Facebook must be stopped.
Not only for the good of Menlo Park and surrounding cities but for the good of the world.

Carlton should be removed fr ok M the council for her attitude "It's not a big deal."

Btw Almanac. Check out reported info that Facebook is in the process of buying up large amounts of property along or near Middlefield Rd in Redwood City. Presumably the Fair Oaks area.

My thoughts on this.

Ms Carlton,

a) you are responsible for your financial investments - NOT the broker. After all, he or she only made those purchases or investments on your behalf - and with your tacit approval.

b) you easily could have checked your investments - assuming you knew investment purchases were being made on your behalf - and with your approval - prior to voting on a major county development. Especially given your apparent knowledge that these were being made by others.

c) Your comments about this, after the fact, convey an attitude about this incident which is reprehensible and flippant. These are words and responses not befitting a member of the Menlo Park City Council. That plus the irresponsible actions (or inaction) regarding the status of your current financial holdings prior to making enormous and lasting decisions leaves only one conclusion.

You should resign.

I have great respect for Carlton and her long and productive public service however in this case she has failed her responsibility as a public servant.

Elected officials cannot act on a matter without knowing that they do not have a conflict.

In this case Carlton should have both ascertained before she voted that her financial advisor had not compromised her by purchasing Facebook stock and she should have also instructed her financial advisor not to have purchased stock in any company that has/would have an approval before the Council.

How silly; virtually everyone with a diversified mutual fund owns some amount of Facebook stock - it is a ubiquitous investment vehicle. To think that a local real estate deal could significantly affect the value of a relative handful of shares is ludicrous. No harm no foul, in my view.

What’s the amount of shock or investment. Since Im over my monthly fee, I can’t tell,... or read about next Wednesday. It’s appears to be no big deal...

This matter and Keith's recent trip to China are both very disturbing. Facebook clearly has undue influence over our elected officials. Otherwise, why would a majority (including Carlton and Keith) have approved so much Facebook development that clearly has no longer become in the best interests of the residents of Menlo Park? According to a Columbia Law School Report, small municipalities are "susceptible to corruption, because their small size and workforce do not allow for the kind of oversight and enforcement mechanisms that larger cities...can employ." The report Web Link details ways that residents can fight small town corruption to "obtain accountability, oversight and transparency." Concerned residents can join other concerned residents to demand a higher standard of ethical behavior in Menlo Park. A more comprehensive Ethics Code, with Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Provisions and oversight via an Ethics Commission and even a Compliance Officer, might have prevented this latest troubling news. I agree with Council Member Ray Mueller that a Sunshine Ordinance is also needed as the state's open meeting laws don't go far enough. Anyone with nothing to hide, has no reason to fear strengthened good government provisions.

I want to second Ms. Bramlett's thoughtful remarks, especially as they pertain to the eventual establishment of an Ethics Commission. While Menlo Park likes to envision itself as a small hamlet of idyllic life, the reality is that the amount of money and the financial and quality of life impacts that it represents with regard to the day-to-day decision making in the city is anything but Mayberry-like.

Unfortunately, Councilman Mueller's previous efforts to bring a Sunshine Ordinance to the official city discussion docket were thwarted last year as he could not get a "second" after making the proposal. A LOT more of us paid attention to that action than I believe council realizes and believe it was a telling and egregious error. Many of us are strongly motivated to precipitate a change in the way that Menlo Park conducts its business when it comes to clearly and proactively informing the public about the influence of special interests over important decisions.

Mr. Mueller's Sunshine Ordinance proposal is a good place to begin, but it is only that.

The matters Lynne Bramlett describes here stem from a press conference and photo Keith posted to Twitter, and information shared in an economic disclosure document filed by Carlton. Lack of sunshine? These issues are happening (and are being resolved) in plain sight. Things become problematic when a conflict is directly tied to the salary of elected officials.

