BRUCE GIBSON FOR SUPERVISOR
San Luis Obispo County (CA) District 2

Bike Paths in San Luis Obispo County (April 18, 2006)

• Bruce Gibson, as District 2 Supervisor, will push for practical solutions for improving the flow of bicycle traffic in the 2nd District and the County.
• Bruce is already on board for a direct bicycle link between Cayucos and Morro Bay.
• Bruce will introduce a study for a practical link between Los Osos and San Luis Obispo.
• Bruce, working with CalTrans, will also introduce a study for a practical link between Cambria and San Simeon.
• Bruce will support the return of Tour-de-California to San Luis Obispo County.

Grand jury's report was not thorough
Examination of planners needs a better investigation by future panel

EDITORIAL, The Tribune (April 2, 2006)

The county's civil grand jury was on the right track when it launched an investigation of the county Planning Commission.

The five-member planning commission is one of the most important decision-making panels in the county, with the power to influence our quality of life for decades to come. As such, it deserves regular and thorough scrutiny.

There is another, equally pressing reason to shine a light on this important body. Lately, there have been muffled mutterings among civic and political leaders over whether some members of the planning commission have conflicts of interest, and whether they should decline to vote on certain topics.

That is a serious question that deserves careful study — both for the sake of the public and for the planning commissioners, who work too hard and are too dedicated to have their public service undermined by rumor and innuendo.

But just days after it released a report accusing the Planning Commission of bias and unfair treatment of applicants, the grand jury now finds itself on the receiving end of similar criticism.

Unfortunately, it's patently clear that the grand jury's investigation lacked thoroughness and objectivity.

For example, the jury focused on only three particular cases, with no indication why those cases were selected. A more complete analysis of the Planning Commission's record — going back, say, one or two years — would have given the report more credibility.

And, we are baffled as to why the grand jury chose not to interview the two planning commissioners — Sarah Christie and Bruce Gibson — who were obviously the focus of much of the criticism, even though they were unnamed. The failure to interview them appears to violate the jury's own guidelines, which state that the jury should interview key people on all sides of an issue.

However serious these flaws, the grand jury did attempt to address valid concerns about potential conflicts of interest, most of which have centered on Christie.

At first blush, she would seem to be a poster child for conflicts of interest for the simple reason that many of the decisions that come before the commission can be appealed to Christie's employer, the California Coastal Commission. And Christie's recent hijacking of a hearing on PG&E's request to replace steam generators at Diablo Canyon certainly was questionable at best, and abusive at worst.

Still, it must be conceded that Christie was merely being true to her convictions, and further, that the state attorney general has weighed in and approved of her role on the Planning Commission. While the merits of the AG's reasoning are debatable, to her credit, Christie has been transparent and consistent in her actions, even if at times she's been abrasive and too quick to make unsubstantiated accusations. (Case in point: Branding the grand jury a "pawn for developers" was uncalled for without presenting a shred of evidence supporting her broadside attack on an entire industry.)

The grand jury, while raising some important issues, used too broad a brush in painting the Planning Commission as a body that's been held hostage to personal interests.

We urge a future grand jury to undertake a thorough and systematic review of the Planning Commission's record, as well as its processes and policies. Then, we can better determine whether we need to tighten conflict of interest rules for planning commissioners.

In the meantime, for those who don't like the philosophies of certain planning commissioners, engage them in healthy debate. If you're still not satisfied, make your opinion known at election time, by remembering who put those commissioners in office.