The City manager needs to resign. Incredibly stupid,to think this wouldn't come to light.

Morris - it is defeat, not defeate.

And your headline presumes facts not in evidence.

We still do not know if any Smith produced materials made it into print or the web and, if they did, that they were or were no violative of the law.

The Mayor and the rest of the Council are fully investigating this matter and we should all wait for the facts before reaching a Morrisonian Guilty Unitil I Say You Are Innocent conclusion.

I may not be getting something, but as long as the city paid for the work, it seems to me it would be illegal, whether the work was actually used or not. What am I missing?

"as long as the city paid for the work, it seems to me it would be illegal,"

No, the legality depends on if the material were actually used by the City and did such use involve actions/words/pronouncements which were intended to encourage voters to vote either for or against Measure M. The City has a responsibility to inform voters of the facts regarding measure M and the law provides for a pre-election analysis of a proposed ballot Measure ala the Wise report:

Elections Code 9212"(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9214, or Section 9215, the legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.
(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.
(8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.
(b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition."


We still do not know what language Smith provided the City and if the City used that language and if any such use involved language which would be illegal.

"This is what they call in politics an astroturf campaign -- a fake grassroots movement." Interesting comment. Wouldn't this also apply to "Citizen committees"?

Getting back on the issue, I think Peter has stated it well. It likely will turn out to be a tempest in a teapot.

I respect Dave Price. He enticed me to run for my seat on the Sequoia Healthcare District. I hope he jumps on the district's "electioneering" mailing, parading as an annual report, which was sent out 1 week prior to the election.

$5,000 + of City of Menlo Park public money has admittedly been spent. No dispute about that, and there may well may be more. The wording of the invoices that the money went to pay show a clear intent to influence the public to vote against Measure M, which is illegal under State Law. Google Office of the Attorney General, Misuse of Public Funds and Stanson v Mott 17 Cal 3rd 206 (1976). The Money is gone, and spent for an illegal purpose.

That is all that is necessary to require the person who spent the money to have to repay the City account from his own pocket. See the Court's discussion in the Mott decision, even though for reasons not present here Mott was not required to pay. This violation may be enforced criminally as a misdemeanor under Government Code 54964(a) and 1222 and may amount to official misconduct.

Apologists for this illegal behavior argue that if the City manager chose a shoddy workman and did not use much of his stuff, then everything is OK. But the $5,000+ is still gone and the Manager meant to get good stuff to use illegally. And that makes it OK? You judge, and remember the names of the apologists. Disgusting !

Posted by Peter Carpenter
"No, the legality depends on if the material were actually used by the City and did such use involve actions/words/pronouncements which were intended to encourage voters to vote either for or against Measure M".

"We still do not know what language Smith provided the City and if the City used that language and if any such use involved language which would be illegal."


Actually, every one seems to agree that Smith wrote the Menlo Park web site overview of Measure M’s intended changes to the Specific Plan. Unfortunately, he may have been set up a bit, because he had no familiarity with the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan Fiscal Impact analysis, the Specific Plan interrelationships, the Greenheart proposal or the Stanford Proposal, and was unable to summarize and compare accurately. The Website contains many errors, false statements, material omissions and mischaracterizations and misleading statements. Some of these have been reported in letters and oral statements to the city council, including August 10, October 8, October 21 and October 27. City Council appears not to have compared the website with referenced city documents. The Web site conflicts in several locations with the Lisa Wise Consulting report. Many of the website statements were also included by the city in its Summer Brochure. Since the main purpose of Smith was to help refute Measure M and since a fair reading of the website confirms that purpose, the Website demonstrates improper campaign activity by a public entity.


The website specifically states that Environmental Impacts and associated mitigations would not generally vary based on whether an office building was proposed, versus a retail, restaurant or hotel structure. This statement is complete nonsense, shown false by most city environmental documents, and was made up to justify the fact that the EIR only studied 240,820 square feet of office space, 91,000 square feet of retail and 380 hotel rooms of non residential space, yet the plan says the maximum is the total of all the spaces constituting 474,000 square feet. Smith didn’t even include mention of that EIR study or the FIA study on the same itemization in claiming all non-residential space treated equally.

Similarly, he was not aware that both the Stanford project and the Greenheart project need EIRs. Moreover the Greenheart EIR infill report on page 2-12 finds that any impact by the previously approved 1300 ECR project which had an EIR can’t be considered for CEQA purposes, because it was entirely different (mostly retail) in part requiring a New EIR. Apparently without this knowledge the website says the prior approved project can be considered an impact for CEQA purposes and falsely claims the prior projects 110,000sf can be deducted from maximum new development under the plan. He also claims 146 new hotel rooms in the specific plan area, but because of CEQA only 99 new rooms are considered as part of the Specific Plan under an impact analysis. There are other misstatements relating to open space, the specific plan vision, office space revenues, The city posted this website on its City web site for over 4 months suggesting voters read the site before voting.

