Has the City of Menlo Park been conducting a coordinated campaign against Measure M?

Yes on M folks: With respect, you seem to have a collective strategy of popping up a new post with a provocative pro-M "headline" whenever you become cornered by uncomfortable facts on the long string of other posts.

And now an organization with no official spokesperson and no accountability is back in attack mode on MP's civil servants. Is there an election a few days away?

Please, just honestly debate the implications of Measure M.

If you bother to read the Heyward's missive he asks a lot of questions and has no evidence that there was every a contract with Malcolm Smith.

This is a classic "When did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning and totally consistent with Heyward's impending sense of failure next Tuesday.

This last minute, over the weekend attack reminds me of the Mayor's recent comments:

"I am so tired of the inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo," he said. "The public is sick of the inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo. For months as mayor I've sat quietly and let ... proponents of Measure M say terrible things about my colleagues and myself in the interest of trying to preserve a collaborative culture in our city. And that kindness has been met with nothing but rebuke and further character assassination."

How true.

How sad.

There is quite a bit of evidence that the City hired Malcolm Smith. Read the footnote:
May 5, 2014, email from Cherise Brandell to Clay Curtin regarding the City’s Initiative Web page: “Clay, Have you had a chance to send Malcolm a link to the test pages or did we determine that isn't possible? I think he's ready to move forward with getting the initiative web page set up in anticipation of signature being turned in”; May 19, 2014 email from Malcolm Smith to City staff regarding a response to an anonymous Almanac Town Square posting; May 21, 2014 email from Malcolm Smith discussing talking points for City Council.

All of the emails are here:
Web Link

Lets be clear, I would I have much preferred that this information had come out weeks or months earlier. My original Public Records Request was submitted on August 29th. Its taken the City this long to produce these documents. That they included an email that makes the City look bad appears to be more than a coincidence.

You can view my complaint here:
Web Link

You can view the proposal from Malcolm Smith here:
Web Link

Peter, I once again ask you and other “good government” advocates to join me in demanding answers from the City on the questions this email raises. If the PR campaign outlined in Mr. Smith’s March 3rd proposal to the City was actually put into action, there should be hell to pay.

This "report" and the Grand Jury staging and today, a hit piece. M supporters are getting desperate and nasty. Heyward is right at the center.

Peter:

For you, an extremely strong advocate of honest and transparent government, your response above is rally amazing.

I certainly don't agree with you on the Measure M issue and others, but your response above:

"If you bother to read the Heyward's missive he asks a lot of questions and has no evidence that there was every a contract with Malcolm Smith."

Now just let me lead you through a couple of documents

goto:

Web Link
aring

"Titled -- EMAILS RESPONSIVE TO CATGEGORY 3

from this page, go down 1 page to see this:

Mariano, Nicoie a
From: Brandell, Cherise E
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:49 PM
To: Curtin, Clay J
Subject: Initiative web page

Clay - have you had a chance to send Malcolm a link to the test pages or did we determine that isn't possible? I think he's ready to move forward with getting the initiative web page set up in anticipation of the signatures being turned in.
Thanks!
Cherise

--------

Now Peter are you still going to state " ..(he) has no evidence that there was every a contract with Malcolm Smith."

Why is Brandell asking Smith for this work? He must have been hired.


I am really shocked at your reply above.

morris

Until reading this material today, I was unaware of it's content. To my knowledge, I have never been provided or briefed on any materials created by Malcolm Smith, or on any potential relationship between the City and Malcolm Smith. Moreover, I have never spoken to him. I don't know anything regarding his qualifications, nor what has been communicated between he and City staff.

I have discussed this matter with the City Manager this morning, and neither of us recall me ever being provided any information or briefings relating to the subject of Mr. Smith, even generally. I have asked him to prepare a full accounting of the City's dealings with Mr. Smith. I have also asked him to verify that I was never briefed on the subject of Mr. Smith, even generally, or without informative context.

I understand resident's concerns with respect to this matter and I share them. I take this matter seriously. But as in all things, I will await all the information surrounding the matter before making judgments about what has transpired, in an effort to be fair and not rush to judgment, which I understand will difficult in this politically charged environment.

Morris - IF there is a contract why did Heyward wait to the Saturday before the election to raise the issue? The emails listed were available long ago.

If there was a contract with Malcolm Smith what was its purpose as defined in the actual contract?

