This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
From:
To: [email protected]
Cc: Town Center; Town Council
Subject: new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:48:46 PM
I read through the proposed Electronic Communications Policy and have some concerns about parts of it. The policy is going to be voted on tomorrow evening at the Town Council Meeting. 17838 (portolavalley.net)
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/17838 My biggest concern is about the section II d:
Electronic Communications between Council members or Commissioners/Committee Members Concerning Town Business. Electronic communications should not be sent by a Council or Commission/Committee member to more than one other Council or Commission/Committee member concerning Town business and should never be used to form or attempt to form a consensus on an issue within the Town’s business.
I’ve highlighted the issue. By limiting email communication between members of a committee to only one other person essentially obliterates the ability of subcommittees (made up of less than a majority of a committee) from getting any meaningful work done. As an example, the Sustainability committee puts out monthly Public Service Announcements that typically get edited and proofed by two other members (thus 3/7 members). With this new policy, we would not be allowed to have several viewpoints review the information for accuracy and clarity before it goes out to the public.
It’s impractical and unreasonably restrictive, for no good reason.
Also, when I look at section II c, I have concerns about practicality and usefulness:
E-Communications by Commissioners and Committee Members. Commissioners and Committee members who have not been issued a Town email address may use their personal accounts for Town business. In order to ensure that the Town has a record of all ecommunications concerning Town business, e-communications concerning Commission/Committee business should include a copy to a Town e-mail address (staff or Council liaison or alias). Commissioners and Committee members shall keep a record of all ecommunications other than email communications (such as social media or text conversations) relating to Town business and provide a copy to the Town Clerk upon request in the event of a Public Records Act request.
Does it really make sense for the Town to retain copies of emails discussing purchasing smart plugs for Amazon? Or details about who is going to staff what shift at the Town picnic. Is that really the most useful piece of information for the Town taxpayers to pay for storage? Much of what is discussed offline is irrelevant sausage making that has no relevance to the public.
What concerns me the most about these types of policies is there is an implicit suggestion that the Town volunteer residents who serve on the Town Council, Town Commissions, and particularly Town Committees are engaging in malfeasance, secretive negotiations, or are incompetent. After the bogus Brown Act lawsuit, people have become increasingly accusatory of their fellow volunteer residents. And most of these accusers don’t serve on ANY committees so they have no idea what is needed in order to make progress on goals.
As with the recent fire regulations, there will be many unintended consequences and impracticalities in these policies.
I miss the more congenial atmosphere of Portola Valley.
Rebecca Flynn
Sustainability Committee
ASCC
PVForum Moderator
From: J W
To: Rebecca Flynn
Cc: [email protected]; Town Center; Town Council
Subject: Re: [PVForum] new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:26:11 PM
I agree with Rebecca regarding the Electronic Communications Policy and would go further.
I will not release my right to be in communication with my family or friends/acquaintances during meetings - some of which have lasted for 5 or 6 hours. Nor will I have the residents of this area decide upon what they consider to be an 'emergency' for me, when I am an unpaid volunteer.
This is a reach too far, and I hope the instigators of this policy are fully prepared to step up into the vacancies of volunteer positions that will undoubtedly follow.
Jane Wilson
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:48 PM Rebecca Flynn > wrote:
I read through the proposed Electronic Communications Policy and have some concerns about parts of it. The policy is going to be voted on tomorrow evening at the Town Council Meeting.
17838 (portolavalley.net)
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/17838 My biggest concern is about the section II d:
Electronic Communications between Council members or
Commissioners/Committee Members Concerning Town Business. Electronic communications should not be sent by a Council or Commission/Committee member to more than one other Council or Commission/Committee member concerning Town business and should never be used to form or attempt to form a consensus on an issue within the Town’s business.
I’ve highlighted the issue. By limiting email communication between members of a committee to only one other person essentially obliterates the ability of subcommittees (made up of less than a majority of a committee) from getting any meaningful work done.
