THE TASC FORCE
What is the TASC Force?
The TASC Force is the name for the group of delegates who attend various meetings within San Carlos (i.e., City Council, Planning Commission, Traffic & Transportation, etc.) and then write a report to be published herein. We encourage all residents of San Carlos to attend meetings (as often as possible) and invite them to then submit an article on items of interest. Following this introduction about the TASC Force and the Submission Form, you will find various Submissions from our readers.
A submission can take the form of a brief sentence or two with respect to information you gleaned from the meeting. Or perhaps you are inspired to write a lengthier report. We do ask that when you submit a full report that you, for the sake of space, try to keep it between 250-500 words (although we are flexible). Also, submissions can be posted anonymously. After you email us with a submission, we will contact you back -- so be sure to include your email address -- to confirm the submission and in case we have some questions. Unfortunately, Delegate reports that cannot be confirmed will not be published.
It will be on this page, the TASC Force page, that you find reports by people who have attended meetings. Should you have any questions about the TASC Force or submissions, feel free to email us.
If you would like to submit a report/article, complete the form below. Enter your report/article in the box provided. As mentioned above, whenever possible, try to keep the text under 500 words. Remember, contact information (your name & email -- and optimally a phone number) is required; of course, content can be published anonymously simply by checking the appropriate box below. When finished, press the Submit button.
From the TASC Masters (TM): The following are reports/submissions from San Carlos residents and business people. While we encourage and invite information from meetings as well as your opinions with respect to San Carlos government, it should be pointed out that not all submissions necessarily reflect the opinions of the the TASC Masters. However, as it is our goal to see that voices in San Carlos are heard and not stifled, we offer this TASC Force page as a forum. In the interest of space, submissions received before March 2005, have been archived. If you are interested in reading archived letters, please contact us with your request.
Submitted by Diane Rahe on behalf of the Devonshire Canyon Open Space Alliance
Devonshire Canyon � Words and Actions
October 4, 2005
October 4, 2005The current San Carlos City Council has at times laid out some admirable, environmentally friendly goals. Their actions below show awareness of the part protection of natural open space, prevention of traffic congestion and preservation of creek areas play in the quality of life in San Carlos.
Open Space
A few years ago, when money was more plentiful, the City Council acknowledged citizens desire to increase open space and directed Parks and Rec to look for land to buy and preserve as open space. They even discussed buying land with houses on it and tearing the houses down to increase open space.
Traffic Congestion
The Council voted to minimize traffic congestion by encouraging development of housing near transit corridors when it unanimously approved "San Carlos Sustainable Community Work Plan" document in 2001. It later introduced SCOOT to decrease traffic congestion.
Preservation of Creeks and Waterways
The Council has appointed a Natural Resources Task Force part of whose job is to identify ways to help maintain the health of our creeks. In addition, at a recent Council meeting, Planning, Construction, Public Works and the Council favorably discussed inserting a provision in the creek ordinance to require property owners remove structures impinging on the riparian corridor around creeks upon sale of their property.
While Council members are to be lauded for their goals, they should also be held accountable for their actions when their votes directly contravene their stated goals. The Council's efforts to annex for development the 2.63 acre Winding Way natural open space properties in a fragile watershed in Devonshire Canyon would: decrease quality open space, increase traffic congestion on San Carlos Avenue embrace an option for building in the riparian corridor of the upper Pulgas Creek or the creek itself.
The Council has proceeded with this annexation and development project despite reams of citizen letters of concern and opposition, a huge public turnout in opposition to the project, much negative press and a lawsuit on the part of the Devonshire Canyon Open Space Alliance (DCOSA) to force the City to do a proper and complete environmental analysis --visit the documents page of DCOSA's website http://devonshirecanyon.org/ for more info. The vote to annex was actually 3 in favor, 2 against. Matt Grocott and Tom Davids deserve praise for their decisions to vote against this ill-conceived and inappropriate annexation and development. Grocott has held firm, however Davids has wavered and is proposing to use $25,000 from the owners development fees to create trails in the canyon.
