Pete Nichols, the Executive Director of Humboldt Baykeeper, has an editorial in today’s Times-Standard.
[T]here seems to be a cloud of influence that hangs darkly over the city of Eureka. I find it disturbing that the city has agreed to a generous “indemnification” agreement with Security National for any legal liability regarding the Marina Center project. This essentially hands the keys to the city of Eureka over to Security National regarding all things Marina Center.
The power players in Eureka must feel comforted by this indemnification agreement. It protects the city against all threats — except from Security National.
RSS - Posts
November 7, 2009 at 8:43 am
As long as it protects the City from bogus, self serving lawsuit threats by Paykeeper, it works for us.
November 7, 2009 at 8:44 am
Yes, any self-serving threats by Security National would be dandy.
November 7, 2009 at 8:45 am
Geeezzzzzz,Nichols, smoke another fatty dude. Your hallucinating again. You aren’t walking on water or dioxin.
November 7, 2009 at 8:49 am
OMG that was the most original insult ever posted to the Humboldt Herald! Smoke another fatty? Huzzah!
November 7, 2009 at 8:55 am
OMG that response was pretty mundane too….guess the clever side of your brain exploded when Linda voted yes for the SIRAP,eh?
November 7, 2009 at 8:57 am
Pretty mundane? Perhaps you should sorta smoke another bowl.
November 7, 2009 at 8:59 am
Yeah City of Eureka, You let us have our way and we’ll protect you from dem udder guys see? Dat way, if dey give ya any trouble our guys lean on em see? An it won’t cost ya nuthin’.
Sounds like a protection racket see?
November 7, 2009 at 9:18 am
Thank you, Pete, for clearly shining light on the truth.
November 7, 2009 at 9:27 am
Chris – it is Baykeeper. Check your spelling.
November 7, 2009 at 9:42 am
Let’s cut off the city dollars flowing to the Chamber of Commerce. Why spend taxpayer dollars to support an organization that lobbies for big business, and against a clean environment, workers rights, and a rational health care system?
At least “Paykeeper” is not sucking off the public’s teat like the hypocrites at the Chamber do.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 9:47 am
It is just amazing how many or Arkley’s tools (Chris Crawford, Leonard, Jones, Jager, etc. etc.) have no interest in issues and choose to follow blindly behind Robby. Must be a miserable, emasculating experience.
November 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
Evergreen Pulp Mill – “business of the year!”
That’s the quality of thinking at the Chamber.
ROFLMAO
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 10:05 am
The lawsuit indemnification is designed to ensure that if Arkley is sued then the city will be maneuvered into joining the suit on Arkley’s side. They will share legal counsel and will be connected at the hip.
Machiavelli would admire it.
But it is probably illegal.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 10:08 am
I don’t think that’s right, Bill. The indemnification is to protect the city in case the city is sued, in which case Arkley will foot the bill.
November 7, 2009 at 10:10 am
Carol, Buetner, and Pete helping the direction of Eureka and looking out for us i think i will follow success and a proven track record. Paykeepers got 800,000.00$ and are broke already sold the boat and are looking for a payday because the liberal waterboard can not stonewall a legal clean up.
November 7, 2009 at 10:15 am
Heraldo,
Yes the indemnification is for the city, but the city will have to use Arkley’s lawyers I think. That is my point. But it is supposition on my part.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 10:23 am
It’s hard to say without seeing the indemnification agreement, but given the way Jager is eagerly parroting Arkley’s lawyers the city will no doubt feel safe in those loving arms.
November 7, 2009 at 10:26 am
Shouldn’t the indemnification agreement be public record?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 10:28 am
Probably, but I haven’t seen it on the city’s website.
November 7, 2009 at 10:36 am
If the city wants to be open and honest about the issue, then the indemnification agreement should be made public. I’m not going to hold my breath. This would be a perfect issue to challenge the city on during one of their meetings. If the T-S had any balls, they would request it.
