fiat: An authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.
The Council has already decided what the terms of employment are for town employees. There will not be any talks or discussions as the majority of WMD will have the votes to impose the terms of employment by fiat. Kathy McKeithen should not be voting on this issue but will in her last meeting. Cary Wiest will not have any say.
Nice huh?

Who is calling the shot to have it on the November agenda?

Widmer will be back East and call in. It is going to be hard for him to run the meeting via phone, maybe he will just vote.

The Annual Dare Awards normally go first; since it is a school night and the kids need to get home. One group is going to have to wait a long time. Either those wanting to speak on the contract or the children getting awards.

Since it is McKeithen's last meeting, public comments could take longer.

This should be delayed a month.

Can it be any surprise that the APOA-PAC wants their hand-picked and hand-purchased candidate, Cary Wiest, to enact labor policy in Atherton rather than the existing council? The surest sign where Wiest's loyalties lie.

Thanks for endorsing him, Peter Carpenter.

"The surest sign where Wiest's loyalties lie." will be in how he approaches this matter not to anonymous speculations.

As for putting this item on the Nov Council agenda - there is NO way that the Council can make a binding decision on a labor agreement at a single meeting. And for those who want to ensure citizen participation in this process you might ask the Council to adopt the Fire District's long standing policy on new labor agreements:


RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION

OF PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS





WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of promoting prompt public access to government records, the California Public Records Act broadly defines public records (Gov. Code Section 6252, subdivision (3)) and the exceptions to disclosing public records under the California Public Records Act are narrow; and



WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 through 54963, enacted into law in 1953, requires open meetings of local agencies “to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies”; and



WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act “…reflects a legislative determination that ‘public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business,’ and an intent ‘that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly’ (Gov. Code Section 54950); and



WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act require the District to conduct its business in a transparent manner; and



WHEREAS, the Board, as duly elected representatives of the citizens within the District, in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, is committed to providing the District’s citizens with information considered by the Board in making its decisions; and



WHEREAS, the Board believes due to the importance of proposed collective bargaining agreements with the District employee labor representatives, that these proposed agreements should be made available to the citizens of the District in sufficient time prior to the Board’s adoption of the proposed agreements so as to allow for adequate review and comment by the public prior to final Board action.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District does hereby move that any proposed collectively bargained labor agreement between the District and designated District employee representatives shall be made publicly available at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the meeting at which the agreement will be acted on by the Board.


PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at the Regular Meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008

So Peter-What's your opinion about Lewis and Weist recusing themselves from voting on union contracts so very soon after taking the same unions money to win council seats? What would the fire district do and what would Mr. Brown have to say?

"So Peter-What's your opinion about Lewis and Weist recusing themselves from voting on union contracts so very soon after taking the same unions money to win council seats?"

The law requires no such recusal and, after talking with both of them, I think the unions will be sadly disappointed that Lewis and Wiest will both act in the best interests of the citizens rather than the unions.

(Post removed. Please stick to the facts.)

TO Just Wondering,

There other factors to your statement.

1 Lewis and Wiest took resident's money and have the votes to represent the residents. They should vote.

2. Wimder, McKeithen,and Dobbie for weeks made statements and wrote letters that the APOA endorsement came with strings, yet their candidate received less than 18% of the vote.

The residents were informed and made a choice. Widmer issued a statement that he was going to work with Wiest, yet the first thing he does is deny Wiest a voice and vote on a key issue.

Isn't it nice that Peter Carpenter, in his personal opinion, feels there's no ethical conflict.

I guess that resolves the question for everybody, right?

Wrong.

There are some people, taxpayers of Atherton, whom Lewis and Wiest did not shmooze.

On October 17, here's what Peter Carpenter wrote about Cary Wiest:

"Weist would be a good choice IF he had not so blindly committed to giving the APOA whatever it wants. "

A large majority of Atherton residents voted for Wiest.

It is a issue of Trust. To Peter's point, make the agreement available for 15 days to the public before voting on it. The Council actually should have released it before the election so that candidates could have commented on it.

"A large majority of Atherton residents voted for Wiest."

Actually, incorrect. He did receive more votes than Conlon or Kupperman.

I would say most residents had no idea he took the money from the cops in exchange for protecting them from the same prudent, fiscally responsible, financial management that's taking place all over California and the U.S.A. right now.

The cops do not want ANY issue that affects their compensation to be decided without Wiest.

Look at the "Revenge" letter on the APOA-PAC website now!

Peter Carpenter – are you telling me you support the APOA-PAC sending out all of these letters?

"Peter Carpenter – are you telling me you support the APOA-PAC sending out all of these letters?"

No and I never did!

Are you still beating your wife?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?