Menlo Park mayor changes mind about independent investigator

In my opinion the DA's office, the FPPC and the Grand Jury are all wasting their time and taxpayer money looking into this. The vote against M was far too lopsided to have been the result of one consultant's dinky contract.

As I've said before, we residentialists will just have to wait until the rest of the electorate sees the results of their misguided choice and belatedly starts fighting mega-developments.

It is not the outcome of the vote on Measure N but the integrity and future of public officials - including the city manager - that should be investigated. Thieves and liars should not hold high public office. But I am not convinced this DA or Grand Jury will actually inestigate or take action.

"Thieves and liars should not hold high public office."

Please specify what who stole what and who lied about what.

Thank you for your careful documentation.

Public resources cannot be lawfully used to advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot measure. Do you need to code section? Spending public resources unlawfully is theft. Theft is not limited to putting the money in one's own pocket or account. As to lying, your friend the city manager cannot keep his story straight about what was done to influence the outcome of an election that did not include your town of Atherton. But we all still appreciate your endless interest and constant commentary. Maybe your house will someday be taken by eminent domain so Atherton can have more office space and traffic. Heck, If it were not for carpenters, little would ever get built.

@Edward Syrett

I appreciate your post. I agreed with many of the points that the SaveMenlo people raised - fears of traffic, aesthetics of the largish buildings on ECR. I also disagreed with many of the points that the Menlo Deserves Better signs speculated - no more traffic, less offices will mean more residential building which will overload our schools. Please - spare me!

Even with all of that - as I looked into the language of M - I found I couldn't vote for it.

This is a political process and, as such, I believe it should be decided by elected officials - in future elections as well as the facts on the ground evolve. Attempts to lock things in stone so that they can only be addressed through voter initiatives are the wrong path. No one has that much vision to see into the future.

I sincerely hope the SaveMenlo contingent will focus on developing electable candidates for 2016 and beyond. They missed their chance badly in 2014 as three of the five seats were up and so far not a single pro-Measure M candidate was elected.

As I sit here on Friday night - I see 9,636 votes were cast for or against Measure M. This website shows 18,814 registered voters. Web Link - so we're talking 51.3% turnout. With 19.7% of registered voters in favor of measure M - and 31.5% of voters against. (3701 vs 5935 as of this time). I believe only 1/25 precincts voted for M - so this was a pretty widespread defeat. (Precinct 3452?)

Looking at the candidate totals is also interesting - 23,866 votes cast -- since we voted for 3 candidates divide by 3 and you get 7,962 people vote for 3 candidates.... this is only 42.3% of electorate voting for candidates.

i believe you can conclude more people were energized to vote on Measure M than for the city council candidates.

Furthermore - even the top vote getter of the candidates, Peter Ohtaki only garnered votes from 26.4% of registered voters --more popular than measure M --- but not as popular as voting against M by about 1000 votes! (4959).

The average incumbent candidate received votes was 4,492. The average non-incumbent candidate received 3,470 votes - somewhat more than 1000 votes off.

I conclude - No on M was the biggest winner at the polls. The incumbent candidates a distant second - off by 1000 votes on average. Followed by Yes on M.

There's a lot of room for candidates to get more votes - if they can excite voters to turnout and vote. You learn more about politicians by how they handle defeat than how they handle victory.

@Fred

Please show me one actual example of "Public resources being unlawfully used to advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot measure." A weblink would be very helpful.

Really read the drafts - and see how carefully worded they were to not advocate a specific vote -- instead urging the voters to look at the SaveMenlo.org website as well as the city's website to educate themselves on ***both*** sides of the issue. That's not advocacy.

Here's a section from a draft - that to the best of my knowledge was never submitted to publication for voters to read - prior to the election - so even then it couldn't be considered advocacy.

"Editor:

As the community considers the initiative proposed to revise Menlo Park’s El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, I hope everyone takes the time to become fully aware of all the facts before taking a position. The initiative supporters’ website, savemenlo.org, outlines that group’s concerns and the revisions that are proposed. The City has a neutral informational website about the initiative, menlopark.org/proposedinitiative, summarizing how the Specific Plan currently approaches these issues. There, you can also learn about how the plan was created, the reasoning behind its elements, and the public process that was involved.

