|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Editor’s note: The Woodside Town Council agreed to a settlement with Nancy Reyering, paying $35,000 to cover her legal fees, on Nov. 14, 2017.
Woodside Mayor Tom Livermore, in a Feb. 3 statement, said he will recommend that the Town Council take “no further action” on a complaint alleging that Nancy Reyering, as a member of the town’s Architectural and Site Review Board, violated the town’s code of ethics by writing and sending an email about a project coming to the board.
Mayor Livermore said he will make this recommendation given Ms. Reyering’s decision to resign from the board and the Open Space Committee and not seek reappointment. (Her term on both boards ended this month.)
He said he intends to make his recommendation in open session at the council’s Tuesday, Feb. 14, meeting. “We take ethics very seriously,” he said. “As Woodside’s Mayor, I am committed to ensuring that all the Town’s elected and appointed officials abide by the absolute highest standards.”
In her Feb. 3 resignation statement, Ms. Reyering said: “The extended backroom discussions by many of the Town’s civic leaders that were uncovered through the recent ‘ethics investigation’ related to my work on the (review board) have been painful to discover,” she said. “This process also confirmed for me that petty politics and private profit are prioritized over retaining a professional and respectful environment for Town volunteers in Woodside.”
The matter dates from mid-2016, when Councilwoman Deborah Gordon was mayor, and a May 2, 2016, email from Ms. Reyering to two members of the five-member board and to the town’s planning director. In the email, she commented, ahead of a meeting, on a proposed remodeling and construction project and noted that Councilman Peter Mason was the architect for the project.
“Even a cursory review of the project raises questions as the architect is a member of the Town Council, and as such, is someone in charge of writing our building regulations,” Ms. Reyering wrote. “Therefore, he, and anyone else in a similar position, has a great responsibility to bring in projects that are reflective of the Residential Design Guidelines, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code, and these projects should not ask for exceptions (to allow a larger main residence).”
Former mayor Dave Burow wrote to Town Manager Kevin Bryant the next day about Ms. Reyering’s comments, alleging that she suggested “a different set of rules” for evaluating projects involving council members, putting their clients at a disadvantage, and alleging “retribution” on Ms. Reyering’s part because Mr. Mason had not supported her candidacy for a council seat in 2015.
Mr. Burow’s suggestions included having a council member attend review board meetings, and making it clear to board members how to treat council members when they were not acting in their official capacities.
The town eventually hired an outside attorney to investigate and prepare a report, which concluded by recommending to the council that five of Mr. Burow’s nine charges be sustained. Among them: that Ms. Reyering asserted that council members should receive unequal treatment when their firms come before the board representing clients, that she reached a conclusion about the project without hearing testimony, and that she attacked a council member by suggesting that he was using his position to gain special consideration for his client.
Section B(3) of the ethics code requires the mayor to investigate ethics complaints, but adds that reports generated by such complaints “shall be presented to the Town Council at a public meeting of the Council. The Town Council will accept testimony on the matter and determine whether a violation of the Code has occurred.”
Section B(4) of the code lays out the council’s options if it determines that a violation has occurred: reprimand, censure or, if the person charged is a member of a commission, board or committee, removal from office.
The Almanac asked Mr. Livermore if by recommending “no further action,” he was suggesting that the council not “determine whether a violation of the Code has occurred,” as stated in the code. “I will make the recommendation and the Council will discuss and vote on my recommendation,” he said. “They will decide what we do.”
Ms. Reyering said she remains mystified as to why they investigated her “when all I did was advocate for the same high standards that the Mayor endorsed in his statement. With that in mind, I would be happy to see the council leave this ugly chapter as it stands and turn its focus to finally addressing the ethical issues I outlined in my (email).”
Two complainants
Documents provided to the Almanac include a three-page letter dated May 10 from Councilman Mason to Town Manager Bryant in which Mr. Mason accused Ms. Reyering of violating the state’s open meeting law with her email, and suggesting different standards of review for his projects.
“This point of view is unfair to my clients whose projects deserve the same consideration as others and who should also have the same access to exceptions (for somewhat larger houses) provided for in the Municipal Code,” Mr. Mason said. “In fact, I would be violating my own profession’s code of ethics if I did not fully advise my clients on the legal development opportunities for their properties.”
In an email, Ms. Reyering commented that the town doesn’t appear to be questioning “the appropriateness of his bringing projects before (the review board) at all while maintain(ing) his position on the Town Council. So, if anyone had committed an ethical violation, it was Peter Mason — not me, for my act of simply reminding fellow (review board) members to take care to avoid even the appearance of giving him special treatment because of his position of authority over (review board) members.”
On May 27, Mr. Mason wrote to Mr. Bryant, saying he withdrew his letter, “given that others are pursuing the issues involved.”
