News

Public Works director could sue Palo Alto

City scheduled special session to discuss 'significant exposure to litigation'

Palo Alto officials have scheduled a closed session for Monday night to discuss a possible lawsuit by Public Works Director Glenn Roberts against the city.

The city is scheduled to discuss the possibility of litigation at the end of its Oct. 18 meeting.

The City Clerk's office sent out a revised agenda late Thursday afternoon adding the closed session to the council's agenda. Most administrative offices in City Hall are closed today (Friday, Oct. 15) and city officials weren't available to comment on the potential litigation.

The council agenda cites the city's "significant exposure to litigation" and names Roberts as the subject of the discussion.

Roberts attracted criticism last year after Public Works authorized the felling of 63 holly oaks on California Avenue in September 2009 without properly notifying the public. He repeatedly apologized and promised to improve the department's outreach efforts.

The City Attorney's Office has not received a claim from Roberts against the city, Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin said. City officials scheduled the closed session to discuss a "threat of litigation," he said.

His department is also at the center of the city's heated debate about the future of the city's landfill in Byxbee Park. A coalition of environmentalists is calling for the city to reserve a section of the landfill for a future anaerobic digestion plant. Others want the landfill to be quickly filled and capped, so that the area can be converted to parkland.

Roberts is also scheduled to update the council's Finance Committee on Tuesday about the status of the landfill. According to a new report, Public Works staff will recommend that the city fill the landfill as fast as possible.

The council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the Council Conference Room at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Dan
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:06 am

I thought we'd finally gotten past this Cal Ave tree fiasco. Please, City Council, don't give this guy a penny out of court. If he's got a case, let us all hear it. I can't believe he thinks he's somehow the victim in all this. If he wants to open the litigation can of worms, let's look into the tree-cutting contract while we're at it. To the best of my knowledge, PA paid around $80k to cut down 63 trees. It took one day. That seems high to me. Was this competitively bid? I paid $600 for a 30' tree including stump grinding, shredding, and haul-away. 63 all at once, in the same place should have been cheaper, per tree.


Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:28 am

No idea if this factors into the cost, but insurance bonds on City property are really expensive. For example, there are only one or two concrete contractors that carry the necessary insurance to do sidewalk work in Palo Alto, this allows them to charge pretty much whatever they want (it cost us $3K to replace a 4 foot long section of sidewalk).


Like this comment
Posted by CHinCider
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:29 am

To the author and readers:

You might want to look into the matter a little more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

City Hall sources tell me that Roberts has not initiated this action or filed any claim against the City and had not previously intended to do so. In fact, this action was initiated by the City as a preemptory and preventative measure against potential claims Roberts may have resulting from the City's actions towards him.

Remember that the City controls the "spin" on this item by the way they choose to agendize and describe the issue. In the political world of City government things are not always as they might seem.


Like this comment
Posted by Sonny
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:31 am

Looks like the city is looking for a scapegoat. Roberts has been the Director of Public Works for quite some time and seems to have an unblemished record. Palo Alto politics as usual.


Like this comment
Posted by Dramatis
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:41 am

The City of Palo Alto, what an organization! Its just one drama and scandal after another year after year. The characters may change, but the organizational culture remains.


Like this comment
Posted by Waugster
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:58 am

I think it's ridiculous that Glenn Roberts would even consider suing the City of Palo Alto over the amount of flak he received for the tree incident on California avenue and other bonehead moves made by the Public Works department. As head of the department he certainly shares much of the blame for these fiascoes / public relations nightmares. Whatever happened to the concept of the buck stops here??? Glenn is lucky to have been allowed to stay on the job to enhance the very lucrative pension he is now receiving.


Like this comment
Posted by MIdtown Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Dan, I need to have a tree cut down. Can you tell me who you used to cut your tree down?


Like this comment
Posted by CHin Cider
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm

To "Waugster" -

Apparently, he didn't so consider. You might want to reread the article (now that it has been rewritten to include the following statement) wherein it says "The City Attorney's Office has not received a claim from Roberts against the City...."

As I said before, in the world of politics, things are not always as the politicians would like to have it seem!


Like this comment
Posted by Ev
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Glenn's a good person. This seems like a pretty unsubstantiated report about something that may or may not happen for reasons that no one knows or understands yet.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident fro 45 years
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Amused
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Here's another story that a handfull of PA residents weigh in on, before having facts. There AREN'T any facts available to have.

Your city is a joke - and so is your press that reports GOSSIP, not NEWS.

