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.