"Redwood City Councilman Jeff Gee’s participation in votes pertaining to two Stanford University development projects are currently under review after a complaint filed Jan. 5 alleged his relationship with his employer and general contractor for one of the projects, Swinerton Builders, presents a potential conflict of interest... Swinerton was approved for work at the site and that Gee voted on these issues." -- Daily Journal, Jun 1, 2017 (Web Link

"Redwood City City Councilwoman Rosanne Foust had a conflict of interest when she voted to push along Cargill’s Saltworks development, a state political watchdog has concluded... Foust’s conflict stems from her role as member of a City Council that can approve or reject a project strongly endorsed by the influential San Mateo County Economic Development Association, which she heads as CEO." -- San Mateo County Times, July 30, 2010 (Web Link

Carlton: Take responsibility for your actions. Don't blame the Independent Investment Adviser. Also. it's a big deal.

Too bad, Ms Carlton did not do her "due diligence," to check if there would be any conflicts of interest. It was very irresponsible of her as a council member of Meno Park. Making decisions and approvals for Menlo Park, and not thinking if there might by any conflicts/influence by what she/her husband owns is a dereliction of duty and unethical.

An educated and informed group of residents, willing to speak out for democratic values in Menlo Park, can make a difference! The document, Public Service Ethics Laws" from the Institute for Local Government, has relevant content on California ethics laws to help concerned residents to better determine if there there has been a violation. Web Link As our local government is working on plans to move from our current General Law status to a charter city, it will be vital that residents stay up on the topic of ethics, so that any new charter will include ample provisions that increase ethical requirements in Menlo Park.

While I can understand how this happened without her knowledge I still think it is a problem for her. If you have any managed portfolios it is very easy to not know what is being purchased for you. The fund managers buy and sell the shares for you without asking first. However you can tell them that certain companies should not be part of your portfolio and they will not invest in those companies. Facebook is an obvious company for someone on the Menlo Park City Council. So yes this is a problem and one that Carlton owns. It is too easy to blame someone else but it really is her problem and she needs to deal with it.

Ms Carlton also asked Facebook to find the travel for MO kids who were going on a trip to Japan.

And received the funding.

Almanac should check the timing in relation to votes.

City staff, commisssioners and council members needs an arms length relationship with Facebook.

Lynne Bramlett, if you ran for Council, I'd vote for you. You confirm every negative thing I've learned about Menlo Park government over the past 20 years. Menlo Park has been and continues to be sold to the highest bidder. Both Councils and Administration represent a government, not for the people, but for themselves and against the people.
How have we residents benefitted from our ever more expensive government for the past two decades? Though absolutely critical, it's not just lack of ethics, accountability and transparency. It's horrific, counter-productive decision making leading to the loss of character and quality of life that we Menlo Park residents hoped to enjoy. We've been sold out.

What will it take for "We, the people" to wake up and take our government back?

Thank you Mr. Engel for your vote of confidence. I live in District 3, so not eligible to even consider the idea until Nov 2020. So we see a competitive race in the seats up for election, I hope that suitable people will come forward to run -- especially in the Willows area. Meanwhile, to help restore Menlo Park's democratic values (as we seem more an oligarchy right now) -- I suggest that residents speak publicly in support of a Sunshine Ordinance that Ray Mueller would like Council to discuss. Getting one passed would force more meetings to be open to the public, and reduce the influence of special interests or poorly planned efforts. The Brown Act is considered only the bare minimum of transparency. Anyone may attend a Council meeting and use the initial public comment period to urge the passing of a Sunshine Ordinance. If MP raised its open government threshold, via a Sunshine Ordinance, the increased public involvement would lead to more transparency, accountability and oversight -- and better decisions and better outcomes. Residents may also join the Google Group: MP Residents for Civic Engagement to "join forces" with other concerned residents.

If Facebook represents a minor portion of her investment portfolio then I don't see this as a problem. Probably much ado about nothing.

Wrong.

"§ 18700. Basic Rule and Guide to Conflict of Interest Regulations
(a) Basic Rule: A public official at any level of state or local government has a prohibited
conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use
his or her official position to influence a governmental decision when he or she knows or has
reason to know he or she has a disqualifying financial interest. A public official has a
disqualifying financial interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material
financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally, directly on the official, or
his or her immediate family, or on any financial interest described in subdivision (c)(6)(A-F)
herein. (Sections 87100, 87101, & 87103.)

(6) “Financial interest” means anything or anyone listed in subparagraphs (A-E) and
includes an interest in the public official's own personal finances and those of a member of his or
her immediate family.
(A) Any business entity, as defined in Section 82005, in which the public official has a
direct or indirect investment worth at least $2,000 (Section 87103(a))."

