City prepares for smaller council | December 7, 2018 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - December 7, 2018

City prepares for smaller council

With loss of two members from the City Council, will fewer be better?

by Gennady Sheyner

On Oct. 3, 1924, a small item in the Santa Cruz Evening News offered a headline that to today's reader would surely be a chin-scratcher: "Palo Alto One of the Most Efficiently Run of American Cities, says speaker."

This story contains 3498 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Comments

22 people like this
Posted by A Call For Improved Representation
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 7, 2018 at 9:03 am

Given recent developments (no pun intended), a 7 member PACC may not be representative of the entire Palo Alto community or its best interests.

Campaign promises are often disregarded and councilmember decisions not reflective of the constituency.

The PACC needs to be kept 'in check' and perhaps the only way to ensure that is to have a secondary council consisting of volunteer representatives from neighborhood 'districts' who have veto power over PACC decisions.

Essentially a 'House of Council' and a 'House of Residency'. While the House of Residency would naturally have more members, a majority vote among themselves would serve to either counter or support various PACC leanings and proposals.

While this concept may sound complex, most Palo Altans tend to be somewhat civic-minded and their voices need to be heard on a far larger scale as PACC members often turn a deaf ear and proceed in any which manner they choose.

Think of it as a Senate (PACC) and a House of Representatives (based on PA residencies).





18 people like this
Posted by Resign tom
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2018 at 9:08 am

Does anyone else see a problem with a council member just leaving in the middle of a meeting? According to this story Tom Dubois walked out at 11pm because he was fatigued. Some excuse. Maybe tom should resign if he cannot handle the meetings.


27 people like this
Posted by Ares
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 7, 2018 at 9:28 am

Better to have an honest clear thinking council member that leaves than the council who stay and vote based on a majority pack anyway. Would have been nicer to hear that leaving was in protest.

The voters are the one who are leaving a minority to handle the pro-growth overrun.


18 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 7, 2018 at 11:24 am

Annette is a registered user.

"Wolbach proposed having a chess clock at meetings to nudge members to wrap it up." Followed by: "Not binding, but just a little bit of public shaming," Wolbach said.

Anyone who has attended CC in the last 4 years has got to see the humor in the above.


88 people like this
Posted by Reader X
a resident of another community
on Dec 7, 2018 at 11:30 am

@A Call For Improved Representation:

For comparison, neighboring Mountain View has a seven member city council.

For reference, here are the estimated populations of both cities:

Mountain View: 74,000
Palo Alto: 67,000

Both Menlo Park and Los Altos are about half the population of Palo Alto. Both cities have five member city councils.


8 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 7, 2018 at 11:52 am

> Both Menlo Park and Los Altos are about half the population
> of Palo Alto. Both cities have five member city councils.

While this is true—such a comparison does not provide much in the way of understanding the differences in local government size.

For instance—Menlo Park and Los Altos do not have their own fire departments. Fire services are provided by other agencies. Menlo Park does not provide sewer services—it is a member of a “sewer district”. Palo Alto provides utilities—which hires 300 employees (about 1/3rd of the total City FTE headcount). Palo Alto operates an airport (mostly for non-Palo Alto residents). Palo Alto has over 4,000 acres of park land. Palo Alto operates a golf course (again utilized heavily by non-residents). Los Altos does not operate its own library.

There are so many differences between Palo Alto and these two cities to quickly recognize that population is not a good metric to size a council.

Presumably, with larger budgets and more government assets to be managed—a larger council is required. Interestingly, Santa Clara County, with a budget in the billions, operates with only five supervisors.


3 people like this
Posted by Frankie
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2018 at 1:10 pm

WHY is their nothing about Pearl Harbor today.??????? Its Dec7 people.. shame on you guys.


5 people like this
Posted by 7 Of 9
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 7, 2018 at 1:29 pm

9 or 7 PACC members = no big difference one way or the other.

Results still the same.


13 people like this
Posted by Covering those regional agency seats is critical.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 7, 2018 at 1:30 pm

Covering those regional agency seats is critical. is a registered user.

