RB Planning Board Seeks to Oust Member

The Rancho Bernardo Planning Board is taking steps to remove one of its members amid allegations that he violated board policy and has engaged in conduct "embarrassing" to the board—charges the member denies.

Longtime member Joe Dirks—who had served for a year as the board's parliamentarian until the position was eliminated in July—is accused of violating board policy and has been told that he can resign or face a board vote on his removal, according to emails obtained by Patch.

That vote had been set for Thursday, but on Monday board Chairwoman Teri Denlinger canceled this month's meeting because many board members would not be able to attend, she said in an email.

"The Administrative Committee believes this lack of attendance presents an injustice to the Board member identified on an agenda item, whereby a vote by the membership is required," her email said, apparently referring to Dirks.

Dirks, in an interview with Patch, said he will not resign and said that he did not respond to emails or letters from the Planning Board about his removal.

"I will not resign. I am not ashamed of anything I've done. I do not intend to change my behavior one speck," Dirks said. "The persons who should change their behavior are those who do not want to follow their rules."

In an Aug. 7 email to Dirks obtained by Patch, Denlinger said, "Your continued disruptive remarks interfere with the business at hand and consistently place the Board in an embarrassing light in the presence of city officials and guests."

The allegations center around four meetings—April 21, June 16, July 11, July 21—where Dirks is accused of a number of actions, including: "mocking facial expressions," "disruptive, accusatorial comments," an "insistence to provoke the membership," and engaging in "private conversations" with another board member, according to the email.

Dirk denies being disrespectful in any of the meetings and says he has written notes to a fellow board member, but did not speak during the meetings.

For months, Dirks has been outspoken about apparent open meeting laws and board policy violations during and outside of Planning Board meetings. He has been at the center of some heated exchanges with other board members and has been particular about the way his words and actions are recorded in meeting minutes.

In July, the board voted to —created about a year ago and filled by Dirks—because it is not one of the allotted positions specified in the bylaws. The board has the ability to amend its bylaws to add new positions and Denlinger at the time said it was possible that the parliamentarian position would be included during an upcoming revision of the bylaws.

The decision came after Dirks had recently been vocal about what he deemed improper procedures in welcome sign voting. When asked after the July meeting about the timing of the decision, Denlinger said the move was not personal, and even appeared to become choked up as she described how much Dirks has helped her throughout the years. The chairwoman said she welcomed Dirks' comments and made no mention of them being disruptive or embarrassing to the board.

Denlinger declined a general interview request from Patch to discuss the board and did not respond to a specific request to speak about Dirks.

In the email notifying Dirks of his alleged violations, Denlinger said complaints had come from "not less" than 10 board members, as well as city guests.

"I am in favor of an open, cooperative environment to promote active participation. Unfortunately, your behavior no longer represents the custom of professionalism expected of our Board, and your disruptions inhibit communication among Board members and the public at large," Denlinger said in the email, adding that some members had threatened to resign because of his behavior.

She continued to say, "Unfortunately, while I have frequently cautioned you about such complaints, you remain unwilling to work together in a cooperative environment, questioning the competency of the Chair and others with argumentative remarks, all diminishing our Board's integrity."

Dirks said a letter, apparently about the alleged violations, also came to his home, but he returned it unopened.

On Aug. 18, in an email to Dirks obtained by Patch, Denlinger  acknowledged that Dirks did not respond to the first letter and told him he could resign or the board would take a vote on removing him. Dirks said he did not respond to that email either, though he plans to defend himself when the vote takes place.

Dirks said he, as well as the other board members, have a responsibility to follow the rules and he cannot sit by when they are being broken.

"They seem bound and detemrined not to follow the rules and I'm bound and determined to follow the rules. Do I remain silent and let them get away with the things they are doing?

"Is that the proper way? it might be the prudent way, but I don't think it's the proper way," Dirks said.

The board member in at least some of his complaints about alleged rule-breaking. During the Sept. 6 administrative committee meeting, Denlinger said the vote on Dirks' removal would be by private ballot and no abstentions would be allowed. Dirks contended that this violated board policy against secret balloting on agenda items.

In an email to Dirks, which was copied to Patch, senior city planner Brian Schoenfisch said that the ballots cannot be private and abstentions are to be allowed, and added that he had spoken to Denlinger about this.

Find us on Facebook and Twitter @RBPatch.