While I respect your opinion on matters involving historical buildings, you need to respect that professional planners such as Angela Fuss can move from one place of employment to another without being prejudiced. I know several planners who have gone back and forth between the public and private sector who have not shown any prejudice towards their past projects, but have reviewed the projects in light of the facts as represented and commented on by the reviewing agencies. Shame on you for even implying that Ms. Fuss has any credibility issues regarding this or any other project.
Hi, Robert - I wasn't implying prejudice or bias. My point was that Reno is a small town in many ways. In this case, I pointed out Ms. Fuss' switch (over seven years) from one side of this specific project to the other because she appears prominently in two of the sources that I link to from 2018 as the developer's representative. I think it would be more confusing not to acknowledge that role change. And acknowledging it allows it to be addressed openly, as you have here.
In any municipality, acknowledging past or current project affiliations isn’t about questioning someone’s integrity, it’s about keeping the record clear and protecting public trust. That’s how we keep our public processes fair and earn the trust of the people we serve.
It is unusual that staff would recommend to City Council an objection to community concerns and multiple commission denials, especially at this stage, when those decisions were based on what the applicant, including both the property owner and the City, presented to those bodies. At the same time, the appeal process exists for any applicant or entity to use, and that is part of the democratic system we serve. The hope is that if an appeal moves forward, it brings with it improvements - shaped by council and commission input (local and regional), public feedback, and community concerns - that result in a version of the project that is more realistic and responsive to the people it will affect. That’s why the land-use and planning process, and the decisions that come from it, must be not only correct, but trusted.
Robert is right that planners often move between public and private roles with integrity, but trust in the process still requires transparency. Alicia is also right that in Reno, and in any community, those connections are part of the record and should be acknowledged openly. And Kerry is right that planning is rooted in the public interest, bound by a code of ethics, which makes disclosure essential to our work, especially when staff are advising on major decisions.
For commissioners, staff, and council members alike, bringing project affiliations into the open protects the individual and reassures the community. It ensures projects are evaluated on their findings and merits, not influenced by past or present ties or the perception of conflicts of interest, real or imagined.
Anyway, that’s why I, both personally and as a Reno Planning Commissioner, value the Barber Brief and Alicia’s integrity-driven reporting for bringing forward information that might otherwise go unspoken. It strengthens decision-making and underscores that transparency at every level is what fairness and public trust depend on.
This article is about transparency, which is why as a professional planner I read the Barber Brief. In a profession that is bound to a code of ethics - one which centers on serving the public interest - this becomes an important disclosure. Ms. Fuss' history is relevant because staff is advising City Council on making an objection to TMRPA's PC decision.
I objected to the use of the “Only in Reno” phrase. This imparts that the transition between private consulting to public service also creates a situation where impartiality is left by the wayside. This is not the case and as such I believe that Ms. Barber chose poorly and should correct the statement. The person in question is a good professional who has served both her private sector clients and her public sector clients well. Ms. Barber’s choice of wording casts an aspersion. She should remedy the situation.
Hi, Robert - Thanks for the clarification. My use of the phrase "only-in-Reno" reflects my personal opinion that Reno can feel like a small town sometimes, where the same names can crop up in unexpected places. This example seems to have prompted a more extensive but fruitful discussion here with you and the other commenters about the nature of the planning profession, this particular situation, transparency, etc., and I'm truly happy that this comment area can serve a space to hold such conversations. We're bound to have different opinions and perceptions, including our interpretations of what others say and mean. That's why conversations like these are so important, and I thank you all for engaging.
While I respect your opinion on matters involving historical buildings, you need to respect that professional planners such as Angela Fuss can move from one place of employment to another without being prejudiced. I know several planners who have gone back and forth between the public and private sector who have not shown any prejudice towards their past projects, but have reviewed the projects in light of the facts as represented and commented on by the reviewing agencies. Shame on you for even implying that Ms. Fuss has any credibility issues regarding this or any other project.
Hi, Robert - I wasn't implying prejudice or bias. My point was that Reno is a small town in many ways. In this case, I pointed out Ms. Fuss' switch (over seven years) from one side of this specific project to the other because she appears prominently in two of the sources that I link to from 2018 as the developer's representative. I think it would be more confusing not to acknowledge that role change. And acknowledging it allows it to be addressed openly, as you have here.
In any municipality, acknowledging past or current project affiliations isn’t about questioning someone’s integrity, it’s about keeping the record clear and protecting public trust. That’s how we keep our public processes fair and earn the trust of the people we serve.
It is unusual that staff would recommend to City Council an objection to community concerns and multiple commission denials, especially at this stage, when those decisions were based on what the applicant, including both the property owner and the City, presented to those bodies. At the same time, the appeal process exists for any applicant or entity to use, and that is part of the democratic system we serve. The hope is that if an appeal moves forward, it brings with it improvements - shaped by council and commission input (local and regional), public feedback, and community concerns - that result in a version of the project that is more realistic and responsive to the people it will affect. That’s why the land-use and planning process, and the decisions that come from it, must be not only correct, but trusted.
Robert is right that planners often move between public and private roles with integrity, but trust in the process still requires transparency. Alicia is also right that in Reno, and in any community, those connections are part of the record and should be acknowledged openly. And Kerry is right that planning is rooted in the public interest, bound by a code of ethics, which makes disclosure essential to our work, especially when staff are advising on major decisions.
For commissioners, staff, and council members alike, bringing project affiliations into the open protects the individual and reassures the community. It ensures projects are evaluated on their findings and merits, not influenced by past or present ties or the perception of conflicts of interest, real or imagined.
Anyway, that’s why I, both personally and as a Reno Planning Commissioner, value the Barber Brief and Alicia’s integrity-driven reporting for bringing forward information that might otherwise go unspoken. It strengthens decision-making and underscores that transparency at every level is what fairness and public trust depend on.
This article is about transparency, which is why as a professional planner I read the Barber Brief. In a profession that is bound to a code of ethics - one which centers on serving the public interest - this becomes an important disclosure. Ms. Fuss' history is relevant because staff is advising City Council on making an objection to TMRPA's PC decision.
I objected to the use of the “Only in Reno” phrase. This imparts that the transition between private consulting to public service also creates a situation where impartiality is left by the wayside. This is not the case and as such I believe that Ms. Barber chose poorly and should correct the statement. The person in question is a good professional who has served both her private sector clients and her public sector clients well. Ms. Barber’s choice of wording casts an aspersion. She should remedy the situation.
Hi, Robert - Thanks for the clarification. My use of the phrase "only-in-Reno" reflects my personal opinion that Reno can feel like a small town sometimes, where the same names can crop up in unexpected places. This example seems to have prompted a more extensive but fruitful discussion here with you and the other commenters about the nature of the planning profession, this particular situation, transparency, etc., and I'm truly happy that this comment area can serve a space to hold such conversations. We're bound to have different opinions and perceptions, including our interpretations of what others say and mean. That's why conversations like these are so important, and I thank you all for engaging.