As an example, the Sustainability committee puts out monthly Public Service Announcements that typically get edited and proofed by two other members (thus 3/7 members). With this new policy, we would not be allowed to have several viewpoints review the information for accuracy and clarity before it goes out to the public. It’s impractical and unreasonably restrictive, for no good reason.
Also, when I look at section II c, I have concerns about practicality and usefulness:
E-Communications by Commissioners and Committee Members. Commissioners and Committee members who have not been issued a Town email address may use their personal accounts for Town business. In order to ensure that the Town has a record of all e-communications concerning Town business, e-communications concerning Commission/Committee business should include a copy to a Town email address (staff or Council liaison or alias). Commissioners and Committee members shall keep a record of all e-communications other than email communications (such as social media or text conversations) relating to Town business and provide a copy to the Town Clerk upon request in the event of a Public Records Act request.
Does it really make sense for the Town to retain copies of emails discussing purchasing smart plugs for Amazon? Or details about who is going to staff what shift at the Town picnic. Is that really the most useful piece of information for the Town taxpayers to pay for storage? Much of what is discussed offline is irrelevant sausage making that has no relevance to the public.
What concerns me the most about these types of policies is there is an implicit suggestion that the Town volunteer residents who serve on the Town Council, Town Commissions, and particularly Town Committees are engaging in malfeasance, secretive negotiations, or are incompetent. After the bogus Brown Act lawsuit, people have become increasingly accusatory of their fellow volunteer residents. And most of these accusers don’t serve on ANY committees so they have no idea what is needed in order to make progress on goals.
As with the recent fire regulations, there will be many unintended consequences and impracticalities in these policies.
I miss the more congenial atmosphere of Portola Valley.
Rebecca Flynn
Sustainability Committee
ASCC
PVForum Moderator
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#183564) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Mute #important
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe ] From: Steve Toben
To: ; [email protected]
Cc: Town Center; Town Council
Subject: RE: [PVForum] new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 7:11:13 PM
As a former mayor of Portola Valley and longtime town volunteer, I strongly agree with Rebecca's objections to the proposed policy on electronic communications. Much of the essential work of our town’s committees gets done by way of subcommittees that have no decision-making authority but require communication among members in order to carry out subcommittee assignments. A policy prohibiting communication with more than one other committee member would be grossly counterproductive.
Similarly, the requirement that our town's commissioners and committee members keep a record of all communications relating to town business is overbroad and unnecessary for the proper conduct of the town’s business.
These onerous provisions are not required by the Brown Act. They would add yet more headaches to the experience of volunteering in our town, which in recent years has become far less rewarding than it used to be.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rebecca Flynn via pvforum.us Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [PVForum] new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT I read through the proposed Electronic Communications Policy and have some concerns about parts of it. The policy is going to be voted on tomorrow evening at the Town Council Meeting. 17838 (portolavalley.net)
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/17838 My biggest concern is about the section II d:
Electronic Communications between Council members or Commissioners/Committee Members Concerning Town Business. Electronic communications should not be sent by a Council or Commission/Committee member to more than one other Council or Commission/Committee member concerning Town business and should never be used to form or attempt to form a consensus on an issue within the Town’s business.
I’ve highlighted the issue. By limiting email communication between members of a committee to only one other person essentially obliterates the ability of subcommittees (made up of less than a majority of a committee) from getting any meaningful work done. As an example, the Sustainability committee puts out monthly Public Service Announcements that typically get edited and proofed by two other members (thus 3/7 members). With this new policy, we would not be allowed to have several viewpoints review the information for accuracy and clarity before it goes out to the public.
It’s impractical and unreasonably restrictive, for no good reason.
Also, when I look at section II c, I have concerns about practicality and usefulness:
E-Communications by Commissioners and Committee Members. Commissioners and Committee members who have not been issued a Town email address may use their personal accounts for Town business. In order to ensure that the Town has a record of all ecommunications concerning Town business, e-communications concerning Commission/Committee business should include a copy to a Town e-mail address (staff or Council liaison or alias). Commissioners and Committee members shall keep a record of all ecommunications other than email communications (such as social media or text conversations) relating to Town business and provide a copy to the Town Clerk upon request in the event of a Public Records Act request.