Mr. Burow on June 6 wrote to Town Attorney Jean Savaree, replying to her request for specific sections of the ethics code he believed to have been violated by Ms. Reyering.
On June 29, Ms. Savaree notified Ms. Reyering of Mr. Burow’s complaint and laid out the allegations, with information on next steps in getting together with the mayor and the outside attorney.
Thanks
Mayor Livermore thanked Ms. Reyering for her services, as did Mr. Mason in a recent email to the Almanac, noting in particular her work with the Backyard Habitat program, her success in persuading Stanford University to use wildlife-friendly fencing along Sand Hill Road, and her efforts in encouraging respect for wildlife in town.
Ms. Reyering, in her letter of resignation, said she had no choice but to resign. “I hope that the Town of Woodside will reflect upon the manner in which this ‘investigation’ of my work and character were conducted,” she said, “and take steps to avoid such baseless attacks against Town volunteers in the future.”
Click here to view comments on the earlier story about this investigation.
—
‘Ms. Reyering commented that the town doesn’t appear to be questioning “the appropriateness of his [Mason’s] bringing projects before (the review board) at all while maintain(ing) his position on the Town Council.’
Maybe that’s because Ms Reyering has provided nothing specific to support her claim about Mr. Mason’s presumed violation.
In which ASRB meeting did Mr. Mason appear?
Reyerson brought this upon herself by inflicting her OPINION on Woodside residents rather than upholding the guidelines. When ‘i think this would be better” came out of her mouth she was inflicting her OPINION as opposed to the towns zoning.
I am glad that this ill-conceived investigation is finally over. In listening to the tape of the Council meeting, I was astounded to hear Jean Savaree and Dave Burow each try to wash their hands of instigating the claim against me. First, Jean Savaree claimed that the only reason the matter had proceeded in the way that it had, and was as aggressive as it was, was that Dave Burow had insisted I be removed. And then, Dave Burow immediately responded by reading a statement saying that he did not ever call for my removal. The genesis of the entire process is proving to be ever more outlandish.
Perhaps most astounding of all was that Council did not discuss this after the fact finger-pointing, the cost of the investigation, or the issue of clarifying conflict of interest guidelines.
Now, more than ever, it’s clear that Town staff – particularly Town Attorney Jean Savaree – badly mishandled the situation and acted inappropriately by pursuing this expensive and aggressive investigation without the knowledge of the full Town Council. It is inconceivable that the Town of Woodside spent at least $27,000 on an investigation that essentially went nowhere. Please note that this figure does not include Tom Brown’s fees for drafting the final report, so the final cost is sure to be higher.
I was also very interested to hear that the only two ethics investigations in Woodside’s history to engage an outside investigator were both launched when Deborah Gordon was mayor. Ms. Savaree also made it clear that it is not common practice for a municipal government to hire an outside investigator to conduct these types of ethics inquiries. Either Ms. Savaree misled Ms. Gordon about the costs and ramifications of engaging an outside investigator, or Ms. Gordon instructed Town staff to pursue the investigations regardless.
This whole debacle points to poor oversight and communication between the Town’s elected representatives and staff and, frankly, points to the need for a change in procedure and/or the removal of staff members who have not been serving the public interest.
Nancy:
You brought this on yourself. You and the two other members of your troika on the ASRB. Stop trying to turn this into some kind of witch hunt. People are sick and tired of spending money to appease your opinion. Yes, they can appeal your decision to the planning commission. But, at what cost? Instead they spend money to change their plans to appease you. The words “I think it would be better if” should never come out of your mouth. And don’t tell me it hasn’t, I’ve been there when it has. It’s not about what you think. It’s about what the rules say. I think the citizens of Woodside spoke quite loudly when they refused to elect you to the Town Council.
So the Town spent somewhere north of $30,000 (2016 billings are not included in the total the town staff released) to “investigate” what was clearly a concern about conflict of interest by a board member? Looking at the laundry list of allegations, the personal vendetta by Burow against Reyering is clear: he even went after her for a having a grudge against Mason (unsustained) and “unexcused absences” (also unsustained) when she missed meetings due to surgery. But former mayor Gordon and town manager Bryant are to blame for this expensive fishing expedition as well.
For Bryant’s part, he might just be asleep at the wheel: last month he admitted that he hadn’t been posting warrants, and the month before that he admitted he hadn’t reviewed the sheriff’s contract – ever. Considering he’s worked for the town for nine years, what DOES he do? With a salary north of $250K/year, the town should expect more of him.
It’s not likely to happen though, as the council seems as clueless and lazy as staff. And apparently communication with volunteers is not high on anyone’s list. My advice: don’t volunteer in Woodside!
“My advice: don’t volunteer in Woodside!”
That’s great advice if you want to inflict your OPINION on your fellow citizens.