Town Square

Post a New Topic

Briggs to retire, stay on as artistic advisor until Jan. '09

Original post made on Jul 21, 2008

Longtime Children's Theatre Director Pat Briggs, 72, will retire Aug. 1 and then return as a contracted "advising artistic director" for six months, City Manager Frank Benest announced Monday afternoon.

Related materials:


  • View the settlement agreement.

  • View the press release

  • Settlement near for theater's Pat Briggs

  • Editorial: Time for some sanity on Children's Theatre



    Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, July 21, 2008, 5:16 PM
  • Comments (83)

     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Deep Throat
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Are Briggs and her lawyer smart enough to obtain the same retirement pay for Briggs that she would have received if her final year of employment did not include a period of suspension without pay?

    Briggs' retirement payment would be equal to a multiple of her highest yearly salary from among, I believe, the last three years dated backward from her retirement date.

    If her most recent twelve months of employment equals a period of suspension without pay, then her most recent base year salary, and her retirement payment, would be less than if she had not been suspended during that year.

    If she chose to use an earlier year as the year for calculating her retirement payment, then she would not get the benefit of annual salary increases used in the current year's salary, and her retirement payment would also be lower than if she could use her most recent twelve month salary without any suspension.

    Maybe Briggs is willing to accept a slightly lower retirement payment in exchange for not being fired so that she can retain the right to receive her accumulated sick leave of about $100,000.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Non-PACT parent
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    This sounds like the most sensible outcome for all concerned.

    Now I hope that the City does its part by making the new management team financially accountable. I also hope that the funding of PACT is completely reviewed. I don't know about how many employees are needed, but it is time to at least get the participants to pay for their participation with a scholarship fund set up for cases of real need. I hope also that the $1m can be slimmed down too with perhaps the difference being donated to field and court update for other activities at least.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Robert Smith
    a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Once again Pat Briggs has shown that she has the interests of this city at heart.

    Read the agreement. For very little consideration, Pat Briggs has signed over all rights to any sort of litigation over this entire matter.

    Many people in this situation would have filed a lawsuit against the city on the grounds that the police department violated her constitutional rights to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Katie Christman
    a resident of Professorville
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    O.K. Non-Pact Parent. What is your beef? Pat Briggs is willing to help this city heal and get on with doing what we do best, which is providing outstanding services to our citizens. Why can't you? If you think spending MORE money on 'completely reviewing' the funding of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre, which makes up less than one percent of the City budget, after so much has already been wasted this year (for instance paying three employees NOT to work for several months), and the budget has already been approved for the year, you need to review YOUR priorities. If you are genuinely interested in helping the City of Palo Alto get more 'bang' for its 'buck', how about completely reviewing the accountability, process, and communication within and between departments? How about re-examining the role of the city council and city manager's offices? How about spending some money (I know, it hurts) to publish a handbook on our city government and how it works, so people know how to usefully attend a Council meeting or get the Police to enforce the Noise Ordainence (sp?).

    I am glad you take the time to post, and to read, and to participate, but once again, I challenge you to speak up FOR something, to make constructive comments, and to use the forum to help build concensus on what we as a community DO care about and DO want to spend our budget on. We are a diverse and unique community and our interests reflect this. Time spent trying to curtail the interests of others is time wasted.

    Sincerely,
    Katie


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Katie Christman
    a resident of Professorville
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    Comment on my own comment, O.K. I flew off the handle a bit there, sorry, but the Children's Theatre has taken a huge hit this year all told, and it just seems like some people are never satisfied! Let it go! Jeez!
    KT


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Katie Christman [portion removed by Palo Alto Online] refuses to see how much damage Briggs and her fellow staff members have caused the city with their improper management of city money. Does Ms Christman also call for not spending money on a review of the police, which the Friends of PACt and their acolytes on the city council are proposing?
    Time to get rid of Briggs and take PACT private.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Is that right?
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    "...on the grounds that the police department violated her constitutional rights to be treated as innocent until proven guilty."
    Isn't that a judicial right vs. a police dept. right? I thought police were supposed to chase down any warm lead that may result in solving crime. Doesn't that conflict with assumed innocence? It's the judge or jury that's obligated to presume innocence when passing judgment. The police don't legally pass judgment; they investigate and pass along the evidence.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by fireman
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Pat should not have to deal with the City. She should not have to live throught this. Period.

    The City gets what in wants. It just cost more sometimes. So much more. But no one in the Cities Upper management cares. Just a bunch of twisted lies tie them together.
    The Employee's and the Citizens pay even more than that. Lost of the truth. Loss of their rights. Loss of rights that this Country was suppose to be built on? I guess that is not for Palo Alto, they do not have to play by the rules. They have the ability to SETTLE.
    Just pay to be not wroung? or some bs line like that.

    Pat I am so sorry that you have been treated as you have been by this city. It made me very ANGRY? So now I will tell the truth and the story.
    Good like you will never be able to except that people like this can get away with THIS, but this is Palo Alto it has always been that way. With this as proof. Thier is no change ahead of this City.
    So many instead of the Weclome to sign, it might be better to say. Beware you are now in Palo Alto, Hope you do not work there. Population; Too Many.

    Where it is not the land of the free. It has been changed to the Land of the BLIND and SILENT.
    Have a Nice DAY.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Me Too
    a resident of Meadow Park
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Sounds like a reasonable result to me. Maybe we can do it next time with less drama.

    I still hope and expect that PACT's status will be reviewed and we will find a way to do it with little or no city funds, with participants and sponsors picking up the cost (even if the budget must shrink, as I expect it will). Almost 1% of the city budget is just too much - I doubt we could find any town anywhere that spends even 0.5% of its budget on childrens theater (or anything like it). That money should go for unfunded city requirements, including public safety, libraries, and infrastructure repair.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by fireman
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Me Too, Why? How? And no one is doing anything it will just happen again.

