By Elizabeth Cloutman

Controversy arose at both the Los Altos Hills City Council and Pathways Committee meetings last week. The most heated remarks were not, as expected, over the long-disputed abandonment of an off-road pathway easement, but over the ethics and legality of the election of new pathways committee chairmen.

DuBose Montgomery, a pathways committee member since October, had requested the city clerk place the election of new chairmen on the agenda of a special meeting, apparently without telling the current chairwomen.

The majority of the committee voted to elect a new chairman and vice chairman and to recommend the first step toward vacating the off-road pathway easement on Greg and Sandy Carse’s Taaffe Road property. However, at both committee meetings, the two current chairwomen, a third member, several residents and a councilman questioned the ethics and legality of the election’s timing.

While the city council upheld the election results 3-1, with one abstention, two council members condemned the manner in which the election was called. The council also voted to revise the wording of a recently adopted resolution on committees to specify when elections to replace resigned chairmen should be permitted.

“I just want to say there’s a better way to do things,” said Councilman Mike O’Malley. “I just thought it to be pretty ugly. … What’s going to happen when my people don’t like your people? This is no way to run a railroad.”

Councilwoman Emily Cheng added, “We need to treat our volunteers nicely.”

Mayor Toni Casey condemned those who spoke against Montgomery at the council meeting. “I was offended that these people totally vilified one of our residents,” she said.

While Montgomery chose not to reply - during neither the committee nor council meeting - to remarks made to and about him, he did speak to the Town Crier on Friday. “I feel existing pathways are very important to the town,” he said. “I don’t feel any existing paths should be removed. It’s time to make revisions on a map that’s over 20 years old, and it’s time to let the public comment on that.”

Montgomery added the committee had voted 7-2 in favor of reverting from the three-chairmen configuration of the past two years to the chairman/vice chairman leadership favored by other town committees.

He noted that the committee voted 5-3, with one abstention, to elect him chairman and Charlene Geers vice chairwoman.

“This was our first meeting without (former chairman) Harry (Emerzian), and all nine members were present. It was a valid election,” Montgomery said. He did not comment on his reason for not telling the standing chairwomen that he wanted to call an election before requesting that it be placed on the agenda of the special meeting.

The dispute began at a special April 17 pathways committee meeting, called by the mayor at the request of town staff. The committee was asked to make its recommendation on the negative declaration for an amendment to the General Plan Pathways Element Master Plan of 1981. The planning commission had returned the decision to the pathways committee after City Attorney Sandy Sloan advised changes in the original staff report to ensure it complied with the requirements of state law and the California Environment Quality Act.

Nancy Ewald, Ginger Summit and Emerzian were the standing chairmen of the committee, but Emerzian’s term expired in March. Mike Kamagar became the newest committee member.

Montgomery initially requested that election of a new committee chairperson and vice chairperson, the second item on the pathways committee special meeting agenda, be held prior to the decision on the Carse abandonment. “I think it’s time for a change, and I would like the job,” he said. His remark solicited a audible gasp from some residents in attendance.

Ewald replied, “I think it’s quite coincidental that this is coming just before a decision on the Master Path Plan map revision.”

Summit added, “It was a surprise to all of us except for one person. I was surprised and disappointed that the people on this committee would act in such an underhanded way.”

While committee members didn’t take an official vote, the consensus was to discuss the Carse easement first. The committee voted 5-3, with Fred Fallah abstaining, in favor of recommending the adoption of the negative declaration.

The committee then turned to the election. Council members Bob Fenwick and Mike O’Malley, who is also the council liaison to the committee, were in attendance. Both said they were uncertain whether a resolution regulating committees, which the council adopted in January, limited the election of new chairmen to the first meeting in July. Montgomery pointed out there had been replacement elections several times in other months.

“I’ve read the resolution numerous times this week,” Fenwick said. “Unfortunately, it fails to speak to this issue.”

The consensus of the committee was to hold the election. If Sloan later determined the election was in violation of the resolution, the council could overturn the results.

“I wanted to continue to see things through. I’m very disappointed that this has been so well-orchestrated,” Ewald said at the committee meeting. At the council meeting, she noted, “There appears to be more than one violation of the Brown Act, and I think the city should begin an investigation … I’d like to warn anyone to consider before volunteering.”

Dot Schreiner concurred with several other residents, including Dan Alexander and former council member Sid Hubbard, who spoke against Montgomery’s actions during the council meeting. “The performance was characterized by a number of people (attending the committee meeting) as ‘disgusting,’” Schreiner said.

Summit said at the council meeting that she believed the election was “clearly orchestrated by the mayor and possibly other members of the council. My goal in being up here is to be on the record so we can tell our citizens what transpired.”

After Sloan explained that the council resolution on committees did not specify when elections to replace retiring committee chairmen should be held, council members chose not to reverse the pathways committee election. Several council members stated that committees should have some autonomy over their actions.

The council voted 3-1, with Cheng abstaining, to request Sloan to write a resolution amendment, specifying the procedure for replacement elections.

“I paid a whole lot of attention to the resolution this week,” Fenwick said. “In January, I thought it was going overboard on the details. Now I realize it was way ‘underboard.’”