News

Tonight: Menlo Park fire district candidate forum

The League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County is sponsoring these candidate forums:

● Menlo Park Fire Protection board, Thursday, Oct. 10, 7:30 p.m. Menlo Park City Council Chambers, 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park. Three seats are open, with five candidates campaigning for election. The fire district serves Menlo Park, Atherton, East Palo Alto and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County.

● Atherton City Council, co-sponsored by the Atherton Civic Interest League, at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 15, in the Pavilion at Holbrook-Palmer Park, 150 Watkins Ave. in Atherton.

Written questions will be accepted from the audience. For more information contact Ellen Hope at ellenjhope@aol.com.

Comments

Posted by Ronald Wardrop, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Vote Peter F Capenter, Chuck Bernstein and Rexford Ianson. They will best keep the Fire District on a reasonable budget.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 10, 2013 at 9:29 pm

Carpenter, Ianson and Bernstein are the logical choices. They have the experience, leadership and diversity to be elected.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm

I was at the forum last night as well.

Mr. Carpenter seemed the most knowledgeable; Ms. Clarke the least. As an incumbent, I would have expected more from Mr. Nelson. His repeated line seemed to be "I agree with Rex and Peter." He expressed his leadership qualities -- which are what? Just because he's the vice president. Those positions rotate.

I'm pleased that neither Carpenter, Ianson nor Bernstein are accepting support or endorsement from the FF union. I'm not surprised that Nelson and Clarke are however, especially since the FF union spent about $85,000 in the last election in order to get Rob Silano elected. With the Fire District employment costs making up about 80% of the budget, it's puzzling how these two candidates say they can make impartial and unbiased decisions.

To me the decision is obvious -- Carpenter, Ianson and Bernstein.


Posted by Friend of Babe from Belize, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 13, 2013 at 12:57 am

Should one know all the issues without being on the board...would you have preferred that the details were memorized and then recited off to seem intelligent...is that the expectation to be considered the best candidate for any election. I happen to know Ms. Clarke and she is very resourceful and knowledgeable in many areas, which I believe will be a great asset to the Fire Board.

Perhaps she is not a seasoned public speaker and will articulate


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 13, 2013 at 1:03 am

I did not attend the forum, but I heard the only people in attendance were current supporters of the candidates. It is not surprising to see that the supporters of one slate find it amusing to pretend otherwise. The Almanac is really doing a disservice to the community by provodide a forum for this kind of irresponsible anonymous propaganda.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 13, 2013 at 8:56 am

Got a mailer for Clarke the other day. Has endorsements from Horsley, Slocum and Kieth. That's more than enough reason to not vote for her. So far the Fire Board has remained relatively free from the rampant corruption of San Mateo county. I'd like to see it stay that way. Clarke will be beholden to her endorsers, which themselves are beholden to big labor. A vote for Clarke is a vote to give the firefighters union whatever they want.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 13, 2013 at 8:59 am

Friend of Babe from Belize: To say Carolyn Clarke "is not a seasoned public speaker" is a huge under statement. She was completely inarticulate and incomprehensible. Her thoughts were incomplete and illogical. Couple that with her complete lack of knowledge of anything about the fire district equals she should not be on this board or in any other elected office.

Perspective: There were other people in the audience. I was there, and I am not for one "slate" of candidates or the other, which is Nelson and Clarke. I attended because I do not know any of the candidates. Sounds like you were not there, but it is apparent who you're supporting. BTW, the Almanac attended, as well. If they were doing their research based off that forum, then it should very easy for them to endorse the strongest candidates-- Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson. We'll see.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 13, 2013 at 9:26 am

Menlo Voter: I couldn't agree with you more!

I have received mailers from all the candidates and looked at their websites. Many of the local elected officials have endorsed Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson- not the union faithful. It is telling that three of the five current board members do not endorse Clarke AND Nelson. The only current fire board board member endorsing Clarke and Nelson is Rob Silano- that's telling enough to not vote for Clarke and Nelson. It also says that the majority of the board do not have confidence in Nelson's ability to be on the board.

I agree with Bob, who posted above: "As an incumbent, I would have expected more from Mr. Nelson. His repeated line seemed to be "I agree with Rex and Peter." He expressed his leadership qualities -- which are what? Just because he's the vice president. Those positions rotate."

Thanks for pointing this out, "Bob!" It is so true!