If this is true, it's quite disturbing.

The timing of the release of this information is also disturbing.

Ray,

Thanks for posting. I’m glad to hear that you spoke City Manager. The City needs to come clean on this very very soon. Do you know how soon he will respond? And do you know if Mr. Smith is still working for the City? If so, he may be helping orchestrate the City’s response.

Heyward

Peter:

You write.

"Morris - IF there is a contract why did Heyward wait to the Saturday before the election to raise the issue? The emails listed were available long ago."

I just talked with Heyward and he told me, he got a CD with the information from the requested public records request only yesterday (Friday afternoon).

He told me the City is supposed to respond within ten days and the request was made about 2 months ago. The City first said they needed more time, then about 20 days later gave out some information, but that this information just became available yesterday. The contract has as of now, has not been made available.

morris

Peter,

Read carefully. I did not receive the emails from the City until a DVD was delivered to my house yesterday. The PRA was submitted in August. It took the City over 2 months to produce this message. I would have loved to have had it sooner - knowledge of a City orchestrated PR campaign against Measure M is pertinent to Menlo Park voters. I suspect that more than a few residents are going to find the City’s actions inexcusable.

I suggest that you quit trying to impugn my credibility and start asking tough questions of City Hall.

Heyward

"knowledge of a City orchestrated PR campaign against Measure M is pertinent to Menlo Park voters."

That is your interpretation of a possible contract that you have not seen.

It is entirely possible that Malcolm Smith was working on the City's Measure M web site and that he was properly supervised and constrained it what he did.

I certainly cannot find anything on the City's Measure M web site that is " a City orchestrated PR campaign against Measure M". Unless, of course, you believe that providing factual material about Measure M is an attack on Measure M.

I also can find no evidence of "a City orchestrated PR campaign against Measure M" elsewhere. Have you found such evidence? A legally prohibited news release? A legally prohibited newspaper notice? What evidence is there?

Heyward: for everyone to be clear on timing, did you not file your complaint on October 30? That is what another post implied. If you received the DVD on October 31, what was the information included in the October 30 complaint?

Perhaps unrelated but might help to clarify.

Thanks

Peter you write:

"It is entirely possible that Malcolm Smith was working on the City's Measure M web site and that he was properly supervised and constrained it what he did."

Are you reading any of the material?

From the City email log:

http://ccin.menlopark.org:81/att-8597/Smith_Communications_Proposal_to_MP_Top_Mngt_Mar_2_2014.pdf

Proposal for Communications Services for the City of Menlo Park
Focus: Potential ballot initiative to revise the approved Downtown Specific Plan
March 3, 2014
Prepared by Malcolm Smith
(408) 472-8536/malcolmcs@yahoo,com

The City is faced with the likelihood of a November, 2014, ballot measure by initiative, which would revise the approved Downtown Specific Plan in a manner which the City believes would be detrimental to the community and to the City’s goals.

Objective


Before the issue is officially placed on the ballot, the City seeks to refute the issues raised by the initiative’s sponsors, and gain a more positive public profile of its position on the Plan by educating and informing the community about the value and importance of continuing with the existing Plan, respect for the extensive public process that led to the Plan, and how the Plan helps sets the stage for a healthy, economically-viable future for Menlo.

Communications Tools/Tasks

In order to accomplish the City’s communications goals related to this issue, it’s recommended that a range of communications tools be utilized; in summary - producing talking points for Council and staff, fostering supporters to speak at Council and Planning Commission meetings, creating news releases, letters to the editor and opinion pieces, cultivating personal contact to achieve positive (or factual/neutral) editorials and feature stories and to gain formal support positions from selected organizations, creating an informational web page, and distributing information via Next Door and other social media.
More specifically, the related communications tasks are:
1. Develop key messages and talking points (both broad, and more detailed) which serve to state the City’s position, and refute the arguments for Plan revision; to be used:
a. For Council members and senior staff responding to media or community inquiries
b. For community members, to speak from during public communications periods at Council and Planning Commission meetings (City to identify and contact signatories)
c. As a foundation to prepare other materials

2. Prepare 2-3 news releases for distribution at key milestones (upon final ballot description, upon Council placing item on ballot), and at other points as determined; media includes: Daily News, The Almanac, Palo Alto Daily Post, Menlo Park-Atherton Patch (online), and possibly San Mateo Daily Journal, Palo Alto Weekly

