By Jim Shirley
I appreciate the hard work of Ms. Reid in covering the meetings of the Pershing County Board of Commissioners. On the whole, she is very diligent in trying to get the sum and substance of what occurs during the meetings. Unfortunately, sometimes things can be misunderstood or taken out of context.
Without trying to offend, I would like to point out such an instance. The article entitled "County ARC ordinance challenged again" from the March 15 - 21, 2012, Lovelock Review-Miner inaccurately takes some of my statements out of context and may not be an accurate recital of what I actually said.
The article indicates that I said: "It's a due process issue and a constitutional issue," Shirley said. "We're denying your due process on getting your building permit because we're allowing some private entity to veto your right to get one."
I can go listen to the tape recording and get the exact verbiage, but I know that what I said was either misinterpreted or misunderstood. Because the surrounding context is not provided, the language is easily misunderstood even if it is an accurate quote. I had indicated that IF the County (probably using the pronoun "We") allowed a private entity to veto the ability of a citizen to get a building permit, it would constitute a denial of due process. Due process involves constitutional implications and is a constitutional issue.
The problem with the article is that it seems to indicate that the current version of the ordinance violates people's rights. It does not. It does not give veto power to a private entity.
The article leaves the impression that I believe that Pershing County has an ordinance that is unconstitutional. I do not entertain such a belief. The ARC ordinance is not unconstitutional and does not deny people their due process rights.
The article also leaves the impression that the ordinance is being re-written to clean up an unconstitutional provision, it is not. While Mr. Azzarello's questions have brought to light some changes that need to be made, those changes are not related to what Mr. Azzarello wanted. As stated in the meeting, the proposed amendment is merely a "house-keeping" issue and has nothing to do with any constitutional issues.
In 2003, the ordinance was amended to ensure that a private entity did not have a veto power over the county's decision-making authority. During that amendment process, an obsolete and superfluous provision was left in the ordinance. The proposed amendment will remove the unneeded provision.
If I can provide any further information or clarification, please let me know. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Jim C. Shirley is the district attorney for Pershing County.
[[In-content Ad]]
