Recusal continues to be a serious issue for people in our community, and we would like to have a better understanding of our Supervisor’s rationale. We have invited Supervisor Dennis Rodoni to our next PRSVA meeting, August 14, 2025.

These are some questions / issues we are asking Dennis to answer, clarify and discuss with concerned community members.

1. Clarifying FPPC Rule #18703 and the “Public Generally” 
This rule defines when a public official must recuse themselves from decisions that could impact their financial interests. However, the rule includes a key exemption: if the financial effect of a decision is the same for a large enough portion of the general public — typically at least 25% of property owners or residents — the official may legally participate. 

This is called the “public generally” exception.

You’ve stated that you own a 20% interest in a property near downtown Point Reyes Station, and that this ownership has required you to recuse yourself from multiple land use decisions. However, your financial interest appears no different from the interests of other nearby property owners who are equally affected by these projects. In fact, your position may qualify under the public generally standard.
In addition, nearly all of historic downtown Point Reyes falls within 500 to 1,000 feet of your family property. That means virtually every proposed development in town is subject to your potential recusal — a situation that raises serious concerns about how your constituents can be fully represented in decisions affecting the heart of our community. How do you propose we manage this going forward?
Given all this, we ask you to clarify: How is your 20% ownership interest — or any family involvement — meaningfully different from others in the community?

Why do you believe this creates a real or perceived conflict of interest in the following cases: a) the gas station site, b) the calf lot, c) the old station house, d) the Grandi building, e) the Giacomini property near the wetlands, f) the green barn, and g) any other property within 1,000 feet of your ownership?

 If your situation is not meaningfully distinguishable from that of the general public, we urge you to seek a waiver so that you can fully represent your district on these important issues.

2. Transparency Around Recusal Timing, Process, and Communication
We would appreciate a clear explanation of: When in the development process you must decide whether to recuse yourself; What specific constraints apply to you before and after a recusal — for example, can you still speak informally with constituents or staff? How and when you plan to publicly announce recusal decisions and your rationale, so the community is not left in the dark; and whether you are willing to share the guidance your legal team has given you for making recusal determinations — such as the questions you are advised to ask yourself. 

Greater transparency around how you make these decisions, and how you communicate them, would build public trust and reduce confusion.

3. Clarifying County Counsel’s Legal Language

In County Counsel Brian Washington’s June 5 response to our initial questions, much of the language was vague and hard to apply to real-world scenarios. To help us better understand the implications of that memo, please provide concrete examples of how the legal guidance applies to specific properties or situations in Point Reyes. This would allow us to more clearly explain the issues within the community and engage in informed dialogue.

4. Willingness to Seek Waivers or Other Solutions
Based on the consistent feedback you’ve received from constituents, are you now willing to pursue a blanket waiver from the FPPC, given that nearly every proposed development in downtown Point Reyes falls within 1,000 feet of your family property? 

Seeking individual waivers on a project-by-project basis is not a workable solution — it gives the appearance of picking and choosing when to participate and when to step back. A general waiver would provide clarity, consistency, and allow you to fully represent your constituents on the issues that matter most.

 If a waiver is not possible, what other options are you open to in order to ensure your district is not left without a voice?