3. Draft letters to the editor for selected newspapers, to be signed by supportive community members (City to identify and contact signatories)

4. Write 1 or 2 opinion pieces for submission to selected newspapers, to be signed by the Mayor or a selected Council member, or a high-profile, credible community member/business person (City to identify and contact possible signatories)
5. Assist in preparation and materials for editorial board meetings, one-on-one reporter meetings, and chamber/school district presentations, with selected City Council member/City Manager (City to schedule)
6. Create content for an informational/educational web page regarding the possible ballot measure for the City’s website, making it a transparent, credible, honest source of information for the community
7. Prepare content suitable for supportive community members to distribute via their own social media networks, through the City’s Next Door network, and its other social media channels if any

(.... and more...)

So Peter you really want to stay with your statement:

"It is entirely possible that Malcolm Smith was working on the City's Measure M web site and that he was properly supervised and constrained it what he did."

One hell of a lot more then working on a website I see here.

morris

Timing:
Here is the complaint that I filed with the Grand Jury: Web Link

I filed it before I received the DVD from the City with the latest emails and Mr. Smith’s proposal. I obviously would have included this in my Grand Jury complaint had I had the documents at the time. I did send a copy of the Smith proposal to the Grand Jury earlier today, so they have it.

Heyward

I am stunned by the contents of the Malcolm Smith proposal to our city, and by the possibility that our city used Mr. Smith's services, regardless of any remuneration he may or may not have received. Menlo Park residents and voters deserve a full accounting of this relationship and an explanation as to why Heyward Robinson's public records request was not honored in a timely, legally-prescribed manner.

This might also be a story an Almanac reporter should pursue, presuming the paper's objective interest in the outcome of Measure M.

Gern

Why not get the facts before writing a sensationalist headline?

I am a firm believe in both good government and transparency.

I am also a firm believer in due process.

Peter,

I see that the Fire District has used Malcolm Smith as a spokesperson. Is this the same Malcolm Smith that used to work PR for Redwood City and submitted the proposal to Menlo Park?

Heyward

Peter Carpenter asks, "Why not get the facts before writing a sensationalist headline?"

This, just two short days after creating a post titled (erroneously and sensationally), "Heyward Robinson Sues Menlo Park - a sign of impending defeat?" (Web Link just three short days after posting, "Has Save Menlo violated the election laws - again?" (Web Link and just one week after leveling his magnum opus, "Measure M supporters have now resorted to stealing other people's names" (Web Link

Hypocrisy will out, Peter Carpenter.

Gern

As I read this - from Morris Brown's post - there appears to be an email from Malcolm Smith to the city of Menlo Park describing a fairly rudimentary campaign strategy.

Was this email solicited by the city? Was there a response from the city? I don't know these things.

I'm originally from a large eastern city known for political corruption - and come from a very politically involved family. Cynically - if I wanted to discredit a political opponent I could conceive of sending an email such as the one in Mr. brown's post - and then publishing it to "imply" illegal activity on the part of the city just days before an election.

Not saying that this is what has happened - but I'd like to see answers to my other questions before assuming judgement.

"Heyward Robinson Sues Menlo Park - a sign of impending defeat?"
Headline was quickly corrected.

"Has Save Menlo violated the election laws - again?"
Evidence provided

"Measure M supporters have now resorted to stealing other people's names"
Evidence provided

Heyward ask "I see that the Fire District has used Malcolm Smith as a spokesperson"

During Chief Schapelhouman's absence Interim Chief Belville used Smith as a spokesperson.

Now that Chief Schapelhouman has returned to duty we have one of the greatest public agency spokesmen in California in that role - Chief Schapelhouman.

Did any other council members know of this?

How about Vice Mayor Carlton who meets with the city manager. If she knew she should forget about being elevated to mayor in December.

Heyward has found some emails which raise questions about what Malcom Smith may have, or may not have, done for the City.

The definitive answer will come from seeing his contract, if there is one. There may be no contract. There may be a contract for perfectly legal and appropriate services. We don't yet know.

The Mayor has already asked the City Manager "to prepare a full accounting of the City's dealings with Mr. Smith."

Assuming that something inappropriate did happen and then asking if Carlton knew about something that may or may not have happened is a real cheap shot.

Let's get the facts first before naming the guilty parties.

