THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC COMMENTS
WERE SUBMITTED
AFTER THE
PUBLICATION OF THE
PACKET
From: Robert Whitehair
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Special Meeting Monday Feb 5
Date: Sunday, February 4, 2024 1:21:57 PM
Mayor and Council
Thank you for placing on the agenda a discussion about the way in which council members will relate to each other.
I prefer the description "guidelines" to remain. Naming them "Rules and Regulations" implies that some city staffer or appointed/elected official will actively review and enforce those rules and regulations. For the residents of San Mateo like me, it is important that Council Members continue to commit to work with each other in a civil manner. Rules and regulations will actually work against that behavior.
I also recommend that the newly written guidelines apply to all Commissions and Boards, especially the way and order in which questions are asked by commission and board members. It has been my experience that questioning can take more than an hour, or even longer; this is unfair to residents who wish to speak, forced to wait late at night. Moving the order is helpful.
I also hear through the grapevine that some members of the community wish to create a formal ethics commission, or establish such a committee within the council.
Either is a waste of
time.
This council is ethical; an ethics committee might be a solution in search of a problem.
Robert Whitehair, San Mateo
From: Michael
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: 2024 Blue Sky Comments
Date: Friday, February 2, 2024 11:48:40 AM
Greetings Mayor Nash and Members of the Council -
For this year's Blue Sky meetings, I think it's important that the council prioritize establishing a code of conduct for council members, as well as minimum residency durations to be eligible for council or commissions. Over the last few years, we've seen an alarming uptick in questionable, unethical, even flat-out illegal behavior by councilmembers and commissioners alike, and we currently have no robust mechanisms to protect our city from these bad actors.
We've also seen several instances of candidates being planted in districts to maintain a majority in favor of special interests. Our elections are not some game to be played by monied outsiders trying to manipulate policy outcomes to their benefit.
Specifically:
- Lower the voting threshold to 3 votes to remove a commissioner - Develop a robust code of conduct that
calls for the discipline and removal of
councilmembers or commissioners for unethical behavior, illegal behavior, and "conduct detrimental to the city of San Mateo". Specifically, we have a council member who flat-out
lied to disqualify an excellent choice for appointment to city council. She faced zero consequences. We have a planning commissioner who admitted to stealing campaign signs in an attempt to sway a district election in favor of their preferred candidate. This same commissioner submitted a 70+ page presentation to the HCD specifically to have our housing element rejected, because he doesn't personally believe it goes far enough. He has faced zero consequences. We have another planning commissioner who has routinely shown her disdain for residents with differing opinions from her own and has also tried to get the HCD to reject our housing element. She has faced zero consequences.
- For more information, Ethics San Mateo has crafted a compelling statement of position that the city should take a hard look at. -
https://ethicssanmateo.com/wp-
content/uploads/2024/01/SOP-2024-1-Conflicts-of-Interest-Activism-and-Standards-for- Ethical-Conduct.pdf
- Require candidates and commissioners to reside in their district for a minimum of 1 year before being eligible.
I would also like the city to prioritize a complete historic assets inventory. Our historic downtown and neighborhoods are what make San Mateo unique and desirable, and without a better understanding of what is there, we can't take concrete steps to protect them before they disappear. Please don't let San Mateo become just another generic dot on the map.
Thanks for listening - Michael Weinhauer
P.O. Box 6764
San Mateo CA 94403
February 2, 2024
SAN MATEO CITY COUNCIL
Via Email
Re: Support for Ethics San Mateo Council/Commissioner
Code of Conduct Recommendations
Dear City Council,
The Board of the Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association advocates for strong improvements to the current broad and imprecise City Council Code of Conduct.
These improvements should provide specific clarity of expectations, repercussions for failure to meet expectations and a clear path of means to remove an offending Councilmember. Further, it is our express interest that a revised, robust Code of Conduct also apply to appointed commissioners as they serve San Mateans, too, and should be held to the same high standard.
We thereby support and champion the recommendations submitted by Ethics San Mateo in an endeavor to strengthen and create real, positive change to the Code of Conduct and, with its implementation, to our elected and appointed representatives, thereby resulting in a beneficial effect on the entirety of our community and city.
Sincerely,
The Board of the
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association
cc: Patrice Olds
From: Laurie Strange
To: Alex Khojikian
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: FW: Code of Conduct Feedback & Ethics Enforcement Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:38:05 AM
From: Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:35 AM
To: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Code of Conduct Feedback & Ethics Enforcement
All: As you are aware, I was forwarded the Boards & Commissions guidelines via the city clerk sent without comment from a recent incident w/a sitting planning commissioner, and replied that they were in effect useless sans enforcement/policy pieces that detail ramifications when a breach of same occurs. With that in mind, to be productive rather than punitive with the abhorrent conduct recently endured as a private citizen in the aforementioned slander incident I have summarized a few areas requiring elevated clarity as you address tightening the loopholes and setting forth policy that adheres to decency and professionalism befitting a city such as ours. (Under separate cover, I will attach a 7pg pdf of my futile attempt to resolve the miscommunication with said parties while I decide what actions to take as next steps. I outreached to them for a week, to no avail as they refused to submit any concrete data addressing allegations. Conversely, I offered full forensic evidence negating said allegations,
including access to all phone/computer/digital records. Needless to say, it is a lopsided effort of good faith.)
