Well, we don't want to gloat, but we called it. Linda Elderkin's piece in today's Bulletin did everything we predicted in our last posting and more. First, here's Elderkin's response to the Trozpek piece on the endorsements by Claremonters Against Strip Mining:
There is no conflict of interest
Linda Elderkin, Guest Columnist Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Article Launched:02/21/2007 12:37:54 PM PST
It was very disappointing to read such a factually inaccurate account of my supposed conflict of interest with the mining question in Claremont (Ludd A. Trozpek's guest column, Feb. 20). It was even more disappointing to read such a presentation of my character.
This comes just before the City Council election in Claremont where all candidates have stressed the need for cooperation and openness. It would have seemed more appropriate to check facts first. And indeed Mr. Trozpek's claim that I will not be able to vote on the mining issue is simply incorrect.
Had it occurred to me that there might be a conflict interest with my husband's employment, I would have looked into the matter long ago. When Mr. Trozpek spoke to me after the candidates meeting last week, I told him that. I did comment then on several possible scenarios as I made my first efforts to think about this potential conflict. He does refer to some of these comments, but alas, not in their context.
I also said to him repeatedly that I would be checking the facts on the situation. His comment that I should know the facts without the "... need to consult her advisers or the city attorney" makes it quite clear that he was very aware of my intent to do just that. Obviously, he did not wish to wait for any clarification or fact check.
I did need help in understanding the possibilities and I pursued them the very next day. I have now received the needed information. My husband does of course work for Pomona College. The college does indeed own a little over 1 percent of the nonprofit Pomona Valley Protective Association. The college has no seat on the board with such small holdings.
However, it is important to me to share with readers the response of the city attorney in Claremont concerning areas of possible conflict:
I have no conflict and can vote on General plan and zoning changes.
I do not have a conflict of interest with the Vulcan mining application to Claremont.
If the PVPA land is sold to developers, they will become the applicants so I could also vote on the possible housing development.
Should any other possible PVPA conflicts emerge, they will depend upon the extent of the financial impact on Pomona College (amounts set by law).
This clarification will be helpful to our community and we appreciate receiving it.
I love our community. I am running for the City Council to serve it well. The more I learn about Claremont, the more I find there is to learn. I have not intentionally deceived anyone about anything, and in this case I would really have appreciated the opportunity to have the facts clear before having such destructive allegations published. I can only hope that it was not the intent of the writer to get the allegations out quickly, before the facts could stand in the way.
In the spirit of his guest column, it might be interesting to ask Mr. Trozpek why it was taglined "a resident of Claremont.'' He does not vote or live in the city of Claremont, but in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County that adjoins Claremont. A minor clarification, but really, why make it look otherwise?
Linda Elderkin is a candidate for Claremont City Council.
Meow! Linda sure bit on the unincorporated county bit, just as we predicted. Wonder how she feels about non-resident, non-voter J. Michael Fay's position as Honorary Chair of Elderkin's running mate Sam Pedroza's campaign? Fay has also served on past election committees as well. Again, what's a little hypocrisy between friends?
Where to begin....
We noticed several flaws in Elderkin's defense of her conflict (or appearance of conflict):
- Elderkin claims to value a process. How does her participation in a decision affecting her husband's employer square with the "pristine process" she calls for, given that there is either an actual conflict or the appearance of a conflict?
- City Attorney Sonia Carvalho makes the "no conflict" call on General Plan and zoning; that addresses a charge that was not made. Trozpek pointed out that the Elderkin conflict had to do with the land sale to Allied.
- The City Attorney's supposed advice to Elderkin seems to conflict with prior advice she gave to former council member Llewellyn Miller. How does this square with the minutes of July 10, 2001 City Council meeting, page 3: "City Attorney Carvalho explained that council member Miller will recuse himself from consideration of this matter as his wife is a professor of Pomona College and is a source of income to him which creates a conflict of interest. Councilmember Miller left the meeting."
That conflict involved a liquor license of Amine Corporation (dba Sagehen Cafe), a lessee to Pomona College as we found out. The amounts with PVPA are hundreds or thousands of times greater than the amounts of the liquor license benefits. So even though Pomona College's interest is 1.25%, approximately, it is 1.25% of a much larger number--likely upwards of $174 million or more (based on the sale of 580 undeveloped acres at an estimated $300,000 per acre). PVPA is a shell in this case that does not inoculate Pomona College from benefit or the conflict of interest issues.
That measly 1.25% that Elderkin makes light of in her piece amounts to a potential $2.17 million windfall for Pomona College, the employer of Elderkin's husband. We're not sure whats more troublesome--Elderkin's inability to acknowledge the appearance of a conflict that would could open the city up to litigation, or Elderkin's bad math (her husband's a math professor after all). - There is probably a real conflict; certainly the appearance of a conflict. Again, Elderkin avoided addressing the land sale issue in her claims of no conflict. Is it possible she was told that there was a conflict regarding the land sale and just chose not to mention that fact? Hmmm.....
Finally, we hate to point it out, but Elderkin got quite a deal from the City Attorney, whose hourly rate must be over $250. Elderkin seems to have gotten free legal advice (on the city's dime?). We suppose this should be listed as an in-kind donation on Elderkin's reporting forms, not that she will report it. And, of course, it is her city, not yours.
Well, just another example of the "400" and the Preserve Claremonsters using city staff as their own private servants. To them, city staff and city resources are just another lever of power to pull. And you! Hands Off!
(Has anyone else noticed how the Claremonsters are running Elderkin and Pedroza as if they were an incumbents? At least Pedroza has a track record of mismanagement and mangled syntax on a commission, but Elderkin? She herself said she didn't know she was running until October--she wasn't the 'Monsters' first choice, apparently.)
Posts