    What could be done with the funding this City throws a way?

    I guess whatever is in order and head shaking? AGAIN! Maybe that is why my neck is bad. Worked in Palo Alto too long?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by wow
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Is that right" has it right -

    It's the judge or jury that's obligated to presume innocence when passing judgment. The police don't legally pass judgment; they investigate and pass along the evidence.

    So which of her rights, really, were violated. (Fireman - you really don't need to respond to this query...)


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Robert Smith
    a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Isn't that a judicial right vs. a police dept. right? I thought police were supposed to chase down any warm lead that may result in solving crime. Doesn't that conflict with assumed innocence? It's the judge or jury that's obligated to presume innocence when passing judgment. The police don't legally pass judgment; they investigate and pass along the evidence.
    Posted by Is that right?, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, 50 minutes ago

    The great difficulty with this is not the investigation itself, but rather the statements made by the police after the investigation was concluded. The police chief basically reasserted that crimes had been committed. The writeup contained many assertions of guilt.

    All of this was inapppropriate of course. The police should simply have stated that the investigation was over and that no charges were being filed. Compare the statements of the police to the statements of the assistant district attorney for example.

    The actions of the police made it almost a certainly that this matter would be resolved by the city. They would not have wanted the legal exposure created by these statements.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Long time resident
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Once again the city has demonstrated complete lack of responsibility. We citizens will bear the cost of yet another COSTLY retirement, for an employee who abused our trust. This deal was authorized by those who were not paying attention, who themselves have retired, or are in the midst of cashing in their own lucrative retirement plans from the City of Palo Alto. It is shameful. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
    We need the new city mananager and the new auditor to set up shop NOW and begin scrutinizing operations from city council through every accounting practice and find out what is going on with our money!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Resident
    a resident of Green Acres
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    I will never set foot in the Children't Theater in Palo Alto again.
    I will never contribute to a show.
    I will travel to Mountian View, Menlo Park, or where ever it is necessary with my children, nieces, nephews, family and friends to enjoy music, imagination, and prose.
    You have forever lost my trust with the decison to return Pat Briggs to the Theater.
    A life-long theater lover and thesbian


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Me too,

    you said it best.

    Settlement reads like a vindication of the city's reasons for termination.
    Now, let's fix those potholes, the work on the creek, the library matters....
    PACT should be a public charity.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Another theater lover
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    I too love the theater. However, I too will avoid the Children's Theater, or any other event hosted, sponsored, coached, directed, or authorized by Ms. Briggs. My trust in PACT, the Friends of the Theather and the City who had responsibility to monitor this program is lost.

    How silly we we were to trust. How sad that Ms. Briggs AND the City abused our trust.

    [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Sceptical
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    If Pat Briggs is to earn $50 per hour between now and next January to help with the transition, who is going to monitor her hours to make sure she complies exactly with the agreement? Or should we just assume she will double bill the City?




     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anonymous
    a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    I am disheartened by the old boy's club atmosphere here in Palo Alto-business as usual around here. Take PACT private and do what you will with it, but let's stop requiring local taxpayers to support something that handles funds in a questionable fashion. There are many worthy similar organizations in our region and I see no reason whatsoever for PACT to maintain a special status and support of insiders in our city government. I am offended by that and prefer that city council focus on the basic of running the city of Palo Alto and...please fix the streets of Old Palo Alto.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by tired of this story
    a resident of Downtown North
    on Jul 21, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Great. Can we move on now? I am so tired of this story and all related stories to the Children's Theatre.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Fix the Damn Streets !!
    a resident of Greater Miranda
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 5:05 am

    This has been a bumpy ride. Now can we fix the streets. Briggs would like it.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by trudy
    a resident of Crescent Park
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 5:37 am

    The fellow falsely accused of the Olympic bombing and the guy falsely accused in the anthrax episode were both similarly trashed by police or FBI and won significant settlements.

    You don't have officials blathering on for a year or more about how they're guilty before they've been convicted, and destroying their lives, without facing the consequences.

    The city could have been on the hook for millions from lawsuits from all the Theater people here, thanks to the once again irresponsible police department, which is a mess under the current chief.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:29 am

    Too bad the city caved in and worked out this settlement--not tough to figure which "city leaders" were behind the push for this. I would have preferred to have had Briggs sue so that the truth would have come out under oath. Still she does have to pay back $15,000, which suggests that their was financial malfeasance on her part (her attorney can spin this any way he wants--she is still paying back the city). Friends of PACT must be disappointed because it does not resolve Briggs of wrongdoing and does not elevate her to the level of sainthood. Also the PACT will now collapse, according to them, since Briggs will no longer be at the helm.
    The city , despite the demands by supporters of PACT, should not admit to any errors, unless it is mutual and the city should refrain from issuing the retirement proclamation as discussed in today's Daily Post.
    I hope this brings this matter to an end--Briggs will soon be history. The city now needs to look into the large amount of money devoted to a single city activity, while other children's activities are not funded


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Jenny Brown (Rajbhandari)
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:53 am

    Good for Pat! We love you!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Rick
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:02 am

    When did supporters ever say that the PACT would collapse without Briggs?

    Would you cite your source?

    If you do find a lone example, how can you group all supporters into the same boat?

    Do you think that within your assertion that others spin the truth, that you might be employing this very same tactic?

    The terms of the settlement indicates to all unbiased people
    that the City was both fearful of lawsuits (plural)
    (ageism being one of them)
    and that they too were partially culpable for the mess.

