Is Measure L unfair to Women and Minorities?

The unsustainable cost of pensions and retiree health care benefits is unfair to all taxpayers-- men, women, minorities, etc. The taxpayers bear all the market risks, and tax dollars are treated like monopoly money. That is unfair to everyone!

Whoever wrote this ridiculous letter is obviously using desperate tactics for what she/he sees as a desperate situation-- the passage of Measure L.

Of course the "County Democrats" are opposed to Measure L. It hits in the heart of their biggest supporters-- the public employee unions. While the unions continue to do their job by representing their members, unfortunately, the politicians are not doing theirs by representing all their constituents. The two incumbents who voted to increase pension obligations by about $6 million should not be re-elected.

Also, the Menlo Park City Council is a nonpartisan race, so I certainly hope voters don't buy into the author's rhetoric about voting down the Democratic party line. That would be a mistake that Menlo Park cannot afford, and our children will suffer the consequences.

The writer of this email is correct - Measure L's micromanaging focus only on one aspect of compensation reform and only on certain new employees *does* disproportionately impact women and minorities. True reform would take a look at all aspects of the compensation package and do something about ALL employees.

What the Council did was more comprehensive. And that is what we elect them for. Governing and budgeting by the ballot box has serious limitations as we see with the mess in Sacramento.

Those "union" people that you rail against are just our City workers that do rec programs for our kids and work in the library. They are not some huge disembodied monolithic controlling organization that you want to vilify.

Only the most senior management can even hope to afford a condo in Menlo Park and most can't afford to live here at all which is really serious when it comes to our police living very far away if/wen (God forbid) there is a heavy duty emergency response needed quickly at night. We need to be careful to take actions that help us maintain good quality service, not further erode it. Our Council, not the voters, are in the best position to effect comprehensive reform in a way that best serves our City's interests. In fact they already started by imposing a comprehensive package on the union and were tough during negotations.

No on micromanaging. No on L.

The Council did NOT do anything until there was public pressure from more than 1/6 of the voters in Menlo Park signing the petition. This Council majority, two of whom are running for re-election, have never had the political conviction to make tough decisions. The impose was a result of public pressure-- not the Council majority's convictions.

Please stop playing the race and gender cards. You must be a staunch Democrat because you, like the left-wing part of that party, continue to compartmentalize people into "minorities", "women", etc. How about looking at everyone-- not specific groups? Pretty soon, when taxpayers (who are men, women, and "minorities"!) can't afford to live here. Businesses will also leave, like they already have (take a look El Camino and Santa Cruz Ave.. Therefore, there will be no tax base to support public employees and their pensions. Don't kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs.

If you truly want good services, then make them competitive. If that means bringing in a private management firm, such as with Burgess Pool, then so be it.

Re emergency response, you're right, Menlo Park needs to make this a priority. This Council has not done this and completely neglected disaster preparedness. In fact, Menlo Park lags behind East Palo Alto and Atherton when it comes to its disaster plan. Why does a San Bruno situation have to happen to bring attention to this issue? Don't you think the plane crash in East Palo Alto should have prompted some thought in the Council's being prepared for a disaster? EPA is much closer to MP than San Bruno!

The only candidate who has financial expertise and real experience in disaster preparedness-- two issues you seem to care about-- is Peter Ohtaki. And, by the way, he's Japanese. Therefore, based on your rationale of experience and "minority" representation, you should vote for him, and I hope you do.

The author is Barrett Moore. I received the email unsolicited. After speaking with several other parents from Oak Knoll (who also received this unsolicited email) it appears she has abused the email list compiled by the school for room parents. I have never corresponded with her outside this capacity. tsk, tsk, tsk.

She clearly is mistaken about several factors. the most important of which is the current employees are exempt. Right? so the current or future makeup of the city's employee base is unknown at this time. So how would she know who is harmed.

That she states she is not an expert at this (which is obvious) doesn't dismiss the fact that it is reckless to make false statements. But then again that's how politics is played....right????.....lies, lies and more lies as usual.

Measure L certainly does not discriminate, or harm small animals or make lettuce wilt. That email is just silly.

As for more comprehensive reform, I credit our council with adding increased employee share contributions to the "imposed" contract. Measure L deals with retirement age minimum and benefit calculation maximum, both far from drastic limits - but enough to prevent a recurrence of the disaster that occurred when council raised pension commitments by 35%. I agree that it is COUNCIL'S JOB to take it from there - there is more still to be done. Those who agree that Measure L is only a first step, please speak up with us at the council meeting on November 9!

Received the letter: Thanks for letting the community know Ms. Moore possibly abused the Oak Knoll email list. You would think she would know better, since, from what I have heard, her husband (Bruce Ives) is a former board member and President of the Menlo Park City School District. You'd think she'd know better and hold herself to a higher standard because of the leadership role her family has had in the school district. I guess, it's a double standard-- really sad! But, it wouldn't be the first time, especially by those who are using these desperate measures to defeat an initiative that the Menlo Park community clearly wants.

Based on Henry Riggs' statement, while the Council did impose a contract (because of public pressure), the bottom line is that the Council raised pension commitments by 35%. Mr. Riggs is correct that Measure L is the first but necessary step, since, clearly, the Council majority do not represent Menlo Park voters, as shown by the two incumbents' not endorsing Measure L.

In my opinion, the incumbents running for re-election do not care about Menlo Park-- just their own political ambition. Boot them out on Nov. 2!

In Barrett's email to OK parents, she states, "and if you want I will try my best to answer any question you have for me"
Whoa Barrett, how is it that you and Bruce can expect homeowners to pay ever increasing school parcel taxes when you haven't paid ANY for the last 10 years since you moved into the MPCSD?
Anyone can check that you've been renters on College for 10 years.
While Bruce as school board prez pontificated on ramming oversized school campus buildings nearly on top of neighbor's single story homes as justified due to "increasing enrollment", when there was a less intrusive way, you still show lack of guilt for your ethical transgressions by emailing OK parents.
Let us guess, Robbie put you up to this, as he opposes Meas. L, and is not a sure thing for re election.

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