Press Release
Mark Tillemans
Chairman, Inyo County Board of Supervisors
In light of increasing rumors circulating in our community regarding upcoming commercial cannabis policy decisions, I plan to provide a full detailed report at the next Board of Supervisor’s meeting of October 17th during the Board reports portion of the agenda.
Inyo Supervisor Mark Tillemans
I do not have any legal conflict of interest relating to any Board decisions, but I do understand that because of my interest in developing a commercial cannabis business there is a perceived conflict of interest.
Out of respect for the public and the decision-making process of the Board of Supervisors, I will be recusing myself from any Board decisions related to commercial cannabis policies.
Some of the facts I’d like to convey now and get into more detail at Tuesday’s meeting are:
- My support of cannabis’ medicinal values and the importance of investing in research and development of the plant as a viable medicine and a safe option to opioid use
- Transparent absence of any legal conflict of interest to date and moving forward
- The economic boom that’s on the horizon and the worldwide interest groups in our micro-climate
Discover more from Sierra Wave: Eastern Sierra News - The Community's News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He looks high in the picture!
Worse than a Brown Act violation, this “Board report” by Mr. Tillemans, in which he will explain his plans for his private, commercial marijuana-growing business in Inyo County, is a gift of public funds, prohibited by the California Constitution, by which Supervisor Tillemans is governed and which he swore to uphold.
According to his press release, Supervisor Tillemans plans to use the Board meeting to explain why his PRIVATE commercial interests do not create a conflict of interest, and to extoll the medicinal benefits of cannabis, and the money to be made manufacturing it in Inyo County.
That endeavor does not serve the public; it will and is intended to serve only the private political and commercial interests of Mr. Tillemans.
Perhaps that is why the matter was not placed on the Board of Supervisors’ meeting agenda.
In my opinion, if Supervisor Tillemans wants to explain himself and his commercial interests, and why he is not burdened by a conflict of interest for engaging in the marijuana-production industry that Inyo County now regulates, he should do so on his own time, and on his dime, and with his own lawyer by his side. I think it is improper and unconstitutional for him to do so at a publicly-funded Board of Supervisors’ meeting..
Thanks.
Seems like a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t’ situation. He’s attempting to tackle this issue publicly in attempt to avoid suspicion of his actions, if he didn’t do this then people would accuse him of trying to sweep it under the rug. Personally, I’d like to hear how his plans to operate a marijuana related business doesn’t cause a conflict of interest in him participating in any vote regarding marijuana business.
Although, I guess other business owners serve as Supervisors and vote on things that effect their businesses, so maybe it is the same.
With respect, sugarmags, I think you are missing my point and creating a false Hobson’s Choice for Mr. Tillemans:
It isn’t the content of Mr. Tilleman’s message to which I object.
I object to the forum in which Mr. Tillemans is choosing to convey that message.
I do not think it is lawful or appropriate for a County Supervisor to use a Board meeting to discuss and advance his or her own personal business interests.
Supervisor Tillemans can and should explain his commercial cannabis plans on his own time, not the public’s.
Thanks.
Sorry Mr. Berrey, It is probably lawful and probably required to make a statement to recuse yourself in this situation . Not having the benefit of legal training and experience and whether or not I have a preference to pain management, I do appreciate a transparent disclosure .
Thank you Mr. Anaya.
However, the basis of my objection was that it appeared from the press release that Supervisor Tillemans was going to do much more than simply recuse himself at the Board meeting.
Indeed, as promised by that press release, at the Board meeting Mr. Tillemans went on to extoll the medicinal benefits of marijuana and why it would be good to cultivate it commercially in Inyo County.
The upshot of this is that, after “recusing” himself from this matter, Mr. Tillemans immediately engaged in the very activity that he had just promised he would not engage.
I find that odd; but entirely predictable.
Thank you Mr.Borrow, can I add our local DA and Police dept.?They use our justice system in the same way to cover each others tracks?
How dare we criticize their actions!
Two points:
First, this will be a Brown Act violation. This topic is and therefore should be a separate agenda item, not presented under the nebulous “Board reports” section of the Board’s meeting.
Second, Supervisor Tillemans should have disclosed his intent to grow marijuana commercially a long time ago – when the Board was considering and acting on County regulations governing the cultivation of marijuana.
A little late now – after those resolutions were adopted.
Another example of our corrupt political class at work on “our” behalf.
E.R.B.
How do you know when he first had interest or “intent”? Curious.
Two reasons:
First, because the temporal proximity of Supervisor Tillemans’ votes in favor of resolutions allowing commercial marijuana production in Inyo County (note that when Establishment money is involved “marijuana” becomes “cannabis”) and his subsequent announcement of his intent to engage in that commercial activity creates a rebuttable presumption that the latter was on his mind when he acted on the former, coupled with the fact that, when creating the opportunity to do so in his press release, Mr. Tillemans did not rebut that presumption.
Second, because I am a distant relative of Kreskin and possess some of his telepathic powers.
And as I too am curious (but not yellow), how do you, Pedro, know when Mr. Tillemans did form that intent, such that you can question my supposition?
.
The County hasn’t adopted any ordinances or resolutions as they relate to commercial marijuana yet. In fact, I think they start considering it early next month. There was a vote of the public to allow for commercial marijuana in Inyo County in the last election cycle.
The Board of Supervisors – including Mr. Tillemans – crafted the resolutions that the public voted on in regards to commercial cannabis in Inyo County and thus directed policy in that regard.
Were these not County resolutions?
Or do you think, Mr. Rocks,that the public just got together and voted on their own resolutions?
@shadows:
1. It’s Mrs. Rocks.
2. The exact text of the ballot measures is included below. They aren’t resolutions or policy. It was an advisory vote for the public to weigh in on whether or the County should craft resolutions, which have been developed by a panel of staff, based on extensive input from workshops held at nearly every community in the County. The public could’ve voted no on any of them and didn’t, and Cities and Counties need to develop resolutions one way or the other to address Prop 64.
Fore your reference:
Measure G: Should the County of Inyo adopt regulations which would allow COMMERCIAL cannabis businesses within the County, including but not limited to, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, sales, distribution, warehousing and transportation of MEDICAL cannabis?
Measure H: If Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute, passes, should the County of Inyo adopt regulations which would allow COMMERCIAL cannabis businesses within the County, including but not limited to, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, sales, distribution, warehousing and transportation of RECREATIONAL cannabis?
Measure I: If Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute, passes, should the County of Inyo adopt regulations which would allow COMMERCIAL cannabis businesses within the County, including but not limited to, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, sales, distribution, warehousing and transportation of RECREATIONAL cannabis?
3. Just for further clarification, I’m not defending Tillemans, I’m just keeping the facts straight.
Thank you Mrs. Rocks (and I bet you do) for clarifying the legislative history of this matter to date; I take your point.
But did the Board not have to at least review that public/staff input and ultimately approve the wording of the advisory measures before they could be placed on the ballot?
If so, then I guess my somewhat inaccurately-made point was that it appears Supervisor Tillemans took some official action concerning commercial cannabis production not long before announcing his plans to engage in that activity.