    I have found many of the supporters to be reasonable even
    though I was not standing with them at the beginning of this process.

    In addition, in your opinion, what children's activities
    in Palo Alto are underfunded?

    Overall, my feeling is that the entire process to remove
    Patricia Briggs
    was at least partially undermined by both yourself and the poster known as Narnia.

    Instead of taking the high road or at least staking your reputations to your viewpoints, you both instead campaigned with arguments that appealed to the basest instincts of the community. The argumentation was further undermined when you couldn't assess blame in proportion to those who deserved it, focusing sole blame, despite mounting evidence, at the four employees of the theatre.

    This is a scapegoat mentality and it may work to win national elections but it is a much harder tactic to employ
    in a relatively enlightened community such as Palo Alto,
    a place where a portion of the community chest is
    invested in the enlightenment of its children.






     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Rick--there have been plenty of posters these forums who have stated that the PACT could not survive without Pat--I consider them to be supporters.
    Plus the Friends of PACT, in general, have been on the attack since day one--vilifying the police, casting aspersions on the investigators and claiming that Pat is above reproach. In addition they have attended every council meeting to lobby for Briggs.

    From today's PA Daily News:

    "Briggs must pay the city $15,000 to cover overpayments and reimbursements she received. The city's outside investigator, Douglas Freifeld, found that Briggs asked to be reimbursed for expenses from both the city and the nonprofit Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre more than 100 times since 2000, though Briggs has asserted that occurred no more than nine times."

    (Web Link)

    That is enough for me to indicate that Briggs was up to no good when it came to financial matters.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by fireman
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Another theatre lover, I thing it is called stompping back. Funny it is ok to be stomped on by The City of Palo Alto and the misguided citizens but, stomp back and you do not like it?

    Just like this whole event. It is not ok for the City Employee to waste 5 dollars,however, the City leaders can waste millions and get bonuses and homes. Nice place you have here, keep giving them funds and they will keep doing the samethings. Stealing and lieing.

    I see no logic, common sense. I do see a whole lot of HUGE LIES and cover ups. And you thinking it is all OK. Hope you get on the wroung side of out of control ego maniac's. See how much you like it?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Citizen
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Dear City Council -
    As a citizen I hereby revoke all funding for the children's theater.
    $0 funding for Pat Brigg's new contract.
    $0 funding for any settlment with her, including retirement. 100% of sick leave, pension,& vacation must be paid tooward the theater's operating costs until fully expended. That is the price of violating the community's trust.

    $0 funding for coucil's pay & benefits. Same deal: 100% of city council expenses, pay, benefit & pensions (if any) go to support the theater. That is the price of violating the community's trust by bringing Pat Briggs back and failing to act against her and her supervisors who are jointly responsible for this mess.

    These funds are not to be administered by friends of the theater. They must be administered by a court-appointed, qualifed financial expert, subject to quarterly audits and public inspection. That is the price of violating the community's trust.

    The theater can no longer be administered by the city. Parks & Rec can't handle it. I recommend it be transferred to the School District or bids can be accepted from bonded theater groups in terms of management. That is the price of violating the community's trust.

    I would rather have no program than allow this to continue. I don't trust you, council, to make good decisions. This is one of the worst I've seen in 40 years. (It's right up there with the school district selling off their sites: dumb.) We elected you to make wise decisions, not stupid ones. Take your responsibility seriously, or get off the council!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Rick
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    BBB-

    I instead have found the tone of the theatre supporters to be that the theater could go on without Briggs, but that she was the best person to keep installed within the position of leadership.

    You didn't cite an example despite the alleged prolificacy of the sentiment that she was purportedly indispensable.

    Whether it was unwitting or not, you appeared to sidestep the issue.

    So, overall, if I understand this correctly, Briggs earned about $700K annually since the year 2000, but her detractors feel that she was intentionally risking everything to embezzle an additional,
    (at worst) $2,143.85 per year and furthermore, chose not to destroy
    the evidence that ended up incriminating her.

    That's a bit much to fathom.

    It feels to me, more like a simple case of disorganization than one of greed.

    She appears to be a trustworthy guardian of our community even if she did apparently mismanage $15,000 of the approximately $7 million dollars she had been entrusted with since 2000.

    (i.e. she and/or her employees lost track of two tenths
    of one percent of the theater's operating budget.)


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Barney
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    One piece of the madness still to be resolved

    The City needs to Re-Hire Rich Curtis, He did not deserve to lose his job.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Rick--just to make you happy:

    "As one of the many children who went through the programs at PACT, I too was able to find my niche in the world there and in many ways find myself. To address those who say "no one is irreplacable", Pat is irreplaceable, she works harder than anyone I've known for the children of this community. Which is not to say she is without her faults, but her love and dedication to inspiring children and giving them the freedom to explore, learn, grow and just play is something severly lacking in this community. I personally applaud both Billy and Alex for their choices. They are setting the kind of example we all need to set for the children of this community, to take action in the course of our beliefs.

    As is clearly illustrated even in just this forum, there are very few people who are willing to put themselves on the line for their feelings; Very few people who will sign their names to their words.

    If you belive it enough to write the words for all the world to see, shouldn't you believe them enough to stand behind them?

    I believe that those who choose not to vote don't have the right to complain. Same concept, those who are scared to back up their own words, probably should keep it to themselves.

    The kids in this community need to learn how important it is to think freely (even if not everyone shares your feelings) and back up what they feel. And the best way to teach them is to lead by example.