Does it really make sense for the Town to retain copies of emails discussing purchasing smart plugs for Amazon? Or details about who is going to staff what shift at the Town picnic. Is that really the most useful piece of information for the Town taxpayers to pay for storage? Much of what is discussed offline is irrelevant sausage making that has no relevance to the public.
What concerns me the most about these types of policies is there is an implicit suggestion that the Town volunteer residents who serve on the Town Council, Town Commissions, and particularly Town Committees are engaging in malfeasance, secretive negotiations, or are incompetent. After the bogus Brown Act lawsuit, people have become increasingly accusatory of their fellow volunteer residents. And most of these accusers don’t serve on ANY committees so they have no idea what is needed in order to make progress on goals.
As with the recent fire regulations, there will be many unintended consequences and impracticalities in these policies.
I miss the more congenial atmosphere of Portola Valley.
Rebecca Flynn
Sustainability Committee
ASCC
PVForum Moderator
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#183564) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Mute #important
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [ ] From: Ronny Krashinsky
To: Steve Toben
Cc: Rebecca Flynn; pvforum; Town Center; Town Council
Subject: Re: [PVForum] new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:10:01 PM
I agree with all of these comments and would like to pile on in opposition to the proposed policy. I submitted comments directly to the Town Council both on the draft ordinance reviewed in the 10/11 meeting and the updated ordinance set to be enacted tomorrow.
This is one thing that I wrote:
I would like to reiterate my opposition to Section III.e [Use of E-Communication During Meetings]. I disagree with further prohibiting communication beyond what is legally required by the Brown Act and the 2022 PV Texting Policy. Purportedly the intention is to encourage members to focus on Town business without distraction. However, I would note that there are no similar prohibitions against browsing the Internet, reading a magazine, working on a crossword puzzle, daydreaming, etc. The fact is that we have dedicated volunteers who know how to pay attention in meetings. I would encourage the Town Council to trust our volunteers and perhaps provide guidance in a handbook rather than creating onerous and intimidating laws.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 7:11 PM Steve Toben > wrote:
As a former mayor of Portola Valley and longtime town volunteer, I strongly agree with Rebecca's objections to the proposed policy on electronic communications. Much of the essential work of our town’s committees gets done by way of subcommittees that have no decision-making authority but require communication among members in order to carry out subcommittee assignments. A policy prohibiting communication with more than one other committee member would be grossly counterproductive.
Similarly, the requirement that our town's commissioners and committee members keep a record of all communications relating to town business is overbroad and unnecessary for the proper conduct of the town’s business.
These onerous provisions are not required by the Brown Act. They would add yet more headaches to the experience of volunteering in our town, which in recent years has become far less rewarding than it used to be.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rebecca Flynn via pvforum.us
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [PVForum] new Electronic Communications Policy comments #IMPORTANT I read through the proposed Electronic Communications Policy and have some concerns about parts of it. The policy is going to be voted on tomorrow evening at the Town Council Meeting.
17838 (portolavalley.net)
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/17838 My biggest concern is about the section II d:
Electronic Communications between Council members or
Commissioners/Committee Members Concerning Town Business. Electronic communications should not be sent by a Council or Commission/Committee member to more than one other Council or Commission/Committee member concerning Town business and should never be used to form or attempt to form a consensus on an issue within the Town’s business.
I’ve highlighted the issue. By limiting email communication between members of a committee to only one other person essentially obliterates the ability of subcommittees (made up of less than a majority of a committee) from getting any meaningful work done.
As an example, the Sustainability committee puts out monthly Public Service Announcements that typically get edited and proofed by two other members (thus 3/7 members). With this new policy, we would not be allowed to have several viewpoints review the information for accuracy and clarity before it goes out to the public. It’s impractical and unreasonably restrictive, for no good reason.
