Front Page  »  

SLO City councilwoman accused of conflict of interest

September 17, 2019

Councilwoman Andy Pease

By KAREN VELIE

San Luis Obispo City officials have suspended a plan to phase out the use of natural gas appliances while they look into allegations Councilwoman Andy Pease violated conflict of interest rules. [Cal Coast Times]

Two weeks ago, the council voted 4-1 in favor of an ordinance and energy policy that would ban natural gas fittings and gas-powered appliances in new residential and commercial buildings. The city provided developers two alternatives: they can transition an existing gas-powered building into electric only or pay in-lieu fees.

Attorneys representing the Utility Workers Union of America fired back with saying that because of the economic impact to Pease’s business, she is and was disqualified from “voting upon, deliberating, or even being present for the council’s consideration of the clean energy policy,” according to a letter from attorney John J. Davis, Jr. Pease is a partner in Balance Green Consulting, a company in line to financially benefit from the city’s proposed energy policy.

“Because Ms. Pease is a professional who specializes in clean-energy consulting, and because she is also a highly placed insider in the city’s political and administrative structure, the new clean energy rules will drive a great deal of business to her architectural firm,” the letter says.

The union members are asking the city to vacate its Sept. 3 vote on the clean energy ordinance, which requires a two-thirds vote. Councilwoman Erica Stewart cast the lone dissenting vote against the ordinance.

In response to the letter, city administrators postponed the final approval of the ordinance to provide time for the Fair Political Practices Commission to weigh in on the allegation of conflict of interest.

“Public officials are expected to know the fundamental laws that govern their behavior,” Davis says in his letter. “Unfortunately, neither Pease nor her colleagues recognized this very serious legal and ethical problem.”


Loading...
Related:


40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

DocT you have struck Gold in them thar green, green hills of SLO Town/SLOCO et al.


http://www.inbalancegreen.com/


“In Balance” Green/Greed indeed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u81CTfbc99c

Green Green Grass Of Home – Tom Jones


-1

“Green Energy” is big money.


Take the politics behind the water district concept and spread it out to literally include the air we breathe…..all of it monetized to benefit a few. The fact that politicians and of course the financial interests they are sworn to serve make money from it makes it holy and “green.”


Like recycling. It’s a hoax put out by the plastic/petroleum industry to make it seem a good thing to pollute the planet with plastic. Look on the side of the road! Plastic bags…


Less than 9% of the stuff put in the blue bin gets recycled, most of it glass and metal. The rest, including the plastic, gets dumped at sea or in a landfill….and the cities that “recycle” the most still have it end up in the landfill….just as if they had one old fashioned garbage can.


SLO’s. “Green energy” plan is no different. We will use electricity from coal, nuclear, hydro, etc. Its all fungible….but we will pay much more for it and the overpayment will go to Ms. Pease and her superiors….no different than Resnick and the water district, except supersized.


Y’all are gonna get fleeced!


40

Shady government in SLO…


42

The scenario where a public official makes money from a vote that will bring business to themselves or their benefactors is hardly new. It has been going on forever. Not to mention the PACs that give money to officials to vote in their favor or look the other way when laws that protect the public are violated. Our government is being dominated by financial interests at every level, to the great detriment of public and environmental interests. What is sad here is that there may have been a sincere attempt to clean up the energy profile of our county seat and eventually the rest of the county as well. What is different about this is that instead of the Economic Opportunity Corporation ( consisting of fossil fuel, nuclear and media interests) pushing the agenda, it is a primarily green energy ploy. Worse things could happen to us than clean air and water. But that does not excuse, if the methods used were not actually legal. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. But if they are going to raise a stink about how this particular plan was achieved, I would prefer they applied this same filter to ALL our county’s dealings.


23

These same city council members who are going to save the environment can’t even get Laguna Lake dredged.


5

Andy Pease is the most ethical, conscientious individual on the City Council. If she had a conflict of interest she would be the first to acknowledge it. Shame on the union for this cheap, self-serving action at the expense of someone’s reputation.


-73

“….Pease is a professional who specializes in clean-energy consulting”. She can now be the second (not the first) to acknowledge it.


22

Satire, correct?


13

ratherbefishing, I see satire too.


7

“Public officials are expected to know the fundamental laws that govern their behavior,”


6

The Kwan….follow the kwan


6

The lords of the state—hallowed be their names and large donors—have decided to make CA an electric state.


That means that SLO city is in the good graces of the state.


Andy Pease, therefore, is in the good graces of the state and she should be allowed to break any rule that keeps CA from realizing its goal.


If she’s smart enough to also make money from our loss of liberty…well, that’s what government is all about.


Corruption is cool.


42

“San Luis Obispo County is one of the most corrupt counties in America.” See the trailer for the documentary “Lying in Trash” at http://www.lyingintrash.com.


4

Just waiting for the Gas Company to bring a legal challenge against the City of SLO.


73

>> “Public officials are expected to know the fundamental laws that govern their behavior,” Davis says in his letter. “Unfortunately, neither Pease nor her colleagues recognized this very serious legal and ethical problem.” << Because they are, first, condescending, self-serving amateurs looking to better themselves at the expense of their constituents. And second, greedy.


47
1 2