A Community Advisory Council – Better Than a MAC?

Featured Story
4

One of the ideas being examined by the Eden Area Livability Initiative is that of having the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) be an elected body rather than an appointed one.  The County has reported that this would be very expensive, and not “economically feasible.”  In a previous article, I examined Stanislaus County and looked into how they could have eight elected MACs in their County without bankrupting the area.  Today, I will focus on one of the “MAC equivalent” groups I discovered in another previous post.  A Community Advisory Council (CAC) could replace our MAC, be elected , and save the County a considerable amount of money.  So, just what is a CAC?

A Community Advisory Council (CAC) is authorized to represent their unincorporated communities by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in much the same ways as a MAC.  Currently, there are 11 active Councils, serving over 58,000 residents in San Luis Obispo County.

In a previous post, I detailed the history of MACs.  They came to be in 1971 via California State Code section 31010 which gave Counties the specific authority to create them.  San Luis Obispo County decided to take a differerent approach.  Development of the CACs goes all the way back to 1977, but eventually the process was formalized when the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy that formally established criteria for “Board-Recognized Community Advisory Councils” through adoption of Resolution No. 96-485 on December 10, 1996.

San Luis Obispo County Resolution Creating CACs
San Luis Obispo County Resolution Creating CACs

 

Under the resolution, Community Advisory Council must meet the following five criteria to be recognized by the county:

  • A Community Advisory Council must be based in and represent a defined community within an establish Urban or Village Reserve Line, which can include representatives from outlying or surrounding unincorporated areas associated with the community.
  • Community Advisory Council membership should reflect a broad cross-section of the community.
  • Community Advisory Council meetings should occur regularly and be publicly noticed in a timely manner, and be open to all members of the public.
  • Community Advisory Council by-laws should be established and maintained which direct the organization and protocol of the council. These should include a statement of purpose, the rules of order, frequency of meetings, and appointment or election of members.
  • Recommendations made by the Community Advisory Council and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission should be arrived at by a majority vote of the quorum of the membership, with as much public input as feasible.

San Luis Obispo County also mandates that all CACs have a written set of by-laws that contain (at a minimum) these 11 elements:

  • They must direct CAC protocol
  • They must have a statement of purpose
  • They must have rules of order
  • They must have Conflict of Interest guidelines or policy
  • They must identify frequency of meetings
  • They must explain methods of appointments or election of CAC members
  • They must explain methods of appointments of subcommittees
  • They must acknowledges that CAC is advisory only and not a formal approval body
  • They must state how CAC will transmit comments to the county
  • They must encourage training
  • They must state that all new members are to be provided with by-laws and a CAC handbook

San Luis Obispo County has created some really helpful standards for these CACs, many dealing directly with the tenor of their interation with the community.  State law is very vague, meaning a MAC can be very structured or not structured at all.  MACs, being Board created, are also subject to many other County regulations.

Cheri McKee, the Deputy Clerk of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors put it this way: “The substantial difference between the Advisory Councils and those that have been created by the California Gov. Code (MACs) is  that the Board of Supervisors did not create the Advisory Councils, rather they recognize them as designated advisory bodies for their communities.  If the Board had created those Advisory Councils then they would be subject to the Brown Act.  This would require staff time and a formal process that is not necessary or helpful.  The Advisory Councils are encouraged to operate in an open and transparent fashion and it is expected that this be part of their by laws.”

Because they are self-created, each CAC is unique in its mission, scope and its way of conducting business. Most CACs have elected representatives, but some also have appointed members who represent HOAs or special districts within the CAC jurisdictionl. Representation can be based on district precincts within the community , census tracts, groups or organizations, or a combination thereof.  Elections are self-funded and conducted at set intervals.  Many CAC elections are similar to the Altadena Town Council  in Los Angeles County where members are selected by census tract.   Some of the councils hold yearly public elections, some hold elections every two years.

Some CACs review all projects that are proposed in their area of interest. Others review only larger developments. Some have specialized “land use committees” that review all projects and only bring forward certain projects to the whole of the advisory council.  This scope is determined by the needs of the community. They define their purpose through the creation of a Mission Statement. An adopted Mission Statement makes the role and the purpose of the CAC clear to its members and the general public who attend meetings.

