It sounds like Peter Carpenter was not invited to the meeting.
If something sounds illegal, PC (g)seems to be there like the book of knowledge he seems to be when speaking of all left brain issues.
I think this area is getting tired of sharing information with people and are doing what is tantamount to "protesting" by avoiding those who have caused a lot of problems in the past by outmoded laws which protect voices like the former, older, reflective and all knowing of law through his illustrious career-- Mr. Carpenter.
I can never forget him for complaining about night baseball for kids because the light from the lamps shone into his home in Atherton.
Surely, he must know about curtains or blackout shades when the importance of athletics outweigh his own comforts. He won that, and lost me.

"I can never forget him for complaining about night baseball for kids because the light from the lamps shone into his home in Atherton."

You have a creative memory - I never complained about the lights ( and I live well outside the range of the lights anyway) but I did complain about the process by which their installation was decided. And I ended up being correct and the process was changed.

I suggest that the same will happen in this case - hopefully before the City and Facebook waste a lot of time and effort that will have to be redone.

I am far more concerned about staff negotiating with Facebook without any observers at all. This is far too cozy, with no checks and balances. IMO observers could be the council's subcommittee, provided they only observe and do not participate. Even better might be a neutral party such as representative of the League of Women Voters.
Frankly the staff should not be negotiating at all. Their strength is not in major negotiations, and the city attornys firm also serves developers so probably can't take too hard a stand.
The current practice provides no means to ensure that the best results occur for the community, and no means to validate that what was discussed in public was even brought up. The current practice does not pass the smell test.

Peter,
Some things will never change, some unnamed person makes false statements about you, and you have to waste your time correcting it.

Keep up the Great work

Why do you people give credibility to the same group of nay-sayers? Why respond? They don't live here, they don't shop here, they always have something negative to say. Never a positive. Never.

Long Time Menlo Man -

Instead of complaining, you should be thanking these "nay-sayers" who only want to see YOUR elected officials conduct the people's business in the sunshine - as required by law. If you don't mind your council members meeting secretly about Facebook I will assume you didn't mind Dick Cheney's secret meetings with the oil industry either.

And when was the last time YOU attended a city council meeting?

Although they didn't ask for it, perhaps a simple "thank you" to these people would probably be appropriate.

Thank you for proving my point.

Long Time Menlo Man:

as a long time resident of Menlo Park, I echo POGO's statements. When was the last time YOU attended a council meeting? If you haven't; don't bitch. I guess you'll have to find some other way to "prove your point."

Long Time Menlo Man -

And you, unwittingly, mine.

I wonder did somebody get paid under table.

Don - Your question is exactly why such secret meetings by elected officials are both illegal and wrong. The contemplated Facebook build out may well be the largest commercial development in the history of Menlo Park.

Why has the Council decided to have two of it's members participate in secret meetings.

Does Facebook realize that such ineptitude could blow up in its face and derail or delay their plans.

What if a judge throws out all the efforts of this negotiating process or forces the two participating Council members to recuse themselves from the Council's deliberations?

What is it about this language from the Brown Act that the Council does not understand?
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s
business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

"What is it about this language from the Brown Act that the Council does not understand?"

Peter: they do understand. More to the point is "why don't they care" that they are violating the Brown act? One only needs to look at the total lack of enforcement of the Brown act by our DA for the answer. These oficials know they have nothing to fear from violating the Brown act. Witness our most recent wannabe mayor.

I watched the Council Meeting at which this was discussed and agred to by the CC. My understanding is that the two council representatives are a subcommitte of the council to interact and advise the negotiating team; not to negotiatie or meet directly with Facebook. In fact, I recall specifically, prior to council approving the staff recommendation, that Mayor Cline urged his fellow council members to agree in advance that if they were appointed to be one of the two representatives, they would agree not to have any dealings with Facebook what-so-ever during the process (i.e. lunch, open houses, etc.) All of the council members so agreed. So, I question whether this process is indeed a violation of the Brown Act. It seems to me it is an attempt to improve the effeciency of the process while maintaining the integrity of the spirit of the Act.

When secret meetings are held between two Council members and the Council appointed City Manager and the Council appointed City Attorney we simply don't know what is being discussed or who else is present.

The two Council members are supposed to be a 'sounding board' for the staff - whose views will those Council members represent? Their own, that of the full Council (how would they divine the views of the other three Council members?) or that of the citizens whom they were elected to serve?

Why is the public's business not being done in public? What it being hidden? If nothing is being hidden then agendize these meetings and make them open to the public.

Peter, I generally find myself agreeing with you on most issues, and I especially recognize your expertise when it comes to issues related to Brown Act violations. However, in this instance, I have to say, no harm, no foul. First, I really don't accept arguments that are solely based on conspiracy theories or mistrust. The members of the MPCC were elected by a very well informed community and I have to believe they are honorable people who will not do secret things that are illegal/inappropriate. Words such as , "secret", "hidden", "supposed", all conjure up images of dark rooms and mystery when there is no basis for assuming anything of the sort is going on. The reality is that in order for the City to negotiate a development agreement with Facebook, given the reality that Facebook is a big business, operating in a very competitive world, with stockholders to be accountable to, things need to progress a bit faster than would be the case if every meeting between the parties had to be agendized for 30 days prior to the next meeting--meaning usually more like every 45 days. ANd we all know the number of meetings needed would be big. In todays economy 90-120 days can and do make or break companies. My position is that the process that the City Staff have put forth is a very positive attempt, not to subvert the publics rights, but to enable a win-win solution be done in a reasonable time. A clear message that MP is becoming less business "unfriendly".

