main sections to it A, B, & C. And my question is this : A says the following investments are reportable, then it has four different sources of income that are reportable, which somewhat limits it to income that might create a conflict with activities of the District. My question is this, when you go over to Section C is that limited by sources of income specified in A or does C. apply to all sources of income from what- ever surce it may come? Stan It would fall within A, then B & C apply. Dick Ply question is when I 'm responding to C, I limit my re- sponse to those sources of income that are specified in paragraph A. Stan Right. Dick If that were so, I would object to C on the ground that it discriminates against attorneys , but the fact that it' s limited by A as far as I 'm concerned solves the problem. So I 'm not going to make an issue out of the fact that attorneys are treated differently from other people. Page three Kay Maybe a word or two would clarify that. Dick I still think the wording somewhat discriminates against attorneys, but in view of the limitation in A doesn't really become too significant anymore. Kay Could a couple words be inserted to clarify that? Stan Are talking about C-3 , Dick? Dick I think that in A, if the word "investment" changed to "sources of income" it would clear it up a little bit. Where it says at the beginning of Category III , where you have paragraph A "the following investments" , it should be ."the following sources of income are reportable" and then that, I think, helps to clarify it. Stan That should be made - that was an oversight. Is that clear to everybody that Category III-A would read "The following sources of income are reportable" rather than "The following investments are reportable" . Nonette I have a question on page 2 , Category I. One of the changes is being recommended is under 4 , in which the Board had originally agreed we would disclose interest in real prop- erty that was principal residence and I notice now that the proposed wording would change that- so that the real property would not be necessarily disclosed. What is the reason for the change? Stan The FPPC uniformly has deleted any listing of the resi- dence. We had them list them but not the value; well, they just interpreted the law not to require a listing even. That' s being applied to all agencies statewide. Nonette So we couldn't state as being required in our Code simply because. . . Kay If you have 1,000 acre ranch up there and you live on it. Nonette We went over this whole thing before (Kay and Stan agreed) Stan This fellow said this is the way they're treating everybody and they wouldn't approve it. Nonette They wouldn't? Well, then - they wouldn't approve it. Barbara But in Number 1, it says if it's within the land acquisition planning area it's shown as discloseable. Kay Do you or don't you, that' s the question. Stan If it' s your home, even if it' s in the land planning area, you would not report it. Page four Nonette Well, I suppose it's assumed that anyone who serves in government - his place or residence is known generally anyway. Kay Not necessarily. Dick Well, it' s in the records of the District somewhere. Nonette Somewhere, um hmm. I don't like this if we have no altern- ative. Stan Well, he wouldn't - I pointed out that the Board had con- sidered in much greater detail than most Boards, I suspected. I knew some of the Board members felt rather strongly about this. He said he didn't think the Commission would approve them. Nonette What if we put it in anyway and see if they do. Dick I wasn't in on the discussion. What's the reason why you feel so strongly that that should be disclosed. Nonette Particularly as it comes to anyone running for office. Kay If you are Frank Duveneck on this Board and he lives on that 2 ,000 acres, he doesn't have to list that. It seems to me that it should be. Nonette Particularly if there is likely to be a conflict of inter- est at some time with the Board perhaps being interested in his property or him even being interested in what be- comes of property either around him or that might have to do directly with his property. Stan of course you'd probably be aware of where he lived anyway. In most cases. Nonette Yes, that' s probably so. Stan And the adding of a list doesn't have any magic except maybe to some person (couldn't decipher) Nonette Well, we already know they wouldn't accept it. Stan Yes, they really felt strongly about members of staff over- reporting. Since we have so few staff people required to report into this thing we weren't too bothered. But if some of the larger agencies apparently there have been Codes adopted that required secretaries to report the whole array of interest here. And the FPPC Commission has been knocking those down and disapproving them. Nonette So if we were to adopt the old language and send it on to them as our adopted Conflict of Interest Code, they'd likely disapprove it. Page five Stan That would be my prediction, I can't say that with real complete assurance. They might