Dear Council,
I’m against an “enabling charter” that would further limit the public’s ability to participate meaningfully in our local
democracy. It gives too sweeping powers to Council and staff. Should this measure be on the ballot box, I would join with others
and work to defeat it. The public would not benefit from an “enabling charter.”
Staff Benefits – not the Public
However, staff would benefit because it would increase their power in Menlo Park. Staff power starts with the reports they write.
While some may be objective, too many are slanted toward getting Council and the public to agree with staff’s recommendations. A
case in point is the report pertaining to the “enabling charter” decision. The report includes loaded language, sweeping
generalities (without supporting facts) and it omits the significant downsides to the public if an enabling charter were adopted.
Unfortunately, Council seems to over rely on staff reports and recommendations. You have an impossible job with trying to keep up
with the pace of business along with your day jobs, families and personal interests. You likely do not have time to research the
topics on your own. You also do not have enough information coming from unbiased, independent sources. The rapid pace, and the
lengthy staff reports -- that may contain a bias -- give you (and the public) inadequate time to read and think about important
matters before needing to make decisions. Serious reforms are needed in Menlo Park. However, this is not the focus of my email.
Adopt a Two-Article Charter
Menlo Park needs safeguards that protect the public’s interest before we abandon General Law. A number of California’s Charter
Cities have such safeguards in the form of Sunshine ordinances and Ethics Commissions. Their advisory boards and commissions may
also be designed as independent, oversight bodies. In MP, the public already lacks a meaningful seat at the decision-making table
so let’s not further erode the public’s right to participate in our local democracy.
Instead of going along with staff’s recommendations in their report, please adopt a limited two-article charter. One charter would
pertain to how we elected Council members and the other would keep MP as a general law city. Further changes could come later in a
process that adequately involved the public.
Problems with Staff Reports – An Example
The report recommending the enabling charter is slanted towards getting you and the public to agree. I would need hours and a long
document to fully detail how the document has been written and constructed so as to promote agreement. The slant starts with
sweeping statements such as “Local control has long been a priority for Menlo Park,” without any details to back up the
assertions. How do we not have local control? Specifics are not supplied. The vague “long” and “priority” make the enabling
charter sound like an urgent public need, without the facts to support the idea.
Imprecise or connotatively loaded words also work to promote agreement. For example, the document explains that “the charter would
put Menlo Park in a better position to protect local control.” Better is very broad. How would an enabling charter be better? This
is not explained. The word “protect” implies a threat. Yet the threat is not explained. Exactly how does our “local control” need
protecting? These are just a few of the ways that the document’s tone promotes agreement.
The report includes many vague statements. For example, the beginning section states that that “Over the years, Menlo Park has
wanted to pursue certain initiatives.” However, the report does not specifically state how many years. We also do not know who in
“Menlo Park” wants to pursue the “certain initiatives,” which are also not specified. The sweeping term Menlo Park makes it seem
like everyone in town is behind the need. Instead, the report should include specifics, so that Council and the public have
objective and thorough information.
The report also omits the opposing view. For example, the report does not adequately detail how an enabling charter would limit
the public’s role in decisions. The down side is not included. Instead, a too rosy picture is cast through the language, such as
“Charter cities also have greater flexibility in government operations,” which sounds as though there would only be benefits. The
“flexibility” also includes more staff/council flexibility to make decisions independent of the public. The few safeguards of
charter cities also do not adequately protect the public’s interests.
Problems with the Chart
The chart is also designed to promote agreement. The information in the column, “How it Impacts Menlo Park” is inadequate. First,
the details are often too vague. For example, the frequent statements, “Historically, this has not been a problem in Menlo Park”
does not include where it could be a problem in MP or if it has been a problem elsewhere. It glosses over potential or actual
problems. Selected details paint a positive picture with negative aspects omitted. Curiously, opportunities where an enabling
charter could adopt measures to strengthen oversight and accountability are not included.
One of the main benefits, that I’ve heard staff express in championing the idea of an enabling charter, pertains to the idea of
giving MP more flexibility to award contracts. However, I’m not convinced that this power is needed. That’s because General Law
directs cities to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. The term “responsible” is a key one. It suggests the lowest
qualified bidder with all else being equal! So MP does not have to go with an unqualified “lowest bidder.” I’ve also heard a staff
member (not from the library) tell a commission (and not the library commission) that this person’s department likes to go with
“sole source” for a certain type of supplies. That statement alone suggests that staff can find a way to go with their preferred
suppliers.
In closing, an enabling charter is a bad idea for Menlo Park. Instead, let’s start small with a two-article charter and then
evolve it as needed, with adequate discussion and public involvement.
Sincerely,
Lynne Bramlett