The next opportunity the Council has to consider the matter is a Hearing on the Focused Environmental Impact Report, October 24, prepared in response to a DCOSA lawsuit. The Focused EIR Planning has prepared is inadequate, contains misleading information and does not meet CEQA standards. The development would harm rare species at the site, violate city policies, encourage other development, and cost residents money. Additionally, development can occur only if the properties are annexed as sewer connection is not available from the County. County policies prohibit the installation of septic fields on these small steep lots in a watershed ravine of the upper Pulgas Creek. All the Council need do to meet their goals of preserving open space, minimizing traffic congestion, and preserving the health of local creeks is to vote against annexation. Any one of the problems cited above with the annexation gives them plenty of justification for such a vote. The Council does not have an obligation to put the interests of land speculators above those of the citizens of San Carlos.
If holding the Council accountable for decisions affecting the quality of life in San Carlos is of concern to you, I strongly urge you write you Councilmembers and copy Margaret Netto opposing the proposed annexation of Winding Way properties. Information on how to do so is given on the links page of the DCOSA website: http://devonshirecanyon.org/
Sincerely,
Diane Rahe
We very much appreciate the information you have provided.
Submitted by Michael Stogner, San Carlos Resident,
with respect to the Search Warrant filed 9/22/04 8/8/05
District Attorney Investigators Mark Sheffler and Chief Inspector Bill Cody stated "That on or about April 5, 2004, in the County of San Mateo, State of California. The crimes of: Penal Code 182 Conspiracy Penal Code 72 presenting false claims were committed by
Michael King and Peg Collier."
Judge Runde was put on the spot by the DA for not charging King, after King admitted under oath that he created the false bill, and faxed the false bill to Peg Collier, with a note "I'll call you" which, he admitted, he did call her.
So far there are only 3 people in San Mateo County who don't think Mike King should be charged with at least 2 felony counts. 1) James P. Fox our District Attorney, and neighbor of Mr. King 2) Steve Wagstaffe the second in command of our District Attorney office. (not a neighbor) 3) Michael "I did nothing wrong" King.
Time will tell.
Michael Stogner
TM: Thank you for following and providing information on this on-going situation.
Submitted by Norm Heise, a Belmont resident 7/05
To the editors:
I enjoyed your articles on "Deep Throat" and the bookdrop. You are performing a service to the City and to the County; keep up the good work.
The "attack and slash, best offensive is the best defense, we can do no wrong" manner of handling those who raise issues about the way some San Carlos City Council members deal with public issues related to spending and ethics is a primary reason that the city's government does not have much respect county-wide. Also, it is likely why successive Grand Jury reports since 2000 have been so “scathingly critical” of the City's political behavior vis-avis the public's expectations and its right to know.
If the "deep throat" of the Grocott leak could be unmasked, I suspect the "Gordon Liddys" and "Bernard Bakers" on the Council would not find anything wrong with the fact that he did so and that such an act on the part of the leaker was in the community's interest -- an indication of integrity, not manipulation.
A non-manipulative City Manager would help -- but if the city is going to protect itself against the possibility that some day they may have another “manipulative” manager, no matter how had they try not to, they must elect individuals that are less willing and capable of being manipulated.
Norm Heise
Belmont
TM: Thank you for your letter. We appreciate your feedback and are in complete agreement about the need for electing “individuals that are less willing and capable of being manipulated.” TASC is founded on the principal that the people are not giving up their rights simply because they elect a few to conduct the people’s business. And since it is the people to whom all officials are answerable, “the public’s expectations and its right to know” are paramount.
Submitted by Mr. Michael Stogner, a San Carlos resident May 11, 2005
Yesterday Mike King under oath answered some very important questions. First off he clarified that he personally created a document including the letterhead of Peg Colliers business. Then he made handwritten
corrections to the same document that he just fabricated to make it look like she had made it. He then split the bill in half, or made it into two months/ two bills so the amount would be low enough that the Belmont city manager would have the authority to pay that amount without approval from others. He listed the
names of firefighters and the false hours worked for each, and suggested $185.00 per hour for this fasle bill. The signifigance of this statement is that Peg Collier didn't know the names of these firefighters, and how could she, since she never met them or did any work for them as she freely states this fact.