Posted by see for yourself, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm

I believe the League of Women Voters will make the candidate forum video available very soon. See for yourself at lwvssmc.org

Not knowing most of the candidates myself, I thought the forum was quite informative about them and about the issues the fire board will face. The three (Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson) mentioned by others seemed to have the strongest grasp on issues and what they will do in office. Frankly, I had hoped that wouldn't be the case because I truly believe in diversity and generally dislike slates. Candidates need to be qualified, though, and it didn't seem as if Ms. Clark is up to it. All seemed to be nice people, but we need really knowledgeable people to address the looming issues.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 13, 2013 at 6:42 pm

See for yourself: thank you for your thoughts and for the link! I hope the candidate's forum is up on the LWV's site soon. Here is the link to the specific page: Web Link. So far, they only have two city council forums posted.

Like you, I like diversity and, generally, do not like slates. You are absolutely right, however, that CLARKE IS NOT QUALIFIED. I was also unimpressed by Nelson, considering he's been on the board for almost four years. He was not as uninformed as Clarke, but as an "incumbent," he should have a much stronger understanding and grasp of the issues.

Bernstein is the newcomer and puts Clarke and Nelson to shame because he clearly understood "the looming issues" much better than they did. Carpenter and Ianson definitely knew the issues and facts, as well. I think it says a lot that they (Carpenter and Ianson) have endorsed Bernstein and not Clarke and Nelson. This must be especially embarrassing for Nelson, considering Carpenter and Ianson have worked with Nelson on the board in the past.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 13, 2013 at 9:49 pm

It is interesting to see the endorsements of the various candidates. Nelson and Clarke have almost the same people and only one past or present Fire Director, Rob Silano. This doesn't bode well for either of them since Mr. Silano was also heavily endorsed by the union 2 years ago. If Clarke and Nelson are elected and join Silano, that would mean that the Fire Board's majority was supported by the FF union. And the FF union is still doesn't have a contract.

As for the candidates forum -- people running for public office should do their homework and be prepared; this means knowing enough about current issues to be able to answer questions competently. If they haven't done this, what does that say about how they would perform if elected. While they may be nice people and have qualities, this recent public forum didn't reflect well for two of the candidates.

It's a shame that more people didn't didn't attend the LOWV's forum, probably could have been better publicized.


Posted by More Perspective, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 14, 2013 at 1:11 am

Nelson (Web Link), Kiraly (Web Link) and Silano (Web Link) were all elected with the union endorsement, so the board already has a union backed majority... and the world did not end.

Further, Kiraly was the only fire board member to support the union-backed supervisor candidate Shelly Masur (Web Link). Obviously, Kiraly is not a puppet for the labor council, so conclusions posted about the union endorsement here are total bunk.


Posted by Fairness, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 14, 2013 at 8:29 am

What a one-sided form. It is not illegal according to California or Federal law to obtain labor endorsements or funds. All you democrats and republicans in the big show take the funds from private interest groups other than labor. Mr. Bernstein said it best. He has yearly meetings with his staff regarding their working conditions and gets their feedback. What is wrong with listening to employees and give them a voice in their organization. Do you people really think that Nelson and Clarke will vote for union issues just because they were supported by them? Take Silano, union backed and supported, yet has voted against a current pay raise for employees at the district, his platform issues; the ISO rating to a class 3 to 2......a pension reformer, for a 2 tier system....which is now policy at the district, ......looking at consolidation of their payroll system? These issues don't sound like union backed? Many of you in this blog has taken these issues too personal! Because of the union, many have either lost an election or did not get their endorsement,.....Wait until the past practiices of the fire board come out in the issued PERB Compliant. This in the long run will cost the fire district millions..... Yes, the PERB will probably have them go back to the table, but, under ALJ procedures, their rulings are appealed at an appellate level. More $$$$$$$$ for us to pay as taxpayers, if the fire board wants to appeal? I wish all the candidates good luck and if elected, many difficult adventures lie ahead!


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 14, 2013 at 10:09 am

Fairness:

no, it's not illegal to obtain labor endorsements or funds. It creates a negative appearance over a candidate's motivations, at a minimum. Or at the extreme, it buys the unions a seat on both sides of the bargaining table. Personally, I'm tired of civil service workers having a seat on both sides of the table. I'm tired of them buying the politicians we elected to represent us at the table. I'm tired of those we elected to represent us giving up the farm to organized labor because it brings them more money.

