Decision to Rescind, part 4.

Evolution of the Plan

I was not a fan of the project being proposed along with the rezone request that was approved by the Council on December 1st. But far more than that, I was upset at the irregularities in the approval process. I will go into the details of my concerns in a later post, but I walked away from that meeting convinced that we must figure out what went wrong and find a way to fix it so that it doesn't happen again.

The next day I spoke with a current Councilor on the phone. We both vented about the various aspects that we were upset about. We talked about "reconsideration," which is when a Councilor requests that a item that was voted upon be brought back to the Council to be reconsidered. It can only be done in the two subsequent meetings after the vote, and can only be asked for by someone who voted with the majority. One difficulty was that two of the Councilors who voted for the rezone would be leaving office before the next meeting, so it seemed unlikely that they could call for a reconsideration even if they could be persuaded that it was the wrong decision.

That evening David Knecht sent an email to all Councilors and Councilors-elect laying out why he thought it was the wrong decision and asking the four to consider "reconsidering."

The following day, Thursday the 4th, I attended the full day Zoning Summit, sponsored by Hal Miller and put on by Community Development. Much of what was presented drove home over and over again to me that the December 1st decision was a mistake. I sat next to Gary Winterton and we discussed some of these points. I also talked with the Mayor during one of the breaks and we discussed the decision and how the process could be improved. I was determined to work to improve the process, but I was also moving past just hoping that one of the four would move to reconsider, and was wondering if there was something I could do to fix what I considered to be a mistake.

I met one-on-one with David Sewell, Gary Winterton, and David Knecht the following week. The rezone authorization was one of many topics discussed with each. Mr. Winterton had concerns and was also interested in improving the process. My conversations with Mr. Sewell and Mr. Knecht went further, wondering if there were options to revisit the rezone. I had also met with non-Councilors from both the private and public sectors. It was helpful to get other opinions on both the project and the process. I don't believe that the idea of revisiting the decision was discussed with anyone outside Councilors and Councilors-elect. 

I was the first one to arrange a discussion between more than two people: By the 10th I felt comfortable that both Dave and Dave felt similar to me about exploring options, and we discussed this together. As Mr. Sewell was on the Council, he approached the Council Attorney about the subject. I never talked with George Stewart about it until the morning of the 4th of January, but he was copied on some of the emails discussing options.

By the middle of the month there was consensus that a majority of the upcoming Council would like an opportunity to revisit the rezone approval. More serious counsel was sought from the Council Attorney, and we agreed that the cleanest option to consider overturning the decision, outside of mayoral veto or a call for reconsideration from the re-elected Councilors, was to move to consider rescission. A reconsideration request was less legally clear. A second legal opinion was obtained, which agreed with our Council Attorney. At this point the conversation pretty much died down. After Christmas, Mr. Sewell circulated a memo to the five who signed, drafted by the Council Attorney at our request. This is the memo which we ultimately signed on the 4th. There was more interaction after the new year, including with Gary Winterton, but the subject at that point was Council leadership.

I requested a final meeting with the five who signed to lay out all of our arguments and to consider the potential costs of moving to consider rescission. This was the first time in over a month that I had spoken with one Councilor on the subject, the first time I had spoken about the topic with George Stewart at all. It was also the first time I had met face-to-face with more than one Councilor or Councilor-elect. The meeting was legal because only two of the attendees were Councilors at the time. After discussing the issues, we agreed that it was worth moving forward.

Decision to Rescind, part 3.

Inauguration

In part 1, I explained that I expected my decision to consider a rescission would draw criticism from a portion of the public. In part 2, I explained that I thought that it was necessary to hold off until the day before to add the agenda item in order to preserve the Council's ability to rescind. I saw the problems caused by the short notice once we had added the agenda item, but before hand I didn't think that it would be controversial, separate from the rescission consideration. What I certainly didn't think would be controversial was the pre-ceremonial swearing-in.

The facts:
1. The item could have been added to the agenda two different ways without the newly-elected Councilors being sworn in early.
2. Moving the swearing-in before the work session was discussed two-years ago and was being researched by the Council Attorney independently from the question of rescission, indeed, before rescission was a known option.
3. Swearing-in at noon Monday most closely followed the pertinent State statues.