November 7, 2009 at 10:53 am
It’s all good, this just means that the Balloon Track is no longer really part of Eureka and y’all don’t have to worry about it. It will just be a big store for a few years and then an empty building. No problem.
November 7, 2009 at 11:02 am
Simply request a copy. If you’re denied, go to the press. The Times-Standard won’t care, but the Journal might sue to get it. And then there will be a few city council members facing a tough re-election due to their love of secrecy while conducting the public’s business.
November 7, 2009 at 11:09 am
There is a pattern with paykeepers and others groups like them obstruct and delay and keep getting paid while nothing is allowed to happen to benefit the majority.
November 7, 2009 at 11:11 am
I have it. Didn’t I post it? Gimme a few minutes.
November 7, 2009 at 11:13 am
It ain’t about the bay, Carol, you know that by now. This is about saving ol’ Sneaky Pete’s Bacon, protect his right to sue the deepest pocket he could find.
“Baykeeper” was created for one reason and one reason only. And “Paykeeper” is it, moneygrubbing, predatory litigious con men. Fooling you is their business, Carol.
November 7, 2009 at 11:17 am
What I don’t understand is why people like Chris Crawford are willing to accept less than a full environmental clean-up of the Balloon Track, an urban brownfield, knowing the Children’s Discovery Museum is planning to move there.
November 7, 2009 at 11:25 am
11:09 there goes the “majority” bullshit again. Every time the voters vote, big boxes lose. Stop telling lies.
Sure it could turn out differently this time, but most likely not.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 11:26 am
Here it is.
November 7, 2009 at 11:42 am
Thanks, Hank.
November 7, 2009 at 11:46 am
I had no idea that CUE stood for “Clean Up Eureka”
November 7, 2009 at 11:47 am
So, back to Bill’s question:
The indemnification says:
So they aren’t required to use Arkley’s lawyers, but if Arkley’s lawyers are “acceptable to the city” then it’s a deal.
November 7, 2009 at 11:48 am
Yes, that Alaska LLC called “Clean Up Eureka.”
November 7, 2009 at 11:58 am
Rose knows zip of what she speaks. Pete is a good friend of mine and his interest is in the health of the bay. I never hear him speak about lawsuits.
November 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm
BTW – The Humboldt Baykeeper has huge community support. Too bad the nay-sayers weren’t at the sold out birthday bash. A wonderful cross section of the community attended. And no they did not sell the boat.
November 7, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Propaganda Mike. If that was a sold out event sure set their sights low. As for a cross section of community ya the wing nut community. Look at Pete and BayKeepers record. See how may times they got bucks. Huge community support. Proof is in the pudding. Look at their donations by number of dollars and people. I would say Rose know’s a whole hell of a lot more than you give her credit for in all areas. Comes from drinking coffee not Kool-Aid.
November 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm
No, that’s definitely Kool-Aid. And bile.
November 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Rose doesn’t no shit beyond her ‘talking points’ from the good ‘ol boys …..oh, and that disappointment of a Supervisor Jill Geist.
November 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Like I said Rose knows zip about the Baykeeper. I was at the event all evening and I can say with authority it was a sell out. What can you say?
Hate does not translate to knowledge. Not for you. Not for Rose.
November 7, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Rose, you’ve really gone over the top in the past year or so. You weren’t always so full of BS. What happened? Are you OK?
November 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Thanks Hank!
That looks like a very, very, bad indemnification for the people.
CUE VI defends the city means they decide the legal strategies, appeals, aggressiveness, etc.
If the city chooses to settle or change tone or tactics CUE VI’s deep pockets disappear pronto! That means no funds for ongoing costs or even unpaid bills let alone judgements awarded for state agency or private legal fees from fighting aggressive Cue VI lawyers.
November 7, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“Thank you, Pete, for clearly shining light on the truth.”
Well, some people have no clue about truth or fantasy….
November 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Jeff Leonard, for one.