I think it’s important to understand the initiative’s concerns with the Plan’s definition of open space, and about the discussions on this issue that already took place during the Plan’s creation, as well as the reasoning behind why the Plan uses that definition. Residents should learn about the proposed initiative’s issues related to the overall amount of office/non-residential space allowed, and about the Plan’s cap on total square footage of non-residential use. It’s also crucial to know some details about the two largest developments currently proposed under the Plan’s existing limitations - that information is on the City’s web page, menlopark.org/proposedinitiative.
Please, take the time to learn and understand both sides of these issues so that you can take a position that is informed, educated, and balanced."

Fred:

formerly beat me to it. Do you have any actual PROOF of the accusations you make? Or this just more of the same old savemenlo BS, made up nonsense? No matter what happened M lost BIG. Anything that loses that big didn't lose because the city put out some information advocating against M (they didn't, but hey why should we let facts get in the way). M lost because the majority of the voter saw through the BS and voted for moving forward in this town.

You lost. Get over it. It's time to move on. You can either choose to help the city move forward or you can continue to try and obstruct. If you choose obstruction, you choose to be frustrated, because the rest of us are ready to move forward.

@Menlo Voter

I believe there's another irony at play here.

If you read my earlier post to Edward Syrett - I think the numbers make a pretty good case the "No on M" was the big winner - by like 1000 votes. Why? My guess is that people looked at the vitriol -even on my own street. Neighbors arguing about M. Go to the Farmers' Market - people arguing about M. Even in some houses - residents arguing about M.

People hate initiatives and the vitriol. M promised more initiatives.

So - the irony is in this question - "What do people hate more than initiatives?" -- My answer: litigation. And now it looks like we have the FPPC, the San Mateo DA and the grand jury involved. So the guys who wanted M to pass so badly that they can't believe it failed at the polls are trying to address it how? With major litigation.

IMO - this is a political problem - and needs to be solved at the ballot box. You can't litigate your way into peoples hearts.

If you want to control directions - you gotta win elections.

I strongly feel the guys pushing litigation now have no clue about the politics of this.

What is with this Mayor? First he flies out of the gate practically calling for a new Spanish Inquisition, then he learns a little more and backs down. Is he really serious about getting to the truth or just about grandstanding in hopes of making peace with the small minority of Yes on M folks? Regardless of his politics or policy choices, this kind of unchecked reactionary sensationalism is NOT good leadership. Thankful his mayorship is almost over.

formerly:

I think you are right.

Mueller's response has been totally appropriate. There is a story in the Daily News today that the DA's office asked him to back off so they could investigate. Only he and Cline have ever even spoken publicly on the issue.

The Mayor:

Don't you believe he should have let the D.A. handle this from the beginning?

Mueller is not a P.I., he should have asked questions and inquired first, before making grand statements in the media. There are professional ways f conducting yourself as a leader that do not have to make our community look like a modern version Lord of the Flies.

You appear to have a grudge against Mueller that's not based in reality. He was asking for an independent investigator. That means he wanted to hire a PI, not act like one.

And no, I don't think he should have let the DA handle it from the beginning, because it was unknown if the DA was going to handle it all. The City Manager is an employee who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, and who is supervised by the City Council. Mueller as Mayor was just doing his job.

He and Cline showed leadership on this issue. Your conjecture and catch phrases are evidence you just want to play politics.

So you don't trust the D.A. to follow through and do his job, a job that is suited for investigation, but instead prefer our community be dragged through the mud in the media because of the uninformed public statements on the part of one person who is a ceremonial/weak Mayor and only one vote out of the whole Council? At least the rest maintain their composure. Even Cline's comments were more measured and responsible. I'm glad there are a few adults left.

Your grudge against Mueller is apparent but not persuasive,

This is what Mueller is quoted as saying in the Mercury News today:

"I think we need to wait for the district attorney to review all the information and make a factual finding as to what happened here before we rush to judgment," he said. "We're talking about employees' lives, their livelihoods and their reputation in the community. If there was something that the staff did wrong, there'll be an accounting for that and they'll be held responsible for that, but to make a pre-determined judgment and to do so repeatedly in the press is irresponsible, and I'm disappointed."