reconsider. He did tell me that if anything really bothered you to let me know and we' ll take another look at it. So I didn't feel it was the last word. Kay Could you put an acreage limitation or something - over 15 acres or over 20 acres or something? Stan Well, I think their response would be if no other agency in this State is reporting their residence at all, why should you? What' s so special about you? Nonette Well, why would they object? Ed I assume that in trying to enforce such a thing, uniformity certainly aids in the process. If they have to, if each and every agency has a completely different set of guide- lines, it could become very difficult to check. Nonette In light of the fact that we've already probably put more things into our Code than required by the law and they were acceptable, I don't know why they couldn't go along with this change too. I 'd really like to - I don't think anyone has moved the resolution yet. Have they? Ed There' s a bit of a problem here. If you list the way we had it, you must list it but not five its value. That doesn't give people very much information. If all you do is give the address, it wouldn't be that many people who could know. You wouldn;t know whether it was a 2, 000 acre place in Los Altos Hills or a 1 acre place if there' s no value. All other declarations have a value category associated with them; therefore, it' s a ? as to whether it' s an important conflict. Nonette I think that was a compromise at the time. Ed I 'm not sure but what it' s so much of a compromise that it might as well be omitted. Nonette I would just as soon omit that "but the value omitted" because I think that was my original position anyway that was compromised by the wording that we finally did put in here. The only thing that troubles me would be that we could all agree to reinsert this language except for "but the value omitted" . Would this still not then be an adopted Code? Because it would have to go back to the. . . Stan They would have to approve it. Nonette So there would be a time period in which we would still have no Code? Page six Stan The only way you can have a Code now would be not to change it at all and to adopt it and hope that I was able to get staff concurrence and ask for this change at a later date. If you feel strongly enough about it, that might be an uphill kind of approach to it. If you decline to adopt it maybe you can continue it until I inquire further on this particular point. Nonette I think maybe I 'd be inclined then to suggest that we adopt the Code and ask Stan to inquire as to the possibility of including this and report back to us when you've heard. Dick I ' ll go along with that. Ed That would mean that we would - I 'm a little bit confused you say adopt it as is or just continue it. Stan No, you wouldn' t do anything tonight. Nonette No Ed She' s suggesting that we adopt it and then amend it later if they agree to such an amendment. Nonette I thought that' s what I heard coming from you, Stan. Stan You adopt it tonight. Barbara If we adopt it, then it' s harder to amend it. Stan With the change - I mean, with your taking out the language they propsed with respect to the principal residence. In other words, you adopt it in the form you like it and then hope they will go along with the deletion. Right? Nonette This will give us an adopted Code then? Stan Yes Nonette Oh, I see. I misunderstood you - I though you wanted us to adopt it the way you were recommending it to us tonight and then come back with the later change. Stan I don't know whether you have a Code or not if you take that out. Nonette Oh. Stan I really don't. Kay What about if you would just add an exception under 4, except if it falls under the reportable interests as listed in A-1. Page seven Ed But then there ' s no need for it because if it doesn't fall under Category I it' s not reportable anyway; therefore, there' s no reason to consider it. You don't have to ex- clude it - it is. It' s excluded by the fact that it' s outside within - it' s not within two miles of the planning area. Kay Well, within two miles is kind of . . . Nonette Would it be a big problem to just insert this language as an additional language at a later time whenever you have found out whether we can have it in here or not? Stan My understanding from Sacramento is that this is the Code approved by the FPPC in this form. This is the Code we have and you don't have to do anything further and you've got a Code. But the reason I put it on was first to call the changes to your attention and secondly my personal view is that you should adopt the Code in this form. They shouldn't simply change it and then adopt it and say this is your Code, I think you - the way I read the law you have to also adopt the Code in that form. So it' s partly that. I 'm not in full agreement with their position on whether we have a Code or not until you concur on those changes. Dick Well, Stan, could we adopt the change suggested by Nonette, then if that' s disappmved, we adopt it without the change at some