Chicoans should take advisory boards under advisement

Warning: This column contains content that some may find wonky. Reader discretion is advised.

Over the past week, Chico’s city advisory boards and the people who serve on them have drawn considerable scrutiny.

First, the Planning Commission deadlocked on the cannabis dispensary slated to straddle Park Avenue — a hearing complicated by one commissioner recusing himself, for reasons unclarified, and another relitigating city and state law.

Next, the Internal Affairs Committee, comprising three city councilors, shelved a subcommittee requested by the full council, without a formal vote.

Then, the council (on split votes with varying dissenters) eliminated the Architectural Review and Historic Preservation Board by shifting ARHPB responsibilities to the aforementioned Planning Commission; pared the Climate Action Commission’s meeting schedule and all commissioners’ input on agendas; and — after all this — blocked a councilor’s direct appointment to the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission. That’s a lot in six days.

Let’s assess.

Quickly, a qualifier: I’ve served on the Planning Commission and the ARHPB. My commission colleagues included

Dale Bennett, the only councilor with the same dual service, and Toni Scott, the commission’s chair then and now. So, I have a grasp of the particulars.

Last Thursday’s meeting reflected poorly on the Planning Commission in several ways. Commissioners have a legal obligation to explain why they’re excusing themselves from deliberations. That became crucial when, after Paul Cooper recused himself, the remaining members tied 3-3 on multiple motions and City Attorney Vince Ewing advised they could, per state law, compel Cooper to vote.

Scott decided not to, and it’s hard to blame her. She hadn’t heard his rationale. Turns out, Cooper is involved with the cannabis business, but why should the chair — or anyone — have to look up something a commissioner must disclose?

The only motion with a decisive vote came from Larry Wahl, a former councilor and county supervisor. He moved to deny the dispensary’s plans to renovate a storefront and demolish another across the street for additional parking. His stated position did not center on the plan, on which others expressed concerns, but rather that cannabis is classified illegal under federal law.

Here’s the thing: That’s not a land-use issue. Nor is the stipulation he sought that the dispensary only employ citizens or legal residents. Besides the fact that putting conditions on a denied permit is inherently contradictory, the council already allowed dispensaries — per voters’ approval of city and state ballot measures — and California law governs employment.

Commissions cannot overturn decisions from higher authorities; that’s not how it works. They’re advisory bodies with some discretion but not the ultimate say. Wahl has the right to his beliefs on cannabis, even to oppose it on principle. But the ship has sailed; dispensaries have the right to do business in Chico. The council decided this, and the council now will decide a planning matter after his motion failed 5-1 and the commission hit impasses on approval and reconsideration.

This brings us to Internal Affairs.

When the council put the nuisance abatement ordinance (Measure L) on the November ballot, it pulled out a provision calling for a quality of life commission — instead, calling for a subcommittee of Internal Affairs to bring citizen input. Vice Mayor Kasey Reynolds, the measure’s champion on council, proposed the panel Monday.

That’s now headed to the council, too. Reynolds’ committee mates, Tom van Overbeek and Addison Winslow, declined to second her motion or raise an alternative. Both are newly elected councilors; ideological opposites, yet aligned here (as well on issues involving downtown and transportation).

The next night, unusual alliances emerged again. Winslow, the council’s lone liberal, was on his own with the Climate Action Commission, which moving forward will meet “as needed” rather than regularly. But different colleagues joined him in dissent on a 5-2 vote limiting commissioners’ ability to put items on their agenda, a 4-3 vote to fold the ARHPB into the Planning Commission and a 5-2 vote to replace Winslow’s nominee for park commissioner. A different trio of conservatives coalesced to reject circumventing another of choices, for planning commission choice.

On a later item, about road repair, councilors considered the “optics” of resurfacing streets in a neighborhood considered affluent before others in town. Upon reflection, they might have given deeper consideration to the optics of their actions on commissions.

Going after two nominees from a councilor in the minority — this case, a minority of one — appears petty and political, regardless of any substantive concern. Scaling only the climate commission’s schedule sends a message about priorities, once again regardless of reasoning. Merging two panels with distinct functions, despite cautions of “unintended consequences” from Bennett (the councilor with direct experience), looks reactive at best and reactionary at worst.

Putting a damper on commissioners also makes a statement. These are volunteers, residents who serve on their own time and their own dime. Their value is intrinsic. This, I understand — while understanding the desire to keep advisers on track. That, in the end, is the council’s prerogative.