"The members of the MPCC were elected by a very well informed community and I have to believe they are honorable people who will not do secret things that are illegal/inappropriate."

In fact, I just met with someone who will be directly and adversely impacted by these secret negotiations and who told me that his concerns were being DELIBERATELY ignored. The result could well be a law suit which brings this very speedy process to a halt.

Government in secret is not good government and the results are seldom acceptable - why else would the decision makers meet in secret?

There is that word, secret, again. Can we use a different term, like maybe "informal" or "exploratory". I have to repeat my understanding of the process that was approved; the negotiating team, not the decsion makers (the CC) will meet with Facebook. The negotiating team will also meet with the 2 council representatives to get guidance, plan strategy, etc. The end result will be fully vetted in public to the entire CC who will make the final decision. Regarding the person whom Peter mentions as having met with, two questions, (1) how does he/she know his concerns are being ignored, and (2) if they aren't being considered, how does he/she know its "deliberate" rather than they aren't valid?

" (1) how does he/she know his concerns are being ignored"
Because they have been presented and then told that they will not be considered

and (2) if they aren't being considered, how does he/she know its "deliberate" rather than they aren't valid?
Because I know the specific claims in question and they are clearly a direct consequence of the proposed project.

Secret is exactly the correct word.
Definition of SECRET

1
a : kept from knowledge or view : hidden
b : marked by the habit of discretion : closemouthed
c : working with hidden aims or methods : undercover
d : not acknowledged : unavowed
e : conducted in secret
2
: remote from human frequentation or notice : secluded
3
: revealed only to the initiated : esoteric
4
: designed to elude observation or detection

OK, Peter, we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I do really like #3 on the list of the meanings of "secret", however. "revealed only to the initiated". Sort of like the concerns your friend was told won't be considered. Thanks for the discourse, I appreciate you taking the time.

I distrust the staff negotiators more. They do not do this type of negotiation every day, have proven they come up short in past negotiations when the developer just said no and they said ok. There is not any way anyone knows what happens behind closed doors. There should be neutral observers. Peter, you're worried about the wrong people!

Concerned - I totally agree with you, the problem is that there is no way for the citizens to control what the staff negotiators do or don't do. Those same staff members have already let Facebook off the hook for millions of dollars in property taxes by not requiring a full reassessment of the dramatic improvements made to the former Sun campus.

The only effective control is for the FULL Council to receive periodic reports on the negotiations and provide the staff with new directions IN PUBLIC SESSIONS.

It is a farce to suggest that two Council members can speak for the full Council without consultation - which must be in public session - or that the full Council will have the knowledge, wisdom and courage necessary to reject a deal that has been negotiated in secret with the advice and consent of two Council members.

Anonymous Menlo Park Resident - I am your worst nightmare as I have NO intention of butting out of the people's business. I enjoy poking people like you and getting you off your butt. Perhaps you will someday realize that a crime committed anywhere is a crime against all and that our DA simply does not have the guts to hold elected officials accountable.

Peter, do you actually DO anything, or do you just monitor this blog 24/7 and do the best you can to "poke" at people, and continue to be an irritant? I would suggest running for a public office, do some positive work and use that forum from which you can also attempt to control the town's decisions. Your work at the Fire District Level was an absolute dismal failure, regardless of how you want to re-write the script. Good God, do something positive!

In my almost 30 years of public service I have accomplished a lot. No need to list the specifics, those who are well informed and involved in the community are well aware of my accomplishments.

Try it, you might like it - if you are prepared to work.

Peter Why do you assume that your friends concerns are real? I guess because he is your friend and that is good enough proof for you.

Peter:

There are specific instances where members of a body subject to the Brown Act can meet outside of the view of the public. Personnel issues involving confidentiality of personnel, discussing on-going or potential litigation with legal counsel, negotiations with bargaining units are examples. All contracts must be presented and deliberated on by a quorum in a duly noticed public meeting. Sounds to me like you (and perhaps your friend) would like to do the council's job for them. Let them do their jobs and you can review all documents before they are approved, as is your right, and you can comment on them, as is your right.

Just because a sub-committee is formed to make the process more timely and smoother, does not mean the Brown Act has been violated.

For anyone who has been trained in the nuances of the Brown Act, your objection is somewhat silly. It is impractical to conduct an entire negotiation in public, and the Brown Act does not require it do be so. The council's deliberation is what must be public.

Quite simply the four specific Brown Act exceptions (litigation, real estate negotiations, public employment and labor negotiations) that permit closed session discussions DO NOT include zoning and planning negotiations. The Brown Act requires any legislative body to conduct its zoning and planning negotiations in properly agendized public meetings. Having Council members and Council appointed officers conduct such negotiations in secret is a violation of the law.

Here is the California Attorney General's guidance:
"However, the Act also contains specific exceptions from the open meeting requirements where government has a demonstrated need for confidentiality. These exceptions have been construed narrowly; thus if a specific statutory exception authorizing a closed session cannot be found, the matter must be conducted in public regardless of its sensitivity. (§ 54962; Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School District (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 231, 234; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, 41-42 (1985).)
Where matters are not subject to a closed meeting exception, the Act has been interpreted to mean that all of the deliberative processes by legislative bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v.Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41; 42 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 240 (1958).)

The City will claim that this "committee' is not covered by the Brown Act; however, this is what the League of California Cities says:"a statement by the legislative body that
“the advisory committee shall not exercise continuing subject matter jurisdiction” or the fact that the committee does not have a fixed meeting schedule is not determinative. 'Formal action' by a legislative body includes authorization given to the agency’s executive officer to appoint an advisory committee pursuant to agency-adopted policy."