I am VERY concerned about the challenges related to maintaining coverage on regional agency committees. These agencies are the gatekeepers who control flow of state, county and federal dollars to cities. Palo Alto must be represented at those tables.

For big money issues like funding: grade separation or transit or affordable housing, etc. it is critical to be represented.

If we snooze, we lose. What is the plan to cover those seats? Figuring this out should be a very high priority.


1 person likes this
Posted by roger
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2018 at 3:23 pm

san mateo has a population of 104,748 palo alto has a population of 67,178----san mateo has 5 city council members---maybe someone should call them


6 people like this
Posted by Alvin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 7, 2018 at 4:51 pm

They can replace the entire city council and all the departments, except Police and Fire, with an AI computer trained in the philosophies of Adam Smith, Friedrick Hayek, and Milton Friedman, and Palo Alto would instantly have more housing and jobs, less abuse, and overall happier residents.


3 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 7, 2018 at 5:02 pm

> San Mateo

The following is from the San Mateo 2017-18 budget book:

"This modification to the originally proposed budget brought the overall spending plan for fiscal year 2017-18 to $293.5 million, with $159.1 million appropriated to the operating budget and $134.4 million appropriated to the capital budget."

Palo Alto's operating budget is about $200M for this same time frame. San Mateo employees about 685 FTEs, which is about the same number as Palo Alto, with the Utilities not counted.

City of San Mateo does not have as many "moving parts" as Palo Alto. Also, Stanford issues also take up some City of Palo Alto's time.


7 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 7, 2018 at 5:27 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

@Annette
Yes, I do see the humor in that. That timer would have gone off a lot if it had been used at current CC meetings and by certain individuals...and 'shame' on them.
@Wayne Martin
You made very good points about the comparisons of cities. A smaller CC might require a bigger staff, and they get paid pretty well, and have a good pension plan also, that's sinking us. CC members get paid but it's below minimum wage I'm sure.

And my friend, Jay Thorwaldson, got it right. Fewer members allows them to talk longer. Eloquent speechmakers aren't what we need at the local level. Let them make their way to D.C. where that skill/art is necessary.

Our new CC could be a good one (I'm hopeful) and actually get something done. A lot hinges on our new CC member. Hopefully, Alison will be a calm, thoughtful, and independent voice on council. That, however, was our expectation from the past from other candidates and it didn't work out so well. A lot of flipping happened after candidates were elected, and even before, when a couple switched political parties. Yes, you better be a registered Democrat if you ever hope to be elected to any office in the area.

The priorities: CC members are true warriors (maybe self injurers) to tackle the housing and grade separation issues. I've followed the track record of our current CC. Not good. On housing...we'll lose 75 residents in Hotel President, and gain none this year. Oh, don't get your knickers all bunched up...I know about the approval of the VTA site project, but construction hasn't started and probably won't until well into next year. And that serves mostly market rate housing folks, the one's who can pay $3,000/mo for a 1 bdrm apartment, and an untested challenge of how well 'lite parking' will work out. The latest changes to attract developers to build housing is in an experimental...wait and see...stage. If the latest bait isn't enough, then just forget about talking about more housing in PA. Scratch that off as a priority and a time waster at CC meetings.

Grade separation: A formidable and maybe impossible task for our Rail Committee, chaired by several of our hard working members on CC. Thanks to their efforts the options have been narrowed down, but still a long ways to go before one is chosen. The cost range of options is huge and the funding for the best one is probably an unachievable task. And now we hear our neighboring cities have beat us to the punch for funding. Were we asleep at the switch because of our sloth speed decision making process based on staff studies and consultants?


12 people like this
Posted by Control the PACC
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 7, 2018 at 5:41 pm

Council size in relation to Palo Alto's population is irrelevant because...
>...a 7 member PACC may not be representative of the entire Palo Alto community or its best interests.

>Campaign promises are often disregarded and councilmember decisions not reflective of the constituency.

The PACC needs to be held accountable for its past actions and kept in check to prevent measures that do not reflect the bests interests of the community.

Just because they are councilmembers doesn't make them experts on anything...they are strictly small-time politicians.