Some advice for those of you that have managed to stay sane: move. Move anywhere outside of Shallow Alto. Your city is brutal.

Palo Alto residents are just too easy to fool. Not having superior intelligence, for which many give them credit. They may be able to do brain surgery on their neighbors, but they lack common sense.

Your City Hall mocks you and you pay them for it. Isn't it time to wake up and smell the coffee? The working phrase here is: WAKE UP.


Like this comment
Posted by Pdog
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Ok "Amused" after you WAKE UP, what is next?
Stop paying local taxes?


Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm

This is the funniest part of the article: "Most administrative offices in City Hall are closed today (Friday, Oct. 15) and city officials weren't available to comment on the potential litigation."

Question: Are we still giving City staff every other Friday off so they don't have to fight that dot-com traffic we had 10 year ago?


Like this comment
Posted by E.S.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm

It amazes me to read of potential and real litigation by our City. Palo Alto supports and endorses the Palo Alto Mediation Program to help residents resolve conflicts they have with each other. I don't read about the City considering mediation as a first step towards the resolution of difficulties, differences and potential disagreements they have with individuals, agencies or other entities. I wonder why that is so?


Like this comment
Posted by Council-watcher
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Here's what's known about the Monday closed session:
"CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—ANTICIPATED/POTENTIAL LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section
54956.9(b)(1): G. Roberts"

Could be anything and in either direction. But linkage to any issue is pure speculation at this point.


Like this comment
Posted by Deep Throat
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Bob, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood asks, "Are we still giving City staff every other Friday off so they don't have to fight that dot-com traffic we had 10 year ago?"

No, we still giving City staff every other Friday off so former City Manager Frank Benest can have three-day weekends to supplement his city salary with consulting fees.


Like this comment
Posted by One of the leftovers
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Roberts is one of the last left from the Benest days. He is arrogant, listens nobody and runs things however he wants. He has not been held accountable in the past, and now is complaining about being held accountable for the actions of his department? Really? Good leaders take the heat for their organizations; Roberts is not a good leader. Send him packing.


Like this comment
Posted by Just wondering
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:22 pm

>No, we still giving City staff every other Friday off so former City Manager Frank Benest can have three-day weekends to supplement his city salary with consulting fees.
Right. They could keep a skeleton staff on duty, but they close the city down entirely.
Ridiculous to close a city down on a weekday.
And does anyone know why the libraries were closed last Sunday? (Monday was Columbus Day but Sunday??)
Have city workers become accustomed to 3day weekends?


Like this comment
Posted by Lois
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Jim Keene is cleaning house, Gayle Likens - gone, Kelly Morreau - gone, Susan Barnes - gone. Steve Emslie is left, the only one with any institutional memory.

So far as Glen Roberts is concerned I think this has far more to do with his failure to tell the City about the 137 citations over a period of the last 15 years for permit violations at the City's landfill than it has to do with the removal of the trees on California Avenue. Anyway it will be interesting to see how this plays out.


Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Hmmm..... Looks like Pat Briggs is going to have some company....


Like this comment
Posted by Sonny
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Looks like Pat Briggs is going to have some company. Add to this: John Ulrich, Emily Harrison, Scott Bradshaw, Casey O'Neil, Fireman, and all of the Utility Department managers and employees forced to resign or retire during the witch hunt. Time to erase this corporate culture of retribution and install a kinder, gentler work environment where employees don't have to worry about when the other shoe drops.


Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Sonny,

The common denominator to all the names you mention is City attorney Gary Baum.

Now that he's finally been shown the door later this month, do you think things will improve?


Like this comment
Posted by pa pw emp
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47 pm

There are only a few people on this post that are displaying any logical thinking. Roberts is a fair guy and a good leader. This is a preemptive move from Council so they can "CYA". The tree removal was presented to Council prior to the event. They have to okay it. Everything goes through Council.

As far as employees "getting" every other Friday off = they still put in their full hours during every pay period. The pay period is in two week increments. One week the employee works 44 hours and the next week 36. Nobody is "giving" anyone anything. The whole City does not close down every other Friday. Please people get your facts before posting erroneously.


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 16, 2010 at 6:10 am

Glenn is a decent person to the best of my knowledge but frankly, he probably should have lost his job in the aftermath of the tree cutting fiasco.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 16, 2010 at 9:50 am

Palo Alto residents do not ask for all the top city management hires to be proven professionals. Evaluations of top management staff are internal and so are evaluations of department compliance and budget reports. Local media are given skewed press releases.
Emslie - no prior professional experience in that job
Carlsen - no prior professional experience in that job
Tommy - no prior professional experience in that job
Perlin - no prior professional experience in that job
Keene - No apparent prior experience at BUILDING a city staff or leadership internally.
What do you expect?


