More SLUFAN Drama

Reader STurner59 let us know the SLUFAN board had its own meeting behind closed doors following Tuesday's public meeting to discuss possible zoning changes and decide between two board candidates. Both agenda items were postponed until next month after discussions got a bit heated. Here's what STurner59 told us:

I was at the SLUFAN meeting yesterday, until they closed the meeting to the press and public.

...

The controversy over board positions has nothing to do with Noel [Franklin]. It was those in control of the Board, however, who chose to leave on two expired board positions rather than appoint Noel to one of them.

The reality is that the SLUFAN board is attempting to use absentee votes and the votes of expired board members in trying to remove the only representative of residential interests while adding Noel, who will become the fifth representative of the non-profit community organization constituency.

Clearly, in the meeting I attended, emotions got in the way of any analysis of the facts. The attacks on Diane Masson were unwarranted. It is outrageous to think that it is a sin to talk to the press or to stand up for the residential community.

Everyone should be aware that all of the public was kicked out of the room for an “executive session.” I understand that the attacks on Diane Masson were intensified once this session was underway out of sight of the public and press.

Shame on those on the SLUFAN board who make their attacks in a secret meeting. South Lake Union does not belong to you. You represent the public. If you are not willing to let the public see you act in your meetings, you should not purport to represent the public and should refrain from making any recommendations to the City supposedly reflecting public interest.

This revelation certainly gives more weight to a comment made by City Councilwoman Sally Clark in a recent P-I article:

"I wouldn't say that my concerns are that SLUFAN is pro-development, but that everybody be at the table and have a voice. If they are voting people in or off the board based on whether they are pro- or con-development, that would be a big concern."

I may think Diane Masson's claims are hypocritical and self-serving, but a mangled board election process and closed door power-plays are no way to combat the NIMBYist sentiment.