    Posted by Sarah Young, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2008 at 7:21 am"

    (from: Web Link)


    Rick--this is one is in response to a comment I made saying that there must be someone in the country that could replace Briggs:

    "Bye Bye Briggs...yes, there is NO ONE in this country that could replace Pat Briggs. Her national reputation in the children's theater community, her life long devotion to the program, her ability to coordinate all of the programs the theater is involved in despite staff cuts forcing the staff to work to the breaking point, her ability to provide a wonderful opportunity for hundreds of kids to perform in plays or help with tech, her ability to coordinate hundreds of adult volunteers every year, her willingness to take on other city responsibilities when necessary, the devotion she has from the Friends group who raise thousands of dollars or more every year to support the theater because they think so highly of Pat, her advocacy for the city of Palo Alto because of involvement in things like the "Shop Palo Alto" campaign, the fact that her reputation allows her to get the rights to new children's theater productions like the Disney junior series, the loving and positive enviornment she creates for our kids...and for many, many more reasons Pat is irreplacable.

    I don't think they make people like Pat any more. We are so lucky that she has dedicated her life to our kids and the city of Palo Alto.

    And as for Rich..he is a totally excellent, committed employee in every way and it is too bad that he had to jeopardize his job just to prove his innocence. The Palo Alto police were on such a witchhunt that I doubt they would have checked the computer, found that Rich was above reproach and admitted they were wrong.

    Posted by Katie Young, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2008 at 11:51 am"

    (from: Web Link)

    If you want, Rick, you can search all the related threads and find more comments like these.
    At least you admit that she did mismanage money not belonging to her. I consider that a breach of trust and she should be fired. The issue of all those travelers checks is something else that calls into question her honesty. I think she was working the system for years, under the guise of the caring PACT leader--she clearly has a large number of people believing it.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Paul W
    a resident of Mountain View
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Pat and Michael were probably the best examples of "tough love" that I ever found outside of my home. I can't name anyone else who worked harder, instilled positive values, or were more positive inspirations to me growing up. I won't dispute that Pat probably made a few mistakes during her time at the theater. Who hasn't at their job? I've made a few doozies myself at my own work. She's human, like the rest of us, and should be allowed some slack, and did the best she could under difficult circumstances for years and years, but kept coming back. I kept coming back, too, through middle school and college. So did many other kids. A few years ago when they were going to close their Wingspread program, the outpouring of support (internationally, from as far away as Tel Aviv, Israel) to keep the program going was truly amazing, and also included a couple of actors who went on to work in media professionally who had made their start at PACT.

    Pat's retirement is well-deserved for the service she put in, and both sides are amicable to the agreement, which is now all that counts.

    Personally, I intend to continue to patronize the place as well as help out as best I can to continue Pat's legacy there for what she stood for.

    I sure hope this incident inspires the city to take a closer look at its accounting procedures, or they could easily start this whole thing again from square one in another 20 years.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Citizen
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Pat's retirement is not well deserved. She was paid for doing a job,and many enjoyed the Children's Theater. Meanwhile she abused her position as a public servant. Paying back $15,000 is a nice gesture. Have you considered that it is pennies on the dollar compared to what it will cost us to pay for her retirement? Why should we allow her to set foot in the theater again? What makes you think she won't abuse our trust again? Just watch folks throw her a retirement party... and use the resources at the children's theater to do it! It's crazy! She misappropriated funds, and city council is repeating that mistake by authorizing her return, her retirement, and her contract to continue after retirement. Council should resign in disgrace. So should Pat Briggs.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Another citizen
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    I agree with Citizen. Briggs should forfeit her position and her retirement. Whoever agreed to this: Benest, Klein, &/or whoever else should also resign over this "agreement". We citizens do not agree.

    We do not want you back in our theater, Briggs. We do not want you back, Curtis. Everyone I've talked to in my nieghborhood does not want either one of you back. And we certainly don't want to pay you a pension as a reward for all this grief! Thanks for the memories, now go away!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by just one voice
    a resident of Crescent Park
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Had this settlement been reached in January the money saved in police and legal costs would have covered the cost, and Pat would be safely retired by now. I am sick that it has taken so long to get to where we should have been months ago.

    It is absurd for this city to think that it can or should run a theatre. The theatre is good for kids and it is an asset nut it costs too much Take it private. Now! If the " friends" wish to to some real good for this community they should lead the effort.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anonymous
    a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    A compelling thing for me is to learn what an insider's town this really is...the PACT "situation" has been totally screwball irregardless of whether or not they put on some entertaining plays with some of our young children. We are not arguing about that point. By the way, there are numerous fine nonprofit local institutions including theatrical for our youth in this region.
    There are clear indications PACT should be disengaged from the city of Palo Alto and taxpayer funds. And yet!! This is not happening owing to an insider's good ole boy club.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Carolyn Munson
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Now that there is a compromise worked out it is time to focus on the great asset to the community that the children's theatre has been and is continuing to be. Welcome back Pat!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Andy Hayes
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    This is a mediocre outcome; Pat should have been fully reinstated. The city just wore her
    down. Its great to see your return Pat. Any objective, reasonable and civic-minded person
    would love to have more city run children's programming like the Children's Theatre. To make things right the City needs to Re-Hire Rich Curtis. Pat and Rich were wronged
    and are great assets that made Palo Alto a great place to live. I grew up in Palo Alto,
    I lived in Palo Alto and I worked for the Palo Alto Children's Theatre. I would love
    to move back to PA, but the property values are too high because of the Children's
    Theatre, the Libraries, The Junior Museum, The Cultural Center, The Bay Lands,
    Ect.. These are all great tax sponsored programs, anybody want to trade, I have
    a big house in Cupertino, without these great institutions. Do the right thing
    and reinstate Rich Curtis too. Welcome back Pat!