Like this comment
Posted by Zelda
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 16, 2010 at 11:29 am

RE: "Posted by Amused, a resident of another community: ..Your city is a joke - and so is your press that reports GOSSIP, not NEWS.

And yet, you feel a need to intimately follow it.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 16, 2010 at 11:32 am

pa pw emp writes "... The pay period is in two week increments. One week the employee works 44 hours and the next week 36. ..."

Yes, we know. Too bad we couldn't schedule the Barron Park power outage on the 44 hour week, instead of the 36 hour one. Bad luck for us, huh?

No one is saying that that the numbers don't average out, but if you'd tried to contact or do business with the City on a Friday, it's pretty much impossible. The 44/36 arrangement almost made sense 10 years ago. But, sorry, those days are long gone.


Like this comment
Posted by Loyal Follower
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Just a quick review of what the Public Works Director oversees:

1. All City facilities
2. The entire City fleet
3. Street maintenance
4. Sidewalk maintenance
5. Right-of-way management
6. Property record maps
7. Surveying
8. Solid Waste Management
9. Street tree maintenance
10. Landfill operations
11. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
12. Environmental Pollution Control Programs
13. Storm Drain System
14. Floodplain Management
15. Coordinate with all other departments

I don't know how any one person can stay on top of all that, and Mr. Roberts has done it all very well for many years. I ask anyone to name one other department or department head that does more.


Like this comment
Posted by Sonny
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Loyal Follower,
You are correct. The way the city is organized is a setup for failure.
No mere mortal can balance all of those responsibilities effectively.
Glen Roberts did a good job with what he had to work with.


Like this comment
Posted by pa pw emp
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm

"Yes, we know. Too bad we couldn't schedule the Barron Park power outage on the 44 hour week, instead of the 36 hour one. Bad luck for us, huh?"

Yes, unfortunately power outages can occur anytime of the day; no one can predict emergencies. To blame the 9/80 work schedule is ridiculous. Utility workers cover Palo Alto 24/7 just as other public works departments do.


Like this comment
Posted by Herb Borock
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm

The official agenda for the October 18, 2010, meeting says the City Council will meet in Closed Session to discuss anticipated/potential litigation regarding someone named G. Roberts.

How am I or anyone else supposed to know with certainty that G. Roberts refers to Palo Alto Public Works Director Glenn S. Roberts as reported in the press, which is how his name has always appeared in the past in City documents.

The state's open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires that agenda description "must be sufficient to provide interested persons with an understanding of the subject matter which will be considered." (California Attorney General's pamphlet on The Brown Act)

As the court ruled in Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 196, 200, this agenda item description, "though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the [Council's] intended plans. It would have taken relatively little effort" to use the full name of the subject of the anticipated/potential litigation instead of just the cryptic name G. Roberts.


Like this comment
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm

pa pw emp writes:

"The tree removal was presented to Council prior to the event. They have to okay it. Everything goes through Council."

It is true that each new and amended capital improvement project is to come before the City Council's Finance Committee and the full Council for approval, generally as part of a very large group of budgeted items. However in my research of the public record of this specific matter before these Council groups, there is no indication that the Cal Ave trees were to be removed en masse.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 16, 2010 at 5:49 pm

"Yes, unfortunately power outages can occur anytime of the day; no one can predict emergencies. To blame the 9/80 work schedule is ridiculous. Utility workers cover Palo Alto 24/7 just as other public works departments do."

I don't blame your work schedule. I have a problem with the attitude of entitlement. Believe it or not, most of us who are still employed work much more than 44 hours a week in order to pay your salary and funding your retirement.


Like this comment
Posted by pa pw emp
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2010 at 6:31 pm

There is no entitlement attitude here nor from public employees. Many employees also work more than 44 hours in a week-to serve you - the public. And we do it happily. Remember you are covered 24/7 even though working shift work is very hard on bodies, mind, and families.

FYI-very little of your taxes are shared with the City. Most goes to the state. Sounds like a bit of sour grapes there.


Like this comment
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of another community
on Oct 16, 2010 at 8:41 pm

On the 9/80 schedule.

