Voters: we should all remember who took which positions on this very important issue.

Obviously council members Robinson and Cline, the incumbents who will run for re-election, have now voted NO against the grass roots pension reform effort. They have obviously decided they need the help of the public employee unions more than that of the residents of Menlo Park. Good luck, guys. Personally I now know who NOT to vote for!

[Post removed; disrespectful language violates terms of use]

The issue, it seems, was whether the council should write the ballot argument (or offer to, since the citizen group would have to permit that), not the merits of the reform initiative. Kelly seemed to want to turn it into a debate on the initiative itself, even though she ended up abstaining on the vote (???) So a vote against the motion didn't mean the individual council members oppose the initiative, although it's clear that Kelly does. It sounds as if Rich actually supports it.

It is strange that the Council would vote to place this on the ballot, at considerable expense, and then stand silent. There is no reason why some Council members could not write the supporting argument and others could write the opposing argument - based on their individual beliefs. Of course this would mean that each of the Council members would have to explicitly declare themselves for or against this initiative.

[Portion removed; statement cited has already been removed for disrespectful language.]

What a shame that what should be an adult conversation about the tax payers ability to continue to fund public pensions should degenerate into such bile.

I doubt Mr. Davis has the intestinal fortitude to call a Public Employee a "thief" to their face.

Obviously not everyone in Menlo Park supports pension reform . Oh I already said that I guess now you guys will get it. One last thing the supporters should foot the bill not the tax payers as not all agree, this is a miss step.

Blue Collar:

the only "miss step" here is the unions' stupid attempt at disenfranchising the voters of Menlo Park.

Do you notice how the Almanac has a double standard for censorship. It is far more lenient with regard to blogs from the left and is very quick to censor moderate and conservative opinions.

Almanac observer, what do you mean when you say "blogs from the left"? These are posts from people, not blogs, aren't they? I'm having a hard time understanding your post. Clarity would be most welcome.

[Post removed; focus on the issue, not perceived flaws of other posters]

It was smart for the City not to write a ballot argument, and drag itself into an expensive lawsuit about this misguided though well intended pension initiative. The Council did the right thing to impose, and they got other concessions that actually get fiscal savings for the City in much shorter order than the measley 20 year-future savings that a two tiered 2 at 60 alone (as in the pension measure) would get. The City imposed 2 at 60 too...

This is a tempest in a teapot. Keep eyes on the big picture, and where the REAL savings are, folks, and savings that don't diminish our level of service.

BCPW states:"One last thing the supporters should foot the bill not the tax payers as not all agree, this is a miss step."

1 - BCPW has a strange new idea of democracy wherein EVERYONE has to agree in advance before anything is voted on - a logical impossibility as how can you know how many people support something unless you take a vote.

2 - BCPW has yet to explain why the unions should have the right to deny the voters the opportunity to decide this issue.

Sounds like the union's motto is My Way Or The Highway

It's important to remember that an "imposed" second tier is only a city position as part of the bargaining process. This council or any future council can rescind the "imposed" conditions at any time in the next year before the second tier (2% @ 60 for new employees) takes effect.

Only a voter initiative blocks a reversal by council without concurrence of the voters.