22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
Communications Received from the Public
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION - OCTOBER 6, 2026
ITEM B.1 –CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Name Pages
Nick Waranoff 1-4
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 1:37 PM
To: Brandyn Iverson <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>; Cara Hoxie <[email protected]>; Latika Malkani <[email protected]>
Cc: Joelle Fockler <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Agenda Oct. 6, 2026 Closed Session - evaluation of city manager Linda Smith
Please consider the following comments in connection with your evaluation of and negotiations with City Manager Linda Smith.
I have several criticisms of Linda.
She is not committed to telling the whole truth
She has a habit of telling half truths, and letting others get away with half truths.
Here are some examples:
1. When Iverson, in her presence, at the first HOW meeting, in response to my question, said the council members don’t talk about the agenda before a meeting, Linda failed to speak up and mention that she speaks to each of the council members individually. It is a classic hub and spoke serial meeting. Whether doing so violates the Brown Act depends on what is said. But letting Iverson get away with what she said was wrong.
2. Developer impact fee for police and fire: Linda’s entire handling of this is one half truth after another.
1. She claims there is an alleged interview with Chief Sullivan as to which there is no written record, that supports what the EIR says he said, but we have a written response from him to questions that does not support what the EIR says he said.
2. She conflates the EIR finding of no significant impact upon the level of service due to larger population, with the fee mitigation law that we are entitled to maintain the existing standard of service. She does not mention that, or the many jurisdictions that have such fees, including Moraga.
3. When asked about this, she says that the fee cannot cover salaries without saying all of the things it can cover: vehicles, weapon, etc. A half a loaf is better than none but she does not mention that.
3. When she and I spoke recently discussed the low hanging cables over our roads, she said to me that the fire chief doesn’t think there is a problem, but she knows he didn’t look at any, let alone all of the locations I mentioned, including my street.
Linda does not respect the First Amendment rights of residents Linda removed me from the HOW program.
I acknowledge that my behavior at one session was wrong, and that I should have shut up and sat down when Cole asked me to. I believe I should have received a warning. But that isn’t the issue; the issue is that I was removed because at other times and places I exercised what she has acknowledged is my First Amendment right.
This is confirmed by Linda’s explanation to me in an email to me on Sept 4 (below), in which she admitted she was retaliating against me for my exercise of my First Amendment rights on other occasions. She said she does not like how I communicate with staff, but she gave no examples.
As she wrote, “I told you earlier this week that I didn’t appreciate your treatment of staff and I am no longer going to allow you to do this in an environment when I have the ability to stop it.” She believes that she “ha[s] the ability to stop” the way occasionally address staff in an email by barring me from attending the program. This is an admission that she is retaliating because she doesn’t like my occasional communications style with staff, and is a patent violation of my First Amendment rights.
I haven’t used any bad language in communicating with staff. She is angry that I refuse to abide by her vague unconstitutional requirement of civility and that my criticism is harsh.
She does not like the fact that I criticize her, the council members, and the staff, so as she said she retaliated against me because, as she wrote, she believed she had “the ability to stop” my harsh criticisms. She is particularly unhappy about my criticism of what even Cole confirmed was a “vulnerability” of the Emergency Operations Plan—the fact that she lives in Dublin and the Plan depends on staff returning to the city.
In terms of other attendees, I have been stopped after each meeting by a number of attendees who express glowing support for me. Some have engaged me in extended discussions after a meeting. After the meeting yesterday I was specifically told by several attendees that they missed me at the prior meeting at EBMUD (at which Cole failed to provide knives needed to cut the food from Amoroma).
Nick Waranoff
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 1:28 PM
To: 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: HOW Program
I was going to advise Cole, when he sent out the email asking to be advised who will not attend, that I would not be attending. You beat me to the punch. The sessions are a waste of time.
I have a First Amendment right to “flip off” Scott Christie, and did so in a non-disruptive manner. See the Supreme Court decision in Cohen v. California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California You surely know this.
My comments during the meeting were polite and constructive.
When the person sitting next to me asked a question concerning a subject that I had personal knowledge about, as I was providing the info, because I had been personally involved with Caltrans on the exact subject, Cole interrupted me and talked over me.
Interestingly, when Cole approached me after the meeting, his only comment was that his “objective” was to have staff answer questions. I responded that my objective was to provide truthful answers. Notably, Cole did not bring up any of the points you have raised.
He didn’t mention any ground rules or anything else other than that.
In terms of “ground rules,” Cole regularly allows people to speak repeatedly without being called on. He set the ground rules that I was following.
As you wrote, “I told you earlier this week that I didn’t appreciate your treatment of staff and I am no longer going to allow you to do this in an environment when I have the ability to stop it.” You believe that you “have the ability to stop” the way occasionally address staff in an email by barring me from attending the program. This is an admission that you are acting because you don’t like my occasional communications style with staff, and is a patent violation of my First Amendment rights. I feel that the casual approach by Scott Christie to what I consider a threat to my safety – low hanging cables that could block fire trucks – warranted strong language.
I haven’t used any bad language. I have not been disruptive. You are angry that I refuse to abide by your unconstitutional requirement of civility and that my criticism is harsh. You don’t like the fact that I criticize you, the council members, and the staff, so you are trying to punish me because, as you wrote, you believe you now “have the ability to stop” my harsh criticisms. You are particularly unhappy about my criticism of what even Cole confirmed is a “vulnerability” of your Emergency Operations Plan.
In terms of other attendees, I have been accosted after each meeting by a number of attendees who express glowing support for me. Some have engaged me in extended discussions after a meeting. After the meeting yesterday I was specifically told by several attendees that they missed me at the prior meeting at EBMUD (at which Cole failed to provide knives needed to cut the food from Amoroma).
I remain free to hand out flyers on the public sidewalk exposing you for what you are. I am also free to sue you personally in small claims court for denying me my civil rights. You have no official immunity because this area of First Amendment law has been settled for years. I have the ability to do
so.
Nick Waranoff
From: Linda Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 10:56 AM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Subject: HOW Program
Nick
I have been made aware of your behavior at last night’s HOW program. You are no longer welcome to participate in the program.
Flipping off staff members upon your arrival, talking over staff when they have asked you to stop multiple times, and not following the basic ground rules have led me to this decision.
We have also received complaints from participants that you are making the experience uncomfortable.
I told you earlier this week that I didn’t appreciate your treatment of staff and I am no longer going to allow you to do this in an environment when I have the ability to stop it.
I will be present at that next meeting so that I can ensure you don’t show up.
Linda
Get Outlook for iOS