For most of us in San Carlos and San Mateo County we see this as CONSPIRACY to committ a crime. Stealing $13,320.00 of public money.
James P. Fox San Mateo Countys District Attorney should resign, the citizens should demand it.
TM: Thank you for your report on this subject that is being followed by many.
Written by San Carlos residents Walt & Isobel Englert April 2005
Councilman Matt: I totally agree with your audit of the spending habits of our City Staff and department heads. It appears that all concerned should be enrolled in a basic course of Ethics 101. Apparently the Ethics Agreement recently passed by the CC does not apply to the City Staff or contractors. Are they also exempt from the Ten Commandments too?
We citizens need to rise up and question the shady practices which seem so ingrained in our “public servants" at every level of government. As a first step, we need to elect two new councilmembers who will also be watchdogs like yourself. A Citizens Committee should be organized to identify and recruit these members as soon as possible.
Keep up the great work you are doing!! Many citizens in this town are aware of and appreciate your dedication to the cause.
TM: The Englert's graciously allowed us to print this letter which has such a timely message. As is mentioned in this edition's article "If only you knew their name...," TASC is also of the opinion that people need to become more active at this crucial time wherein the tactics of our local government officials are not conducive to the public trust.
Submitted by "Itsa Kryingshame," a San Carlos Resident April 19, 2005
Seeing the two ‘cuts’ at El Camino brings up some annoying memories with the public works dept.
1. A consultant paid for by the city did a field survey and count and stated that there was no need in putting the left turn lanes onto Cherry and Olive Streets as there was not much of a problem for cars turning at Arroyo St. They recommended no additional left turns lanes.
2. After a few signatures gathered by Laurel St merchants, the city council authorized the two cuts at over $250,000 estimate. It went out for bid.
3. There will be no left turns allowed on to El Camino northbound.
4. The cuts are for the success of the downtown merchants solely and ought to have been financed through an assessment district. Those who benefit ought to have paid for the work.
Note: Some have commented that the City Hall chambers could be revised to place another row of seats above the council members in which various members of the Chamber of Commerce could sit. That would be very honest as the Chamber and some City Council members are ‘in bed together,’ with the council overly influenced by the commercial and financial well being of that segment of the community.
TM: As always, we appreciate receiving your thoughts and ideas.
San Carlos resident Barb Patterson April 4, 2005
April 4, 2005submits a breakdown of what a city needs in its public works department.
A Public Works Commission for San Carlos
Why do we need a Public Works Commission?
1. To provide input and oversight to the public works department. Other major city departments have existing commissions that review, support and expand the vision of the staff.
2. To involve citizens in the understanding of physical systems of the city. Many people have an interest in the way the infrastructure of the city works. This is educational.
3. To prioritize projects and funding expenditure. To phase in the ‘undergrounding’ of utilities in neighborhoods
4. To learn about and support new technology and methods to creatively solve problems within the city.
5. To develop long-range plans for the city on chronic and deferred problems and solutions.
TM: Thank you for the detailed list. Very to the point and professional -- as a City department should be.
A message submitted by Councilman Grocott March 30, 2005
March 30, 2005Government 101
Citizens pay taxes. Taxes fund government. Locally, you elect a five member City Council. One of the responsibilities of the Council is to decide where and how to spend the City's money. As best as can be determined, staff estimates how much revenue can be expected each year; the Council determines where the revenue should be spent.
To determine where revenue should be spent, Council approves a budget for each of the City's departments. On large projects, they also approve the budgets. If a project requires contract(s) over $50,000.00, Council approves those contracts. (The threshold was recently reviewed and set at $50,000; previously the amount was $20,000.) In some San Carlos departments, a predominant amount of the work is done by contractors, not city employees; Council approves those contracts.
ME Contract & Reimbursements
I recently posed the question: Why are we reimbursing Mokhtari Engineering (ME) for various incidental expenses: mileage, attendance to conferences, cell phone bills, etc? This is done for employees but not necessarily for contractors. In reviewing the ME contract, I found no language authorizing the City to reimburse ME for any expenses other than labor. (There is language in the contract which states that the firm's compensation is discounted to pay for office rent; the actual amount is a mystery.)