The Mayor: yes, thanks for quoting our Mayor after he had his jets cooled. Please refer to his earlier statements in the Almanac and Post where he jumped out in front of the D.A. and his colleagues, again acting irresponsibly and alone, before the facts are known

Below are all of Mueller's quotes on this issue, contained in the Almanac. As you can see, there is nothing inflammatory contained in anything he has said to date. You obviously have a grudge that is not based in reality:

"Mayor Ray Mueller, currently in China on a business trip, said he was not aware of the consultant's activities on behalf of Menlo Park."

Web Link


"Mayor Ray Mueller, who along with the rest of the council took a stance against Measure M, said he remained concerned about the city's dealings with Mr. Smith, and expected "to meet with my colleagues to discuss appropriate action upon my return to the country on Nov. 10." He has been in China on a work-related trip."

Web Link


""I never asked for an op-ed to be ghostwritten for me. I never saw the material until yesterday's release, and I never submitted an op-ed on the subject of Measure M for publication," Mayor Ray Mueller told the Almanac on Thursday, Nov. 13. He has called for the city to hire an independent investigator to review the consultant's work for Menlo Park, and plans for the matter to be discussed during the Nov. 18 council meeting. "It is my expectation that all materials related to the city's dealings with Malcolm Smith will be released to the public, and I have made that clear to the city manager," Mr. Mueller said. "

Web Link

"So you don't trust the D.A. to follow through and do his job,"

HELL NO!!! Do you? Our DA has shown himself totally incapable of dealing Brown Act violations. Why should we start trusting him to do his job now?

[portion removed.]

The city manager and his cohorts kicked off their campaign against the initiative using public funds when they hired and guided a 150,000 dollar consultant to write misleading statements about the initiative and then prepared and mailed out the initial misleading campaign piece labeled a report on city affairs. The grand jury will need those materials as well as a copy of California Government Code Section 54964. It is not just about the last political consultant who billed the city.

Robert writes above just some of what is the truth, which is so vehemently denied by the No on Measure M crowd, including Atherton Resident Peter Carpenter who seems to be their chief spokesman along with Menlo Voter.

What about the City delaying for 2 months the public records request of Heyward Robinson, when the law says delivery should have been within 10 days.

Then this records request did not find some key documents, which were even later sent on to the Almanac. Surely there are more records the City is hiding. The stench of this scandal is growing day by day.

[portion removed.]

Hopefully the DA and or Grand Jury will get the truth out.

looking but not seeing states - "Is Peter Carpenter involved?" NO

" He knew Malcolm Smith, who had done some work for the Fire District." I never met Smith.

Hey Peter, did Malcolm send you material for your use? NO

Looking - quit posting LIES

The Grand Jury is concerned with the official conduct of public officials - including the DA. However, anyone who conspired with a public official to misuse public funds may be charged by a DA with criminal conspiracy even if the misuse of funds is not otherwise a crime. But first, get some more material and analysis to the Grand Jury.

Robert:

what will you say to the people you have slandered when nothing comes of this?

Also report to the Grand Jury every failure to comply with the California Public Records Act - including delaying the provision of records. Note, though, that the initial 10-day deadline is for the agency to determine how to respond.

that's it Robert, keep throwing stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.

the Mayor is too much. Critical of the city manager one minute and supportive of him the next. numerous issues and yet he never seems to want to do anything about it.

flipper - What do you do when you get new information? Just press on the same path? Or do you just avoid getting new information?

That's not what I want in a leader.

@flipper...

The Mercury News article clearly states that Ray Mueller was asked to "back off" Web Link

"...District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe's office is looking into allegations that the city illegally spent public funds to campaign against Measure M, he said. The controversial ballot initiative that city officials opposed was decisively rejected by voters on Nov. 4.

"The district attorney asked that we not investigate the case right now because they're doing their own review," Mueller said. "There's nothing to discuss in the public because we're not doing any fact finding. ... We just need to leave it in the district attorney's hands for now." "

This isn't about flip-flopping. It's about cooperating with the DA.

I hope you aren't one of those "gotcha" kind of guys - that calls the Mayor a flip flopper when he cooperates with the DA - or complains that he is not cooperating with the DA if he decides to continue his independent investigation.