November 7, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Michael has it right, the indemnification agreement is close to what I expected. Given the current line up at City Hall is there any doubt that the city’s legal defense will be directed by CUE? The needs and well being of the city will play second fiddle to the needs of the developer.
Someone needs to sue the city immediately to void this questionable agreement.
And isn’t that a sweet little passage where Eureka is described as a small little town with “extremely limited financial resources?” 30 years of Republican/Reaganomic/Norquist/Prop 13 wing nut tax cutting supported by people like Arkley is one reason why. Get real.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm
first we bitch the city is gonna waste taxpayer money by being sued for a project that the “people” do not agree with now we bitch that the project promoter indemnifies the city. love the consistent logic thread.
November 7, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Does David Tyson all by himself have the legal authority to commit the city to such an agreement without Council approval? You wouldn’t think so even if some of the RA toadys on the council would probably vote for ANYTHING Arkley. That doesn’t look like a binding agreement without Council’s OK.
And if CUE IV (deflation?) is unhappy with the city and sues, where’s the indemnification for that? Tuff luck, boys and girls.
November 7, 2009 at 10:33 pm
So when five years from now some judge says that, finally, at this late date, the site must be red tagged until it is rigorously tested for toxic contaminants (dioxin and whatever), and that the City must share all costs arising from its inexplicable failure to require initial thorough testing of the site, since it had primary responsibility under law to do so, then Security National (or whatever corporate takeover hedge fund may by that time own it) will fully reimburse the City for its share of fines and costs?
In other words, the City is engaged in wishful thinking, not lawful due diligence.
November 7, 2009 at 10:43 pm
You know what baffles me is how some can deny that white is really white. Up is down to them and no amount of facts, history, etc. seem to make any dent in that blind faith. I guess they will be the last hold outs for the flat earth myth. Say it long enough, with some high potentate to lead the way and you can get a following. However the truth of the matter is as Pete has stated it. The balloon tract is called a brown field for a reason. You takes your chances when you buy a pig in a poke.
November 7, 2009 at 10:56 pm
oink!
November 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Indemnification obligations are best thought of as a form of insurance. Whenever obtaining insurance the first thing to look at is the financial strength of the “insurer”.
In this case it appears the insurer is a special purpose Alaskan LLC (CUE VI). Does anyone know what assets this LLC owns? Does anyone know whether there are secured parties with priority interests in those assets that would be prior and in preference to a future contractual claim Eureka might have under this indemnification agreement?
Is the indemnification agreement backed up by insurance provisions, guarantees from related entities, prohibitions on transfers of assets out of the entity? Quick read of the agreement says no.
Also note that any claim other than a claim to “void, annul or set-aside the city’s decision” is not covered. This is a very narrow scope and only covers a small percentage of the range of potential claims that the city could face. For example any lawsuit regarding the EIR itself would not be covered unless such claim was specifically a claim to “void, annul or set-aside the city’s decision” to approve the project or the EIR.
Going forward lets not start to kid ourselves about what this agreement says and what it doesn’t say.
November 7, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Franklin,
Note that the agreement makes no reference to Security National.
Also note that the indemnification agreement would not cover a claim for contamination other than to the extent that such claim was to “void, annul, or set aside the decision”.
This is why people and entities get burned by indemnification agreements all the time. It only covers what the language states it covers.
I bet the going rate on the secondary markets for a judgment against your average Alaskan LLC created as a special purpose entity is less than a penny on the dollar.
November 8, 2009 at 7:40 am
11:43 PM and 11:49 PM got it. The city regarding the Balloon Track is completely under Arkley control.
This could be financial ruin for the city. The
city attorney and city manager should be fired.
November 8, 2009 at 8:37 am
11:43 As near as any one can figure out CUE IV an Alaskan LLC (limited liability COMPANY)note: {company not corporation} as no assets of any kind accept the contaminated property. No member of the public as ever seen the land purchase agreement it has with Union Pacific. They’re going to leave the City of Eureka holding the bag if anything goes wrong. Sounds like a great deal for the City! isn’t that right Frank?