Also, when I look at section II c, I have concerns about practicality and usefulness:
E-Communications by Commissioners and Committee Members. Commissioners and Committee members who have not been issued a Town email address may use their personal accounts for Town business. In order to ensure that the Town has a record of all e-communications concerning Town business, e-communications concerning Commission/Committee business should include a copy to a Town email address (staff or Council liaison or alias). Commissioners and Committee members shall keep a record of all e-communications other than email communications (such as social media or text conversations) relating to Town business and provide a copy to the Town Clerk upon request in the event of a Public Records Act request.
Does it really make sense for the Town to retain copies of emails discussing purchasing smart plugs for Amazon? Or details about who is going to staff what shift at the Town picnic. Is that really the most useful piece of information for the Town taxpayers to pay for storage? Much of what is discussed offline is irrelevant sausage making that has no relevance to the public.
What concerns me the most about these types of policies is there is an implicit suggestion that the Town volunteer residents who serve on the Town Council, Town Commissions, and particularly Town Committees are engaging in malfeasance, secretive negotiations, or are incompetent. After the bogus Brown Act lawsuit, people have become increasingly accusatory of their fellow volunteer residents. And most of these accusers don’t serve on ANY committees so they have no idea what is needed in order to make progress on goals.
As with the recent fire regulations, there will be many unintended consequences and impracticalities in these policies.
I miss the more congenial atmosphere of Portola Valley.
Rebecca Flynn
Sustainability Committee
ASCC
PVForum Moderator
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#183580) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Mute #important
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe ]
From: Jennifer Torres
To: Jennifer Torres
Subject: FW: public comment for 10/25 PV Town Council meeting Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 10:08:03 AM
From: Ronny Krashinsky >
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:51 PM
To: [email protected]; Jeff Aalfs <[email protected]>; Sarah Wernikoff <[email protected]>; Judith Hasko <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mary Hufty <[email protected]>; Catherine C. Engberg <
Subject: public comment for 10/25 PV Town Council meeting Dear Town Council,
Please find below my public comment for the 10/25 PV Town Council meeting pertaining to agenda item 3.c Approval of Updated Electronic Communications Policy.
Note that I previously commented on the draft for the 10/11 meeting, but these are updated for the new version.
Regards,
Ronny Krashinsky
=-=
First, I would like to bring to your attention that there are a lot of comments coming in on PVForum. The fact is that many committee members are just seeing these new proposed ordinances for the first time. A theme of the comments -- why are you imposing restrictions on our volunteers beyond the legal requirements of the Brown Act (and the 2022 PV Texting Policy)?
In Section II.b the definition of Social Media Platform remains unclear. It now says, "includes online forums". This is an antiquated term which does not have a precise meaning as far as I can tell. These days people often use Google Groups to create private email lists. I tried to determine if a Google Group is an online forum and I found this: https://hiverhq.com/blog/google-groups
Google Groups is a platform that enables users to create, manage, and participate in online discussion forums and email-based groups.
So does any Google Group qualify as an online forum?
Even after it was updated, Section III.d still does not seem to accommodate communications between "Brown Act buddies" and subcommittees. When a committee has 7 or 9 members such groups can include more than one other person. Additionally, the resolution does not seem to accommodate the recommended practice of sending informational emails with all committee members on bcc. Overall, what are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to restrict E-Communications beyond what is already stipulated in the Brown Act? Finally, I would like to reiterate my opposition to Section III.e. I disagree with further prohibiting communication beyond what is legally required by the Brown Act and the 2022 PV Texting Policy. Purportedly the intention is to encourage members to focus on Town business without distraction. However, I would note that there are no similar prohibitions against browsing the Internet, reading a magazine, working on a crossword puzzle, daydreaming, etc.
The fact is that we have dedicated volunteers who know how to pay attention in meetings. I would encourage the Town Council to trust our volunteers and perhaps provide guidance in a handbook rather than creating onerous and intimidating laws.
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.