As everything came together, being able to sign the letter -- that instructed the item to be added to the agenda -- was an added motivation for me. I felt that having my signature on the letter helped show my support for the move and was a public statement of my position (you know, transparency). So yes, I considered the letter when I requested to be sworn in early, but my signature was not necessary for the agenda item to be added, and I would have made the same request to be sworn in early absent this rescission issue. I expected criticism for my name being on the letter, but not for being sworn in early.

The idea of a technical swearing-in before a ceremonial swearing-in did not seem foreign to me. It seems to me that every few years I read a sentence about something like this in a larger article about an inauguration. Does this sound familiar to anyone else, or am I mistaken? Wasn't there a small off-beat news story about a couple years back about a swearing-in that had to be repeated in private because the person officiating got the words wrong? I did a quick search of the Herald from last year and found this. I'm not quite sure what it is, based on the caption, but ceremonial reenactments aren't unheard of. How many of you graduated from college? Did you attend commencement or convocation exercises? Were your parents in the stands, proudly taking pictures of the occasion? Did you walk across the stage, shake hands with the dignitaries, and receive a beautiful diploma cover? What was inside? In mine was a paper stating that the actual diploma would be mailed to me in six to eight weeks once everything was recorded and it was verified that I had indeed met the requirements for graduation. Did this make the ceremony a sham? Or was it a great opportunity for friends and families to gather to celebrate the occasion? So no, I didn't feel uncomfortable about being sworn in before the inauguration ceremony. I didn't think it would be controversial. I didn't think it would detract from the inauguration. Looking back, I do think it tainted the ceremony a little, but that was because of the reaction, not the action. Don't get me wrong, the reaction was understandable, but I think it was mistaken. I take responsibility for not communicating better, both before and after, about the reasons for the pre-ceremonial swearing-in.

In the interest of full disclosure, the technical swearing-in was botched worse than most people know. I knew that I would be sworn in by the City Recorder at noon on Monday, so I arrived at her office a few minutes early. One other Councilor-Elect was already there. We were told that Kay Van Buren had chosen to be sworn in before the Work Session the next day so we were waiting on two others. One joined shortly thereafter. The Recorder said something about doing the swearing-in upstairs (in the Council Office), but that we might as well do it in her office since that was where we were at. Nobody objected; I didn't think twice about it. She said that she'd go see if she could find the last person and came back with him a couple minutes later. We were all sworn in simultaneously, signed the certificates, and headed upstairs to the Council Office where a Policy Lunch was underway. As we entered the office we were met by the entire Council Staff and Mayor who had gathered to watch us being sworn in. I was sorry to see the disappointment in their eyes. I hadn't thought about them wanting to be present. The big ceremony was still a day away. I chalk this all up to miscommunication. It wasn't any body's fault, but it was one more unfortunate wrinkle in a fairly unfortunate couple of days.

Decision to Rescind, part 2.

Adding the Agenda Item on Short Notice

***It's 4am and the lack of sleep is affecting the quality of my writing. Perhaps I should wait until later to polish this draft a little more, but there are so many other aspects to address, and I want to get them out as quickly as practical. So please excuse my writing.***

In part 1 I posted about my decision to pursue an opportunity to consider rescinding the previous Council's decision to authorize a rezone. I recognize that some people disagree with that decision, but with that decision made, one task before me was to determine the best route to make that happen.

The Council Attorney was asked to explore the legal options available to revisit the rezone. Based on his research I felt that rescission was the best method. Other members of the incoming Council, who also were interested in revisiting the issue, were in agreement. Rescission would only be effective if the rezone was not vested, meaning that the actual rezoning hadn't taken place. The rezone wouldn't be effective until an agreed upon Development Agreement was executed. I felt that the best way to ensure that the Council would have the opportunity to revisit this decision would be to not tip off the applicant, who, I assumed, would scramble to get the document signed.

As I said in part 1, I expected the decision to consider rescission would be controversial. I did not anticipate that the decision to wait until the day before the meeting to add it to the agenda would be controversial. I simply saw this as a necessity to ensure the Council could revisit the decision, and figured that everyone else would see it this way too. The only decision being made was to revisit. All of the reasons for and against rescinding the rezone would be aired in the public meeting; transparency would be satisfied there.

