Dear Editor –

I am surprised by the people praising Supervisor Long for recusing himself from the CUP issue; another publication in the county even published an editorial lauding him for his “integrity”. First off, let me say I have no reason to doubt that Supervisor Long is an honorable man; I’m sure there is much to praise him for. But finally recusing himself from the CUP vote is not about him being honorable; it is about the law. There is no point in praising him for finally following the law after breaking it.

The FPPC rules say if you have a financial interest in what is brought before the board, you can’t vote on it. Unfortunately, Supervisor Long, for some reason, didn’t realize this law applied to him until after someone in the community went to the expense of getting legal advice and brought the conflict to Long’s and Steve Dahlem’s (County Counsel’s) attention.  Only then did he recuse himself from the mining discussion, but by then he had already voted on the issue twice. I am glad Supervisor Long finally realized that the conflict of interest law applies to him, that he is not above the law. Sadly, his initial misunderstanding of the law is going to cost the county in both time and money to revisit the issue.

Supervisor Smallcombe does not have a financial interest in mining; according to the FPPC she has no need to recuse herself. Simply having a personal interest in an issue does not mean you need to recuse yourself. Would anyone require Supervisor Cann to recuse himself from future votes regarding a hotel and convention center simply because of his close ties with the EDC and Rotary? Of course not! While those organizations are very supportive of the hotel/convention center, Supervisor Cann has no financial interest in such a facility and therefore does not need to recuse himself.

If we all understand that this is about following the law, then we will waste a lot less time and energy on false issues.

Anne Brock
Mariposa, CA