future time. Can we do that? Stan I would think you can. Ed But it wouldn't be a Code until they've approved it because it' s been altered from what' s been approved. Stan That' s probably their position, you know, they would pro- bably say that we don't have a Code until it ' s at least adopted en toto. Herb Seems like if you do then adopt it the way you want it, you're in a better bargaining position, however. They might just throw in the tcweland say okay, we' ll go along with this particular agency because of their peculiar cir- cumstances. But if you just adopt it as it' s recommended here and then as a side light ask whether or not they would be amendable to a change, it seems like you're less likely to get it. Kay What do we really want? Ed It seems to me that if we're going to make it anything other than window dressing, to make it useful, we should not omit the value if we're going to make it reportable. Nonette That' s right, I agree with you. Page eight Kay But is it the actual residence you want that' s in the plan- ning area reportable or is it excess property? Barbara It says an interest in real property. Kay In other words, if you have a home on five acres up there, it doesn't seem to me that' s of great concern. Ed (couldn't decipher) Mark Why not report the land area, then, because that' s the thing you are really interested in. Kay Not the home? R. Mark Well, what you're concerned about is (couldn' t decipher) Ed But his alters the whole form. You have to make a new category of area instead of dollar value. They now have brackets of dollar value for reportable interests. Nonette But doesn't real property mean everything that he owns? Kay It means the home and the property. Dick The land the building, yes, that' s real property. Nonette Well, would you be satisfied if I moved the resolution with a following amendment to the language that's pro- posed. Dick State the amendment. Nonette I ' ll move the Resolution No. 78-14, which is a resolution of our Board to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code Pur- MOTION suant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 As Revised by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, with the following amendment on page 2, Category I , in Appendix A under 4, the language will be changed from that proposed by the staff to read as follows: loan interest in real property which is used prin- cipally as the residence of the designated position making the filing shall be disclosed. " Dick I ' ll second it. Ed I would like to make a suggestion that it' s far simpler - that if we amend it to delete item 4 accomplishes exactly the same thing in a much simpler fashion. Nonette The reason I think it would be good to have it in here is so that it' s very clear what the person is expected to do. Ed No, it' s clearly included under 1 if it' s not within the planning area, there is little reason to report it. It should be treated like any other property to accomplish the task and so why don't we just make no exclusion? Page nine Kay That to me makes it clearer. Barbara Then it looks like it's less of a loophole. Nonette How would you feel about that, Stan? Stan I assume in this that you want the value reported as well as the fact that you own it if it's in the planning area. Nonette Um hum Kay Right, or within two miles of the area? Ed Yes , within two miles of the area - falls within the same category. Kay If you're within two miles of the area. . (couldn't decipher) Stan My guess is that they might have less difficulty requiring reporting the fact that your residence without a value. As soon as you tag on a value , I think, I have even more difficulty, I 'm just guessing, because nobody ever, as far as I 'm aware, has required the reporting of the value of one ' s residence. Ed Well, I don't see that there 's any purpose reporting the existence of the residence without its value. It may just feel good but it doesn't accomplish anything. Nonette Well, even if they told you we won't approve it, the value is in here. Then we could at least negotiate that language. If we end up putting back exactly what we had in there be- fore, at least we 'd have something to go on rather than nothing. I 'm still just a little unclear as to whether we should just strike number 4 in your view or leave the language as I amended it. Stan Ed' s point is sound. I think because one's residence is a kind of a special category, though property. It might be well to treat it somehow in this Code . Ed But this makes it more stringent than it would be other- wise, rather than less stringent for the residence. This says you have to report it even if it' s not within the planning area. If you delete 4, it just makes it like any other property if it could possibly be create a con- flict of interest - then it must be reported otherwise not. Stan My interpretation is that none of 2, 3 , or 4 apply unless they fall within 1. Namely, that they're in the planning area. Nonette I see. Page ten Kay But it says or within two miles of the area or within two