November 8, 2009 at 8:41 am
Love the fact that Arkley chooses Alaska as the home of his LLC. Now when they sue the city, officials will have to fly to Alaska to handle the case.
November 8, 2009 at 8:46 am
Hey Frank how many LLC’s does Rob have 20? 30? 40?
no HUNDREDS! Why is that Frank? are they all shells that Rob can fold up at a moments notice? Hey Frank call your buddy up, ask him, he’ll tell you the truth right? Why did he sue is buddy Kramer in Alaska for a partnership here? Why is his legal residence in Louisiana? Isn’t he like a modern day Snidely Whiplash!
November 8, 2009 at 8:52 am
Alaska seems to be one of the preferred places to form an LLC because in Alaska you can hide the real ownership of the LLC. It is called the Alaska Privacy plan. Also in Alaska, partners in the LLC can be other LLCs, individuals or even other corporations.
Layer after layer of protection, like wearing two or three condoms.
This is the way the mafia uses front men.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 9:06 am
How can you compare Rob to Snidely Whiplash? Snidely Whiplash would tie his helpless victims to the railroad tracks and…. and… oh dear me.
November 8, 2009 at 9:17 am
That would mean Larry Glass is Dudley Do-Right? Good.
November 8, 2009 at 10:31 am
I still don’t know if Tyson has the legal authority to sign this indemnity and bind the city to it without Council approval. Does anyone know the answer?
November 8, 2009 at 11:02 am
What many of you are forgetting or didnt know to begin with, Sheryl Shaffner was an atty for the state waterboard before she came here. She’s very good and thorough btw.
All this jabberjawing for whatever your motivations for sharing on this deep level-none of you are players in this game. Most of you lack 99% of the factual information and at least 75% of you are easily lead.
Just my ‘off the cuff’ observation.
November 8, 2009 at 11:11 am
armchair, care to back up your goofy statistics with facts? The majority of posters here are anonymous, which means you don’t know jack about “us.” And whether or not “we” have influence, we are indeed players as long as the site is zoned as public. That’s us–the public.
November 8, 2009 at 11:30 am
“none of you are players in this game”
game? what game?
November 8, 2009 at 11:36 am
Well, I have to agree with Airmchair in that you are all making a mountian out of nothing. Bottom line, if SN lives up to its obligations under the indmentity agreement, they will defend any lawsuit against the EIR that suggests it is inadequate for CEQA. If they win, the EIR stands up through the legal process. If they loose, the EIR is deemed inadequate and sent back for further work and distribution; I think what most on this post want anyway. If they fail to defend the suit, leaving that task to the City, it can always choose not to defend, and moot the case by sending the EIR back out; again, your expected outcome. What is the problem?
November 8, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Security National is not a party to the indemnification agreement. Maybe Dave and Sheryl overlooked that detail.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 12:12 pm
CUE VI is. Sorry, have to say I dont get the point of your post. Perhaps you could provide a little more “detail” in response to the post itself.
Replace CUE VI above for SN and then respond.
November 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm
CUE VI is Security National
November 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Security National is a business with assets, presumably able to support an indemnification.
An Alaskan LLC may be a business with attachable assets, but who knows? Making an agreement with a shell corporation is more like gambling or dealing with a con artist than buying insurance. I know that the City Manager and City Attorney are smart enough to know this. Are you?
Now maybe if CUE IV would make public its ownership and books we would have a basis for evaluating this agreement. It is really CUE that needs to provide the detail. Or maybe Dave or Sheryl could tell us on what basis they believe that CUE has the assets to make this indemnification more than smoke and mirrors?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 12:49 pm
But I thought that you wanted CUE VI to fail in its effort, thereby sending the EIR back to the drawing board?
So, your argument above simply points out how that it is actually more probable that this defense will resort back to the City, which certainly can choose to not fight it and allow the EIR to be reviewed yet again.