This was a "green" issue and an overtime saving measure. Employees on a 9/80 schedule commute 9 days every 2 weeks instead of 10. A 10% reduction in gas consumption. On 8 of the days the employees are at work they work 9 hour days instead of 8. That means they are at work an extra hour to serve PA residents. That also means that those emergencies that come up in that last hour are on straight time, not OT. The Utilities department has coverage on every Friday. The employees split their 44 and 36 hour weeks. Sure it's nice to have a three day weekend but don't insinuate that City Employees are getting something for free. It's win-win, unless you don't plan properly and try to do business with City Hall on the wrong Friday.


Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 17, 2010 at 10:36 am

"Yes, unfortunately power outages can occur anytime of the day; no one can predict emergencies. To blame the 9/80 work schedule is ridiculous. Utility workers cover Palo Alto 24/7 just as other public works departments do."

But the recent Barron Park outage occurred at 3pm on a sunny Friday afternoon. The utilities department shouldn't need to cover that kind of outage as an emergency. The department should be staffed and answer the phones as a normal part of doing business. Clearly at least the last part didn't happen. You're simply conflating any outage as an excuse for not having coverage due to your flex schedule.


Like this comment
Posted by pa pw emp
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm

"But the recent Barron Park outage occurred at 3pm on a sunny Friday afternoon. The utilities department shouldn't need to cover that kind of outage as an emergency."

An outage whether it be on a sunny Friday afternoon or during a storm at midnight would be considered an emergency. How would you have suggested the outage be covered? Add your name to a list and wait your turn? It has nothing to do with the 9/80 schedule.

As I said before Palo Alto Utilities covers Palo Alto 24/7!


Like this comment
Posted by Where does the buck stop?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Regarding the Cal Ave. tree removal and whether or not Council knew the details. I think the point is that Council SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, and if Council didn't know, it is because the majority of Council members routinely approve projects without understanding all the implications and they leave it up to staff to fill in or change the details however staff wants.

This is the way that Council has operated for many years, and it is the fault of the voters for continually electing Council members who blindly follow "staff recommendation."


Like this comment
Posted by Back to the future
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 17, 2010 at 8:33 pm

"I think the point is that Council SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, and if Council didn't know"

Yup. "Where does the buck stop" has it right. Why didn't the Council know? One reason is that the CAADA liaison at the time, our current Mayor Pat Burt, <never> attended CAADA meetings, even though he was Council's appointed liaison to CAADA. MANY discussion - often including presentations by Public Works, Canopy, tree experts, etc. In fact, up to just before the clearcut, moderate members of the CAADA group had won the day, insisting that their group endorse a more balanced, scaled cut - over years. Yet after the fissco occurred, Burt started pointingn fingers at everyone but himself. He *should not* have been surprised, and he wouldn't have been surprised, if he had been doing his job and attended those meetings. Public Works had had an *approved* agenda to move forward on replacing trees. NOBODY but Council and Public works had the power to approve the clear cut. In spite of this, some citizens went haywire in misguidedly blaming CAADA. What? Sorry, that was clueless. Since when does any ad hoc group make public works decisions?

Yes, Public Works was lax is getting notice to the community. But PW DID spend a lot of time asking around to MANY constituencies about the trees. Where was City Council? Largely uninformed by their very own liaison to CAADA - Pat Burt.

Last, why on earth don't we at LEAST have a permanent subcommittee for public works in the PLanning and Transportation Commission? It's absurd that we don't. Public Works takes a lot of unnecessary flak; they are easy to point fingers at, but they generally follow policy. The clearcut was a mistake, but lets not let the City Manager and Cit Council off lightly on this one. Had Jim Keene been properly monitoring his troops, the clear cut wouldn't have happened. Had Pat Burt been attending the CAADA meeting, the clear cut wouldn't have happened. Just to set the record straight.


Like this comment
Posted by CHinCider
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 17, 2010 at 8:49 pm

To "Back to the future":

Hmmm, sounds like you are insinuating that Roberts might be being used as a scapegoat here, much as Pat Briggs was on the Children's Theater issues. I wonder if he'll get as much money as she did?


Like this comment
Posted by PAPD-Critic
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 am


Thank you CHinCider for pointing this out to me. Yes, the paloaltoonline has some very serious first amendment issues. I've been tracking there censoring for some time now. In fact, they have actually changed the post to fit the political landscape.

They are also guilty of removing posts without notice......Did you know the Weekly has receive more advertising dollars then any other news paper? It reflected in there soft peddling on most serious issues impacting our community.....I call it a "pay off"....


