Law Offices Of Schuster & Associates
July 15, 2003
Mr. James F. Duzik, Member Agua Dulce Town Council
Dear Mr. Duzik:
In a letter to Mr. Kirshner you stated, "To be a good Council member … you have to be a good listener" and then went on to describe in detail the "several" problems you had with what you heard the night of [June] 25th.
Although your letter was written to Mr. Kirshner, I am responding because the letter may act as a statement of bias by a Town Council member and because the push-media, pop-up advertisement containing the letter perpetuates the inaccuracies contained therein.
As you stated, the Council members received many calls complaining about operation of the Agua Dulce Airpark. In the meeting held, all attendees were invited by the Town Council Chairperson to fill out a speaker slip and to wait to be called. I did so and, contrary to your assertion, was invited to speak on my client’s behalf.
While you may believe that the evening evolved into "an "us vs: [sic] them" scenario," I took quite a different impression; it was an open forum in which concerns and thoughts were voiced and exchanged and which, in tribute to the Council and attendees, each speaker was treated with respect, regardless of their view(s). Contrary to your claim, I neither challenged anyone’s integrity nor their "ability to operate … business without destroying the peace and tranquillity [sic] of the community," although I presumed you were challenging me when you demanded to know how I obtained certain documents which, as I politely explained, were public records.
I am unsure why you claim the information presented was not completely available to all members of the Council, as there was no issue or document I addressed which was not available to you or other members, had anyone bothered to research the matter. The most recent airport operating permit I addressed was #1570, which was issued approximately three decades ago!
Your letter falsely states that I "solicited any community member who wished to join Park Overall in possible legal action to contact [me]." Although many people asked for my card after the meeting, I neither solicited nor accepted any clients directly or indirectly through the Town Council meeting, although I have no doubt I would be effective in serving many area residents.
If, as you claim, it is a requirement for service to the Town Council for you to be a good listener, I might point out that you either were not listening to my statements or perhaps had such a bias coloring your perceptions that you mistook my activities for something they were not.
As to your assertion that I was "at least rude by soliciting business on the Council's nickel," that I "came to your meeting uninvited," and that I "dominated a part of the meeting beyond what was extended to [my] client," let me remind you :
1) I was invited by name to speak by the Town Council Chairperson,
2) my address was kept short, but was extended by your question(s) and the questions others presented (showing the airport matter to be of obvious concern) and
3) there was no mention during my presentation that time was near expiration or that persons in the room or sitting as council members did not wish to hear the information being presented.
Had you refrained from your question(s) or any personal attack, my "floor" time would have been lessened, although I would certainly hope a Town Council would not attempt to limit the information that can be made available in an open forum to concerned residents or, in the case of your question, prevent me from responding thereto.
You erroneously claimed that I "did not answer [your] question when [you] asked [me] where [I] got [my] information, but pontificated instead." Perhaps you were not listening or failed to recall that I responded by stating I obtained information from several sources, including public records research and community members – or perhaps you did not hear my offer to make copies of certain records available to you at my clients’ cost, which I am sure exceeds the "Council’s nickel" you referenced.
Please note that I have been in touch with Council Chairperson Andrew Fried and arranged for document submissions from my office; additionally, I worked with others to ensure that certain reference and resource materials were made available via the Internet® on a website being used by persons concerned with operations and development at the airport.
Your letter goes on to make additional statements which, apart from the spelling errors, are rife with factual inaccuracy. Perhaps you missed the statement I made in favor of airport operations for emergency services, the encouragement I provided to the airport’s owner to work in conjunction with community members to find an amicable resolve, the suggestion for a higher traffic pattern altitude in keeping with the majority of airports in similarly designated airspace, or the preface in which I stated that I was requested to perform an investigation and provide an educated opinion only, which my client was generous to share with your Town Council which, by your own admission, did not have public records which call into question the validity of a permit earlier issued to an airport owner.
If, as you asserted, you have "listened to this argument at least four times as it cycled through the community," then I submit that the argument you reference is of obvious, continuing community concern, warranting the attention of the Town Council, not the imposition of limitations on presentations or discussion.
Additionally, as you mention "unintended slander," I question whether you are referring to the public statement I was informed Mr. Kirshner made, using the derogatory nomenclature of "shyster" to reference me; I question why you or the Town Council would turn a blind eye to a personal (and unlawful) attack, as neither I nor any other speaker at the June 25, 2003 meeting took occasion to do anything other than present concerns and information. Such indifference to slurs, epithets and derogatory speech can only lessen the integrity of the Town Council’s proceedings, even if you prefer to dismiss it as "unintended" or local charm. (I am dismissing, for the moment, what I was informed were Mr. Kirshner’s threats to sue me, as such baseless litigation would only result in his demise and a financial windfall for my firm.)
I note that your letter fails to mention the oratory of the California "Airport Defenders" (a.k.a. California Pilots Association) or their distribution of printed material at the meeting; apparently, you have no problem allowing an organization composed predominantly of non-residents to speak, advocate its position and/or solicit membership at a Town Council meeting, so long as its position is aligned with yours.
As you apologized for being "so long winded" in your letter, I will tender my apology if you believe I took too much of your time, with the hope that the next duly constituted Town Council will respect the value of the research performed, hours spent thereon and the analysis provided to it at no cost. Such information typically assists in avoiding costly mis-steps or oversight.
In closing, please note that my clients similarly look forward to response from County Counsel and to operations which comport with law, whether such operations are those of a commercial operator, venture or bodies governmental or politic.
Thank you for your attention hereto.
Sincerely yours,
Jeremy G. Schuster
Copy to: Agua Dulce Town Council and Agua Dulce Airpark