November 1, 2012
Dear Athertonians,
October 31 we received a letter dated
October 18 from "The Mayor" (no name) of Atherton.
We believe the mailing to
be a misuse of taxpayer dollars for political purposes. If the Mayor
does not like the people (Elizabeth Lewis and Cary Wiest) the APOA
endorsed for council, he should have to use his own campaign funds to promulgate
his beliefs just as the Atherton Police Officers Association did. The Mayor
needs to be a statesman. Referring to our police as people who
issue unspecified "misleading statements" is not statesmanship.
What can be his agenda? Is it
to go into negotiations next year in hostility so that he can walk from the talk
and justify outsourcing? Is it to get his candidates elected?
Among other questions my wife
and I would like to see answered publicly:
- The letter was unsigned. Is the Mayor representing the entire Council? Did the whole council approve his message?
- How about informal or sub-committee discussions on local policing? I just do not believe there have been no communications with APOA.
- Incomplete budget information was given regarding our police force - how about comparing staffing and response rates to last year, not to half a decade ago?
And we could go
on....
We moved here from 30+ years in
Palo Alto
several years ago. In Palo
Alto I served on the school board for eight years. I believed
then - and I believe today - that honesty and transparency are absolute
requisites of community leaders, and I am troubled that the Atherton council may
not be living up to these
essential attributes of effective representatives. I have a strong position on
the Atherton Police Department - KEEP IT! However, it is true that defined
benefit retirement plan funding is an issue for all employers, especially public
ones, and it is an issue that must be faced and addressed in a
reasoned, public, and cooperative fashion. It seems to me, without being privy
to all the communications, formal and informal, that the APOA has been willing
to do this but has been stonewalled by the current council majority, one
reason why we have contributed to the APOA-PAC.
A two-tier police retirement plan
would be a good first
step although the devil always is in the details. Of course we should
have a School Resource Officer - duh! Of course we should support renewal
of the parcel tax; it's not like our friends and neighbors cannot afford it. As
to agendizing items for public council discussion, I had no idea it apparently
takes a majority; that's nonsense. Any one elected council member should have
that right. Here in Atherton we all have our own little private enclaves,
and we like it that way. Unfortunately, that leads to a disregard for - and
disinterest in - local governance. Our council does not represent the talent
that resides in this town because most of us do not care enough to be
involved. We need more who do.
- Don Way, 124 Patricia
Drive , Atherton
ReplyDeleteSent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:52 PM
To: Don Way
Subject: RE: [Athertonians] Outsourcing Police - Transparency in Governance
Don,
Well said – you should be on the ballot.
I read in the Almanac that McKeithen is supporting Kupperman and have heard McKeithen donated $100.00 to Kupperman's campaign.
ReplyDeleteAlmost a month has gone by and the Mayor declined to post a answer to Mr. Way's letter.
ReplyDeleteInstead actions have gotten worse.
The agenda for the November meeting is a conflict in values. One item is to furlough employees to save $14,000.00 and the next item is to spend $6,000.00 on a party to thank employees and volunteers.
Is this to thank the APOA for issuing a "Misleading" letter or to thank the employees being furloughed?
Is it to thank the Park and Recreation Commission for the recommendation to have a town survey on the Library in the Park that the mayor declined? Or to thank the Environmental Programs Committee that McKeithen accused of misusing town money and violating town policy?
What adds to the issue is the way it is being handled by Mayor Widmer.
In October Mayor Widmer advised staff to start planning a party in December. He does not have that power. Just as he did not have the power to advise staff to do a mailing.
Council policy requires that two council members write a memo to the full council and request an agenda item. With three votes the item goes on the next month's agenda for public discussion and council vote.
Prior to staff spending time on this event, the vote should have been taken.
For years Council Member McKiethen has stated that several residents thought the town should throw a party for her to thank her service.
Is this that party? Was the party to thank the members of the Library Task Force Committee assuming the ballot measure passed?
Was the reason Mayor Widmer did not follow procedure and submit a memo request with another council member to avoid public discussion and avoid having these concerns expressed? Will the Mayor express his thoughts on why he wanted to have this party?
If the Mayor has discussed the party with two other council members he has violated the Brown Act. If any council member has discussed the party with two other council members they have violated the Brown Act. Three council members cannot discuss an item on the agenda.
How was the date choosen, without checking with the other council members?
The Furlough and other compensation reductions were in the works when the Mayor issued the Press Release. Yet he did not disclose them.
The issue has been the extent of the compensation reductions. If the reductions are too severe staff will leave.
The candidate supported by the Mayor was not elected and now the Mayor has chosen to rush a benchmark compensation to approval before he does not have the majority vote. Newly elected council member Wiest should not have to live with this benchmark.
These reductions go back to October 1, 2012. Did the council avoid approving them in September to prohibit them from being an issue during the election?