10 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 7, 2018 at 7:54 pm

> A smaller CC might require a bigger staff,

Not really—the Council is restricted by Charter from being involved in the management of the City. At the moment, other than creating the mysterious “colleagues memo”, voting on the budget and hiring/firing City Managers—the Council is pretty much restricted to approving “policy”.

There are so many issues here. When a previous Auditor, Sharon Erickson, appeared on the scene several years ago, one of her first audits was to track contracts through the City Hall as a function of time. If memory serves, she found that it took about 190 days for most contracts to work their way from beginning to final sign-off.

Don’t think that there was ever a follow-up audit to see if this number came down—but it was clear at that time that moving contracts though City Hall with the greatest alacrity was not high on Staff’s agenda.

Here in Palo Alto, the City Manager runs the City. And, as everyone knows, management—both good and bad—starts at the top of the organization. If the City Manager is satisfied with six+ months to get a contract signed, then staff is going to be satisfied with business as usual. Everything revolves around what the City Manager is capable of doing with the organization under him.

In this town, based on the Charter, the Council, no matter what its size, has much to say about how things operate outside the Council Chambers. Yes, they can nudge, if they dare, but they just don’t have the “juice” to buck the City Manager if they are not willing to fire him/her.


1 person likes this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 7, 2018 at 8:28 pm

Ooops:

> has much

doesn't have much


6 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 8, 2018 at 9:16 am

Annette is a registered user.

I don't think of this as smaller so much as right-sized. Seven capable people ought to be sufficient for a city the size of Palo Alto. And, logically, more efficient than nine. Unless the nonsense continues. When there's nonsense and shenanigans, there's distrust. And the public engages more and dissension grows. And there are more questions for the City Attorney. All this results in long meetings and late night decisions by exhausted people. So if the seven maintain a level playing field, reject hidden agendas, treat the public respectfully, and represent the best interests of the residents they ostensibly serve, a smaller Council should work.

On the flip side, if hidden agendas and other such nonsense continue, it is easier to persuade 3 others than it is 4 others. And therein lies the rub; success depends on the character of those who serve.


16 people like this
Posted by R.Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 8, 2018 at 9:22 am

R.Davis is a registered user.

QUOTE: Here in Palo Alto, the City Manager runs the City. And, as everyone knows, management...
QUOTE: In this town, based on the Charter, the Council, no matter what its size, has much to say about how things operate outside the Council Chambers...they just don’t have the “juice” to buck the City Manager if they are not willing to fire him/her.

Well said Mr. Martin. Apparently some disgruntled PA residents are unfamiliar with the City Manager model of local government.



4 people like this
Posted by The City Manager Calls the Shots
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2018 at 2:38 pm

> the Council, no matter what its size...they just don’t have the “juice” to buck the City Manager if they are not willing to fire him/her.

You make the PACC sound like a bunch of ineffectual local politicians who cater to the City Manager.

What's the point of even being a council member...to create a false inner impression of status/prestige and/or community admiration?


2 people like this
Posted by jh
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 8, 2018 at 2:59 pm

jh is a registered user.

For those with a professional interest in council decisions, either direct or indirect, this can justify the huge amount of time away from their professions to be on the council, as it also does for those with political ambitions. There are fewer qualified and serious council candidates who do not have a professional stake in the outcome to justify the time taken away from their professional and personal lives willing to make the considerable sacrifice involved. Perhaps a five rather than seven council member will, at some point in the future, give residents better odds of representation on the council. There have only been two years, in the many I have lived here, where the commercial and the residential interests were more evenly represented, plus one swing vote.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 8, 2018 at 3:45 pm

@jh, good point. Overall, city size doesn't call for a bigger council; neither the size of the organization nor the number of residents require more than a small number at the governance level. But there is an issue of the quality of the members and who they actually represent. We now have several CC members who mostly represent developers or unions - resident interests are secondary for them.

I expect soon someone will launch a California Voting Rights Act challenge to the City, just as they have to PAUSD, Menlo Park, Santa Clara, etc. This challenge always wins - Santa Monica and Santa Clara both spent millions fighting it and lost hands-down. That will force the Council to go to district elections vs. at-large, which will dramatically change campaigning. With 7 districts, the cost of campaigning will plummet and door-to-door strategies will be effective - candidates can meet every household (about 40K voters / 7 districts = 5700 voters or about 3000 households per district. This could be very good for residents.


