Council Still Squabbles over Ad Hoc Committee on Chain Stores

A motion by city council member to disband to discuss possible new zoning laws for chain stores failed by a 3-2 vote at Monday's city council meeting.

The debate about whether or not to keep the committee in place was marked by pointed remarks and some contentiousness around a last-minute decision by council member Ken Brown to appoint two citizens to the committee, which was formed during the May 16 city council meeting. At that meeting, Ben Boyce and Kelso Barnett were chosen from the audience as interested citizen members.

The rest of the committee is composed of two council members, Rouse and Steve Barbose; two representatives of the ; and two people from the city's planning commission, all of whom had long established their places when Brown called for the add-on of two more people.

The measure establishing the committee passed by a 3-2 vote in May. Those who voted in favor -- Brown, Barbose and mayor-- were the same three who voted to keep the existing committee in place. Councilmembers Rouse and Joanne Sanders voted against Brown's measure when it was introduced in May, and for disbanding the committee last night.

The approval of Brown's suggestion to appoint two citizens to the council's exploratory committee has spurred controversy on a number of different fronts.

Some have complained that the process wasn't properly thought through; that those who the council selected for the committee weren't necessarily the best qualified to serve; and that others were unfairly overlooked. At Monday's meeting, the most acrimonious issue was the appointment of a non-Sonoma resident as one of the two citizen representatives.

“I think people are overreacting,” Barbose said. “What we have is a balanced group of people who are just going to discuss (the issue of chain stores) and report back to the council. They will have no authority to make any decisions – none.”

Rouse said he didn't object to the existence of an ad hoc committee that included members of the public, but that his measure was meant to re-start the process of forming that committee with a clean slate, taking into consideration certain public objections about transparency and fairness.

Barbose said the impulsiveness behind Brown's addendum actually belied any suggestion of secrecy or partiality. The spontaneity of Brown's decision, he said, indicated a process which was fair and conducted completely in the open – that there was no behind-the-scenes talk or maneuvering that could have influenced the outcome.

For her part, Sanders said she favored eliminating the committee altogether, describing its dealings as a counterproductive waste of resources

“I was upset that (a local woman who attended May's hearing) who resides in the city wanted to be involved and was dismissed by councilman Brown as a joke,” she said. “I continue to be in favor of using the economic advisory committee, rather than creating a whole new committee to do this.”

Brown responded that he was “certain the committee is balanced, is fair and is going to do what is right for this city and the valley. I think that, had we said just bring the (big box store issue) to the council, it would have caused an even bigger storm. This is a chance for dialogue; we're not doing this to cram anything down people's throat.”

Several members of the public spoke on the issue at Monday's meeting, most of them in opposition to the either the committee itself or how it was set up. Multiple people focused on the appointment of an out-of-town resident, Boyce, to one of the two spots.

“(The appointee) doesn't live in Sonoma, doesn't vote here and doesn't pay taxes here,” said Fred Peterson, an attorney who lives in Sonoma. I applied (to the position), and I have 36 years of litigation experience that relates to it … I hope that when council appoints members to committees, ad hoc or not, that they at least discuss qualifications – including whether (applicants) are part of the electorate.”