There is nothing wrong with listening to employees and giving them a voice in their organization. There is a problem in letting them decide for themselves how much they should be paid.

The firefighters union has been acting like a petulant child. They won't even go to the bargaining table. And you're right, the PERB will send them back to the table. If they choose to take it to the appellate level they will cost themselves and the tax payers more money and they will lose. So, they need to wise up and get back to the table and be reasonable in their demands.


Posted by Virginia Chang Kiraly, a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm

After a 10+ year track record of being a known fiscal conservative and proponent of pension reform, I understood the "looming issues" facing the fire district and other public agencies. My principles remain the same today as they were before I was elected to the fire board. My principles are the foundation for the careful consideration I give as a member of the fire district's Finance Committee and chair of the Human Resources Committee. The union support has nothing to do with where my principles lie. Both the firefighters and Labor Council knew exactly where I stood before, during, and after the interview process. That has not changed.

"More Perspective" does not state the facts correctly. The relevant issue is financial and in-kind support, not opinion. In 2011, the union thought I was one of the two best candidates, and they endorsed me as a good choice for voters. It is incorrect to say, as "More Perspective" writes, that I am part of a union-BACKED majority. I was not "backed" by the union. I declined all financial and in-kind support to my campaign and ended up running against a well-funded campaign for Rob Silano-- his $85,000+ campaign versus my $13,000 campaign.

It was my intent, stated from the very beginning to the union, that I would represent the residents. To this day, I consistently state that I speak for our community. I have never forgotten that I serve at the pleasure of the residents and taxpayers of the fire district. I was honored to have a broad spectrum of endorsements and always try my best to represent all views to bring a balanced perspective to the fire board.

In this year's fire board election, Jack Nelson and Carolyn Clarke have already received tremendous support through mailers and walk pieces. They have accepted campaign funding from union sources and accepted the financial and in-kind support of the firefighters' union PAC, " MP FLAG." I could not do this because, in my opinion, it would have obligated me to serve the firefighters' interests over the district's residents.

I have endorsed Chuck Bernstein, Rex Ianson, and Peter Carpenter for this race. I believe that if they are elected, they will bring financial expertise, continuity, principles, and leadership to the fire board. They will, at least, know the difference between a contract and a budget and not threaten to de-fund California Task Force 3 (one of eight CA Urban Search & Rescue Teams), which nearly happened in a board meeting chaired by Jack Nelson. The fire district's financial health will depend on who is elected to the board this year. I am prohibited by the Brown Act to go into details of closed session deliberations. Therefore, I hope that voters will trust that my endorsements are in the best interest of the community, which is always at the forefront of my decisions.

If you wish to contact me, please feel free to do so at vck@VirginiaChangKiraly.com. Thanks for putting your trust in me!

Virginia Chang Kiraly
Director
MPFPD Board of Directors


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 14, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It is not illegal according to California or Federal law to obtain labor endorsements or funds."

Correct, it is not illegal but it is very unwise.

This is what I posted BEFORE I decided to run for election this year:

Original post made by Peter Carpenter on Aug 3, 2013


I urge all of the candidates to decline to be interviewed by the firefighters' union and to refuse to accept either endorsement or any type of financial support from the union. The responsibility of a Fire Board Director is to the citizens of the Fire District not to the union. The Fire Board will be called upon to ratify a new union agreement and in doing so there should be no question about the Board's responsibility to the citizens who elected them.

The firefighters' union very much wants to control the Fire Board by virtue of getting those candidates it favors elected. If they do that then we can say goodbye to the Fire District's long history of balanced budgets, timely capital improvements and prudent reserves. Also, because the union routinely files its financial statements as late as possible, or later, the voters will not know how much they are spending on this year's election until after they cast their votes. In the last election the union spent more than twice as much as ALL of the candidates did themselves combined. The Fire Board should not be For Sale to the union.


