Serving Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside for 44 years.
Editor & Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Richard Hine News Editor Renee Batti Lifestyles Editor Jane Knoerle Senior Correspondents Marion Softky, Marjorie Mader Staff Writers David Boyce, Sandy Brundage Contributors Barbara Wood, Kate Daly, Katie Blankenberg Special Sections Editors Carol Blitzer, Sue Dremann Photographer Michelle Le
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Vice President Sales & Marketing Walter Kupiec Real Estate Manager Neal Fine Real Estate and Advertising Coordinator Diane Martin
Published every Wednesday at 3525 Alameda De Las Pulgas, Menlo Park, Ca 94025 Newsroom: (650) 854-2690 Newsroom Fax: (650) 854-0677 Advertising: (650) 854-2626 Advertising Fax: (650) 854-3650 e-mail news and photos with captions to: Editor@AlmanacNews.com e-mail letters to: letters@AlmanacNews.com The Almanac, established in September, 1965, is delivered each week to residents of Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside and adjacent unincorporated areas of southern San Mateo County. The Almanac is qualified by decree of the Superior Court of San Mateo County to publish public notices of a governmental and legal nature, as stated in Decree No. 147530, issued November 9, 1969. Subscriptions are $60 for one year and $100 for two years.
N
WHAT’S YOUR VIEW?
All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.TheAlmanacOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM POST your views on the Town Square forum at www.TheAlmanacOnline.com EMAIL your views to: letters@almanacnews.com and note this it is a letter to the editor in the subject line. MAIL or deliver to: Editor at the Almanac, 3525 Alameda de las Pulgas, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
CALL the Viewpoint desk at 854-2690, ext. 222.
Ideas, thoughts and opinions about
local issues from people in our community. Edited by Tom Gibboney.
Defending the pension initiative
A
union-backed lawsuit is attempting to kick Menlo Park’s pension reform initiative off the ballot, but we hope the judge who hears the case gives residents a chance to vote the measure up or down in November. After that, the court can decide if the action filed against the city and an initiative-group organizer has merit, then decide whether to throw out the election results if the measure passes. The unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal ED ITORI AL Employees (AFSCME), claim The opinion of The Almanac the measure violates key sections of the California Constitution and other state law by allowing voters — not the City Council — to determine employee pension benefits. The initiative would increase the retirement age for new, nonsafety employees from 55 to 60, and would also decrease the pension payments those employees receive. If the initiative is approved, as expected, it would represent a significant rollback in benefits for incoming Menlo Park workers. So it is no surprise that the two unions, which represent the majority of Menlo Park’s non-police employees, see the initiative as a significant threat, and are willing to mount a strong legal action to overturn it. At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, union members claimed the initiative was illegal and misguided, adding that the organizers are using the poor economy to take fair compensation away from the city’s employees. Now the Citizens for Fair and Responsible Pension Reform, the leaders of the initiative effort, are asking city officials to
mount a vigorous defense of the initiative, although so far neither the council nor City Attorney Bill McClure seem eager to join the fight. At a closed-session meeting June 25 called to discuss the matter, the council took no action, although it did ask Mr. McClure for more legal analysis about the litigation. Mr. McClure said that the plaintiffs (the unions) in the lawsuit had to name the city as a defendant because the measure will be voted on in a city election. But, he said, the council had only two options under state law when presented with a validated petition: adopt the initiative as law or put it on the ballot. Sending it to the ballot did not make the city an advocate of the initiative, he said. Mr. McClure offered one possible scenario for the City Council: “The city could take a position that we will abide by the decision of the court ... saying, since it wasn’t our choice (to introduce the measure), we will not expend the time creating legal arguments, and spending tens of thousands of dollars” defending the pension-initiative group’s position. We agree. In this case, it is the responsibility of those who filed the petitions to see the case through the legal process, rather than burden the city with the legal costs. Some donations already have been made to a legal defense fund, and we urge other supporters to help out. At this point, there is no telling whether the case will be difficult to square with state law, or how long it will take to wind its way through the court system. But one thing is certain: The courts should not acquiesce to the union’s effort to take the initiative off the November ballot. Menlo Park voters should be able to make their views known on this issue.
L ETT E RS Our readers write
Cohen: Redwood City council member has conflict Editor: The Fair Political Practices Act provides that no public official shall in any way use her official position to influence a governmental decision in which she has a financial interest. In a letter to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), I have asked them to investigate Redwood City Council member Rosanne Foust’s conflict of interest relating to the Cargill salt pond development. My letter points to their advice, cited in the California Attorney General’s guide to public ethics, that: “The executive director of an organization, who as part of his or her duties advocates pro-growth positions endorsed by his or her organization, was disqualified from participating in any decision to enter his or her capacity as a member of the Board that would advance or inhibit the accomplishment of the organization’s goals.” This advice pertains to council member Foust as it did to Commissioner Linda Best in the FPPC’s 1981 advice letter. The FPPC letter
14 N The Almanac N July 7, 2010
Our Regional Heritage Eleanor Twohig, Miss San Francisco, was the first person to cross the new Dumbarton Bridge when it opened in 1927. The bridge lasted until 1984, when it was replaced by a new span. Menlo Park Historical Association
states a common sense principle: The state conflict of interest law “prevents you from accomplishing as an official, what you’ve been paid to do as an advocate.” Even if there were merely an appearance of impropriety, council member Foust should be required to recuse herself from any vote or discussion of the Saltworks project. Indeed she publicly hedges, as in a letter to the editor in which she seeks to assert to Redwood City residents that (as executive
director) she “did not participate in discussions or make recommendations” to the SAMCEDA board when it endorsed Cargill’s development. Council member Foust goes on to say she has been “extremely careful and will continue to exercise appropriate caution.” (Letter, Daily News, May 10, 2010). It seems she has all but conceded the conflict exists. The time for recusal is now. I do not raise this issue as an attack on council member Foust
nor do I doubt her sincerity or her integrity. There is a larger point here, about following state law and ensuring that the public interest is protected. Speaking as a city council member, it isn’t a close call. If I were the executive director of an organization, I would recuse myself from council consideration of a project my organization supported. Andy Cohen Menlo Park City Council member