Community Advisory Councils also often adopt goals and objectives. These can be changed from year-to-year to reflect the current Advisory Council’s interests and what they would like to complete during their tenure on the council. They should also reflect current issues and concerns of the community. This type of list detailing goals and objectives can be helpful when trying to prioritize the many duties of the council.

One of the CACs duties is to advise the county decision-makers on current and future planning matters. This is where CACs interact with staff from the Department of Planning and Building, much as our MAC does. The council makes recommendations on proposed plans and ordinances and development proposals for their areas. They make recommendations based on the wishes of community, again just like a MAC. Each CAC is assigned a Planning Staff Liaison. Their role is to be a contact person between the community and the department. They are responsible for attending the monthly CAC meetings while being a resource for general questions on planning and land use.

According to the San Luis Obispo County Handbook for Community Advisory Councils,  “The variety of structures show there is no single way to organize a Community Advisory Council. Every attempt should be made to have Community Advisory Council membership reflect a broad cross-section of the community as was specified in the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors. How this is done should be based on a method that works best for your council. Each Community Advisory Council should use its own “homegrown” way of getting the community involved.  The Board of Supervisors authorized the Community Advisory Councils with the expectation that the members fully represent a broad cross section of their community. This representation needs to reflect the opinions and wishes of the community as a whole, not the individual membership.”

The “Brown Act” (Government Code sections 54950 et. seq.) states that meetings of public bodies must be “open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting, except as otherwise in the Act” (e.g. personnel, litigation, etc.) and “actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meeting laws may be voided.”  MACs, being established by the County directly have to maintain strict compliance with all aspects of the act.  This strictness can often be misconstrued by the public as a lack of openness and inclusion.

Although the “Brown Act” does not apply to most CACs in their present form, San Luis Obispo County  recommends that CACs voluntarily comply with many of their provisions in council operations since they represent “good practices” for public meetings in general.  The primary meeting rules of the “Brown Act” that the County recommends are:

  • Post and send notice and an agenda for any regular meeting
  • Limit action to those items listed on the agenda
  • Hold meetings in the jurisdiction of the agency
  • Not require a “sign in” for anyone
  • Allow recording and broadcast of the meetings
  • Allow the public to address the council
  • Conduct only public votes, with no secret ballots
  • Treat documents as public “without delay”

In a previous post, I showed County estimates that the MAC in its current state costs the County $135,912 per year.  Using these same estimates, by replacing our current appointed MAC with an elected CAC could save the County $67,776 per year.

A self-organized CAC would no longer require the “Secretary II” labor (estimated at $55,176 per year.) Nor would it require the $50 member stipend per meeting (estimated at $12,600 per year).

In fact, the County could theoretically eliminate the Castro Valley MAC and foster the establishment of two seperate CACs (possibly one for Castro Valley, and one for the rest of the Unincorporated Eden Area,) for essentially the same money they are spending right now.  Shifting the land use functions over to area specific BZAs could free up even more funds.  Each community in the Eden Area could have their own elected CAC to hear their concerns.

An elected  CAC can be held accountable to the community it serves, cost less than a MAC,  and still have an important advisory role to the Board of Supervisors.

If all of these facts are true and applicable in Alameda County, then I would ask one simple question: why don’t we do it NOW?

Hi Michael,
Interesting article. When we had redevelopment each of the county redevelopment areas had its own CAC (Ashland, Cherryland, Castro Valley and San Lorenzo).

Each CAC held frequent public meetings over several years and was staffed by redevelopment. The CAC members votes would advise the Redevelopment staff and the Board of Supervisors regarding each areas projects.

I served on the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) in the 80’s and 90’s. Our votes would advise the Board of Supervisors regarding the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) in the targeted low income areas. The HCDAC is a current County CAC.

Bob Swanson

Marc Crawford, that mild-mannered paragon of virtue who chairs the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) was appointed by the Board of Supervisors today (September 23, 2014) to yet another four-year term.

