HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/2020 Item 08, Grady
Wilbanks, Megan
From:John Grady <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:July 7, 2020 mtg - Item #8 - James Papp
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I urge you vote 'NO' on the agenda item to remove James Papp from the CHC and instead vote to retain him so our city
can continue to benefit from his incredible knowledge of our city's history and the passion he brings to his service on the
CHC. I see no evidence to support a yes vote on Mr. Papp's removal.
I have witnessed Mr. Papp's performance at CHC meetings, both when he's served as a committee member as well as
Chair. I have been extremely impressed with his knowledge of the topics, his preparation, questioning, demeanor, and
genuine passion for the duties he performs on this committee. And for one who has lived here a relatively short time, I am
amazed at his intimate knowledge of our city's history, likely far exceeding that of most people born and raised here.
The following is the rationale cited for the case to remove Mr. Papp, as published in the meeting agenda item posted
online ...
"Council Subcommittee liaisons have met at 'various times' over the past 18 months regarding concerns about adversarial
interactions during CHC meetings."
What is 'various times', i.e., on what dates did you meet? What 'concerns' and 'adversarial interactions' were
discussed? Who raised these alleged 'concerns'? City residents - or perhaps disgruntled developers who didn't get all
that they asked for?
Why even have a Cultural Heritage Committee if you're not going to allow it to do its job to look after preserving our city's
rich heritage? And imagine if you as an employee were accused by your boss of 'adversarial interactions' with no more
details provided? Without examples and proof these words are meaningless.
If indeed these 'various times' began 18 months ago, then why did the City Council reappoint Mr. Papp to another term
on the CHC just 15 months ago? This reappointment was after these alleged 'concerns' first came to light.
And if he is indeed so 'adversarial' during CHC meetings and deliberations, isn't it quite odd that his own peers on the
CHC have not only once but twice voted unanimously for him to chair this committee? Obviously his peers, who work
much more closely with him than you do and see him in action on a regular basis, don't share your concerns, having just
reelected Mr. Papp as chair only two months ago.
In an apparent attempt to clarify their positions, Ms. Christianson and Ms. Pease added the following to the
correspondence file for this agenda item ...
"We 'feel' that Mr. Papp's questioning and deliberations during meetings do not consistently promote positive
relationships for the general public, staff, applicants, and other committee members and 'may be limiting' full public
participation and discourse."
So, since two council members 'feel' that Mr. Papp 'may' be limiting full participation and discourse at CHC meetings, is
this is grounds to ask for his resignation, and failing his acceptance of that, then his firing? On what basis - what facts - is
this recommendation warranted? Who complained about what, and when, and where and why? To terminate someone
you should have just cause; it should not be based upon a difference of opinion.
This reminds me of the recent events experienced by the lead attorney in the Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York.
Imagine if you attempted to fire a city employee - or one of your fellow council members - on the basis of the evidence
presented here! You wouldn't and you couldn't.
1
Finally from your agenda report it states, “Members of advisory bodies serve at the pleasure of the Council and may be
removed without cause by Council action in an open public meeting.”
This is exactly what you will be doing if you remove Mr. Papp from the CHC - removing him without cause - because one
(or more) of you disagree with his decisions or opinions voiced on the CHC. Keep in mind, please, this is a 'committee' of
seven members; Mr. Papp is but one voice, so he does not make any decisions without the majority of the committee
being in agreement with him.
Such a removal without cause from an advisory body will have a chilling effect for any other resident entertaining the
thought of embarking upon public service on this or any of our other city advisory bodies. Your consideration to remove
Mr. Papp without cause to justify such a decision is strikingly similar to our President's behavior, as he has dismissed
scores of public servants simply because he disagrees with them.
Please reject this proposal. Retain Mr. Papp on the CHC. He is a valued member of our community and of this committee
and is a strong advocate for preserving our city's cultural heritage. With all the proposed developments that have been
coming before the city in recent years, our need to preserve our history and heritage is only heightened. We need the
knowledge, passion, and service of Mr. Papp now more than ever before.
Thank you,
John Grady
San Luis Obispo
2