| Harold L. (Hal) Mansfield, Ph.D. | |
| 7366 North County Road 27, Loveland, CO 80538 | |
| Phone: 970.667.3878 | E-mail: hal.mansfield3@gmail.com |
16 March 1998
Dear Commission Members:
As you know, I expressed strong displeasure with the planning director's introductory remarks at the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting. I felt, and still feel, that the remarks were much too long and repetitive. More importantly, I felt the tone-the rhetoric, if you will-was completely out of place. Let me put my feelings and opinions in a larger context.
The February meeting was the first for what I prefer to call the Jenkins Ranch development. That development is, as I understand it, one of the largest to come before the commission in quite a long time. I suspect that the issues inherent in that development will come before the commission on numerous occasions. Other plans will follow.
I was nothing less than shocked that the planning director would start off such an important meeting in such a markedly confrontational matter, particularly in view of the fact that the item he wanted to exclude from discussion, the minor arterial, was mentioned a number of times in the documents under discussion.
Was he technically right that the road issue was not on the table that night? Perhaps. Was he substantively correct? Not in the least! Did he have a right to say whatever he wanted to? Yes he did, and I would defend his rights to the end. However, the right of free speech brings with it accountability, and that is the thrust of my appearance here tonight.
Unless the planning commission agreed with the tone, the content, the length and manner of delivery of planning director's presentation, I believe that is incumbent upon this body to do at least two things: One, hold him accountable for being unnecessarily confrontational. Two, to effect remediation.
Public speaking is one of the most feared challenges the majority of people say that they have. For the average citizen, speaking before a body such as this, with the media presence, the raised dais, the trappings of power-the total scene-is daunting. To have the planning director add immeasurably to that challenge by a serious confrontational stance, cries out for remediation. I will make no suggestion, but rely on the collective wisdom of the commission to pursue the course, or not.
The majority of those who intended to speak did so in spite of the fact that the wellspring of amiability was poisoned by the planning director's presentation, in my opinion. The planning director's words, for most of us, had about as much force and effect as popcorn flatus released into a Texas tornado, which is exactly as it should have been.
I think it is time for the planning commission members to take a stand: Either they must approve the planning director's conduct, passively or actively, or they must explicitly distance themselves from what he did that evening and provide proof to all who come before the commission, in good faith and from positive perspectives, that the public will be welcomed and that the atmosphere will be one of judicious contemplation, not overly confrontational rhetoric.
Thank you,
Hal Mansfield, 319-B Hillcrest, 259-1324