Menlo Park and Smith entered into an Agreement and Scope of Work on March 5, 2014, which provides for much additional work, with the stated objective, as shown by the Web Site content, as stated in March 5 Scope of work: "state the city's position and refute the arguments for plan revision." Seems to me "intended to encourage voters to vote either for or against Measure M" We are waiting for the Council Investigation about this work and a complete report.

Once again we see Atherton Resident making statements that are just not true:

Here he wrote above

"No, the legality depends on if the material were actually used by the City and did such use involve actions/words/pronouncements which were intended to encourage voters to vote either for or against Measure M. The City has a responsibility to inform voters of the facts regarding measure M and the law provides for a pre-election analysis of a proposed ballot Measure ala the Wise report:"

Well he is dead wrong (again)

See the posting from attorney Tom Jordan.

"$5,000 + of City of Menlo Park public money has admittedly been spent. No dispute about that, and there may well may be more. The wording of the invoices that the money went to pay show a clear intent to influence the public to vote against Measure M, which is illegal under State Law. Google Office of the Attorney General, Misuse of Public Funds and Stanson v Mott 17 Cal 3rd 206 (1976). The Money is gone, and spent for an illegal purpose.

That is all that is necessary to require the person who spent the money to have to repay the City account from his own pocket."

So Peter Carpenter, even if not used, this expenditure wan an illegal act.

Furthermore we know (McIntyre admitted), that he was heavily involved in the City's website on the issue, that this website is heavily biased in favor of No on Measure M.

It is now up to Council; we shall see what action they will take.

"that this website is heavily biased in favor of No on Measure M."

In your opinion Morris. In your opinion. Not in mine. You and the rest of the savemnlo crowd think anything that was factual regarding measure m to be "biased." The rest of us live in the real world. The majority of voters have spoken. You lost. Get over it and move on. I'm sure you'll be able to find something else to obstruct in the future.

There is also the aspect that the City Manager, who approved that $5,000+ of City money be paid to Smith, now seems to have misplaced Smith's work product, all of the time arguing, as do his apologists, that Smith's work was not used. Seems to me to be a highly suspect position: "I can't find his work, but, trust me, I did not use it".

And the Manager's apologists rush to support that highly untenable argument. There was plenty wrong with the City's statements in the past six months, and the wrong always went against Measure M. How do we know that Smith did not write all of it? When the person in charge of the evidence loses it, the burden shifts to the person losing the evidence. We are left with: All of Smith's work was used -- all of it -- until the Manager can prove it was not. Does this not bother the apologists?

And where was the City Council on this? How can one Council member comment in the press to the effect that we looked at the work and rejected it as unusable, and elsewhere say the Council had no knowledge of the Smith contract and work. It is the Council's duty to put a stop to illegal activity when they see it. It looks to me that, at a minimum, they saw it but did not stop it.

And what is to be made of the City responding in November, just before Election Day, to a Public Records Request made in August? The great delay was in the City producing the Smith contract, invoices and payments that are now under public discussion. But, Gee Whiz, the election is over! Are the Manager's defenders bothered by any of this?

Why was defeating M so important that some people did outrageous, perhaps even illegal, things? Others spent huge amounts of money. The No on M group talked about anything except what will the City look like in 5, 10, 15, 20 years. That was really the issue, and that is what they avoided. Not a good time for those who care about Menlo Park.

"The No on M group talked about anything except what will the City look like in 5, 10, 15, 20 years."

And the yes on m crowd NEVER quoted the language of their own initiative and NEVER could answer questions regarding what the effects would be of the measure.

Thank you, Tom Jordan for that insightful post. You hit the nail on the head.

"We are left with: All of Smith's work was used -- all of it -- until the Manager can prove it was not. Does this not bother the apologists? "

Two logical fallacies - assuming Smith's work was used when NO ONE can point to a single City statement that was written by Smith.
- assuming that anything stated by the City was illegal when NO ONE can point to a single illegal City statement.

To commit a crime there must be an illegal act.

"54964. (a) An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency
may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of
the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a
ballot measure, or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the
voters.

(3) "Expenditure" means a payment of local agency funds that is
USED FOR COMMUNICATIONS that EXPRESSLY advocate the approval or
rejection of a clearly identified ballot measure, or the election or
defeat of a clearly identified candidate, by the voters."

So where are these alleged communications? If nobody saw them then how could those communications EXPRESSLY advocate anything?