Supervisor Nate Miley nominated Crawford and the other two supervisors present dutifully voted in favor of the appointment. The vote was a foregone conclusion. Supervisors never refuse to rubber stamp nominations to any local board or organization made by their fellow supervisors.

The MAC, with tongue in cheek, purports to represent the citizens of Castro Valley, even though it is not elected, answers to no one and is sometimes largely composed of petty tyrants so proud of their lofty position that they waive off local citizens and their concerns like so many pesky flies.

And speaking of Marc Crawford, he is also running for a seat on the board of directors of the Castro Valley Sanitary District. While there is nothing we can do about the MAC — it doesn’t belong to the voters and doesn’t represent the voters — we can deny him this seat as we did when he ran for school board some years back.

And when I say “we,” I mean your organization, myself, and all of the other voters. I am not a member of CV Matters or of any other local organization. But I agree with your concern about Crawford. And I know a little bit about his background. Some of the information was told to me in confidence, but some of it is a matter of public record.

Because of his recent actions and his complete unsuitability for service on the MAC, I wrote a letter to each member of the Board of Supervisors urging them to deny him another term. The letter was, of course, ignored. But I have been asked to post it here because some of you are curious as to what I had to say. Unfortunately, this site does not allow me to indent quoted paragraphs or use italics for emphasis, so it loses a bit in the translation. But here it is:

Dear Supervisor _____ and the Board of Supervisors:

As a Castro Valley resident of more than 30 years and a staunch proponent of democratic, accountable governance, I strongly protest one of the items on which you are being asked to vote on September 23. This item is the reappointment of Marc Crawford to a seat on the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), after it has been discovered that he has hidden a serious conflict of interest from that body and from the public for more than a year.

During that time the MAC, led by its chairman, Marc Crawford, has studied, debated and voted on various aspects of a proposed new building project in Castro Valley called the Proctor Court subdivision. Mr. Crawford has participated in these discussions and votes, and even served on a subcommittee of the MAC specific to this project.

Never once throughout this process did Mr. Crawford disclose – either to the public or to his fellow council members – that he owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed project which will be impacted by any new development in that area. Never once did he recuse himself from discussing, voting or participation in setting requirements and restrictions on the developer.

It was not until the MAC meeting of September 8, 2014, when a homeowner near the project publicly confronted Crawford and Supervisor Miley’s staff with a map of the project area showing the owners of the parcels that Crawford suddenly recused himself.

Crawford’s actions are a flagrant violation of the conflict of interest rules authorized by the California Government Code and set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Sections 18700 and following, pertinent sections of which follow.

“No public official at any level of state or local government may make, participate in making or in any way use or attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has reason to know he/she has a disqualifying conflict of interest. A public official has a conflict of interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on one or more of his/her economic interests… ” §18700 (a).

“A public official ‘makes a governmental decision,’ … when the official, acting within the authority of his or her office or position … (1) Votes on a matter…” §18702.1 (a).

“(a) Real property in which a public official has an economic interest is directly involved in a governmental decision if any of the following apply:

“(1) The real property in which the official has an interest, or any part of that real property, is located within 500 feet of the boundaries (or the proposed boundaries) of the property which is the subject of the governmental decision. §18704.2(a).”

(Subsection (a) was repealed earlier this year, but was in place during much of the time when Mr. Crawford participated in discussions and voting on the subject project. Further, this subsection gave rise to a presumption of conflict (if within 500 feet) or a presumption of no conflict (if outside of 500 feet) and was, thus, not a hard-and-fast rule, but rather a guideline. The basic rule of §18700 (a) has not been amended or repealed. C.f. §18705.2 (a).)

“A public official or his or her immediate family are deemed to be directly involved in a governmental decision which has any financial effect on his or her personal finances or those of his or her immediate family.” §18704.5.

See also §§ 18703.2, 18703.5, 18704.5, 18705 and 18705.2.

For statutes and regulations showing that members of the Municipal Advisory Council are covered by these conflict rules, see Government Code §§ 87100 and 87103, and CRC § 18701, regarding a committee, board or commission possessing decisionmaking authority, as defined therein.