The emails refer to a contract, and it's clear that the parties involved are trying to adhere to the letter if not the spirit of the law by making sure that the work is completed before the measure is officially on the ballot.

Should our city be spending public funds on defeating a citizen initiative? Case law says no.

The city knew this material was explosive and that's why they waited until last Friday to release some of it. Their apparent hope was that it was too late to affect the campaign and that they could counter any objections about the length of the wait by saying "we hand-delivered it to Heyward before the election."

[Portion deleted.]

No matter what happens with M, time to clean house, Menlo Park!

One of the important lessons learned in serious investigations is that facts come before lessons learned.

Methinks a frequent poster on this board might be a little worried about getting dragged into the mud here? It's time for us to ask some pretty hard questions about all elected officials who inexplicably oppose the residents they allegedly serve and regularly defer to rich developers. What, exactly, is in it for you?

"What, exactly, is in it for you?"

1 - Good government

2 - The financial impact on the Fire District on whose Board I serve representing the taxpayers

3 - Personally - Absolutely ZERO financially - see my filed Form 700's covering 11 of the last 12 years ( I was not in office 2012 so did not file that year)

Who are you, who pays you, what is in "it" for you?

lessons:

our elected officials only "inexplicably oppose" SOME of the citizens of our city. They represent ALL of us and are elected to make decisions based on what is best for ALL of us. Not just a few folks that slept through an extensive planning process and now want a "do over." Nothing "inexplicable" about it.

lessons learned - Who are you, who pays you, what is in "it" for you?

Hard as it may be to believe, some of us post here without getting paid, our only compensation the hope that we are helping preserve a little bit of the character that drew us to this town originally.

lessons:

you mean that "village" character. Hasn't existed in the 20 years I've been living here. We live in a City.

The City’s website indicates that Malcolm Smith was paid from April through at least August for services related to the ballot measure. Here is the payment from April:

SMITH, MALCOLM
04/01/14 MGT COMMUNICATIONS-SPEC PLN BALLOT 040114 2,325.00 2,325.00
04/28/14 Check * Issued 180840 2,325.00

Its pretty clear that he created the City’s Initiative web page. A while back I marked it up to show how slanted it is: Web Link Residents have asked the City to modify the page or take it down. They have refused.
Web Link

Heyward, The link in your 11/1 post opens what looks like a spreadsheet of a phone call log presumably related to Measure M. You should probably figure out a way to restrict access to this so others can't access these people's personal information. Interesting that I'm the first to notice.

M is a mistake. NO ON M.

Heyward:

the web page is slanted in your opinion. I don't find it to be so. Much of it coincides with the Wise report.

Peter Carpenter,

Some time ago you filed a formal complaint with the FPPC (which it quickly rejected) alleging that Save Menlo had made a minor filing error. You wanted an immediate investigation, and went out of your way to highlight the individuals you thought were responsible for this supposed misdeed.

Now we have credible evidence that the City of Menlo Park may have been using taxpayer dollars to fund a highly improper campaign activity. This is obviously far more consequential than a supposed filing error. I agree with your position that the full facts are not yet before us. So why is your voice not the loudest, as it is so often is, in demanding an immediate, thorough and transparent investigation, and why are you not, as before, naming the individuals most likely to be associated with this?

By failing to make a full-throated demand for an investigation, you undermine your oft-stated position as being motivated above all by an interest in fair, honest and open goverment.

unknown person calling himself independent - I have repeatedly stated that this matter should be investigated. I also believe that we do not yet know enough to reach a conclusion.

Heyward has found some emails which raise questions about what Malcom Smith may have, or may not have, done for the City.

The definitive answer will come from seeing his contract, if there is one. There may be no contract. There may be a contract for perfectly legal and appropriate services. We don't yet know.

The Mayor has already asked the City Manager "to prepare a full accounting of the City's dealings with Mr. Smith."

Let's get the facts first before naming the guilty parties.

Now we know:
1 - Did Smith have a contract with the City - Yes

2 - Did that contract call for Smith to perform a legally appropriate activity - Yes

3 - Did the City allow Smith to do anything illegal - No

I have seen no evidence of illegal activity by either Smith or the City and challenge anyone to present such evidence. The City's Measure M web site is as bland and as balanced as I can imagine and only people who fear that they are about to lose the election could possible suggest otherwise.