Posted by Really now, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2013 at 7:07 pm

WOW ! What a lot of angry people out there! Union endorsement is once again a distraction by the angry conservative
side. If these people were less angry and more objective, they would know and understand that endorsements go up
and down the line, from the president of the U.S. down to state and local officials. Why is it ok for the NRA to endorse
Republicans, lobbyist to align themselves with the "self serving interest" of the rich. The Unions help create the middle class, which we are all part of, except Carpenter who is upper class and cannot relate to lower class people.
Kiraly was endorsed by labor, so was Silano and Nelson, the board is already unionized, they do not vote that way.
The board is smart enough to make the best decision for everyone, obviously the term "win win" is a new term to
people of the fire district. If you read the above, all you get is anger and resentment, how many of these people are
willing to step up and run for the fire board in the next election, raise your hand ! In stead of bitching all the time,
get involved and do something about things yourself ! A labor endorsement only means that you are willing to listen
to ALL sides, be fair and objective in decisions. whether they go for or against labor..People you need to get REAL..


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 14, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If you read the above, all you get is anger and resentment"

No anger, no resentment - just intelligent dialogue from a number of different perspectives.

"get involved and do something about things yourself !"

Great advice.

The issue is not a labor endorsement per se but the union spending tens of thousands of dollars to get people elected who will then be indebted to them. And when people who are elected because of the union's investment in their election are called upon to carry out their responsibility of oversight for that union then who will they serve - the citizens who elected them or the union which tried to buy their election?


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 14, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Menlo Voter: Totally agree with your statement:

"There is nothing wrong with listening to employees and giving them a voice in their organization. There is a problem in letting them decide for themselves how much they should be paid."

Couldn't have said it better!


Posted by Fairness, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 am

Thanks "Really Now", well said! Yes, alot of angry people. It appears the union already has the majority.....Nelson....Kiraly....Silano! Why is Kiraly running from her union allies? What is her next office? She knows she needs the union machine to win. Every time she has run, other than the fire board, she lost! Why? No union support! [Portion removed. See Chuck Bernstein comment below.]


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 7:32 am

Fairness: I think Kiraly's post above speaks volumes about her principles. Running against a well-funded $85k campaign for Silano and spending $13k is no easy feat. I doubt they could care less about her winning. It's obvious they wanted Silano no matter what! Luckily, the voters spoke, and she came out first.

The Daily Post just endorsed Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson today and did an outstanding job pointing out Nelson's disastrous board meeting that he chaired on June 24. Looks like Silano and Nelson endangered the Urban Search and Rescue program and didn't even know they had done that until the fire district's attorney had to point out what they actually did! Yikes! Neither one of these people (Nelson and Silano) should be on the board! This is all in today's Daily Post. Pick one up. I think I may actually go ask for a copy of the recording of the June 24 board meeting to see exactly what happened. Nelson and Silano do not care about the community's safety based on what I've read in today's Daily Post.

With Clarke's lack of knowledge of the fire district and Nelson's ineptness to understand what he is actually voting on at board meetings, there's no doubt that people should vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 8:40 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"I doubt they could care less about her winning. It's obvious they wanted Silano no matter what!"

Paradoxically the union wanted Kiraly to win. Not because they could control her (which they could not) but because her winning meant that a superb long term Fire Board Director, Bart Spencer, (who the union knew would only be responsible to the citizen who elected him) would lose.

So the union spent $85K and got Silano elected and to get rid of Spencer in 2011. This year they appear to be spending even more ( we won't know until after the citizen vote) to try to control two more seats in order to control a majority of the board. They are not spending that kind of money out of their concerns for the community - the new board will have to review and approve a new firefighters' union contract.


Posted by concerned, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2013 at 8:58 am

[Post removed for violating terms of use: using multiple user names on the same thread.]


Posted by CITIZEN, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 15, 2013 at 9:16 am

[Post removed for violating terms of use: using multiple user names on the same thread.]


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 9:42 am

Concerned: You sound like Silano or Nelson trying to defend yourselves. Great to blame it on the staff, easy way out! But Nelson has been on the board for three years, and this seemed like a routine vote. So, why couldn't he understand this after voting on this for past three years? You're right that the majority of the board firmly believe in the search and rescue program, but it does not seem like Nelson and Silano do. I don't know about the details you're talking about, but it seems these details are what the union wants Nelson and Silano to believe.

Citizen: you're right that the fire district is well run. That's why this election is so important- to keep it running well with good finances. The union is supporting one candidate who knows nothing about the fire district (Clarke) and another who can't even run a meeting (Nelson). The only current fire board member who has endorsed both these candidates is Silano. With these three on the fire board, that would be a union supported majority, and I mean huge financial support, not just taking the endorsing like Kiraly did and not receiving huge financial support. Sorry, you don't make your case! It isn't broke now because the majority of the board won't break the fire district's bank. With Clarke and Nelson in, they will form a majority with Silano that would break the bank. If you believe in not fixing the fire district, then vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson! I think the Daily Post made a great argument, and your post just supports why Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson should be elected to the board this year!