    20 year resident of Midtown.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Resident
    a resident of Old Palo Alto
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    What about the theft of tens of thousands of dollars worth of video equipment and other things from the theater?

    This should have been the main focus of the investigation, instead it turned to the employees.

    This revealed that the city did not have a grip on the finances of this department which was not the fault of the employees.

    It makes me question how many other departments in this city are left to run themselves.

    This was a one of the smaller departments.

    I think we should take a look at the departments with the big budgets.

    These loyal employees were nothing but victims of huge mismanagement problems within this city.



     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anonymous
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    So let the PACT collapse. Why should the city fund this organization to begin with. If a kid wants to play little league baseball or youth league football, his/her parents have to pay... the city does not fund these organizations to the tune of 1 million per year... why should Childrens Theater be any different?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Rick
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Bye Bye Briggs,

    You cited an anomaly and your ultimate conclusion is based upon suspicion.

    Perhaps you there's a future for you as an investigator for the
    Palo Alto police department.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by VC
    a resident of Meadow Park
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Why do the people who wish to collapse the theatre need to remain anonymous? Why do the people who support Pat Briggs feel that it is okay to list their names (and likewise feel comfortable risking their reputations in the process).In a way, these two actions speak volumes to the careful observers.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Easy
    a resident of Charleston Meadows
    on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Easy question VC - the PACT supporters are supporting the status quo and the establishment. Those opposed are trying to shake things up. How many City Council members spoke out against PACT and Briggs? Hmm, none. How many spoke out in favor? Who wants to put their name on the list of people PACT's elite supporters are out to get even with?

    Last time I checked, it's safer to support the establishment than call for change to entrenched programs with zealous supporters.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by theater
    a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 1:22 am

    The question was why is the city supporting pact and not other activities such as baseball? One reason may be that it is easy to find sponsors for many mainstream activities; as soon as an e-mail went out asking to sponsor pall teams the spots were filled, it takes longer to find patrons for the arts. The problem I have is that many non Palo Alto participants take advantage of this program. I also think that if asked, many of the residents would gladly pay for their children's participation in this wonderful institution and this way the theater budget would be even higher to allow for greater participation.

    Now, as far as Pat, at this point she makes young children uncomfortable. This matter became a subject of many diner conversations in our family; we had to define phrases like embezzlement, police investigation, and traveler's checks to our nine year old. Both Pat and Rich (disregarded authority) are just not good role models for our youngsters. No way will my child participate or attend Pat's show.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Ivan
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 2:02 am

    If Pat makes your specific children uncomfortable, then that would be the fault of how you contextualized it because I can assure you there are lots of kids out there without the problem.
    It appears that you have somehow even made the concept of "traveler's checks" something troubling to them.
    I suppose if your neighbor were somehow wrongly accused of murder, but exonerated, that you would disassociate with them all the same
    because, you know, because it would be troubling to the darlings.
    Pat and Rich disgregarded authority in the same manner that Ben Franklin and George Washington did back when he opposed a tyranny forced upon them.
    If anything, were they not vindicated once the investigation they went under was shown to be ineffectual to the point that it is currently under an investigation of its own? Out of town residents pay non-resident fees and they make up a small number of the total participants. Tell me you're aware of this. If you're not, then you're just spouting spiteful propaganda.






     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Ivan
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 2:30 am

    Easy--

    Who have the elite supporters you speak of harmed so far?

    Do you have a precedent for saying such a statement? Feel free to go back a number of years if you need to in order to find an example.

    What is the worst thing these elitists are capable of?

    Is this a potential police matter?

    ***

    I'm pretty sure that a corrupt city council, if this IS a corrupt city council, can't be changed without people standing up to them with
    their cloak of anonymity removed. Everything else is just propaganda.

    On the pro-Briggs side, the City Council were engaged in conversation by numerous supporters who were articulate, humble, passionate and had most indication of benevolence.

    On the anti-Briggs side, was there even one person who lobbied the council that came close to matching that same criterion?








     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Outside Observer
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 6:15 am

    Private or public funding of the PACT is, and will continue to be an issue for Palo Alto, but those who have used the failed police investigation and now failed administrative investigation to justify any position on PACT funding are missing the real story here.

    The real story here is one of corruption at all levels within Palo Alto government.

    The use of the PAPD with the deep pockets of tax money to persecute individuals that the County DA wouldn't prosecute, and then to go on with a "kangaroo court" administrative investigation where the judge, jury, executioner and prosecutor are all one in the same.

    And now to read the "settlement agreement" which can only be viewed as a cover-up due to all the rights Briggs has relinquished for due legal process.

    Bottom line to all of this, the City used the Police and the City Manager's investigation to destroy Briggs, and the outcome is an agreement where Briggs can't can't sue the City for their actions in this persecution..... Guess the City has an awful lot to hide!

    I just hope the City Council's "investigation of the investigation" will shed light on what is really going on and as a result criminal charges can be brought against the real criminals in this fiasco.




     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 6:19 am

    Rick--Spin my responses any way you like--clearly you are a "Pat-Briggs-No_Matter-what" supproter. Her supporters and lawyer have been spin her misdeeds for months.