Mr. Crawford is well aware of the ins and outs of conflicts of interest. For reasons purely personal to him, he wrote a letter to a former board member of the Castro Valley Sanitary District threatening legal action unless that member resigned. He followed this up with a request to the Attorney General’s office for leave to file suit against the board member. The grounds? Conflict of interest.

It cannot be said that Mr. Crawford was in the dark about his own conflict of interest in the Proctor Court matter, having delved into the subject so deeply only a few short years ago.

It can be safely assumed, however, that he believed his personal interests would never come to light until he could turn a tidy profit from the eventual development of this project.

These conflict of interest rules are not to be taken lightly. They actually serve to protect the County of Alameda. At this point, the County is open to litigation from the developer because Crawford may have acted with self-interest to impose requirements or restrictions above and beyond those that a reasonable person would require without such self-interest.

Even more seriously, by not recusing himself from this matter, Crawford has raised suspicions in the community of bribery, under-the-table deals, coercion, and corruption. This stain on the democratic process is spread to the entire MAC, to Supervisor Miley, and to the County of Alameda and blemished them all. As long as Crawford serves on the MAC, there will be suspicion as to his motives in all future matters and, more than likely suspicion on any action of the MAC on any controversial or disputed matter.

Nobody I know is quite sure why Mr. Crawford is Supervisor Miley’s fair-haired boy. Equally, nobody I know who has ever crossed swords with Mr. Crawford or incurred his personal wrath has anything whatsoever positive to say about his moral character.

In addition to pursuing a personal vendetta against a Sanitary District board member, he led a personal attack against an EBMUD director because of a business dispute. He led a similar personal attack against the Castro Valley Superintendent of Schools for similar reasons. He actually threatened the board of directors of the Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce because of a disagreement over one of his personal pet projects, a classic car show. He told that board in writing that if it did not vote its president out of office and fire its Executive Director, he would lobby local businesses to drop their memberships. His retaliatory threats amount to nothing less than blackmail. And there are other stories.

Supervisors, this is a person who could never be elected to serve the citizens of Castro Valley – if the citizens of Castro Valley were able to vote on such matters. His actions over the years, topped off by his nose-thumbing at the conflict of interest rules, show him to be a man without scruples, without shame and without principles. Why then, our community wonders, is he appointed and then re-appointed to a council that makes decisions for us?

I urge Supervisor Miley to withdraw this nomination so that there will be no vote on Tuesday. If he declines to do so, I respectfully request that you refuse to approve this nomination. I also ask that this letter be read into the minutes of your September 23, 2014, meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of this very serious matter.

*******

One final note: I included the following paragraph in my letter to Supervisor Miley:

“Nate, you know I love you, but whether you like it or not, the MAC is your baby and you must raise it right. You can’t just look the other way when your baby lies, or dips its hand in the cookie jar, or lifts its middle finger to California law. Parents have a responsibility to teach their children to be honest, open, law-abiding citizens and not the type of citizen who is only honest when people are looking and who only become law-abiding when they are caught out.”

*******

Welcome to another four years here in Crawfordsville. Unfortunately, we don’t have George Bailey and Clarence the simple-minded guardian angel to put things right.

scd

I just want to thank Mr. Dimick for being a member of this community and taking the time to allow others to gain an honest insight on Marc Crawford and the way he handles things he “doesn’t like”.

Governance
Supervisors to hear proposal for incorporation fiscal analysis

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors Unincorporated Services Committee meets on Wednesday, April 27 at 6:00 pm to hear from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) about a proposed fiscal analysis of the feasibility of incorporating Castro Valley and the other Alameda County unincorporated communities.

Featured Story
1
Walking in Castro Valley: “She hit me and didn’t stop”

For the last few years, I have been a committed pedestrian, taking time to walk, exercise my husky Juneau and avoiding driving for nearby errands.

Governance
Crawford to resign from MAC, be appointed to Alameda County Planning Commission

Supervisor Nate Miley has nominated current Castro Valley Municipal Council (MAC) Chair Marc Crawford to serve on the Alameda County Planning Commission, according to the agenda posted for Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. Crawford’s resignation from the MAC is also included on the agenda. The Planning Commission is made up …