Planner’s Vote on Woodridge Challenged

THOUSAND OAKS — There has been plenty of fighting among council members in this town, with a sharp 3-2 split and some decidedly nasty bickering.

Now it appears the split is spilling over to the Planning Commission.

Some commissioners and a number of citizens are challenging Commissioner Ronald Polanski’s vote on the controversial Woodridge housing project, saying he may have violated state conflict-of-interest regulations. The five commissioners on July 29 narrowly voted to recommend that the City Council at its Sept. 9 meeting annex and subdivide the 743 acres of unincorporated land and rezone it for residential development. Polanski voted with the majority.

Critics said the conflict of interest for Polanski, a Thousand Oaks investment broker, stems from his alleged business relationship with Robert Haaland, the chief civil engineer for Woodridge, a proposed development of 256 homes that would be built in open space between the city and its neighbor, Simi Valley.

Polanski allegedly manages a sizable stock portfolio for Haaland, according to Polanski’s critics, who include fellow commissioners Dave Anderson and Marilyn Carpenter.

During last month’s commission meeting, several city residents asked publicly for Polanski to recuse himself from voting because of his alleged ties to Haaland.

Both Polanski and Haaland vehemently denied any business relationship.

However, other commissioners at the meeting said they were shocked to hear Polanski’s denial, saying they witnessed a conversation between the commissioner and Assistant City Atty. Nancy Schreiner, in which he allegedly spoke of his relationship with Haaland.

“It came as a total surprise to me to hear Ronald Polanski deny that Bob Haaland was his client,” Carpenter said. “It startled me because it ran counter with what I thought I heard him say to [Schreiner].”

Several commissioners recalled hearing a conversation between Polanski and Schreiner during the commission’s return trip from a planning seminar in Monterey in March. They alleged that Polanski asked Schreiner if his management of Haaland’s investments would constitute a conflict of interest.

However, Polanski and Schreiner said Haaland’s name was used only as an example because he is routinely involved with projects pending before the city.

“I asked her using him as an example, that was all,” Polanski said. “Mr. Haaland is not, nor has he or any member of his firm ever been a client of mine.”

Anderson also said he was angered to hear Polanski’s denial, because on previous occasions, he had heard the commissioner speak candidly about his involvement with Haaland.

“It came as a total surprise to me to hear Ron Polanski deny Bob Haaland was his client, as I had been involved in conversations with Ron about his client, Bob Haaland,” Anderson said.

Although there has been no solid evidence presented that Polanski manages stock portfolios for Haaland, Schreiner said that if he did, it wouldn’t necessarily constitute a conflict of interest that would force Polanski to abstain from the Woodridge vote.

“The way the law goes, an official would have to benefit directly from the decision,” Schreiner said.

Officials from the Sacramento-based Fair Political Practices Commission agreed, saying that in such a scenario, any conflict would be, at best, indirect.

“The devil’s really in the details with these kinds of issues,” said Gary Huckabee, an FPPC official. “But what constitutes a conflict of interest is whether or not a government official’s influence on a particular matter is beneficial to him or her.”

Issues pertaining to conflicts of interest have been a hot topic in the corridors of the city’s Civic Arts Plaza in the past year.

City Councilwoman Linda Parks recently tried to introduce measures to further tighten state regulations regarding such conflicts. However, Parks’ only support came from Councilwoman Elois Zeanah, and the initiative was voted down.