PRFO Negotiation Meetings
Three meetings were held at City Hall with Council members, the City Administrator and leaders of Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to “discuss the remaining money issues.” Correspondence by email between the negotiating parties was provided to a citizen in response to a Public Record Act (PRA) request. The question under discussion that led to the PRA request, is whether this series of meetings discussed city business and did it amount to a serial meeting and thus, require public notice under the Brown Act.
Eric Havian, PRFO leader to Mayor John Chiang and City Administrator Geoff Grote on December 12, 2012:
John and Geoff,
Now that the lawsuit has been resolved, PRFO would like to have a meeting with you to discuss the remaining money issues. Do you have some time in early January when we could meet?
Eric R. Havian
Mayor John Chiang to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on December 13, 2012:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your message. Let’s try to schedule something the week of the 14th of January. I know Geoff will be on vacation and will be busy the week of January 7th. That will also give us time to gather up to date information for our discussion. If you have some suggested dates that will work, let me know. Late afternoons work best for me and I suspect for you too.
Have a great holiday season!
John
John Y. Chiang
The meeting occurred at City Hall on January 31, 2013. It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, Steven Ellis, and Mark Menke.
City Administrator Geoff Grote to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on March 20, 2013:
Eric,
The Mayor would like to continue the conversation on costs for the Blair Park Project and would like to know if you, Mark, and Steve are available to meet anytime the first two weeks in April? John is out of town on April 4th; but will try and make any other dates work. We were thinking that meeting late in the day seemed to work; 4 or 4:30 or 5 PM.
Thanks, Geoff
The second negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on April 11, 2013. It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, Council member Robert McBain, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke. The third negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on June 17, 2013. It was attended by Council member Margaret Fujioka, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke.
Dear Mr. Rood,The City of Piedmont is in receipt of your public Records Requested dated July 1, 2013 requesting, “…all records, emails and communications related to the negotiations with PRFO that took place on Jan. 31, 2013; April 11, 2013; and June 17, 2013, including all records, emails and communications prepared in preparation for these negotiation meetings.”The City of Piedmont is pleased to provide the following records in response to your request:
Sincerely,John O. Tulloch
City Clerk / IS Manager
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
Phone: (510) 420-3040
Fax: (510) 653-8272
One might ask, why should we care about whether the Brown Act was followed with regard to PRFO meetings? Back when some expressed hesitations about Blair Park, they were disdainfully told that this was a gift, which somehow meant they had no right to articulate concerns. Now instead of this being a “gift,” the City may be left holding the bag for more than $200,000 in unpaid fees. The Brown Act is important because it injects sunshine into the process, and prevents the City from making secret deals with the PRFO proponents.
Is the City unable to collect under the indemnification agreement because it mismanaged the arrangement (for instance, did the indemnification agreement have a notice requirement and the City failed to comply with it?)? If the PRFO proponents don’t really have a defense to paying the City as they agreed, what would be the public purpose of the City making a gift of City funds to the proponents?
The Brown Act ensures that Piedmont’s citizens have the opportunity to observe and comment on the City’s proposed disposition of the PRFO debt to the City. Observing public accountability laws is the City’s obligation, but more than that, is the right thing to do.
If PRFO and Council are talking – are they talking solution?
A win-win solution is always the optimum. How about this? Couldn’t PRFO make an ‘in kind’ contribution to cover the dollars already expended by the City on their behalf? Or, they can raise money if there is a project and it pertains to sports fields. Both Hampton and Coaches fields have improvement projects that are in the facilities improvements plan — drainage improvements for both fields and bathroom upgrades for one of them. Funds could go to those projects in lieu of a reimbursement and everyone would come out even.
In that way, PRFO’s valiant efforts to improve our sports facilities could be attained, they could still fundraise under the auspices of their 501c3, and their honorable intentions could be recognized. Everybody could save face a bit and we could do that healing that everyone talks about.