2 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 8, 2018 at 8:13 pm

Annette is a registered user.

@Resident. Right about now I'm thinking that can't happen soon enough. District elections might shift things back towards representative government.


3 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 8, 2018 at 10:49 pm

^ A representative government is in the eyes of the beholder.


16 people like this
Posted by Sounds Good In Theory But...
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 9, 2018 at 2:18 pm

> That will force the Council to go to district elections vs. at-large, which will dramatically change campaigning. With 7 districts, the cost of campaigning will plummet and door-to-door strategies will be effective - - candidates can meet every household (about 40K voters / 7 districts = 5700 voters or about 3000 households per district. This could be very good for residents.

A good concept in theory but it could create infighting among council members based on different socio-economic wealth factors and demographics.

Can't picture the folks (or their representatives) from the wealthier PA neighborhoods fully understanding or vicariously experiencing what some of the the poorer residents are going through. This includes the homeless, RV transients and residents on rent subsidies + the notorious NIMBY factor many PA 'progressives' are known for.

The changing demographics will also reflect cultural biases as the uproar over a proposed renaming of Terman Middle School clearly indicated.

The various catfights will provide plenty of editorial fodder and reportage opportunities for the PA Weekly staff. Stay tuned...


4 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 9, 2018 at 5:42 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


23 people like this
Posted by A Change Is Gonna Come
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 9, 2018 at 6:29 pm

"That will force the Council to go to district elections vs. at-large, which will dramatically change campaigning."

Though the election system in PA is far from perfect, having district representatives could drive a wedge between neighborhoods when it comes to certain city issues/decisions.

It would also open the door for 'one hand washes the other' kind of backroom dealings between councilmembers. If you think certain decisions are stealth' now, just wait.

It's called big-city politicking and Palo Alto will be entering into an entirely new realm of wheeling and dealing. Be careful what you wish for.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 9, 2018 at 7:59 pm

@Change, it doesn't matter whether you wish for it or not. When the legal challenge comes, Palo Alto will have to change to district elections - nobody beats a CVRA challenge.


10 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 10, 2018 at 11:38 am

Annette is a registered user.

Responding to Sounds Good in Theory But . . . you wrote "A good concept in theory but it could create infighting among council members based on different socio-economic wealth factors and demographics."

I think we are there already. I've long thought that part of this city's problem is that many of the council members are wealthy and therefore comfortably isolated from the impact of their decisions. District elections might even that out some.

I recently read a guest opinion about the housing shortage in the SVBJ. The author places the blame for the shortage on residents. I disagree with that. With the exception of those residents who serve on CC, residents do not approve commercial development. The majority on our CC does and they have approved office development over and over and over again. Those votes repeatedly ignored the jobs:housing imbalance. But it worked for them. When the imbalance was in the 2:1 territory, a CC that was genuinely aiming to strike a balance would have at least started to apply the brakes. Ours did not. And the imbalance blew straight through 2:1 and we are now in 3:1 territory. And still the Majority ignores the obvious. Even tonight they are poised to make changes that simultaneously ADD commercial and ELIMINATE housing.

We are expected to acquiesce and quietly accept ALL the commercial development and its impacts PLUS an enormous amount of new housing and its impacts. Further, most of what's talked about is workforce housing, not housing for those who arguably need it most. Those members of our community apparently are overlooked. Some even say "too bad, if you cannot afford to live here, leave". Of course it is advisable to live where you can afford to live but in this instance CONTEXT matters. No amount of belt-tightening works in this sort of market and our majority nurtured the problem that is driving people out. That is irresponsible government at work. And residents are supposed to be quiet about all this? That's nuts.

Our governance model is failing us. Even if district elections aren't a panacea, I doubt they will make us worse off than we are presently.


6 people like this
Posted by Homeless & RV Voter Districts
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2018 at 12:38 pm

Will those without fixed addresses be required to register within a specific neighborhood in order to vote?