I'm a businessman; I own a company; I sign contracts with new clients every month. The following is language from contracts I have with all my clients:
"Article VI: Basis of Compensation, Progress Payments, Minimum Agreement Deposit Payment."
Billing to the client, in consideration of the designer's exploration and design services previously defined, shall occur at the rate of $xx.00 per hour.
The client is hereby made aware that this compensation reflects direct labor expense only and additional expenses may be incurred as a part of the work's progress. Example additional expenses include: blueprinting, CAD vellums, copying, photographic film and developing, et cetera. Such items billed to the client shall be itemized on the invoice along with copies of receipts."
My contract has a clause about incidental expenses because I desire to be reimbursed for them. My other option would be to charge a slightly higher rate to cover such expenses. The ME contract does not address the issue; I assumed his rate compensated for his work and his incidental expenses. He gave us a contract, we approved it as written. I certainly had no expectation to be paying for itemized incidental expenses.
The City Attorney, however, had a different opinion. He answered my question in a memo recently. He conceded that the ME contract is silent on the matter of reimbursing for incidentals. However, he explained that reimbursements were made by authorization of the City Manager, either orally, or as hand written notations on invoices. (The ME contract reads that amendments must be in writing and signed by both parties; no reference to oral agreements is made.)
The City Attorney reasoned that this practice was fine because the City Manager has the authority, when it involves spending less than $20,000, to approve a contract, amend a contract, or settle a claim. (See above: the amount has been raised to $50k.) The Finance Department reported to the City Attorney that the amount in question was slightly less than a thousand dollars, therefore, the reimbursements were in line with the City Manager's authority.
It's not fine with me. When I agree to something, even orally, I stick to my agreement. If I see that I blew it, I learn from my mistake and make corrective measures the next time around. If ME wants to be reimbursed for incidental expenses, he should propose an amendment to his contract.
The City Attorney made the statement that the amount in question was "only $987.67." Fine, that goes both ways. It may not be a lot to fuss about for the City; your tax dollars pump in millions a year to the City coffers. It shouldn't be a lot to fuss about for the contractor either; he was paid over $620,000 out of those same city coffers last year.
How Great the Authority
There's another question related to this issue. The City Attorney argues that the City Manager is authorized to spend money on an item without Council approval if it involves less than $20,000 (now $50,000.) How far does that authority go? Last year, the City Manager's department was $150,124 over budget. The Public Works Department was $125,213 over budget. From which department, both with negative balances, was the City Manager authorized to spend money that did not exist in order to pay reimbursements on a contract that did not authorize them?
Industrial Road Financial Report & ME
On another matter involving this same contractor, I had been following, via the warrants, the payments made to ME over the course of his annual contract (from 9/1 to 9/1). When the year was over, I noted that we had overpaid on the contract by almost $2,900. Further, I noted that what drove the total over was payment for "Outreach Coordinator," which is limited to an annual expense of $56,000. We had been billed $63,600. I asked staff why this was and how it was authorized. My question was left unanswered.
In tracking the ME contract, I ignored the payments made on the Industrial Road project because it was my understanding that this was under a separate contract, approved for Construction Management. Staff was tracking Industrial Road and reporting to Council quarterly. The contract with ME for Construction Management was for $170,000 and we were forecast to come in under that amount. Indeed we did. The final number was $160,489.
There was a category in the Industrial Road project, however, that was 192% over budget: Construction Engineering/Support Services. Since all other categories were under budget, some extremely, this stuck out like a sore thumb. When the Finance Department presented Council with the final report on the project's costs, I asked for a breakdown of this category. I asked which vendors were included in this category and wanted some explanation as to why this particular line item was grossly over budget.
Mr. Mokhatri answered the question. He mentioned a number of companies, like Green Environment, BKF and Callander Associates; he said that most of the extra expenses were due to contaminated soils discovered during demolition of the old roadway. He did not mention his own firm as being paid in this category. I persisted in asking for a more detailed report in this area and staff agreed to produce one for the next Council meeting.