miles of any land. . . Stan Right, within that definition. Kay That means if you live within two miles in a residential area you have to report your home? Stan That ' s what it says. Kay I don't think that' s right. I think what we mean to do is show property where we're likely to buy it. Why do we have the "within two miles" in there? Ed I think that is intended to cover the other side of Skyline rather than the residential side of the planning area but. . . Stan I think so too. Kay I was wondering. Okay. Dick I 'd suggest that we go ahead and adopt it the way Nonette moved it. I don't thing it makes that much difference be- tween whether we leave it in there or delete the paragraph completely, but I think ti makes our intent clearer by actu- ally spelling it out there. Particularly since other people aren't going to have to disclose their homes - other districts. Ed I have to ask again, can you explain the difference between putting it in as Nonette moved it and deleting it entirely? I don't see it. I don't see any difference whatsoever. It 's just added verbiage. Dick I think it just makes it clearer to somebody reading it that that's our intent, Ed. I think legally. . . Stan If every other jurisdiction in the State does not require reporting either the value or the fact of your residence - this particular person is used to that rule - I think it's better to specifically treat it affirmatively one way or the other in our Code than not to put it in at all. Nonette Yes, this was my feeling that it draws attention to it so that anyone reading it would realize that it wasn't a mis- take, that it was just left out, but we really intended for it to be this way. Well , I 'm through with my arguments on it. Dick I 'm ready to vote on the question. Kay Okay, has anybody got any more to say? Jennings I spoke out on this the last time we went around on it and I' ll keep it short. I don't like the amendment. I think it smacks of one of the worst aspects that some of Page eleven the opponents of the District might use and that is simply it sounds like the language of a bunch of flatlanders living in an urban area conspiring against people who live in the country. I think it' s unequal treatment. I think the amendment is poor judgment. Dick said earlier he hopes they 're not discriminating against attorneys. Large land owners shouldn't be discriminated against either. I think that the people in Sacramento have moved in the right di- rection. There's been a lot of folly with this legislation and there are still ways the politicians, if they want to, are going to get around the rules . The only guarantee to good government -is enough people watching the elected offi- cials. I think it will discourage people who own land, large land, to consider running for public office and frankly, (couldn't decipher) Kay That's already here , only if you don't live on the land you've got to report it. Kay The restriction as its written now is if you live on that large piece of land then you don't have to report it. Ed Most of us live within two miles of the planning area, quite frankly. Jennings I don't think the value of your home is anybody' s business , to put it another way. Barbara I think that value is so that when the value is stated is between 10 ,000 and 100 ,000 or over 100 ,000, you don' t have to report the dollar and cents to the penny. Stan No, I think it's between $10 ,000 and over $100,000 . Barbara Yeah, so isn't that specific? R. Mark I think it's a good idea. I think that just because you happen to live on a piece of land which would otherwise generate a potential conflict of interest, there 's no reason not to report that conflict. Kay Any other comments? I ' ll call for the adoption of the resolution with the amendment? Is that how we've got it? Nonette Yes Kay All in favor signify by saying Aye: Response - Nonette, Dick Kay, and Barbara No: Response - Ed. Stan Just so I have it clear that 4 would read as it does through "position" (Nonette said quote) then there would be a period? Page twelve Dick Strike " need not be stated" and insert "making the filing shall be disclosed. " Jennie and striking "need not be stated"? Dick Strike "and need not be stated" . i i i II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 28, 1978 Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board approve the minutes of June 28, W78 with the amendments set forth in memorandum 14-78-145 retarding Clarification of Board Action for June 28, 1978. R. BishcL seconded the motion. Discussion: s on: H. Grench as ked the Board d to consider what questions they might want S. Norton to ask the Fair Politi- cal Practices Commission with regard to the Board' s Conflict of Interest Code adoption, before the next Board meeting, when the Board would review language prepared for the Code by S. Norton. H. Turner arrived at 7 :45 P.M. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: R. Bishop moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 1978 as amended. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. I