Yes, the conversation with Rob Arkley got a little testy. But is Supervisor Mark Lovelace always so confrontational with those who disagree with his point of view?

Not really. During the four-day-period covered by Shirley Fuller’s Public Records Act request, the general plan-based activist group HumCPR – political opponents of Lovelace – circulated a letter asking its members to write to the Board of Supervisors regarding last month’s hot GPU topic: Citizens Advisory Committees.

Four such HumCPR form letters found their way to Lovelace’s inbox during the period in question. Lovelace eventually developed some boilerplate to respond to the citizens who sent them, but added a bit of personal flair to each query. The first thing he did, though, was throw out a line to Martha Spencer of the Humboldt County Planning Department.

Past the jump: Judge the level of discourse for yourself. But first, a programming note: There’s probably only one more tranche of documents from the Fuller Request worth posting. It’ll go up tomorrow.

To Martha Spencer, April 1

Hi Martha. I think we may need to prepare a one-page summary of all of the opportunities for public input for Supervisors to have handy. Give me a call when you have a chance.

To Kurt Fleeman, April 3

Thanks Kurt.

To Helen Edwards, April 3

Thanks Helen. We are receiving a lot of input on this issue. The General Plan Update was developed based on the broad input of over 1,000 people who attended some 200 meetings, workshops, forums, focus groups and hearings in every corner of the County over the last 11 years, as well as numerous surveys, background studies and technical reports and some 1,700 individual comment letters. The process has had the guidance of 12 supervisors and 12 planning commissioners over the years. While I am certainly always open to improving our process, I would want to make sure that we are building upon that tremendous record of public involvement, not dismissing it.

To Debra Danielson, April 4

Hi Debra. Thanks for your e-mail. We are receiving a lot of input similar to yours.

The General Plan Update was developed based on the broad input of over 1,000 people who attended some 200 meetings, workshops, forums, focus groups and hearings in every corner of the County over the last 11 years, as well as numerous surveys, background studies and technical reports and some 1,700 individual comment letters. The process has been guided by 12 supervisors and 12 planning commissioners since 1999.

I am certainly considering input received from you and others on this topic. While I am certainly always open to improving our process, I would want to make sure that we are building upon that tremendous record of public involvement, not dismissing it.

To Rene Mahler, April 4. (Not linked due to the county’s “faux redaction” blunder.)

Hi Rene. Thanks for your e-mail. I have heard a lot of similar concerns.

The General Plan Update was developed based on the broad input of over 1,000 citizens who attended some 200 meetings, workshops, forums, focus groups and hearings in every corner of the County over the last 11 years, as well as numerous surveys, background studies and technical reports and some 1,700 individual comment letters. The process has been guided by 12 supervisors and 12 planning commissioners since 1999.

I am certainly open to finding ways to build upon that tremendous record of public involvement as we continue to move forward.