Is it OK to request an absentee ballot and have it sent to one specific mailing address (e.g. another RV dweller who happens to have a PO Box in town)?

Some of us will be demanding equal representation (by way of voting rights) in Palo Alto and our needs should be heard as well.

Palo Alto should not just be for the rich folks who can afford to buy a house in the better parts of town. The PACC should be reflective of the entire community regardless of their personal wealth and/or personal possessions.


6 people like this
Posted by Ray
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 10, 2018 at 3:20 pm

"+ the notorious NIMBY factor..." Didn't have to add characterizing a segment of Palo Alto residents as if it is limited. NIMBY works well with most people, progressive or conservative.

Want a goat farm and cement plant next door?


Like this comment
Posted by P
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 12, 2018 at 6:19 am

Slightly related but kudos to Emeryville for their prooosed 54 story mixed use (mostly residential tower) and to Google for their plan to add 8,000 residential units as part of their HQ expansion.

Meanwhile, Palo Alto has tiny buildings and a growing crisis. We need bold leaders and several skyscrapers of our own.


8 people like this
Posted by The RV Vote?
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 12, 2018 at 8:26 am

> Some of us will be demanding equal representation (by way of voting rights) in Palo Alto and our needs should be heard as well.

Outside of the right to vote in national, state and county elections, should transient RV dwellers have a legal voice regarding Palo Alto politics and/or its various propositions?

Since many are squatters and do not pay rent or property taxes does a 'no representation with no taxation' concept apply?


15 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2018 at 9:47 am

Posted by P, a resident of Stanford

>> Slightly related but kudos to Emeryville for their prooosed 54 story mixed use (mostly residential tower)

"Mostly residential"? I've heard that before. What is the actual ratio of jobs to housing going to be?

>> and to Google for their plan to add 8,000 residential units as part of their HQ expansion.

Less housing than jobs, as usual.

>> Meanwhile, Palo Alto has tiny buildings and a growing crisis. We need bold leaders and several skyscrapers of our own.

No, "we" don't need skyscrapers. Speak for yourself. -I- don't need skyscrapers. They are a solution looking for a problem. Skyscrapers are buildings that externalize as many costs as possible to other taxpayers.


12 people like this
Posted by RV Sympathies? Hardly
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 12, 2018 at 3:08 pm

> Some of us will be demanding equal representation (by way of voting rights) in Palo Alto and our needs should be heard as well.

@Homeless & RV Voter Districts
Think again. it's not going to happen on my watch.

> Outside of the right to vote in national, state and county elections, should transient RV dwellers have a legal voice regarding Palo Alto politics and/or its various propositions?

These individuals have absolutely no say in regards to any Palo Alto-related decisions. When they start paying some property taxes (or rent), then we'll talk. In the meantime, they are only entitled to the minimal protections and services under the law (i.e. police/fire/EMT/food stamps) but that's about it.

>> Since many are squatters and do not pay rent or property taxes does a 'no representation with no taxation' concept apply?

Absolutely. No one rides for free.


Like this comment
Posted by Sea Seelam Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 13, 2018 at 3:58 pm

Sea Seelam Reddy is a registered user.

We are going to miss two great citizens of Palo Alto Greg Scharff and Karen Holman on the council in 2019 and forward.

While they often have differences on how to address city issues, I like their passion. We will miss them.

Best wishes to both and Jim Keene on his retirement.


6 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:20 pm

Posted by Sea Seelam Reddy, a resident of College Terrace

>> Best wishes to both and Jim Keene on his retirement.

I have a different wish. I wish the new CC will set -policy- transparently, and, through the City Manager, who works for the CC and the voters, implement that policy through designated city staff. We don't need the CC engaging in direct negotiations with individual property owners who are seeking special privileges.

Instead, we need a -level playing field- in which all property owners abide by the rules without favoritism.

That is the key concept of good government: the -level playing field-.


6 people like this
Posted by Wayne Martin
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 15, 2018 at 1:50 pm

While the article above is all technically correct, it does not delve into the political history of the Council in any meaningful way. For a town founded in 1894, this would take more than a simple article to do justice to the Council’s history.