With that in mind, I offer the following to shore up expectations of the code of conduct:
1.) BEFORE SERVING ON A COMMISSION/COUNCIL --APPLICATION PHASE:
a.) Applicant must detail any/all fiscal, familial, organizational, advocacy/activism/lobbying and special interest tethers as well as donations to political and organizational entities per tax code stipulations. (could even mandate last two years of tax returns outlining same) b.) Applicant should reveal w/full transparency any data at the onset for any potential optics which could compromise city business via conflicts of interest, and review annually with updates in writing and verbally during city business at hand that could be impacted. This should apply NOT ONLY to financial holdings and familial stakeholders in the immediate or extended family, but ALSO to ideological pertinence and practices that could be construed as bias when votes pertain to issues of concern. (Example: Serving on a bike coalition when bike lanes/expansion are being reviewed, serving on a land use trust bumping up against environmental or energy or resource interests, receiving developer's donor dollars, local candidate donations, etc.)
c.) Applicant should sign a document acknowledging terms of city policy involving disclosure of conflict of interest and negating public discussion of any city business under review across all forums so as not to run afoul of the Brown Act.
d.) Applicant should provide detailed transparency while also knowing that it does not negate service, nor necessarily mandate recusal on a given vote, it simply means the applicant should indicate vested interests and any conflicts which could be construed upfront and verbally indicate same each and every time key matters come before the city, by referencing the written disclosures in the application, keeping them updated annually while serving on said commission. (Objectivity is the focal point here, erring on the side of recusal when voting on a project that has political/ideological/fiscal alliances or serving on boards or in volunteer organizational positions where stakeholders are key and reviewing in HR or hearing style if there is a challenge to said objectivity.)
2.) WHILE SERVING ON A COMMISSION:
a.) Commissioner Conduct: Item 1, letters A&B allude to the notion of putting personal interests aside and treating members of the public with dignity, but there is no consequence for NOT doing so in the current 'guidelines' and the city's code of conduct has been REPEATEDLY and brazenly violated ad nauseum in recent years. Add an enforcement policy that states specifics, such as: If a commissioner slanders, slurs or creates controversy in the form of any sort of defamation to a private citizen or on either public or private social media channels that subject the city to liability, said commissioner should be subject to immediate dismissal by the city attorney's office, following presentation of data/review of concrete evidence of same. Further, any allegations of any kind must be substantiated by evidentiary data submitted directly to the party being accused (whether city official or public or private figure) and reviewed promptly in writing with a reply and course of action by the city attorney. (hearings/challenges could be considered but not over-ruled by appointees or council)
b.) Conflict of Interest: Item 13/pp 16-17 Obviously, items A-G on recusal need beefed up, particularly pertaining to the Planning Commission item 14 A-H items with much tighter verbiage extending beyond financial conflicts of interest to extend to ideological/organizational and Item E needs tossed altogether, "With full consideration of the City Attorney's advice, it is up to each individual Commissioner to decide for themselves whether there is a conflict of interest."
What? That lack of policy underpinning is screaming
for abuse and needs codified fully! Perhaps try something like: If a commissioner listed vested interests/potential conflicts on their initial application and a vote comes before the city where any portion could be construed as ideological, fiscal or familial stakeholder bias, the city attorney will consult the vested interests of any said commissioner and recuse by default unless challenged by the commissioner via removal of the conflict which was not reflected in an updated version of the initial disclosures.
c.) Brown Act/Media Use: p.25 Prohibited Uses: We have multiple violations of Item A2 in this slack channel with a wide array of commissioners and lobbyists conducting side business opinions via gossip/innunendo under the guise of it being a 'private vs public' platform...Specific verbiage needs expanded and clarified to cover ALL media and ALL platforms, public or private which should not be convening w/any form of majority to discuss city business of any kind (this is just like an HOA who can't pass legislation via email w/o violation) I'd suggest adapting current terminology to reflect something like, "A majority of the members may not use social media, or public or private platforms of any kind to curry favor or express views which may elicit influence or bias; this includes email threads and texts to discuss agency business while not in active session, nor may they share their views in media publications swaying influence of any kind, nor may any member respond directly to any posting on any platform by another member regarding agency business including no 'likes, thumbs up, emojis or other symbols, as this is to be considered a direct violation of the Brown Act, subject to removal of the appointee."
