The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) will investigate whether Councilwoman Rosanne Foust violated state law when she on April 9 regarding the controversial Cargill/DMB Saltworks project.
Two Redwood City residents, Marsha Cohen and Marianna Raymond, filed the complaints. The letter from the Commission acknowledging the filing from Cohen is attached.
“The facts are clear that she has continued to use her official position to influence a government decision while simultaneously holding a paid position,” Cohen wrote.
Raymond added, ““I feel regretful that I would even need to do this because I have a high regard for our councilmembers and all they do for our city. But part of good citizenship is being involved on a very, very big project. We have to be watchdogs over our public officials and make sure there is no impropriety of any kind.”
In 2010, the FPPC said in an advisory letter that Foust could not participate in any council discussions regarding the Saltworks project because of her paid position as President and CEO of the Sam Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA,) which formally endorsed the project on January 19, 2010. Foust was not part of the endorsement decision at the time.
The commission said that Foust violated the conflict of interest clause of the Political Reform Act, which ensures that “public officials perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests.”
However, because the Interim city attorney at the time advised Foust that there was no conflict of interest that she was warned and not fined.
At the April 9 meeting, Foust prefaced her comments during the Matters of Council Interest stating that she was speaking as an individual and not from her position as a councilmember.
“I don’t feel that I did anything wrong,” Foust said.
“But I respect the process and this gives me an opportunity to get my side out,” she said.
For nine minutes, she elaborated on the enormous impact the project has had on the community and ultimately suggested that the council place an advisory vote on the November ballot.
“I’m concerned because the project has been incredibly divisive in the community,” she said of the 1,436 acre development. “It’s overshadowing every single thing that we do.”
She said the advisory vote would include “a detailed project description listing all the benefits of the development” not simply a question asking the public “yes or no” on whether they support the project.
Raymond said that if Foust wanted to express her opinion like every else, Foust should have spoken during the public comment period for three minutes like all citizens.
“She gave herself a disclaimer saying that she was just a resident, but she was doing it in front of the room in an official capacity,” Raymond said.
The letter from the Enforcement Division dated May 10 states that Raymond and Cohen “will next receive notification from us upon final disposition of the case.”
“However, please be advised that at this time we have not made any determination about the validity of the allegation(s) you have made or about the culpability, if any, of the person(s) you identify in your complaint.”
Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter | Blog for us
Mr. Garcia might consider his own understanding as to "how the system works". The most cursory reading of the article yields the bones of their contentions. If an even more elementary distillation is necessary: 1.) Ms. Foust was instructed by the state to no longer speak in council discussions on this issue. She did anyway. 2.) Ms. Foust attempted to disengage herself from the state regulations by claiming to speak "as a private citizen". She might well have declared herself to be speaking "only as a two-headed panda"; it wouldn't make it so. She spoke at a length and during a time in the meeting allowed only to officials. Thus it is appropriate for the state agency to review the matter. I'm not sure what elements of this are unclear to Mr. Garcia. Regardless, he might at least show respect to two fellow residents who chose to expose themselves to uninformed public potshots in the name of what they believe to be right. I congratulate them.
I certainly hope this isn't illustrative of the average city servant's perspective on citizen involvement. Meanwhile, it's noteworthy that Mr. Garcia cites his personal connection to Ms. Foust, rather than respond to the facts in dispute. Does he contend Ms. Foust did not address the council in a manner and length not permitted a private resident? If he concedes that she did, does he dispute Ms. Cohen and Ms. Raymond's responsibility to confront perceived illegal, unethical behavior in their own system? By contrast, I would assert they exemplary, patriotic people. Much easier to sit by and shrug off such wrongs, assuming that yet another small breach in the civic fabric is none of their business. Very disturbing to see them attacked by a fellow citizen who has wielded his own city authority.
We are in total agreement!
In fact, her transparent and near-laughable effort at disguise - "speaking as a private citizen" - indicates a disrespect for both state regulation and her own constituency. As she seemed willing to play both as patsies, we've moved out of polite letter territory and into that of potential state sanctions. As should be.