Moreover, it’s a certain bet that most people living in Palo Alto today did not grow up here, so their knowledge of local history might not be as complete as where they grew up. As such, it’s understandable that most don’t really have a clear view of the current structure and workings of the Palo Alto City government. It’s doubtful that most have not read the current Charter. Sadly, the City does not seem to have created and maintained a legislative history for the Charter and its amendments, so we're left with tidbits that flush out from time-to-time in discussions and blog articles.

Many of the comments about the Council/City Manager relationship don’t seem to be couched in the reality of its history, and the restraints put on it when the 1909 Charter was gutted in 1949/50. The 1909 Charter gave the Council the power to run the town, with the help of selected residents. This form of government was called a Council/Commission form of government. At the time, no City Manager was seen as needed—all of the decision making was to be done by the Council and the commissions.

By the mid-late 1940s, most of the people who have designed and brought this form of government into being had passed away or moved away. The public did not seem to want to continue these commissions, so the entire 1909 Charter was replaced with the current Charter that introduced the role of a City Manager. In the process, the Council lost all of its managerial power—which was transferred to the City Manager. This form of government is called: Weak City Council/Strong City Manager.

The following section from the Palo Alto City Charter, added in the 1970s, makes it quite clear as to the role of the Council relative to having any direct control of the City Manager, or City business:

Sec. 10. Coercion by council members - Campaign funds.

No member of the council shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, by suggestion or otherwise, attempt to influence or coerce the city manager in the making of any appointment or removal, or in the purchase of supplies, or attempt to exact any promise relative to any appointment from any candidate for city manager, or discuss, directly or indirectly, with any such candidate, the matter of appointments to any city office or employment. Any violation of the foregoing provisions of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall work a forfeiture of the office of the offending member of the council, who may be removed therefrom by the council or by any court of competent jurisdiction. Neither the city manager nor any person in the employ of the city shall take part in securing or shall contribute any money toward the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.

(Amended by Stats. 1972, Ch. 71, 7-7-72)

------
The 1949/50 Charter is not particularly well written (in my opinion) when it comes to detailing the structure of the post-1950 government, as well as the Council/City Manager relationship. The 1909 Charter did at least call out the activities of the government. The current Charter only mentions these activities of the government, more in passing than in defining their role with any level of detail so as to not require resorting to a court to understand what the language means.

It’s been a long time since Palo Alto has had a look at its Charter. Having a Charter Commission meet every ten years, or so, would be in everyone’s interests.


10 people like this
Posted by Mr. Martin Rides Again!
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 15, 2018 at 2:21 pm







> ...the entire 1909 Charter was replaced with the current Charter that introduced the role of a City Manager. In the process, the Council lost all of its managerial power—which was transferred to the City Manager. This form of government is called: Weak City Council/Strong City Manager.

Weak City Council = minimal PACC power/control over city management.

So why bother buying into anything that these PACC members/candidates expound?

They are in essence, talking out of their ***.


8 people like this
Posted by The Realist
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 15, 2018 at 6:54 pm

> So why bother buying into anything that these PACC members/candidates expound?

Because some people still want to believe in tooth fairies, leprechauns and unicorns.

It happens every election year.


8 people like this
Posted by Power to the PACC
a resident of University South
on Dec 16, 2018 at 2:44 pm

> Weak City Council = minimal PACC power/control over city management.

But PACC has: (1) maximum power controlling resident/speaker time limits, and (2) maximum control pounding gavels for theatrical effect.


2 people like this
Posted by humor explanation
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 22, 2018 at 1:03 pm

>"Wolbach proposed having a chess clock at meetings to nudge members to wrap it up."

For those who didn't get the humor, Wolbach is arguably the longest-winded, empty content, council member. He rambles on explaining his thought process, his feelings, and other irrelevancies about himself.

Mayor Kniss protects him because he has been a reliable vote for developers.


4 people like this
Posted by Checkmate
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 22, 2018 at 1:33 pm

> "Wolbach proposed having a chess clock at meetings
>> For those who didn't get the humor...

PA residents are the pawns & the Mayor is the Queen.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

 

Register now!

​On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info