Some have complained on social media that the negotiations for the sale of the current Provo High campus are occurring behind closed doors. Others have rightly (IMO) defended the need to prevent the details of the negotiation private in order to, among other things, keep other parties from acting on that information. I felt similarly about the need to not disclose that we were planning to revisit this issue until soon before meeting. By announcing that we wanted to consider rescission, we would likely be ensuring that we could not consider rescinding the rezone.

I obviously was wrong about this aspect not being controversial. An upset friend of mine has jumped on my statements regarding the intentional timing of the agenda item. These statements are not a slip up of a cover up. Ever since the item was added, I have tried to openly explain everything. The Herald quoted me on the time sensitivity of the item in an article published online Monday evening.

I was thrown off balance by the controversy over the other aspects surrounding to decision to consider a rescission. But I later saw how the short notice inhibited my ability to answer concerns before the Council meeting took place. I have already expressed regret elsewhere over the difficulties caused by the decision to wait until the day before the meeting to add the agenda item, but I did believe it was the only way to ensure that the Council would be able to consider rescission.

I have since become aware of an alternative route that I could have taken, but I discuss it when I tackle confidence and trust between elected officials in a later post. But before that, I want to address the swearing-in and the evolution of the plan. Stay tuned.

Decision to Rescind, part 1.

Deciding to Consider

I recognized beforehand that a decision to consider rescinding an action of the previous Council would be controversial and would be criticized by some. I do not think that it is good practice generally for an incoming council to undo some of the work of the outgoing council. I carefully considered if the potential good derived from revisiting the rezone issue would outweigh the negative consequences of starting off with a controversial move. I made the determination that it would. I do not like controversy. I will not seek it. But I also feel that it would be foolish to shy away from what I believe are important actions out of fear that some people may be upset. I made it clear in the Council Meeting that, despite my deep respect and admiration for the former Council, I think their decision to authorize a rezone was a mistake. I will explain my reasons for this position in a later blog post. I saw two courses of action: (1) learn what we can from the experience and make improvements to process and practice to avoid similar mistakes in the future, or (2) consider undoing the mistake (as well as making improvements to prevent similar mistakes in the future). This was not an easy decision to make; publicly second-guessing the former Council is not something I take lightly. I hope this speaks, to those who know me, of the level of my concern surrounding the approval of the rezone.

Strictly speaking of the decision to consider a rescission, and not any of the related issues, I believe it was the right one to make. I understand that some people will not agree with this decision.

Decision to Rescind, Preamble

The disapproval of my actions in the first 36 hours after taking office earlier this week has been loudly communicated by many. The timing of the events, along with Council and non-Council duties, made it difficult to address these concerns before our Council meeting Tuesday night. I tried to be perfectly clear and forthcoming during the Council meeting about my motivations and reasoning behind my actions, perhaps to a fault. A few people were present for the three-plus hours of discussion that occurred at the end of the almost seven-hour meeting. I know several more watched from home. I invite everyone else to watch the video, but I realize that it is unreasonable to expect the general public to wade through all of that and that I need to explain myself more concisely in writing in order to communicate effectively.

I've been working on this since 5:30 am Wednesday morning, but, again, duties have made it difficult to finish in a timely fashion. I've decided to break my explanation up into different aspects so that I can focus on finishing and releasing each topic while I continue to write about other aspects.

I appreciate the restraint some have shown from drawing conclusions before my side of the story was presented, but I understand the frustration of others at my near silence on social media. Believe me, it's not been from a lack of trying to get this written. I should also acknowledge the support and appreciation that some have expressed for the actions I've taken.

I do not seek to convince anyone that I made the right decisions. Reasonable people can disagree. I readily admit that I made mistakes. I do ask you to read with an open mind, though. Even if you still disagree with my decisions, I hope you will understand the reasons I made them.

Past experience suggests that most of the conversation about what I post will be held on Facebook groups. If anyone wants to join the conversations, I suggest trying Our Provo and Provo Forward. I ask that you keep the comments to the aspect that I'm discussing, and I commit to post about every aspect that people have interest in. Feel free to comment directly on the blog posts themselves. To avoid spam, I have to clear comments before they show. Again, I ask commenters to stick to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your interest and concern in the way Provo is governed. Thank you for caring enough to speak up, pay attention, and seek information. Thank you to the residents of District 5 for the opportunity to represent you on the Council. Please stay engaged and hold me accountable for the job I'm doing.

The first topic should be posted very soon.