    You stated:
    "You didn't cite an example despite the alleged prolificacy of the sentiment that she was purportedly indispensable." and you accused me of sidestepping the matter.
    I provided two examples and bid you to search for the others that were out there.
    You call it an anomaly--I assume you also call Briggs' financial misdeeds an anomaly also.
    This is fine--we are all entitled to our opinion. Mine is that the city, most likely under the behind the scenes direction of certain council members, made this disgraceful agreement with Briggs. Shame on the city, shame on the council member who supported it and shame on the council members who did not speak out against it. And most of all shame on Pat Briggs


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 10:40 am

    And I am of the opinion that it is very easy to separate out a person who has a legitmate difference of opinion from one who is simply meanspirited, paranoid, and troublemaking. For example, Bye Bye your use of the word "misdeed" which is defined as "an immoral or wicked deed." As opposed to a "mistake" which is defined as "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." I think most reasonable people, whether a supporter or not of Briggs, will agree that a mistake or mistakes better describes what happened in the case of the Children's Theatre. I should hope you will find it in your heart to accept the outcome, as we all must, move on and work constructively to make Palo Alto a better place.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by theater
    a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Ivan, I don't know why you cling to buzz words and offensive tactics to prove your point. How about trying persuasive and factual writing for a change? I only expressed my family's opinion and an educated fact, participation is pact shows (not camps and classes) is FREE to all, please look in you Enjoy catalog or call the theater.

    And, Yes, Pat makes not just my but other children uncomfortable. Kids make jokes about her constant screaming to quiet down, absolute lack of movement, never attending shows she directed, that they can not relate to her, and sadly, about how she devours her over filled smelly sandwiches. This scandal certainly has some limited validity, so it would be best for Pat to keep low and think about the kids. Luckily, children are very resilient and moved on beautifully without Pat around.

    I am sure Pat was phenomenal in her day but those days are long gone. I would recommend that a city charge a fee to participate in Pat's last show with pact to cover her $50 an hour pay rate.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:05 am

    Theatre, it is one thing to be critical of an individual for whatever reason, and quite another thing to review and make decisions regarding the business model, government model, non-profit model or whatever model you wish to consider. But please do not confuse the important issues with the individual who has long been associated with the theatre. Your statement "I am sure Pat was phenomenal in her day but those days are long gone" is a poorly disguised sentiment that Briggs is too old for the job. Not only is that not politically correct, but it is illegal to keep as a factor in the discussion. My advice: stay focused on the best way to operate the PACT that will be of most benefit to the community and to the Children of Palo Alto.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Parent
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Little League does get sponsors to help with its support, but it still charges fees to participants and there are still fundraisers (batathon). We do not have sponsors advertising around the ballpark as other communities do, but our teams are named after sponsors, sometimes with amusing results or embarrassment on the part of the kids that have to play on the teams or play against them. I feel sure that some of these businesses would sponsor a play at the theatre if they had naming rights to all publicity or banners around the theatre.

    AYSO manages without local sponsorhip, I am not sure about any others.

    There is no reason why sponsorship cannot help the theatre, after all, much of the sponsorship for Little League is because a child of the owner of the business is playing on the team and I feel sure that the same could be done if a child is taking part in a play. The child on a little league team gets no preferential treatment because they are the child of a sponsor (only if they are a child of the coach) and there is no reason to believe that being the child of a sponsor would get them the lead in the play - at least that should be made clear in any sponsorship recruiting.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:14 am

    anti-Narnia--you, too, are free to spin my comments any way you want. I do not consider what Briggs did as a "mistake". A mistake happens once or twice, not more than 100 times as the city's outside investigator, Douglas Freifeld reported regarding double re-imbursements by Briggs, as an example of a misdeed. You may consider my interpretation of Briggs action's as "meanspirited, paranoid, and troublemaking". I will stand by my belief that she engaged in innapropriate activities with regard to money and PACT finances--those are what I call misdeeds


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Curious
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

    When is the Palo Alto Weekly going to post a copy of Briggs contract with the city to be the theater's "advising artistic director"?

    The contract is an identifiable public record.

    The press was in a hurry to get a copy of the police report released (including the investigator's analysis and conclusion that state law protects from disclosure).

    How about showing us a copy of Briggs contract.

    Maybe Briggs doesn't even have to show up for work to get her six-month's consulting fee.

    As a retired employee receiving retirement benefits she is entitled to 1,000 hours a year of paid employment with the city, or $50,000 in her case, but does she actually have to work to get the money, or is she just being paid to be on call?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Bye Bye you have missed my point, completely. The thought I wanted to convey to you was that it no longer matters if Briggs made mistakes or conducted misdeeds. The case is closed with a signed agreement by all parties. It is time for you and others to move on. My additional point was the hope that your future participation in dialogue regarding Palo Alto matters be conducted in a way which is constructive. Cheers!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    So, does that mean that the outside investigation of the investigation, instigated by Brigg's conflict of interest challenged supporters on the city council has been abandoned?
    And actually it does matter--it goes to show how things are handled in this city and how some people, who are well-connected are allowed to get away with "misdeeds".
    It seems to me that many of Briggs' supporters, who previously claimed that she did absolutely nothing wrong, are now eager to claim that what she did does not matter anymore


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    "So, does that mean that the outside investigation of the investigation, instigated by Brigg's conflict of interest challenged supporters on the city council has been abandoned?"

    That is not clear to me, but I can tell you that the investigation of the investigation should not be abandoned. I am not a member of the City Council and I have no quarrel with the police conducting the original investigation. They had legitmate reasons to do so. But I know for a fact that the original investigation was deeply flawed and the conduct of the police and other City officials is extremely troubling. For me, part of the healing process will be the acceptance of responsibility by the police for their poor behaviors.

    "it goes to show how things are handled in this city and how some people...." That is exactly the sort of paranoid, and unfounded statement, that does nothing to help get the City better. If you believe the City can be run better than it is, then stand for election or support someone you believe in. In the meantime the Palo Alto ELECTED officials continue to do a tough job, the best way they know how, and in an honorable fashion.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    anti-narnia

    So you state:
    "The case is closed with a signed agreement by all parties. It is time for you and others to move on."

