Now is the time to put the City Attorney contract out to bid

Charles Marsala asks a resident for a $500,000 loan when that resident came to Marsala for help with a problem he had. Furth excuses the conduct, saying since he didn't get the loan, everything is okay. When I spoke with an attorney friend at the time he said just asking is unlawful because it's asking for a bribe. Furth never mentions that, and there are two versions of the report, one for the public, and one private report.

How do you think Charles Marsala will vote on keeping Furth?

Elizabeth Lewis has an illegal house. Furth writes a report on it. She can't deny it's illegal, as anyone who's not blind can see there are no setbacks on two sides of it. She can blame it on Mike Hood, the former building inspector, and say Lewis shouldn't be held accountable for Hood's mistakes. But she never delves into the question of whether it really was a mistake, or Hood did a favor for Lewis and her builder. And if he did a favor, why did he do that favor?

How do you think Elizabeth Lewis will vote on keeping Furth?

Jerry Carlson owns a home that will drop in value by 50% the moment a judge says high speed rail is a go. He'll lose millions of dollars instantly. Yet, he is leading the charge against high speed rail, voting to use taxpayer dollars to fund the lawsuit, and is Atherton's representative at high speed rail is a go. Furth protects Carlson's involvement, refusing to identify a conflict, and arguing it's an issue that affects the public at large (but ignoring any discussion about the clear cut truth that the home values declining in value by millions of dollars affect only a handful of people, and Carlson is in that handful).

How do you think Jerry Carlson will vote on keeping Furth?

John Johns reports above that Furth ran his case to win. But she defines win as how much money she makes during the process, not whether the end result is good for Atherton or its residents. She does the same thing if a resident has a problem with the town. The resident is wrong, the town is right, and in the lawsuit that follows, she makes out like a bandit. After the smoke clears from the conflict, the town pays a big settlement, but Furth is happy.

Is this good for the town?

I say the combination of Furth maximizing her billings and covering for the transgressions of these three council members, who in turn protect her and these billings, is a deadly combination.

There is only one thing anyone can do it about it. Of these three council members, only Jerry Carlson is running this year. It's really important he not win.

When Wynn Furth was asked to justify her decision to conduct the investigation of Elizabeth Lewis in-house, her response was that she had consulted with more than one of her fellow city attorneys and that it was the "consensus" of those with whom she spoke, that the kind of review she was called upon to conduct was typically done in house rather than by someone independent of the Town.

However Ms. Furth appears to have confused the singular with the plural.

Based upon the Town's response to a public records request, it has been revealed that Ms. Furth consulted with only one other city attorney.

In addition to misrepresenting the number of colleagues with whom Ms. Furth spoke Ms. Furth made a material omission. Ms. Furth failed to mention that the other city attorney with whom she spoke was a fellow partner with her own law firm, Ms. Steiner, who's client is the City of Davis.

This is not just a simple matter of dissembling, this is the same self dealing and inbred thinking that is bankrupting this town.