3.) BEST PRACTICES
a.) When the public requests a response from the attorney, city manager, council or other seated official concerning commission authority or a complaint therein, the reply should come from the official(s) cited, in writing, to officially state the stance of the city. Delegating a 'forward' sans response from the city clerk is not sufficient, given the purpose of the commission authority, per Chapter 2 item A is as follows: "The primary role of City commissions is to increase public input and participation in the determination of City policies and some programs."
b.) Public records requests are deemed to include any/all material pertaining to city officials serving and need to be upheld with utmost transparency and prioritization and all platforms and channels are subject to public access withing the state's given time period. Perhaps add a clause like, The city can abbreviate/limit the requested items in order to expedite but needs to do so in writing in a timely manner with explanation of intent (e.g. If records are voluminous, they can start with a rolling data dump to expedite, etc. for example, I requested data 11/27 and still have not received same, tho I was informed the lag is due to staffing/computer issues etc. so abbreviated the request. Though this still remains out of compliance and obviously needs more people power to serve effectively, the outreach from the city clerk prevented escalation and community pushback, helping considerably to give voice to the city stance. (the public has a right to access projects under scrutiny to report back to their communities of concerns writ large in a timely manner, the city clerk helped facilitate a compromise via communication)
These are just some basic suggestions for tightening the guidelines in an effort to clarify and codify conduct and expectations for the benefit of all. Hope they are found to be productive to remedy some of the loopholes in the current document. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Jussel
District 4/MGA#1
should re
From: San Mateo United Homeowners Association
To: City Council (San Mateo); Patrice Olds
Subject: Special Meeting #1 City Council Guidelines
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 2:39:16 PM
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council:
SMU is writing to request refinement and improvement to City Rules and Guidelines for City Council and Commissions.
One of the many things that makes San Mateo a thriving active community is the engagement of its citizens and electorate. While there is disagreement there has always been open-mindedness toward the view of others.
We request council consider making the following changes:
1. Commissioners limit their city email use to internal city communication only. Outside City communications other than to say thank you or acknowledge the receipt and an Email that has been referred to city staff is strictly prohibited and grounds for immediate removal from their commission.
2. No elected or appointed person may perform a non-emergency task that would otherwise be performed by city staff. Council and commission members should report the task to the City Manager, or appropriate department head for appropriate action. Failure to follow proper protocol should result in immediate dismissal.
3. Treat all community comments with respect and interest, without vocalizing or exhibiting bias toward any position or policy before hearing all input.
4. The current decorum of not interrupting, silencing, or being rude/negative regarding another representative, whether Council or Commissioner, must be strictly observed.
5. Council or commission members shall refrain from asking leading questions to a consultant or presenter who is presenting to obtain approval for a project or job.
6. Review minimum attendance requirements, except for medical or family emergencies.
Missing difficult or uncomfortable meetings to avoid representing the people and/or participating in a council vote is not a valid excuse for missing the meeting.
7. Swear an oath to the (new) code of conduct for both council and commissioners.
8. Clearly define commissioner roles as advisory only, with the understanding they are not to advocate. Commissioners should refrain from attempting to educate staff or the public.
All questions must be referred to city staff for answers.
9. Representatives shall support staff immediately at public meetings when public meeting attendees act outside of the rules of decorum.
From: Lisa Taner
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Patrice Olds
Subject: Suggestions for Code of Conduct (& Procedures) Date: Friday, February 2, 2024 11:26:18 AM
In regard to a complete revamping of our current and unserviceable Code of Conduct, while I support the recommendations set forth by Ethics San Mateo, I would like to include some specific suggestions for the Code of Conduct and its accompanying procedures.
The following are in no particular order:
1. The request or need for an apology from a councilmember or commissioner, when fulfilled, must be done so by the offending party, not by any other elected or appointed representative or City staff.
2. The current decorum of not interrupting, silencing, or being rude/negative in regard to another representative, whether Council or Commissioner, must be strictly observed.
3. No council member should tee up a question to a consultant or presenter who is presenting to obtain approval for a project or job in order that said consultant or presenter may supply a canned answer for their next possible bid/job.
4. A minimum attendance should be required except in medical or family emergencies. Missing difficult or uncomfortable meetings to avoid representing the people and/or participating in a council vote is not an excuse for missing the meeting.
5. Swear an oath to (new) code of conduct for
both council and commissioners
6. No commissioner may write a letter or communicate to agencies, organizations or the state, or the representatives of such bodies, especially from their City email address, advocating or condemning City matters which are currently before the City or have been submitted by the City for approval.
7. Clearly define commissioner roles as advisory only, with the understanding they are not to advocate.
8. Representatives shall support staff immediately at public meetings when public meeting attendees act outside of the rules of decorum.
9. No elected or appointed person may touch campaign signs that do not belong to them for any reason without consent of the candidate.
10. Increase the efforts of decorum and civility by striking rude comments expressed by a councilmember/commissioner in regard to another councilmember/commissioner during a City meeting should the offended party request it.
11. Clearly define steps for removal when the revised Code of Conduct is broken.
12. Review method of removal to strengthen the integrity of the process so that it is not not clouded by relationships or political gain.
Thank you,
Lisa Taner