    But the "moving on" according to you should only be with regard to Briggs--everything else, police investigation, behavior of city officials, is not closed. Is that correct?

    "That is exactly the sort of paranoid, and unfounded statement, that does nothing to help get the City better."

    That statement is well founded based on the behavior of certain members of the council. If we are going to investigate the police and city officials, then certain council members also need some scrutiny for their actions.
    Clearly our elected officials do not have a tough job, they have a tough time carrying out their job--they are unable to keep our infrastructure in a reasonable state (i.e. roads, creeks, libraries etc), they are unable to stand up to vocal minorities (PACT scandal is a perfect example) and they do not know how to make timely decisions on pressing matters.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Stated by Bye Bye "they are unable to stand up to vocal minorities."

    Now you are quoting Richard Nixon who used the same phrase to attempt to marginalize those of us who protested the Viet Nam war. And we know how that turned out.

    "But the "moving on" according to you should only be with regard to Briggs--everything else, police investigation, behavior of city officials, is not closed. Is that correct?" That would be correct. There is no longer a need to speculate, demean, and to speak disparingly of Ms. Briggs. That issue is now over. In keeping with that thought you might consider changing your screen name since the outcome, however you feel about it, has been decided.

    You should continue to keep an eye on how your City is run and the quality of the decisions that are made, as any good citizen should. In this instance a review of the police with respect to the PACT investigation is in order. Similarly the City (and you as a tax payer) are faced with difficult challenges and priorities that are controversial. Its not a bad thing to debate them, even if it takes time to reach an appropriate concensus. That is what democracy is all about.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Me Too
    a resident of Meadow Park
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    AN, I was never clear - you don't live in Palo Alto, but have deep knowledge of PACT. Can you give a sense of your relationship there? It would help put your statements in context.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    I am not ready to give too much away, but I will say I am a former resident of Palo Alto with background knowledge of all the issues being discussed regarding the PACT. Does that help?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Me Too
    a resident of Meadow Park
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    AN, I guess the issue is whether you are just an interested observer, which is fine, or have a vested interest in the outcome (your job, yours friend's job, your kid's activity, etc.). If the latter, it would be helpful to know that (though not necessarily the specifics).

    Most of us are just Joe and Jane taxpayer/home owner here in Palo Alto, who want what's best for our city (each in our own way). If you have a special stake in PACT, but less so in the future of Palo Alto overall, your perspective is different.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by wow
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    You equate the PACT investigation with Vietnam? Interesting...I wonder how the vets would feel about that?

    No wonder the argument gets heated. You might like to apply some sense of perspective here.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by fireman
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Wow. A culture of fear is a culture of fear. Who's looking to spin?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by fireman
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Wow. A culture of fear is a culture of fear. Who's looking to spin?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Wow sees need for perspective. Me too. C'mon this is a theater without much impact outside Palo Alto. Pat Briggs is of no consequence. The investigation is or should be over. This subject is only important because of the positive discrimination PACT enjoys from the City and the funds the theater consumes- those aspects are important to the day to day lives of Palo Altans. I look at PACT in a pragmatic way, not ideological upmanship.
    Btw, the next PACT director will have to contend with people who deemed Ms. Briggs "irreplaceable" , and decried her dismissal as the destruction of PACT. A marvelous welcome for a new director?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Me Too: I suppose my "stake" is complicated. I do not have a vested interest in the outcome. I do have a strong interest in fairness, decency, and kindness. Because I have knowledge of the specifics of the PACT and the investigation it has pained me to see the speculation, reckless accusations, and uninformed conclusions that have marked the discussions about the PACT. It would have been easier for me to sit back, observe, and say nothing but my conscience would not allow me to do so. I do not take issue with peole who have a difference of opinion. I take issue with people who use poor logic, half truths, and lies, to support their opinions.

    I love Palo Alto. I chose to move there because of the quality of education offered, the array of cultural and leisure activities provided by the City, and because of its wonderful environment. I moved to Palo Alto because it had a great reputation and my life there, and my family's life, was enriched because of our time in Palo Alto. The PACT was a part of all of that and I happen to believe
    any movement to weaken the theatre will be a debit rather than a credit and I hope that does not happen. I believe that it is in the best interest of Joe and Jane taxpayer/homeowner to protect ALL of the wonderful resources that Palo Alto provides. However, I, as an individual, will lose or gain nothing one way or the other.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Anti-Narnia,

    please practice what you preach.
    I think we could all say "I take issue with people use poor logic, half truths, and lies, to support their opinions". Where might I find examples of your application to these goals?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Sohill, not that I need to justify anything to you i will provide you with one example (and believe me there are far too many from which to draw.)

    The published police report states "The theatre staff took many nice vacations 'probably' using City funds." That is a half truth. Yes they took vacations. No, they did not use City funds.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    anti-Narnia--are you sure they did not use City Funds for their vacations? What was all the money, that was accumulated by Briggs during the 100+ times she was double re-imbursed (as reported by the city's outside investigator), used for?
    We also will never know about the traveler check issues.
    She had a good thing going for 40+ years and now that she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar, she has local "leaders" protecting her and guranteeing her a very nice pacakge, as well as a glowing going away proclamation.
    What a joke!!! The sooner Briggs fades into the sunset the better it will be for the city as a whole.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Mister Douglas
    a resident of Green Acres
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Bye Bye-

    Within your methodology, circumstantial evidence is a hanging crime.

    How odd for you not to require a smoking gun when sending someone to the gallows despite the presence of theories that plausibly paint the scenario as one where mistakes, and not misdeeds, were committed.

    Where is your same sharp sense of outrage over how the police shot first and asked questions later?