So Peter, according to your logic if any council member holding a mutal fund that has Facebook in its portfolio (which many do) than that person has a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest should not involve minor positions in Facebook (5% or less). This is much ado about nothing. You seem to be attacking those who don't adhere to your interprestation of conflict of interest.

Wrong again. Diversified mutual funds are exempt from the conflict of interest and reporting rules:
"Diversified Mutual Fund: Diversified portfolios of stocks,
bonds, or money market instruments that are managed
by investment companies whose business is pooling
the money of many individuals and investing it to seek
a common investment goal. Mutual funds are managed
by trained professionals who buy and sell securities. A
typical mutual fund will own between 75 to 100 separate
securities at any given time so they also provide instant
diversification. Only diversified mutual funds registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 are exempt from
disclosure. "

Do you ever do any of your own homework?

And these are not my interpretations of the rules - these are direct quotes from the FPPC.

Peter,

Admittedly you are correct about mutual funds. What if Ms. Carleton has an investment advisor who invests on her behalf without her providing guidance on which stock to purchase on her behalf? Wouldn't that protect her from a conflict of interest since she has no influence on which stocks are purchased?

"What if Ms. Carleton has an investment advisor who invests on her behalf without her providing guidance on which stock to purchase on her behalf? "

There is no exception in the law for such a procedure - if the Facebook holding is $2000 or more it must be reported and it constitutes a conflict.

Given Facebook's huge impact on Menlo Park no competent investment advisor should even consider purchasing Facebook shares for a Menlo Park Council Member.

Peter, I own 3.8 percent of Facebook shares spread over an IRA and Trust account. I have no influence over my investment adviser's decisions. So what would the City Council do if 3 council members held Facebook shares through which they were not involved in the purchase of and thus not having a quorum? Would you have the City Council recuse itself over every Facebook decision? Could Facebook then do whatever it wanted in Menlo Park with regard to the impact it would have in the community? Would you make a rule that no city Council member could ever have any investments in any Menlo Park businesses?

Reason has it that if the stake in Facebook is relatively small and that if the council member had no influence over its advisers decisions then a recusal would not be necessary.

Politicians for years have placed their assets in blind trusts to avoid speculation of public corruption. It is reasonable to say that if a council member gives his/her investment adviser complete discretion without any input from said member then the conflict of interest is avoided provided the stake in the company is relatively minor to the total investment portfolio.

BFD - Ask the FPPC and tell us what the answers are.

§ 18235. Reporting Interests in a Blind Trust (82030, 82033 and 82034).
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 2 Cal. Adm. Code Section 18234(c), a filer who
has a direct, indirect or beneficial interest in a blind trust which meets the standards set forth in subsection (b) is not required to disclose the pro rata share of the trust's interests in real property or investments, or income deriving from any such interests or investments, if those interests or investments are acquired by the trustee after the trust complies with subsection (b).

Was such a blind trust established and was it reported as required?

"(c) If a filer has an interest in a blind trust which meets the requirements of subsection
(b), the filer shall indicate the existence of the blind trust, its date of creation and the name of the
trustee on the Statement of Economic Interests and attach a copy of a statement signed by the
trustee, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has not revealed any information to the filer,
except what is required under subsections (b)(3) and (4), and that the trust is in conformance
with subsection (b). "

If Carlton didn't order the sale of the shares until March 2017, why doesn't her 2017 Form 700 state she owned them in 2017 as well as provide the date she sold the shares?

According to her story, the shares were purchased in 2016 prior to the Facebook vote, and not sold unto 2017, when she was working on her 2016 Form 700, where the shares are listed. But why aren't the shares and the sale date listed in the 2017 Form 700? Looking at the 2016 Form 700 and then the 2017 Form 700, it's impossible to know when Carlton sold the shares and if she sold them prior to the Facebook vote.

Is there any update to this story? Does anyone know the FPPC case number? Has anyone confirmed if Carlton actually notified the enforcement division at the FPPC?

Carlton gave instructions not to buy shares of stock in Menlo Park business. The Adviser ignored her. She found out that he bought Facebook shares. She ordered him to sell the shares. The adviser dragged his heels. So why not blame Carleton for the Adviser's actions?