Be a Joiner

Tired of unending, futile wrangling with City Hall? Bureaucratic indifference got you down? Now's your chance to swap beating them for joining them. The City of Claremont is accepting applications for seats on the City's commissions.

The City's website has information about all six of its commissions. All of them have commissioners whose terms are expiring at the end of August, but there's no indication of which of those will be stepping down and which will be reappointed.

As you can see below, the requirements are sufficiently vague as to allow just anybody to be accepted. Or blackballed, as the case may be. You can contact the City Clerk's office for more info.

Don't tell them the Insider sent you:

Commission Vacancies Accepted Through June 17

Applications are currently being accepted to fill end-of-term vacancies on various City of Claremont commissions. Persons interested in being considered for appointment are encouraged to file an application with the City Clerk's office by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 2010.

Claremont has six commissions (Architectural, Community Services, Human Services, Planning, Police, Traffic and Transportation) whose purpose is to advise and assist the City Council in addressing issues related to the commission's area of concern. They do this by gathering pertinent information, hearing arguments, weighing values, and making recommendations to the Council.

Each commission is comprised of seven citizens appointed by the Mayor after consultation with and approval by the City Council. Qualifications for commission service include: Claremont residency (with certain exceptions), a strong interest in the community and the work of the commission, and the ability to give generously of one's time while serving.

A personal interview with a two-member City Council sub-committee will be scheduled for all applicants. It is the Council's goal to appoint individuals who reflect the diversity of the community.

Applications and information are available in the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 207 Harvard Avenue, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and on the City's website - www.ci.claremont.ca.us. Please contact the City Clerk's office for assistance - (909) 399-5461 or (909) 399-5463.

FILING DEADLINE: THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010, 6:00 P.M.

• Commission Packet (Adobe Acrobat, 1113KB)

City Seeks Commission Applicants

If you were looking for a way to get involved in municipal issues, here's your chance. Claremont seeks applicants for city commissions. Applications are due by 5pm Friday, June 5, according to the City's website.

Applicants Sought for Various Claremont Commissions

Applications are currently being accepted to fill vacancies on various City of Claremont commissions. Persons interested in being considered for appointment are encouraged to file an application with the City Clerk's office by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 2009. Click on the link below to download an application. For more information call (909) 399-5460.

Commissioners are appointed by the City Council based on the results of application reviews and personal interviews. It is the Council's goal to appoint members who reflect the diversity of the community.

• Download Application (Adobe Acrobat, 116KB)

Bait & Switch

The Claremont City Council and city commissions have taken their traditional August vacation, so things have been fairly quiet in town. The hiatus has given us an opportunity to take look at some older items that have come before the council this year.

One of the complaints we and others have with the powers-that-be in Claremont, at least in past years, is the arbitrary nature with which they decide matters. While they like to prattle on about things like process, when push comes to shove, they tend to set aside the rules that are supposed to govern local decision-making.

An example of this came up at the last City Council meeting on July 24th. Check here for the agenda material for the meeting.

At that meeting, the City Council heard the appeal of an Architectural Commission decision on a dispute between two neighbors on Brescia Ave. in North Claremont. The dispute began when two residents, Peter and Lisa Pruitt, received approval from the city's Planning Dept. to make some changes to their one-story home.

The Pruitts' original plans called for the addition of a clerestory, a large, raised area where the roof was opened up and lifted up, with windows to allow light in. From the exterior, it was supposed to look like a second-story but from the interior it was supposed to be a kind of high-ceilinged affair with some windows for lighting.

But looks can be deceiving. When the city plan checked the work, they found that the Pruitts' builder had put in a second-story after all. City planning staff went ahead and approved the second story, even though the builder and the Pruitts said they were going to do one thing but then built another.

With the second story came windows on the north side (not included in the original plans) that overlooked a neighbor, Betty Hiett. Hiett was extremely concerned because she said the Pruitts' new windows looked directly into a sliding glass door in her backyard, giving the Pruitts a view into Ms. Hiett's dining and living rooms. This, Hiett felt, was a violation of her privacy, and she appealed the city planners' approval of the project to the Architectural Commission.

The commission upheld Hiett's appeal on May 23 this year and called for the Pruitts to redesign their second story and to remove the offending windows. One commissioner referred to the Pruitts tactics of getting one set of plans approved, then building another thing as a "bait and switch."

The Pruitts appealed the Architectural Commission's decision to the City Council, where it was heard at the 7/24/07 meeting. After a long debate, the council voted 3-2 to uphold the commission's decision. Ellen Taylor and Sam Pedroza voted to allow the Pruitts to keep what they had built.

What struck us as odd in the matter was willingness of the Planning Dept., as well as Taylor and Pedroza, to reward the bait and switch the commissioner referred to. Why have a planning process at all if you're going to chuck it all after the rules are broken?

And worse was the willingness of Pedroza and Taylor to overturn a commission decision. Taylor talks about respecting commissions when it suits her, but when she wants to override them, she has no hesitation. If we're going to have rules, then we need to live by them. Is that really too much to ask for?