When the report was given to Council two weeks later, I noticed that Mokhtari Engineering had been paid under this category too. ME had been paid $57,056.25 for "Outreach Coordinator." Within the annual period of 9/1/03 through 9/1/04 (corresponding with the annual period of his contract for City Engineer/PublicWorks Director), the amount was slightly less: $45,612.50.
I went to my spread sheet on ME's contract and added $45,612.50 to $63,600; it totals $109,212.50. At last night's Council meeting, I asked the question: How is it that ME was paid this much money when the contract limits the City's liability to ME for "Outreach Coordinator" to $56,000 annually? Even if one were to argue that the City Manager is authorized to amend the contract, the overage is $53,212.50. This is more than double the $20,000 our municipal code allowed during the time period in question. It is even more than the amended amount of $50,000.
I received no answer. Council member Don Eaton moved approval to accept the report from Finance and Council member Mike King seconded his motion. A 4-1 vote was quickly taken and we moved on without the answer.
Conclusion to Government 101
You as citizens pay taxes. Taxes fund our government. Locally, you elect a five member City Council. One of the responsibilities of the City Council is to decide where and how to spend the City's money. I am trying to do my job for which I was elected, which includes holding staff and contractors accountable for how public funds are spent.
If this is important to you, you need to know that one council member cannot do the job alone. Either San Carlos needs more people on the Council who are willing to hold staff and contractors to within the bounds of contracts agreed to and budgets approved, or we at least need citizens who show more concern than they are presently. The current status seems to be that the budgets set by Council are only a suggestion and contract agreements are simply a hint of how business will be conducted. Is that what you want?
TM: Thank you for this commentary. It is important to note that this message was sent out to a general audience and is the opinion of Councilman Grocott; he is not speaking on behalf of any other member of the City Council or staff.
Submitted by Mr. Michael Stogner, a San Carlos resident March 26, 2005
NO NEW MYSTERY.......Simply put Jim Fox NO FEAR
The City of San Carlos has been damaged by the behavior of Jim Fox.
He is elected to enforce the laws, and he abuses his authority on a daily basis.
One of his last statements about the King Collier case was, "If evidence should present itself and HE BELIEVES King is Giulty."
Our laws don't say that what matters is whether Jim Fox believes someone is guilty, they clearly just say what a law is. For example Penal Code 187 Conspiracy to commit a crime: when two or more people conspire to commit a crime....Felony Wire fraud.....FAX MACHINES....Federal laws? Phone calls, memos, e-mails etc.....
Now Bank of Santa Clara is involved....
I have a Great Idea: let's contact the Santa Clara District Attorneys Office, because they do enforce the
laws...Example: X- Judge Danzer charged and found guilty; serving his sentence as he should be ....
The law doesn't ask, "What does Jim Fox think?"
We the citizens know all to well what Jim Fox thinks.
TM: Thank you for your perspective with respect to our recent article, A New Mystery: Why No Charges? It certainly makes you wonder what the Bank of Santa Clara thinks of this latest revelation -- or if they're even aware of the situation yet.
Submitted by Barb Patterson, a San Carlos resident very active in creek issues 3/23/05
Yesterday I was talking with a few teachers and parents about our local creeks. The suggestion of getting children involved in creek art and in writing letters to city officials to encourage them to protect the local creeks for their generation hit me as such a perfect idea. This could be an Earth Day project and we can also exhibit the artwork at city hall or the library or hospitals and make a booklet of it all.
On April 11 the San Carlos city council, planning commission and planning department will hold a joint meeting and will update (weaken or strengthen) our protection ordinance for our four local creeks which are partly or entirely within the city limits. These include, south to north, Cordilleras, Brittan, Pulgas and Belmont Creeks. Historically they all have had much more natural vegetation and wildlife along their banks. They were beautiful, healthy and self-sustained.
