Rise Gold Details Planning Commissioner Terence McAteer’s Possible Ethical and Legal Abuses
On May 10-11, the Nevada County Planning Commission held a public hearing at the Rood Center regarding the “Idaho-Maryland Mine Project,” where many people spoke for and against the project. The Idaho-Maryland Mine Project is proposed as a re-opening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine by Rise Gold Corp., a company whose office is located on Crown Point Circle in Grass Valley, California. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission made the decision to recommend to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors that they not allow the project to come to fruition.
The powers and duties of the Nevada County Planning Commission are outlined in County code 42.5.1:
“The Nevada County Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall review and consider and approve or disapprove all of the following:
All General Plan amendments;
All amendments to the Nevada County Zoning Ordinances;
All subdivisions requiring the approval and filing of a final map and parcel maps creating more than four lots and all major use permits and site plans as provided in the zoning ordinance. (Ord. 2484, 12/15/20).
On June 5, 2023, Rise Gold released a press statement reporting that it had sent a letter to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors informing them of “irregularities” with the May 10-11 Planning Commission Hearing including Brown Act violations, abuses of constitutionally protected rights to due process, and the Planning Commission’s non-compliance with Nevada County’s policies and ethics training.
Rise Gold claims that Terry McAteer conspired to co-opt public agencies to pressure the Board of Supervisors
“We have evidence that certain parties have conspired to co-opt public agencies to pressure the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) to vote to deny the Project at the future Board hearing,” Ben Mossman wrote on behalf of the Rise Gold Corp. board of directors to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in a letter dated June 1, 2023. “Further, Planning Commissioner Terry McAteer knowingly presented false and inaccurate evidence and testimony,” Rise Gold alleged. McAteer was appointed to the Planning Commission by Supervisor Lisa Swarthout (Grass Valley) after her successful election in 2022. McAteer was a member of Swarthout’s campaign advisory board and a significant financial contributor to her campaign.
Rise Gold requested that the Board of Supervisors conduct an independent inquiry into the events surrounding the hearing and publicly disavow the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Rise Gold believes Terence McAteer committed several unethical and potentially illegal acts
“One instance of Commissioner McAteer introducing inaccurate evidence, during Rise’s presentation, for the purpose of rebutting the County’s own economic report and conclusions of the EIR, can be seen in his comments on the Project’s benefits,” Rise describes in their letter to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Rise Gold then explains how Terence McAteer as a County Planning Commissioner claimed that there would be no tax benefits to schools, contradicting his own County’s published data, and then inserted himself as a biased “expert witness” on a matter that he would be voting on as a commissioner.
Rise explains that Commissioner McAteer made factually incorrect claims and challenged the accuracy of the data presented by the County’s own Auditor-Controller. “Given Commissioner McAteer’s experience as County Schools Superintendent, it is almost certain he was aware of the falsity of his statements,” writes Rise Gold Corp.
Rise Gold also informed the Board of Supervisors that new evidence (which was not disclosed prior to the hearing) and additional testimony was presented after the close of public comment without allowing Rise Gold to respond to these new items. Also, prepared remarks were used in the closing remarks, indicating bias.
Claim: McAteer presented false and inaccurate evidence and testimony
Recent documents from Rise Gold show that Planning Commissioner Terence McAteer may have intentionally presented false and inaccurate evidence and testimony.
Rise Gold gives the example of a letter submitted by the Air District in April 2022, which was retracted by the Air District shortly thereafter because it contained “factual inaccuracies and highly prejudicial and subjective tone.” Despite being retracted, McAteer stated the letter had been submitted on May 8, 2023, and relied on it as evidence in his comments.
Claim: McAteer read from a letter with a forged agency signature
Regarding the letter that McAteer read from, “Upon later review, the letter Mr. McAteer was reading from had just been resubmitted by a Project opponent a few days before the Hearing under a different name and date, with a forged agency signature, and was used to support false statements as to air quality impacts. Rise can only speculate as to who forged the agency’s signature and why Commissioner McAteer misrepresented what the letter was and where it came from.”
Claim: McAteer planned the denial before the hearing ever started
One observation Rise Gold made is that “at the close of the hearing,” Terence McAteer gave a speech in opposition to the project, “which he delivered by reading from a prepared document after the close of public comment.” Rise Gold claims that this “demonstrates that Commissioner McAteer had a predetermined opposition to the Project prior to the Hearing, which is inconsistent with his role as an impartial and unbiased decision-maker, and is factually similar to cases that have invalidated a local agency decision due to bias.”
