Oro Valley Boards and Council Urged To Provide Reasons In Public To Support Their Decisions

---
On June 19, resident Bill Adler spoke in the end of meeting "call to audience."(see video)  Adler urged the town council clearly state on the public record the reasons why they make a decision.

"The lack of understanding of town actions is more prevalent," noted Adler. He continued: "People mistrust government and this is why.  They don't think you're clear and when you're not clear they assume that there is something going on that they ought to know about."

Adler feels that such "openness" is essential for the 2015 General Plan: "There is only one item that gets ratified and that is the General Plan. This is the one opportunity to gain comprehension of Town intent ( not commitment ). If the Town seems reluctant, or is unable to provide comprehension, the public can, and should, vote against the proposed General Plan. "

In June, Oro Valley Planner David Williams sent a letter to the Board of Appeals discussing the same need for public explanations of decisions:

 "It is important to publicly create a clear and defensible record of your decisions. Basing your decisions on whether all five criteria are met is essential to this function and I ask that you participate in creating a clear and defensible public record by referring to these criteria. As a quasi-judicial body, the record of your actions is important to all parties concerned. Making a record of your findings and sound decisions is both essential and required." 

This letter followed training given to the Board. This training followed what we we felt was a completely unjustified decision to obliterate a hillside to benefit a developer.  In this instance, the Board applied some of the 5 criteria required for granting a variance, ignored others, and added an "it ain't no big deal and it helps the developer" reason.

In fairness to the Board, "Board of Adjustment considerations are to be based upon specific criteria, but how those criteria apply to a given piece of property will vary from one well trained person to another. That is simply because there is a degree of subjectivity involved."

We are the public. We are perplexed by some decisions that are made.  That is why, for example, the debate on where the police department should report was so important.  Each council member explained their rationale.  We now understand their thinking.  

We, the public, sometimes assume a nefarious motive underlying the decision, as Adler note, when no rational is presented.  Indeed, there may be no such such motive.  Since none was presented, however, we assume "the worst."

We prefer not to guess what the rationale is.  We'd like the rationale behind decisions explained; explained, not only by council, but by all town boards and commissions.  If, for example, there are 5 criteria for granting a variance, then weed like the application discussed in relation to the 5 criteria. There is need for an applicant "dog and pony show" only if it relates to one of the 5 criteria.  We'd like our boards, commissions and council to focus on the facts; to present their rationale; to "keep us from guessing."
---