I'm still waiting for the pro-M crowd to produce all of their internal communications for all of us to scrutinize.

"Rules for Other People" seems to be a consistent theme with them.

Heyward's complaint cites Stanson v. Mott , 17 Cal.3d 206 (1976). Here is a relevant excerpt from that ruling:

" it is generally accepted that a public agency pursues a proper "informational" role when it simply gives a "fair presentation of the facts" in response to a citizen's request for information (see Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Education, supra, 98 A.2d 673, 677; Stern v. Kramarsky, supra, 375 N.Y.S.2d 235, 239-240; 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 190, 193 (1968) or, when requested by a public or private organization, it authorizes an agency employee to present the department's view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of such organization. (See Ed. Code, ß 1073; fn. 7 cf. Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Education, supra, 98 A.2d 673, 677.) [17 Cal.3d 222]"

So, once again, "Where is the Beef?"

Show even one example of the City of Menlo Park or its employees EXPRESSLY advocating a YES or a NO vote on Measure M - such a statement does not exist.

The Yes on M crowd didn't use any public funding.

When Peter Carpenter produces his private emails, I'll send him all mine related to Measure M. How disappointed he will be! No scandal! No corruption! No crimes! Just real residents volunteering for different tasks, for which they didn't get paid a cent.

P.S. The city's summer newsletter actively advocated against M.

"P.S. The city's summer newsletter actively advocated against M."

Please post the specific language from that newsletter that EXPRESSLY advocated against M.

@ "Stupid"

Measure M proponents forced an incredibly wasteful expenditure of public resources, time and energy.

They should be happy to show how "honorably" they conducted their business while sniping at duly elected officials.

Elected officials do not have a lock on "misleading" the citizenry.

If the pro-M crowd is proud of their conduct, transparency, legality, etc., I'm sure they will jump at the chance to produce their own communications.

Now is the time.

And once again, where is M's spokesperson? Accountability?

So, let me get this straight. Some of you truly can't see the difference between private citizens exchanging private emails on their own time and public officials using taxpayer dollars to commit illegal acts during work hours?

You guys put on a good show, but seriously, you're not that mentally challenged. I suspect that you're really just hoping to change the subject, but making a hash of that effort. Maybe you need a more expensive consultant?

stupid:

[Portion removed; play nice, please.] How about answering the questions?

Please provide actual concrete statements that were used by the city or staff that were created by the consultant. We'll wait.

Stupid states - "P.S. The city's summer newsletter actively advocated against M."

Please post the specific language from that newsletter that EXPRESSLY advocated against M.

Posted by Menlo Voter: "Please provide actual concrete statements that were used by the city or staff that were created by the consultant. We'll wait"

.
City Manager email to City Council, November 5, 2014 states: “In fact, his initial major product was developing the website content and getting it up and available.” . . . “Malcolm also developed for the staff some draft editorials and talking points that were never used as well as two new releases, which were used.”

Presumably these were consistent with the March 5 agreement and March 5 scope of work's stated task: “state the City’s position and refute arguments for plan revision [Measure M]”.

What else will await Mayor's investigation and judgment. If Smith gave staff talking points as McIntyre admits, how would anyone know if not used? In addition Smith was paid for strategy and updating strategy. Without knowing strategy hard to determine if used or not. Both Staff and City Council did plenty to state the city's position and refute arguments for plan revision. Why did the city seek a paid consultant for these topics is the first question. McIntyre states some work, including web site and two press releases, was used. What else was done? What else was used?

We do know some statements on web site are false. As stated in the email I sent to city council last August: "City Council and City Staff have strong interests in exoneration of the Specific Plan current implementation by seeking the voter’s rejection of the Initiative attempting to limit office space development underway on El Camino Real. They are actively campaigning against the Initiative. However, because of their positions of power and control of City resources, the City has a duty to only make accurate, complete, non-evasive fair and impartial disclosures to the voting electorate concerning the election issues. The City is not doing so."

The city web sites statement that nonresidential impacts and mitigation do not vary between office space, residential, hotel or restaurants is just one example of a false statement.. Smith may not have been familiar with the Specific Plan EIR,or the City's CSA both of which prove the falseness of the Web Site Statement, but City Council was made aware and Staff knew. Despite lots of notice, no changes were made to that or other false statements and omissions of material fact on the city's website necessary to make statements made not misleading. In effect the city doubled down on false statements on its website and left them up for months. Hopefully we will know more on the report of the Mayor's investigation.

Please provide actual concrete statements that were used by the city staff which EXPRESSLY encouraged either a Yes or a No vote on Measure M.

Hint, there are none.