Nichols’ comments may not be protected

June Casagrande

City Councilman Dick Nichols’ comments at a Planning Commission

meeting last month did imply that a planning commissioner had

accepted a bribe, and such comments may not be protected speech, City

Atty. Bob Burnham has said.

Burnham left it to the council to decide whether Nichols crossed

the line when he told one or more planning commissioners at a public

meeting, “It looks like you’re taking money for this one.”

Burnham’s report on Nichols’ comments, which the council will

consider at its Tuesday meeting, did include a number of opinions and

comments that could foreshadow serious consequences for Nichols.

“Council member Nichols’ remarks clearly implied that Commissioner

[Larry] Tucker’s apparent opposition to this application was based on

the receipt of money since, in the mind of Mr. Nichols, approval of

the application was a ‘no-brainer.’ The comment regarding ‘taking

money’ came after statements suggesting that those who are

‘politically attuned’ receive more favorable treatment than those who

are not,” Burnham wrote.

Nichols has publicly apologized for his choice of words and stated

that he did not believe anyone had been bribed. In explaining his

comments, Nichols said that he had been concerned that the

commission’s decision might create the perception of wrongdoing.

“I am sorry that my remarks may have implied improper behavior,”

Nichols wrote in a letter published in the Pilot. “I truly do not

believe any planning commissioner is being bribed.”

But Nichols’ explanation might have landed him in even hotter

water.

“We have found no case that suggests a public employee or public

official has a right to testify falsely or in reckless disregard of

the truth. Council member Nichols admittedly had no factual basis to

support his comment regarding ‘taking money for this one,’” Burnham

noted.

In a phone interview on Thursday, Nichols stood by his belief that

the Planning Commission decision that prompted his comments was off

base.

“What they did doesn’t make any sense,” Nichols said.

Nichols’ comments took place as the Planning Commission was

considering allowing a variance for a Balboa Island home to build a

larger addition on its roof than zoning rules normally allow.

Nichols thought the request should be granted because the finished

home would have affected the neighbors far less than the building

that had been there before. Planning commissioners unanimously

rejected the variance request on the basis that it was too far

outside city guidelines.

At their meeting on Tuesday, the council will consider whether

Nichols’ comments amounted to an unfounded implication of wrongdoing.

They will also consider whether to create a resolution to

“disapprove” of Nichols’ comments and whether to create a code of

conduct to govern council members’ behavior.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She

may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at

[email protected].