As I started out with, much ado about nothing in light of your objective anyway. Now your pitching smoke and mirrors.
November 8, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Let’s see what Dave and Sheryl come up with. It will be fascinating.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Is the sales agreement between Union Pacific and CUE a public document? Since it involves a parcel that may include sovereign property rights of the city and it is a parcel that is zoned “public use” any agreement to sell an interest in it surely must be public?
Anyone?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm
It won’t be public until it closes. When a property is under contract (in escrow) it is private and privileged as it is still being negotiated until closing. Bottom line = you do not get to know the details.
November 8, 2009 at 3:17 pm
But what if I have an ownership interest in the property? Shouldn’t I be privy to the details?
Costco paid the city $800,000 for their parcel. How much is CUE going to pay Eureka for the Balloon Track?
If Union Pacific was aware of the clouded title to the property, is that noted in the contract of sale? If not it may be a fraudulent conveyance. Even so, the clouded title should have been addressed in the EIR, that is enough to make the EIR unacceptable.
Who is paying taxes on the parcels in the Balloon Tract? UP, SN, CUE, Arkley, or nobody?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Cue sounds like, and maybe is, a James Bond villain. Wait! Wasn’t he the one coming up with all the secret, misleading gadgets? You know, exploding pens and disappearing documents. That kind of stuff.
November 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Yes, Q, the quartermaster for the good guys in Ian Fleming’s spy yarns.
November 8, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“CUE VI is Security National”
Then why isn’t it referred to as Security Nat’l in the agreement?
Alaska? WTF?
November 8, 2009 at 5:12 pm
If one is in escrow on property, then there is a title search by the title company. The title company is on the hook for any misrepresentations, ommissions, etc. That is why it is called title insurance. And no, you do not get to know the details because it is a private contract and is not available for anyone else to put in their 2 cents. If you were purchasing property, would you want everyone to know the details? After the sale goes through, then the price and financing information is public record. The contract negotiations remain between the two parties. There cannot be a “cloud on the title” or no fianacing would be available and a cash buyer would be an idiot as they cannot convey the property later.
November 8, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The City of Eureka is not a party to the sale of this parcel. They are in the position of rezoning and a party to the CEQA process along with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The State Lands Commission is merely interested in use and only if the property is in the tidelands, otherwise they are not involved. If the deal should not be approved by say the Coastal Commission, then the City is off the hook for any litigation.
November 8, 2009 at 5:18 pm
And then the parcel will remail undeveloped for another 30 years.
November 8, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The issue with the state lands commission is not zoning it is ownership. The State owns the mineral rights to tidelands and the City owns a sovereign ownership in tidelands through a grant from the State. The city is a party to the sale of at least some of the parcel(s).
And where is the proof that there is any financing or any cash buyer? Maybe there is just an option worth a C-note written on a bar napkin.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm
But is it indeed tidelands? If so, then it has already been made and remains a rail yard.
November 8, 2009 at 8:01 pm
We live on this beautiful bay and have no beach for public access. We DO have two pulp mill sites and a nuclear power plant. Hmmmm….
November 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm
The city would lease tidelands.
November 9, 2009 at 9:02 am
CSLC wasn’t aware the CCC granted the City permit rights in the 80’s? So the Council’s approval of the CDP was legal and not premature. Go figure.
November 9, 2009 at 10:20 am
I am frankly surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the legal basis for the City’s indemnity requirement. The City of Eureka had the option to require CUEVI to provide it with an indemnity, and noting the proclivity of NEC, Baykeeper and EPIC to litigate over projects, subsection (b) of the following 23-year old Government Code statute was there to protect the city:
§ 66474.9. Claims against local agency; defense, indemnification, or holding harmless by subdivider as condition for tentative, parcel, or final map application or approval; participation in defense by local agency; settlements
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a local agency may not require, as a condition for a tentative, parcel, or final map application or approval, that the subdivider or an agent of the subdivider, defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the local agency or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the local agency as a result of the action or inaction of the local agency, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body in reviewing, approving, or denying the map.
