Why is the BCC's Consulting Team Working against the BCC: Part II--Why Was the Client Kept in the Dark?

Public Record emails seem to indicate that many meetings were set between the county's consultant DPZ CoDesign and groups of citizens that were working against the county's interests as it pertains to the OLF-8 project in District 1's Beulah Community.  Why was the county (the client) kept in the dark about the substance of these meetings?

 After a document dump of emails from late last week it became painfully obvious, to even the most casual observer, that the consulting firm we hired to implement the board's unanimously approved guidance document in conjunction with citizen input county-wide was being tainted.  And I don't say this lightly or without evidence.

As I discussed here and here--it appears to me that our consultants were giving an inordinately magnified voice to one large employer and their interests, NFCU, and a small group of nearby residents who were/are vocally opposed to any commerce being developed on the OLF-8 property.

I believe this was being done to magnify this opposition in an attempt to present this as a "mandate" or "ground-swelling" of grass-roots approval supporting residential construction on the field and in strong opposition to any commerce on the field.

As I've now carefully gone through the emails that were presented last week, I see DPZ's Communications Contractor Travis Peterson of Impact Campaigns working directly with both of these groups on what appears to be a second track---not in alignment with the county's (aka the client's) interests.  For instance, whenever a meeting is discussed where the "Beulah Coalition" ( a small group of  Navy Federal Credit Union employees and several nearby residents, primarily of the "Nature Trail" subdivision) is to be appraised of an update or given a briefing--County project managers are not on the distribution lists--not invited.  But DPZ staffers are copied on these invites.  Why not the county's project managers?  Why no invite for the client?"

Terri Berry, the County's Project Manager for the OLF-8 initiative said at Thursday's meeting she was told, specifically, that she was "not invited" to these meetings.  This is a red flag--no matter how many ways folks from DPZ want to rationalize that.  It was inappropriate.  Another county staff member with whom I spoken and with knowledge of this topic confirmed that the county's staff "did not" participate in meetings with this Navy Federal Credit Union/DPZ citizens group.

But looking past that part---why was the client, the county, not appraised of the content/outcome of

these meetings at a minimum--which we now from these emails learn were vocally and openly in opposition to the county's commitment to a fair and unbiased process?

Why was the client, the county, not told that this group of citizens were working to "embarrass the commissioners?"

Look-- a lie is a lie.  

You can lie by not telling the truth, or you can lie by omission.  

Either way, you lie.  Especially when we, the county, are your client----and nobody else.

So my question (one of many I will have) for DPZ generally and Travis Peterson particularly at the next meeting is simple:

Why was your client purposely kept in the dark?  Why did you not IMMEDIATELY inform the county staff and board that there was a movement afoot to "embarrass us?"