OPINION: Altering Council Record Inappropriate
The following letter was sent to the City Council and PCA Editors:
We find it extraordinary the City would go to such dramatic lengths to alter the minutes for the September 4 comments by Mr. Grote [City Administrator] to Ryan Gilbert’s Open Forum comments concerning the misstatement of Council unanimously endorsing the Measure Y Parcel Tax.
Although the City’s lengthy addition to the minutes in this fashion is highly unusual in itself, important comments are curiously missing.
Mr. Grote, Mayor Chiang and Councilman Wieler acknowledged on Sept. 4 that this statement is false yet these important declarations are left out of the carefully crafted City revision of the minutes. The basic misinformation on the proponent ballot argument remains, that Council has unanimously recommended the Parcel Tax.
As this is evidently a highly sensitive issue at City Hall, as evidenced by the carefully crafted and relatively lengthy addition to the minutes, the information being omitted is significant in what appears to be an attempt to again editorialize official documents by the City. The job of altering facts and presenting unbalanced information is best left to a well known publication.
Whether intentional or not, the ballot misstatement is important and follows the City’s misstatements on the Measure A ballot statements earlier this year. The EPA was not requiring Piedmont to replace its mainline sewer.
Mayor Chiang was informed directly by Eric Lindquist on Aug. 23 of this matter and had ample time to include correcting information by Aug. 27, the due date for rebuttals. Instead Mr. Grote now suggests that opponents should have used their 250 words to correct the acknowledged proponent misstatement. Further, the City can still go to court, do a city wide mailer or place front-page ads in local media. The City has chosen to take no action and continues to place the burden on those to be deceived by the misstatement – Piedmont voters.
Respectfully,
Ryan Gilbert
Rick Schiller
Editors Note: The original draft of the September 4 minutes reads as follows:
In response to Mr. Gilbert’s comments, the City Administrator explained that neither staff nor the Mayor and Councilmember Wieler who drafted the ballot argument were aware of any misunderstanding with regard to the Council’s support of the ballot measure. He stated that both readings of Ordinance 707 N.S. placing the renewal of the Municipal Services Tax before the voters as well as Council authorization for the Mayor and Councilmember Wieler to draft a direct argument in favor of tax renewal as well as a rebuttal argument in response to an argument opposed to ballot measure passage were unanimously approved by the Council. He stated that he did not file a writ with the court to change the ballot argument language because the deadline for argument submittal to county election officials had passed.
Editors’ Note: The City Administrator’s recommended changes to the September 4 minutes are:
Proposed September 4th Minutes Correction: City Administrator Grote
On page 2, strike the second paragraph and replace it with:
In response to Mr. Gilbert’s comments, the City Administrator explained that neither staff nor the Mayor and Councilmember Wieler who drafted the ballot argument were aware of any misunderstanding with regard to the Council’s support of the ballot measure at the time the argument was submitted. He stated that both readings of Ordinance 707 N.S. placing the renewal of the Municipal Services Tax before the voters as well as Council authorization for the Mayor and Councilmember Wieler to draft a direct argument in favor of tax renewal as well as a rebuttal argument in response to an argument opposed to ballot measure passage were unanimously approved by the Council. He stated that as this issue was raised after the deadline for argument submittal, the proponents were not in a position to change the argument, only a Court could, as he was informed by Mr. Curry. In addition, as neither the staff nor the Council were cognizant of the distinction that is being drawn at this time between voting to put the measure on the ballot and supporting it, that he was not willing to file with the court for a writ. He pointed out that any qualified voter of the City could have filed for a writ or injunction with the court or that the opponents could have used the rebuttal argument to argue their point.
Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.
This is REALLY scary! ” neither the staff nor the Council were cognizant of the distinction that is being drawn at this time between voting to put the measure on the ballot and supporting it”
They really can’t distinguish between agreeing to putting an issue in front of the voters and supporting the issue? These are the “leaders” and Staff”. God save us!
At tonight’s (9/18) Council meeting Mayor Chiang stated he was dealing in good faith; in my public comments to the City commenting on the minutes revision, I stated that I had no doubt of that. This goes to the heart of the issue which is not whether Council and staff knew or didn’t know they were creating false ballot information. Mayor Chiang, Councilman Wieler and CA Grote all acknowledged on 9/4 that there is misinformation on the proponents ballot argument, that council did not authorize a resolution of unanimous support.
Further Mayor Chiang was informed of the error in writing by Eric Lindquist on August 23, four days before the rebuttals were due. Proponents had time to place a correction on their rebuttal. I also believe the reason courts are used after the ballot statement deadlines is just for that purpose, it is the one legitimate recourse to correct a false ballot statement.
I asked the City tonight to either go to Court, do a city wide mailer, place information in the local media outlets including this one, and minimally place a correcting statement of proponent letter at the City website ballot information page. There was no response.