(b)(1) A local agency may require, as a condition for a tentative, parcel, or final map application or approval, that the subdivider defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the local agency or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the local agency or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the local agency, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37.
(2) Any condition imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall include the requirement that the local agency promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and that the local agency cooperate fully in the defense. If the local agency fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the local agency fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the local agency.
(c) Nothing contained in this section prohibits the local agency from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur:
(1) The agency bears its own attorney’s fees and costs.
(2) The agency defends the action in good faith.
(d) The subdivider shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the subdivider.
CREDIT(S)
(Added by Stats.1986, c. 789, § 6.)
One relevant case citation follows:
Subdivision (b) of this section authorizing county board of supervisors, as condition of its approval of development project, to require developer to defend actions challenging board’s approval of project did not constitute breach of Prof. Conduct Rule 3-310 prohibiting attorneys from representing conflicting interests except with written consent of all parties concerned, inasmuch as interest of board and developer in outcome of litigation challenging board’s approval of developer’s proposed projects were not conflicting, but rather were identical. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 1989) 263 Cal.Rptr. 214, 214 Cal.App.3d 1348
November 9, 2009 at 10:23 am
Interesting. So, when Pete Nichols of Baykeeper complains in his Times-Standard op-ed that the City has a conflict of interest because it required CUEVI to indemnify the City, he is just simply legally wrong. Whoda thunk it?
November 9, 2009 at 10:59 am
I am frankly surprised that it took you three days to google “indemnification.” Hopefully Arkley is paying you by the hour.
So the above is David Tyson’s excuse for signing a one -sided agreement with a sketchy out of state shell corporation, thus giving up the rights of the city to an independent and unconflicted defense?
November 9, 2009 at 11:13 am
Apparently unlike you, Walker, I do not obsess over these threads and have a life outside the Heraldo Universe. Thus, you all can spend days not getting to the point and I thought a little truth might help.
As for your claim that the City needs “an independent and unconflicted defense,” read the case note above. The Appellate Court found that there was no conflict, “inasmuch as interest of board and developer in outcome of litigation challenging board’s approval of developer’s proposed projects were not conflicting, but rather were identical.”
The law simply requires a project proponent to pay the legal expense engendered by its project rather than burdening the taxpayers for the cost of defending a private development proposal. Seems rather reasonable, doesn’t it?
November 9, 2009 at 11:21 am
The court decided in that one case that there was no conflict, so what? It is easy to imagine lots of ways that there would be a conflict in other cases.
In 1856 the supporters of slavery could no doubt find a happy slave or two to support their views, but slavery was still an abomination.
I hope you get a better grip on logic before you hit the courtroom, counselor, or the big guy is going to be pissed.
November 9, 2009 at 11:27 am
Shit, you guys have no clue how much the judge on this case hates Arkley’s lawers
November 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm
What happens if some pissed-off citizens group decides to sue the city for putting it into such an unprotected and vulnerable position with this weak agreement signed with a shell corporation with no usable assetts? Who has our back then?
And I still question Tyson’s authority to commit the City to this contract without City Council approval. It’s too big to leave to one man, especially that one.
November 9, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The TS had a front page story that pretty well lays out the relationship of the balloon tract to tide lands. I have an 1858 U.S. Coastal map of Humboldt Bay. I clearly shows the slough and the marsh around it. The tidal drainage is clearly marked. It takes up about 1/2 of the west end of the balloon tract, and stops at about Broadway and Washington.
November 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Baykeeper: Something just occured to me. Look at
California code 54956.9, Brown Act on closed meetings.
The letter of Nov. 9th from the land commission was
apparently discussed before the council meeting.
Rumor has it that Jeff Leonard was told by Arkley
attorney’s what to add to the council’s ruling.
I believe the Brown Act was violated and should be
looked into to. This is very serious.