Like this comment
Posted by Dick Van Dyke
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2010 at 3:54 pm

At the height of the California Avenue tree cutting fiasco last year, Glenn Roberts appeared clean shaven at the October 5, 2009, Council meeting. Look at the video on the Midpeninsula Community Media Center site for the Palo Alto City Council meeting of October 5, 2009, about 16 minutes from the beginning of the video under the item labeled "D. CONSENT CALENDAR/REPORTS OF OFFICIALS":
Web Link

Then Glenn Roberts disappeared from public view for about a month. Maybe he took a paid vacation. Maybe he was suspended without pay.

When Roberts returned for the California Avenue tree item on the City Council agenda of November 16, 2009, he had City Manager Jim Keene's beard. Look at the video on the Midpeninsula Community Media Center site for the Palo Alto City Council meeting of November 16, 2009, about 5 minutes from the beginning of the video under the item labeled "E. CONSENT CALENDAR/ACTION ITEMS": Web Link

How much money would you settle for in exchange for wearing someone else's beard for a year?


Like this comment
Posted by Dick Van Dyke
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2010 at 3:57 pm

The URL for the November 16, 2009, meeting is correct, but the agenda on the page is mislabeled as November 9, 2009.


Like this comment
Posted by CHinCider
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 18, 2010 at 6:32 pm

To "Dick Van Dyke":
(Wow, no hidden double or triple Freudian meanings in that screen name, eh?)

I think you get the Robin Williams humor award for the funniest post on this thread!

Had you considered that the new "growth" might have been an attempt at carbon sequestration as a replacement for the trees consistent with the City's new sustainability initiatives ? Or, a disguise? Or - maybe, given the time of year, a Halloween mask imitating someone else? You know, like a Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan - or maybe Bill Clinton mask?


Like this comment
Posted by back to the future
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm

"Hmmm, sounds like you are insinuating that Roberts might be being used as a scapegoat here"

Nice deduction, minus of course Mr. Roberts getting the pension that the people *you* helped elect approved to give him. Don't blame Mr. Roberts for that - blame yourself and the hubris that led Palo Alto to believe that the good days would go on forever. Pay the piper, wise up, get humility, and stop scapegoating public employees, who mostly work very hard under enormous stress for a population that mostly disrespects or ignores them.


Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 19, 2010 at 7:06 pm

To Sonny

You say that Roberts has an "unblemished record"? Where have you been these last 18 years?


Like this comment
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

Back to the Future focuses blame for the California Avenue tree removal on the 2009 city council liaison to CAADA, defends the association from a “misguided” and “clueless” public, and embellishes the post tree-removal storyline of a gallant, moderate, inner-CAADA rearguard that “won the day” [sic] fighting for a phased tree removal right up until the first crosscut.

In passing, Back notes the clearcut as a mistake, although not by whom, and the Department of Public Works notification as lax, but overall, s/he views the CAADA / DPW process as positive and inclusive.

Having “set the record straight,” Back moves to the stump, praising municipal workers while also calling for outside monitoring of CAADA’s former partner within the city.

Breathtaking.

Rather than respond directly to the twisted threads of this yarn, I will move to a few relevant elements of an expanded citizens’ research effort that began after it became clear to us earlier in the year that no report to the public would be forthcoming from the city.

----

In January 2009, as per an internal written city communication, four members of CAADA met with DPW to outline the association’s latest direction with regard to streetscape improvements. A key section reads:

“They want to replace all the trees at once. They did a tour of Mountain View’s Castro Street, which had all the trees replaced at once, and they liked it because of the uniformity. They want all the holly oaks out because of the slipping danger from acorns.”

This was not the first time the CAADA inner circle had pushed the city to remove all the trees en masse. It happened in early 2006 when they submitted an initial streetscape master plan and we have found a strong indication that it happened again at the end of that year after grant-funding applications had been denied. But in those instances, the goal of removing all the trees at once was successfully rebuffed.

However at the start of 2009, the CAADA power brokers finally succeed. Sadly, not only did DPW follow through on the request, but we have to date found nothing in writing from within DPW that even questions the wisdom of this move.

This critical moment occurred over seven months before the trees began to fall. But with regard to CAADA dissemination of this relevant news or any follow-up to their reputed, much larger constituency, we have found nothing in writing until the final days before the clearcut.

While announcements of CAADA board meetings in 2009 were sent via email, agendas were not included, nor were summaries of regular board meetings or unnoticed meetings with the city provided.

----

Rather than focusing blame elsewhere and repainting history, Back to the Future would better serve the community by working to dramatically reform the structure, process, and outreach of CAADA, if s/he wishes the association to be viable.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 28 comments | 2,738 views

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,690 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,376 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,116 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 5 comments | 318 views