    You are quite similar to Bill O'Reilly. You draw a simple conclusion and then paint any opposition to it as spin, even if it is truthful, well-reasoned and fairminded.

    Bottom line--your assertions lack proof.

    Furthermore, your previous e-mails predicting that Briggs would sue,
    in hindsight, have been proven to be as misguided as your screen name.

    Briggs would have never sued or do anything to hurt the institution she poured her heart and soul into.



     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm



    AN
    I agree in this specific case. It's speculative. We don't know what funds they used but there is no evidence they used city funds.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Mike
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    I have some questions for discussion:

    Who will have the responsibility of choosing Patricia Brigg's successor?

    Have they already hired Michael Litfin's replacement and if so,
    might that person be a candidate to instead replace Patricia?

    Is a new flawless system of internal control (accounting)
    already in place to prevent further confusion?

    Has the property had its security system improved to better
    prevent future break-ins?

    Is it a foregone conclusion that Richard Curtis will now sue
    and/or receive a settlement?

    Have their been children at the theatre who were saddened that the productivity at the theatre's summer program was slowed down by the understaffing (i.e. they performed fewer shows and had fewer roles
    to offer).




     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Pat Briggs did well not suing since she wouldn't want to air her faults. The city had a better case than she did. SIince she clearly mismanaged the theater and the jury wouldn't be be made of her friends and supporters she would have had a very hard time prevailing. If you look at the settlement, she got her pension and all bits that go with it, which I think is reasonable* and the regular proclamation all municipal employees get, but nothing else. She has to pay some, she will not recover defense expenses and there is a face saving 6 months of "work" ( at a low rate for such luminary) and then it's really bye bye Briggs: she can't even volunteer for the PACT or fundraise for it. She still has some time to revoke the agreement, but I think she got a decent deal. And from the deal you can infer she had no case.
    That's it folks. The end of the merry melody.
    * Hey, she worked for many years and not all of it was as bad as her management and people . Her productions were quite good and many children had a good time....so she deserves her pension.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by we like Jim
    a resident of JLS Middle School
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Mike
    We hope it is Jim.
    We have no idea but hope it is Jim.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by sohill
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    sorry:

    it should have read:* Hey, she worked for many years and not all of it was as bad as her management and people skills..... "



     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Frustrated
    a resident of Midtown
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    This city and its residents make me sick. What a corrupted, meandering mess of lies and distortions. Have you read the city's allegations and Pat's responses? I won't even start.

    I'm proud of her for even returning after the way she has been defamed.

    People, grow up and stop bickering. This is over; you got what you wanted. The overworking woman is gone, nobody in the city has suggested a better accounting system, and your tax dollars have been misspent on a witch hunt with little constructive achievement.

    Cheers!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by abcdefg
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    I agree with Frustrated. It is over. Pat is gone. Rich is gone, he was a nice guy though. Does any one know if he found another job? Please keep in mind, our children are reading these postings. It is over.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Joe
    a resident of Barron Park
    on Jul 23, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Briggs deserves nothing.
    In the very least, not 84K a year!


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Bye Bye Briggs
    a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
    on Jul 24, 2008 at 6:47 am

    Mister Douglas--did I predict that Briggs would sue? I remember writing that I hoped she would sue--so then she could be examined under oath.
    The agreement precludes her from suing--that was worked out by her attorney and the city--therefore I would think her attorney used the ability to sue as a bargaining chip.
    Would she have sued? we will never know.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Mike
    a resident of Adobe-Meadows
    on Jul 24, 2008 at 7:31 am

    Who is Jim?


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by Melvyn
    a resident of Green Acres
    on Jul 24, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Sohill--

    Pat Briggs' faults have already been fully aired. Do you really think the investigation withheld even more damning information on her?
    If it had gone to trial, it would have been the city's accountants, their systems and the police that would have had THEIR flaws fully articulated and revealed to a much larger audience--especially if Briggs prevailed, which those at the other side of the bargaining table clearly felt was a possibility given the terms they conceded to in the settlement.
    Any decent attorney working on behalf of Briggs would have held their most damning evidence against the defendants close to their vest to utilize said evidence as leverage for their client, n'est pas?---and there's nothing to suggest that Briggs did not retain superlative representation.
    I'm not her friend or her supporter, but it's still quite apparent she was defamed at various points of the investigation. Simply go back and read the published statements by Johnson and Yore and compare them to how the case actually sifted out.It is open and shut. The movement to oust her was checkered with reckless inefficiency.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by jim
    a resident of Downtown North
    on Jul 25, 2008 at 10:31 am

    jim is a registered user.

    Melvyn,
    Simply put, look at what Brigg's gave up. She is not allowed to work or even volunteer for the city ever again. Now, she may not want to after how she has been treated but that is quite a damning indictment.


     +   Like this comment
    Posted by anti-Narnia
    a resident of another community
    on Jul 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    anti-Narnia is a registered user.

    I think, all in all, Pat Brigg's came out of this nightmare reasonably well and with her head held high. While it is true she is essentially banned from the a place that almost everyone can agree is her whole world it is equally true that this episode exposed administrative weaknesses throughout the City which, I assume, will be corrected. Further, there will be an investigation of the investigation which, in and of itself, is a vindication of sorts for Briggs.


    Don't miss out on the discussion!
    Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

    Email:


    To post your comment, please click here to Log in

    Remember me?
    Forgot Password?
    or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

    To Cambodia With Love
    By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,239 views

    Early Campaign Notes: City Council
    By Douglas Moran | 15 comments | 1,790 views

    Life in fast forward
    By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,573 views

    Medical
    By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,459 views

    Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
    By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 293 views