Well as the Chairman of the Board would sing at the end of That’s Life, “My my.”

Liz Kniss! Don't try to pass off what happened as someone trying to discredit you. You discredted yourself by violating California election laws. And no, it's not common for candidates to pay expenditures out of their own pocket but for the few very limited exceptions as you must know given your many campaigns.

The other scandal here is that of the FPPC took 4 years to resolve Kniss's 8 cases that eventually were combined into one while Kniss blissfully got elected and served as if she had done nothing tilted.

If a person not taking responsibility when they are wrong is an indiction they should not be in public office, then Kniss should never have been a candidate for anything.

Kniss was quoted in the Weekly as acknowledging that she understood that taking contributions from developers was not popular. We also still do not know the technology company that gave her $5,000 in services -- this is not irrelevant given how the whims and desires of technology companies (who apparently could have all along turned on a dime and changed their attempt to megalopolize the Bay Area) have had such an oppressive and deleterious impact on local life and quality of life.

"The FPPC did not, however, penalize Kniss for ... her failure to disclose 31 contributions, totaling $19,340, that she had received from developers in the weeks before the November 2016 election but did not list in her filings until Jan. 11."

FPPC is a toothless entity under the best of circumstances. The second it was clear that Kniss's finances were mainly from developers - which we all knew very early in her term -- whoever complained to the FPPC should have instead launched a recall. The outcome for the residents of the President Hotel might have been different if we hadn't had a developer-obsequious majority.

Decades of favoring developers, the infamous hit piece on Dolly Sandoval, and now fined by the FPPC. Quite a body of work.

Outrageous.

The investigation mysteriously takes four years and concludes conveniently one month after Kniss leaves office. The Weekly should come out and identify this for what it is: blatant cheating and corruption.

Kniss brazenly serves the interests of developers for her entire four-year term and then once out of office faces a measly $4500 fine. Yes, consider all the displaced President hotel residents or the “leadership” of spending 2020 working on important initiatives like shuttering libraries.

Kniss epitomizes a time when Palo Alto lost its moral compass.

It's all about politics and various entities procuring certain assurances from the candidate they are supporting.

It's no different than a county judge seeking re-election and then returning favorable bench decisions to supportive contributors from the bar association or police union.

The key oversight was the lack of full disclosure on Ms. Kniss' part prior to and during the election process.

Other than that that, what transpired is no different than what goes on in any electoral process in America. Even Donald Trump loaned his campaign monetary resources from his own personal financial estate.

Ms. Kniss' tenure in office is officially over and she successfully fulfilled her 'backroom' promises and obligations to her supporters.

The fine itself is minimal and trivial. No big deal from the standpoint of financial outlay. Compared to a DUI infraction, small potatos.

Meanwhile the development interests in Palo Alto have gained a stronghold based on her council advocacy of such interests.

And now it's time to move on as spilt milk is not worth bemoaning over.

Kniss told the voters she would not take campaign contributions from developers, and then failed to disclose 31 contributions, totaling $19,340 from developers till after the election because she knew it would cost her votes. The FPPC is worse than toothless because it slow rolled her investigation for 4 years until after she left office and then failed to hold her accountable for deceiving the voters. These fines are pathetically small. The former FPPC head of enforcement represented her? That sounds like it undermines the integrity of the FPPC.

How special and timely. The whole episode is as shameful as her "leadership" and her proteges she mentored on ignoring the will of the residents.

"Meanwhile the development interests in Palo Alto have gained a stronghold based on her council advocacy of such interests.

And now it's time to move on as spilt milk is not worth bemoaning over."

That "milk" is still in office and/or actively campaigning and/or funding others to do the same and to keep attacking Palo Alto. I think it's time to fight those forces. NOT move on, before it sours us all in acrimony and density.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Utterly despicable behavior by an elected representative. Besides breaking the law, the real fraud was claiming she wasn't taking money from developers and then quietly doing so.

"Neither the FPPC nor Kniss offered any explanation as to why the investigation took four years and is set to conclude one month after Kniss left office."

