Boards and Commissions II

It looks like we have a controversial appointment this season. Democrat Ross Gulino, a potential alternate to the Planning Commission, has been called into question by someone who believes he has a lawsuit against the city. The Record Journal has weighed in via its editorial page as well.

Because another interested party was not accepted as an appointee by the mayor since she had lodged a complaint regarding potential discrimination over bidding notifications, a cloud formed over Gulino because of a lawsuit filed with his name on it a decade ago regarding the Ridgeline Protection Act. The mayor, desiring to be fair, wants to be sure the vetting rules are being applied consistently.

As noted in an earlier post, the vetting process has never been overly formal. As long as the appointee was an elector, paid up in taxes, and expressed a desire to serve the City in some appointed capacity, they were generally approved. Usually, there was no deep dive into one's background...their word was usually good enough. And a willingness to volunteer for normally thankless jobs in this "let someone else do it" day and age was a big qualification. But, over recent times, a check of the registrars' and tax records was made to confirm the word. Litigation never really was an issue discussed or pursued.

This year is different. Because of the recent flap over Gulino's appointment, a more formal vetting process is being proposed. Letters are to go out to all potential appointees, whether new or veteran board members or commissioners, seeking light on matters of current political affiliation, taxes and legal actions against the City. It is hoped that the responses will show taxes paid, and courts and regulatory agencies free of any initiatives on the appointee's part. It will be interesting to see what happens, though, if any prominent folk owe a motor vehicle tax for several years, or have a "slip and fall" suit that's been lingering for years. And even the best vetting process will have its flaws, as President Obama continually finds out.

As to Gulino, I understand that he has no ownership interest in the corporation that filed suit under his father's name 10 years ago, and that in fact he doesn't believe the corporation, of which he was secretary in order to meet the filing guidelines, even exists anymore. If that's true, and should be easily found out, this particular objection to his appointment should be removed.

I'm sure his opponents will come up with something else, though.