The case Rise Gold alludes to is Petrovich Development Company, LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, in which an individual applied for a conditional use permit in Sacramento to construct and operate a gas station in a shopping center zone. A local neighborhood association appealed the decision, voicing concerns that “Councilmember Jay Schenirer … has taken unprecedented and aggressive steps to block the issuance of the [conditional use permit].” The city council voted 7-2 against the permit and the city was sued on the grounds that Councilmember Schenirer was neither neutral nor unbiased. The appeal court found that Councilmember Schenirer acted as advocate, not a neutral and impartial decision maker, and should have recused himself from voting. The appeal court concluded that because Councilmember Schenirer did not behave in a neutral and unbiased manner, Petrovich Development Company did not receive a fair hearing (Petrovich, 976). Rise Gold alleges that McAteer’s behavior surrounding the County’s hearing on the mine was similar to the neither neutral nor unbiased conduct of Councilmember Schenirer in Sacramento which the appeal court found improper.
Claim: McAteer was actively involved in working with the opposition before the hearing
One of Rise Gold’s complaints is that Terence McAteer worked with the opposition to make sure that they would be successful at the public hearing, where he and his planning commission colleagues soon would be on the other side of the dais listening to the public comments.
McAteer celebrated at an opposition party
Evidence provided by Rise Gold indicates that after the Hearing (on May 11, 2023), Commissioner McAteer and his wife attended a project-denial celebration party at the National Hotel in Nevada City.
The letter from Rise Gold also includes screenshots from the social media platform Nextdoor, showing Terence McAteer being congratulated by Project opponents and his active responses to their posts to thank them for the congratulations.
Biased social media conversations between McAteer and others
“Social media posts, and records obtained from a Public Records Act Request initiated by Rise Gold reveal that this Commissioner met with numerous Project opponents before the Hearing, attended an evening victory celebration for project opponents after the Hearing concluded, and participated in an anti-Project documentary after the Hearing, demonstrating clear bias against the IMM Project.”
In its letter to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Rise Gold continues, “In addition, Commissioner McAteer engaged in a number of dialogues with Project opponents on the social media platform NextDoor.” Rise Gold then explains, “Commissioner McAteer’s responses were subsequently deleted on May 15, 2023, which indicates he is aware that the posts were inappropriate and/or demonstrated that he was inappropriately embedded in Project opposition groups.”
McAteer coordinated opposition with NID and other organizations
Rise Gold notes that “…documents received from Inyo County indicate that Commissioner McAteer coordinated with NID staff, including Ricki Heck, regarding Hearing testimony, personally reached out to Project opponents to discuss opposition and planned comments during the Hearing”
In an email obtained from Rise Gold’s Public Records Request, Terence McAteer wrote on January 29-30, 2023 (months before the hearing) to Gary Pierazzi of The Wells Coalition to coordinate a conversation. McAteer clarified, “I’m interested in hearing their response to the EIR and focusing on the 3 most important issues that your group has in opposition to the mine.”
McAteer may have leveraged public school system to give high school students excused absences to speak in opposition
Rise Gold also mentioned briefly that Terence McAteer was “involved in organizing County public school participation opposition for the Hearing.” In a small footnote, Rise Gold provides the source for that claim as an email from “Project opponent James Blair” to Jeff Johnson and Commissioner McAteer. “The email discusses that students will be able to receive an excused absence for attending the Hearing and lend support in opposition to the Project. The fact that Commissioner McAteer is blind copied on this email indicates that his participation was meant to be concealed.”
Jeff Johnson, who was a recipient of such email, is a former superintendent of the Nevada Joint Union High School District (NJUHSD), the main high school district for Nevada County. Jeff Johnson’s wife, Louise Johnson, was also superintendent of NJUHSD and is now a trustee for the Nevada County Board of Education.
Claim: there were biases against the project well before the hearing
Another claim made by Rise Gold is that the county was biased during the environmental review and permitting process.
“Rise’s efforts to fulfill agency demands or requests were all too often met with resistance from the County, belying the intent to stonewall the Project as opposed to a genuine effort to produce a thorough EIR.”
Rise Gold notes that the county delayed key milestones and disregarded statutory deadlines, which caused “years of delay” and substantial, unnecessary costs.
The County Executive Team also singled out the Rise Gold project by commissioning an economic study as part of the decision-making process, “unlike any other project considered by the County.”
Rise Gold adds that “NID coordinated with Project opponents.”
Potential legal action
In the near future, legal action might be expected from Rise Gold against Nevada County. On the June 13, 2023 agenda for the Board of Supervisors was a discussion in closed session related to potential litigation, which may or may not relate to the letter and press release from Rise Gold, and Rise Gold mentioned in its letter that “Courts have consistently found that the actions above constitute a violation of due process.” On June 13, 2023 alone in closed sessions, the Board of Supervisors discussed three potential lawsuits against the County and one active lawsuit including election litigation related to the County’s refusal to provide public records related to the November 2020 election to constituents.
Including this potential litigation by Rise Gold against Nevada County, the Yes on V Campaign Committee, which was chaired by Terence McAteer, and Nevada County are being investigated by the FPPC for campaign irregularities in their support of Measure V during the November 2022 election.
Rise Gold requested that the Nevada County Board of Supervisors conduct an independent inquiry into their claims and “take decisive action to clear the County’s name.”