After reading this letter in the April 19 Beacon, I am compelled to respond and correct the inaccuracies it contained.
The letter stated that Cynthia Conger “without board approval” sent a letter to one candidate “challenging his eligibility.”
Not true.
Ms. Conger sent the candidate a letter asking him to verify he had satisfied an eligibility requirement. He could not. Ms. Conger is still the board chair.
She checked the eligibility of the other two newly elected members and found no difficulties, but she was unable to verify that the one candidate satisfied the requirement to attend at least one meeting prior to the election.
What appears as an impropriety to one is to another just someone doing their job. It is painted as devious simply because Ms. Conger was the sixth-highest vote getter and would then be seated. If the sixth were someone else, there would be no discussion.
The letter stated that Ms. Conger used an “obscure 1989 bylaw change.
Not true.
The bylaw change occurred by board vote in January of 2000. There is an executed resolution signed by the city attorney and the planning department that states to be eligible for a board position, a candidate must attend one meeting in the six months prior to the election.
Two of the newly elected board members satisfied this requirement. While it is true there were noticing problems, this requirement was widely known. I was told of it last year when I ran.
Attendance at the candidate forum has been argued as satisfying the meeting requirement. The attendance requirement is there so that whoever runs for the board has some idea what they are getting into.
The forum did not resemble a board meeting at all. There was no agenda, no approval of minutes, no committee reports, no action items. It was simply a seated panel of candidates answering questions from the public.
There is no record of such a meeting ever being accepted as meeting the requirement but the writer’s reference to it demonstrated the attendance requirement was enforced in the past.

The issue is simply one of having candidates attend some meetings before running.
The City of San Diego has a new bylaw template it wants the planning groups to use, and it contains a requirement that a candidate attend three meetings prior to running.
The question that has never been answered is: Why would anyone run for a board position when they have never bothered to attend a single meeting and they haven’t a clue what we do?
The opposition is obsessed with removing Cynthia Conger from the board because of her efforts, on behalf of the Peninsula, that a specific group of people see as injurious to their livelihood.
That is all they care about, making a living regardless of what that does to the community as a whole.