Here's a wild guess - "Kniss was represented in the FPPC case by Gary Winuk of Kaufman Legal Group, who served as chief of the FPPC's Enforcement Division from 2009 and 2015."

Yes, this final outcome of the ridiculously slow process of the FPPC that only wound up after Kniss was out of office doesn't pass the smell test.

My favorite of her excuses:
Her campaign treasurer, Tom Collins, was waylaid by a knee surgery in 2016, which kept him from opening the envelopes, depositing the checks and filing the reports.
So she didn't report the huge developer donations from Charles Keenan, Jim Baer, Thoits Brothers and the California Association of Realtors, among others.

[Portion removed.]

The account of what transpired is disturbing to a certain extent but perhaps it is time to move on and accept things for what they are.

Palo Alto has long been overdeveloped and chances are these fiscal indiscretions would not have alteted the direction or future appearance of the city.

On the other hand, it would have been both progressive and socially enlightening had these developer interests provided for extensive below market housing in Palo Alto to increase it's population of African Americans and other people of color.

1.9% is a very low demographic of African American residents and an ideal percentage of perhaps 20% should be targeted to dispel any allegations of Palo Alto's racist reputation throughout the country.

“She suggested that the anonymous complaint that was filed against her was politically motivated and characterized it as a sign of the city's polarization.”

No Liz Kniss! This was not politically motivated. You took that money, you were reported, and you were caught. Really good try with the citing of “political divisions” in our great city. That’s also a thinly veiled way to try to use the backdrop of National political division somehow as an excuse. No. [Portion removed.] I really don’t like that she got off with just a fine. She sort of claims this was all just a big misunderstanding, an attempt to discredit her, and that she wasn’t aware of the “one bank account” rule. Sure! Why didn’t she have someone who IS aware? How about an apology? It just seems like convenient excuses. [Portion removed.]

Finally, I don’t get why this investigation took four years! On one hand it’s good that Kniss has sort of been publicly embarrassed/shamed for what she has done, but on the other hand that seems to me to be a complete waste of time and resources over an eventual fine of $4500. There are no political divisions over here about this in my beloved Crescent Park. I expect better behavior out of our City Council members! I am truly disgusted by the behavior of Liz Kniss and her excuses to stay out of deeper trouble. I think they should also keep an eye on Tanaka now to make sure he doesn’t make anymore “clerical errors” in the future. I don’t think I can handle anymore dishonesty.

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Post removed.]

What Ms. Kniss allegedly did is no different than what many politicians do if afforded the opportunity.

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Developer donations were a big issue during this council election campaign.
Ms. Kniss promised voters she would not accept developer money.

The question we are left with is, would Ms. Kniss have been elected if voters had known that she would not keep this commitment? Worse, accepted $20,000 from developers timed to arrive after voters could not find out about it before they cast their votes. There is a good chance that this campaign deception cost someone else a seat on the council.

Of course we will never know. Unfortunately, Liz Kniss had an outsize influence on council. Whenever there was a choice, her votes seem to have consistently benefited developers and related interests at the expense of those who live here. Outcomes that might have been very different had she not chosen, or giving the appearance of appearing to, win her council seat by deliberately deceiving voters during the election campaign.

Palo Alto seemingly strove to become the premier midpeninsula city by encouraging growth in various business sectors (aka office development) and this vision was often reflected by city council actions.

Now residents are complaining about overdevelopment.

This reminds me of a relative who once gorged himself at an all you can eat buffet only to complain of indigestion later.

Payola in return for political favors has been going on since the beginning of so-called democracy. Nothing new and while this disclosure is disturbing to some Palo Alto residents, did they not elect this individual to multiple terms of office?

Geesh.

"Now residents are complaining about overdevelopment."

Surely not just now. Many are painfully aware that we've been over-run by commuters for years as traffic's worsened. Many been complaining about "overdevelopment" and office growth for a long time.

That's why there was a successful petition for a ballot initiative to cap office growth that the developer-friendly City Council majority gamed away to keep a vote on the office cap off the ballot.