Recently, construction and paving have been allowed up to the creek banks by the city. Little by little, projects are being approved which fragment and degrade the creeks, against the city's own rules. This construction eliminates habitat and is actually urban 'de-forestation'
Immediate action from our children could sway the decisions of the city officials. By Wed, April
6, I would like to have a stack of artwork and letters to deliver to the city clerk's office to be sent to each of the officials meeting on Mon, 7pm April 11. The recipients of this memo are all involved with children, schools and creeks. Please spread the word and create enthusiasm with any teachers you know. Support them and even provide the art materials they need.....
For more information or to participate in this event, contact Barb Patterson 650.594.1164, babaloupat@yahoo.com,Friends of Cordilleras Creek website, 'www.CordillerasCreek.org'.
TM: Thank you for spreading the word on this important issue and for coming up with a pro-active idea that not only addresses the issue, but raises the awareness of our children.
Submitted by "Itsa Kryingshame," a San Carlos Resident March 9, 2005
I have tried very hard to understand what the mayor is getting at in looking for consultants and spending city money on 'visioning," 'building concensus' and 'strategic planning'. She does not seem to be aware of the head-shaking some of us experience when we hear her talk at the council meetings. She seems not to have a clue about leading with any energy or creativity. If she did not have a vision for the city's future why did she run for office or even accept the mayoral position? Now we hear it will cost way more than $5K to get some firm to come in and set the criteria for the city. That is nonsense! Four of the members of the council have been switching from commissions to council in leadership positions for years and doing their best to keep any new or creative thinkers out of the process. Now I hear a 'retreat' or 'juncket' is being planned to allow the council to privately plan whatever they want for the city without community input. In the process they will spend thousands of dollars and still be as uncreative and dull as always.
TM: Thank you for your input.
Submitted by Susan Blau, a San Carlos Resident March 3, 2005
The $64,000 Question:
Is San Carlos a sleepy little town or a simple little town? The latter is what the San Carlos City Council is betting on by putting Measure T on the March ballot. For those not in the know, for the past three years, San Carlos has played host to a free pilot shuttle system. But everyone knew this free ride would end and the City would have to find a way to pay for it if they wanted it to continue. To this end, the City of San Carlos hired a private consultant - to the tune of $14,000 - to solve this problem. When the consultant gave his recommendation to the City of San Carlos, did they take his advice? NO! Instead the City Council voted to expend an additional $50,000 for a special election in March. Total to find a solution: $64,000!
The funding question has been ongoing for the past three years. To be fiscally prudent, could San Carlos city officials have put this measure on the United States Presidential Election ballot, held just three months earlier? Of course!!! Did they? NO! Does this show fiscal responsibility on the part of our elected officials?
What are the taxpayers of San Carlos receiving for their $64,000? Is it going to pay the salary of the firemen that the San Carlos residents laid off due to lack of funding? No! Is it going to pay to keep City Hall services going for the week the city closed last year due to lack of fund? No! Is it going to pay for repairs needed at Crestview and Highland Parks? No! Is it even going to provide funding for SCOOT? NO! Regardless of how this election fares, San Carlos will have thrown away $64,000 of taxpayer money for absolutely nothing! (Advice not taken is not worth the paper it's written on!) With the City of San Carlos showing so much respect for taxpayer dollars, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE THEM MORE??!!!
Why did the San Carlos City Council decide not to heed the advice of its paid consultant? Why did the City Council decide not to include this measure in the election held just three months earlier? WHY? Because the majority of the Council is counting on the citizens of San Carlos to be asleep: to show their apathy once more, and to let this measure pass quietly. Is it because the citizens of San Carlos are so simple or so "trusting" or so apathetic as to resign themselves to getting nothing for their money! This is the $64,000 question!
TM The fact that the City spent many thousands of dollars merely to disregard the advice of their expert is something that TASC has always found quite disturbing. This blatant disregard for the views of the majority of the citizens seems to emphasize the Council's continuing focus on "their" wants as opposed to the wants and needs as expressed by the majority and shows a complete lack of interest in the value of equity. Thank you for taking the time to share your insight.
T.A.S.C.
Trust & Accountability
in San Carlos
The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.
THE BROWN ACT
Be sure to read the submission by Diane Rahe on behalf of the Devonshire Canyon Open Space Alliance.
