Menlo Park Council members--
I write you to request you either table this item or continue it, in particular taking no ‘first meeting” action in the two-meeting sequence discussed in the Staff report.
1. Prior study session report was not objective nor balanced. The prior report was essentially a marketing document to pitch this compensation increase idea. I read it at the time but didn’t know if it would advance. The Almanac story and some of the Council quotes came off the same way. Frankly, I think you did no favors with that approach. Don’t try to “stack the deck.” Simplified, top Staff is ultimately directly beholden to council for compensation and increases. Here we have that staff preparing a report, basically in glowing terms, leading to the recommendations. First, from an “interested party” transaction perspective—which you clearly have here—there was not even an identification of that conflict, let alone a discussion. Not clear you sought any advice on that interested party aspect either. For example, it does not seem to me you followed common best practices like full disclosure—just from points like those I raise in this letter. Second, no balanced discussion was had at all. Costs? Source of funds and general budget context? Do some cities say “no”? Is there any tie to merit or results? What should you do with appointed (non-elected) members? Is it really needed, or do people interested in political and civic positions basically do it anyway?
2. Current report fails to identify the source of the funds for the proposed increase. I question whether this is fatal to even having any discussion leading to action (other than to continue or table) at this meeting. Regardless, it seems to me that regardless of amount, good government principles merit that.
3. Council’s performance. An open question, but as you know from my recent input I certainly have questions. So do my neighbors when I talk with them casually.
1. The Housing element was in fact slow and required multiple passes. This is honestly not news to me either—pattern recognition. I was a lone voice in the wilderness at Council on the prior revisions surrounding ADU’s that were done unnecessarily late and with loopholes a few years ago. In this case, we have yet to see the shoe fully drop on possible “builders’ remedies” on the back end. A prediction is the City will be shaken down for a lot of money (millions) or other commitments or handouts, and the end result will still be way out of line of reasonableness of traffic impacts, quality of life degradation, crowding of schools, inadequacy of supporting public resources/spend, and other important factors. Buck on this ultimately stops with Council and top staff.
2. Middle Ave. See my letter last evening with extensive questions and issues. Seeing now hundreds of thousands of dollars essentially blown on yet another parking re-do—which will be substandard and yet more money—is a poor showing. More generally, the failure to anticipate and to plan at a higher integrated level around this project is really not up to snuff. Council and top Staff own that.
3. Outright disenfranchisement of our neighborhood (San Mateo, western side of Wallea, etc.) for what will be six years. And, living with an appointed member hand picked by the Council majority where I see no signs of actual grass roots engagement. A really bad outcome from redistricting and a continuing hangover, not even apparently identified let alone timely disclosed. Council ultimately owns that.
4. Increasing signs of budget issues and questions about priorities, particularly on the ground with front line police. Not just dollars spent either—which are getting consumed in compensation and benefits burden—but actual FTE’s. FTE’s are clearly trending the wrong way. Again, Council prioritization ultimately.
5. Distraction and questionable spending—the Tesla police vehicles being the ultimate poster child. Council fingerprints seem obvious.
1. Handling of appointed members. First, Council blew it in my book, both on the redistricting and on the hand-picked-appointment end result when Mr. Mueller was elected Supervisor. It did not respect the district itself, nor its previously elected representative’s input. Now I realize not just the new increase proposal but apparently the existing compensation structure has appointed members paid the same way. I submit you should consider actively they not be paid until/unless actually elected to the seat. Otherwise it yet further stacks the system toward this hand-picked appointment approach, which I—and I think many—find distasteful and really not respecting the role of the district specific voter. Having members from unrelated districts hand pick a member for another district and then particularly when it influences a perceived working majority is just not right.
2. Inclusion of all compensation and costs in discussion. Report really should be clearer about other benefits like healthcare provided, and costs of those. Honestly a powerful motivator for many, perhaps as much or more than they money. Yet not really discussed in report, including how it factors into overall compensation sufficiency.
Again, please table or continue this matter and with appropriate, balanced and more complete information bring it back for a two-meeting sequence of discussion.
Regards, Elias Blawie
San Mateo Drive
