Hello Council,
I am out of town, or would attend tomorrow's Council meeting. I ask you to limit the proposed initial charter to a form of Option
1 to basically keep MP as a General Law city with the exception of a placeholder provision until we have a broader public
engagement/input process.
The Charter idea came up at all as a consequence of a lawyer suiting MP to force district elections so as to give Belle Haven
residents representation on Council. To avoid a potential law suit, MP needed to go to district elections for the Nov 2018
election. However, a charter was proposed as one way to give MP for electoral options for Nov 2020 and beyond elections, such as
Ranked Choice Voting which is considered by many to be an even fairer way of electing officials.
In short, becoming a Charter City could give MP more opportunities to improve our local city government. So a potential charter
should be approached thoughtfully and with ample public input.For example, we could add a "Better Government" or "Sunshine
Ordinance" to a charter that would force more private meetings to be open to the public. We could also add a section that gave
Menlo Park greater control over its schools, to hasten the process of finally having all MP elementary schools becoming part of a
MP school district. Some other cities have also added charter sections that would prohibit interference by members of Council with
members of the Administrative service. That provision cuts down on any attempts by staff to lobby Council or vice versa. These are
just some of the provisions that could be included that would deliver a fairer and more ethical and inclusive government to the
residents of MP. A thoughtful and inclusive public engagement/input process, into what residents would like to see in their
charter, would bring forth many good ideas that would need to be prioritized and further improved as a part of the public vetting
process.
So let's not rush the process.
Instead of attempting to solve real problems that residents are concerned with, the proposals 2-4 presentvague problems that can
only be of concern to some staff. For example, I've never heard the public express concerns over the generalities listed as
problems in the report. Who's ever heard a complaint about MP needing to "protect local control?" Or when have the residents
expressed a concern about the "state's increased incursion into areas of municipal affairs in recent years?" The reports mentions
vague problems without supplying any real evidence that these are actual problems. The chart at the end, also has very weak
content in the column "How it Impacts MP." I've already written with concerns about this chart, but they have not been addressed.
I don't have the time here to research and present how the third column is inadequate, but if I see this column again -- with the
same content -- I will find the time do do so! Overall, the report is inadequate for rational and informed decision making by
Council and the public. The proposals also are mostly ones that serve the staff's interests, not the public's.
Instead, the report should have supplied relevant specifics, such as answers to the below questions:
1) What are the sources of the (so-called) problems? What forces are contributing to it?2) What is the magnitude of the problem?
How many people are groups are affected? What will the problems' dimensions be in the future?3) Which specific groups are affected
by the problem? How is the general public affected? If other than the general public, what are the special characteristics of the
affected groups?4) Which other cities are working on the problem? How have they handled the problem? And so on. .
As yet one more reason to reject options 2-4, a number of California cities -- with too broad charters -- have wound up needing to
seek bankruptcy protection with some of their officials/staff even winding up in jail on various forms of corruption charges.
Being able to set their own rules, with inadequate safeguards to protect the public's interests, has led to multiple California
charter cities having serious problems due to having too much leeway in setting their own rules, especially in elections, salaries
and contracts.
Please vote for rational decision-making that puts the residents first by rejecting Options 2-4 (especially 4 which would surely
be defeated at the polls).
Lynne Bramlett