That's why there was syc a big stink over the lame-duck CC majority trying to front-load the Planning & Transportation Commission with developer-friendly candidates on their way out the door.

That's why the developer-friendly candidates lost this past election.

A quote: That's why the developer-friendly candidates lost this past election.

So why did it take so long for Palo Alto voters to finally see the light?

A little too late to reverse the damage already done.

Like the Dust Bowl back in the 1930s.

[Portion removed.]

Other than accepting an alleged and minimal gratuity for her promotion of further city development, what wrong was done?

It often requires developer investment for a city to grow and Palo Alto sought greater heights as an influential bay area city.

This is simply a tale of sour grapes [portion removed.]

Reading this article and the one in the SJM/BAN 02/12 - "Ex-councilwoman penalized in campaign violations" we see that almost all of the PACC members are now under scrutiny concerning the timing of when they reported on the monetary donations and who provided those monetary donations. I am noting a trend here in reporting of a offense / defense attitude.

There is a Peninsula YIMBY action group headed by Kelsey Banes who it appears has the job of scrutinizing the PASZ candidates. The demand on the table is who is providing funding and who do they work for. I would ask the same question of the people who contribute to the Peninsula YIMBY group - who are they and who do they work for. How much are they contributing? Since the YIMBY group appears to be interfering in the workings of the city and wasting taxpayer money in the process then they also need to put all of their data on the table.

I am noting comments from citizens of other cities which have also appeared on other topics and am wondering why the fascination with this city when they live in a different county and city. What is the connection? Are they contributors to some organization which has desires for political action in this city. Duly noted.

The reporter is expecting results from the defense but no results from the offense. I view that as political push from the press. The SJM/BAN needs to clean up the reporting and get all of the information on everyone noted in the articles.

“I am noting comments from citizens of other cities which have also appeared on other topics and am wondering why the fascination with this city when they live in a different county and city. What is the connection? Are they contributors to some organization which has desires for political action in this city. Duly noted.”

Thank you Resident 1. This is fantastic detective work here in the comment section of the weekly. I have been noticing a similar pattern and have also been wondering the same thing. I love that you have “duly noted” this. It makes me feel more at ease about everything. You are right. The million dollar question is “What is the connection?” Again, fantastic work here uncovering this and also posting about it. Maybe the fact that you have shown everyone that “you know what’s going on here” will dissuade any further chicanery. Your allegations are very serious so one can only hope!

As a resident of another community but also a current residential landlord in Palo Alto, a continued interest in the goings-on of the city is warranted.

And questionings or ridicule regarding how the City of Palo Alto conducts it business and politics compared to where I currently reside are relevant to a certain extent because I have sizable fiscal resources tied-up in Palo Alto.

As far as the serious concerns confronting Palo Alto today, many of them could have been avoided had voters not allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the election-time gibberish being presented by the various candidates, many of whom have blatantly contributed to expanding an over-bloated City Hall with far too many employee quirks and retirement benefits AND the overdevelopment of the city per se.

It's one thing to incessantly complain and another to initiate pro-active change to remedy the overall discontent.

And this begins with the elective process.

"There is a Peninsula YIMBY action group headed by Kelsey Banes who it appears has the job of scrutinizing the PASZ candidates. The demand on the table is who is providing funding and who do they work for. I would ask the same question of the people who contribute to the Peninsula YIMBY group - who are they and who do they work for. How much are they contributing? Since the YIMBY group appears to be interfering in the workings of the city and wasting taxpayer money in the process then they also need to put all of their data on the table."

Thanks. This needs to be probed much more, especially with all the big tech spending AND the way they're gaming our district's endorsement of candidates to the Democratic Central Committee and their policies. Note the latest slate has almost all YIMBY names from the past like Cory Wollbach (Ms. Barnes' partner) current PTC member Carrie Templeton, both of whom have been rejected by PA voters.

Plenty of financial problems seem to occur when politicians run for additional terms. Voters should seriously consider revising the term limit for elected offices. In order to get more citizens involved in the process, term limits should consist of one four year term.