Also, you might think that the fire district is "the lowest level election there is," but the fire district provides one of the basic services of public safety and where tax dollars should be spent. That's why the firefighters union campaign can be so powerful, because people need and want good fire protection services and want to believe what the firefighters tell them. However, voters are too smart for that type of campaigning. We cannot break the bank, though, and that's why this election is so important.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 9:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" the fire board is the lowest level election there is"

Actually local government is the bedrock of our democratic institutions and the place where we as citizens have the most control.

The Fire District's Mission is "To Protect and Preserve Life and Property from the Impact of Fire, Disaster, Injury and Illness". Performing that mission well is essential to the well-being and security of our community. Our Fire District is one of the very best in the entire Nation and the Fire Board's job is to make sure that it retains that stature in order to better meet our needs and the nation's needs -- as we have seen in the deployment of both our Swift Water Rescue Team and our Urban Search and Rescue Task Force to the Katrina disaster recovery effort.

Local government only works if citizens such as yourself get involved, if you vote and, most important, if you hold those who have been entrusted with elected office accountable.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:00 am

Citizen: you are wrong about your statement, "The board is suppose to be independent thinkers, not agree with everything the
audience wants."

The fire board, which is made up of taxpayers and fire district citizens, is supposed to watch over the finances of the fire district so that we protect our emergency services. Watching over the money is the board's number one task! Yes, they can be independent thinkers, but they should not be conflicted with pay-offs as Silano, Clarke, and Nelson have been.


Posted by Chuck Bernstein, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Someone has alerted me to a reference by, ironically, "Fairness" at about 6:00 AM on 10/15 to "Chuck Berstein's bankruptcy in 1997." That reference is absolutely FALSE in both its specifics and as a general statement.

I have NEVER declared bankruptcy in any of its forms ever. Period.

I have NEVER defaulted on any business or personal obligation ever. Period.

Since "Fairness" does not even spell my name correctly (the "N" is dropped in the middle), it is possible that there is a genuine confusion in whatever source "Fairness" has consulted. It is equally possible that this falsehood is something "Fairness" has fabricated to tarnish me. Regardless of the motivation, the allegation is untrue from whatever perspective one might view it.

If "Fairness" has any evidence for me to review, I would be happy to review it and to comment on it publicly. Please send it to me by e-mail (cbernstein@headsup.org) or to my home: 444 Oak Court, Menlo Park.

--Chuck Bernstein, Candidate for Menlo Park Fire Prevention District Board of Directors


Posted by Carolyn Clarke, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:31 pm

VOTE FOR CLARKE AND NELSON!
For those of you who have included me as a candidate who has accepted union contributions and/or in-king contributions, you will be happy to learn that my campaign has not accepted any monetary contributions directly from any unions or PACs.Thank you.


Posted by Carolyn Clarke, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Wow! This is getting really heated and out of hand...frankly, I have never seen such behavior about joining a Board!

Amazing...


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"my campaign has not accepted any monetary contributions DIRECTLY from any unions or PACs"

DIRECTLY - that is the trick. The union pays for signs, mailers, door hangers and contributes hundreds of hour of door-to-door campaigning in behalf of Clarke and Nelson and yet Clark and Nelson have the audacity to claim that they have received NOTHING from the union.

The FPPC reports will show huge expenditures by the union on behalf of Clarke and Nelson - and exactly what do you think the union expects in return?


Posted by see for yourself, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm

When one of the major issues facing an elected body is a union contract that has not been consummated for a number of years (6?), it is unseemly for candidates to accept tangible union support of their campaign.

Three candidates (Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson) explicitly decided not to accept tangible union support in this race. Two (Clarke, Nelson) accepted the support. See their respective rationale on the video whenever it's posted.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The candidates whom the union is supporting were asked a number of questions by the union as a condition of receiving union support.

These questions included the following:
10. Do you actively support the fundamental right of miscellaneous (non-Public Safety) employees of the Fire District to organize and collectively bargain with the District regarding their wages, hours and working conditions through the union of their choice?

Yes_________ No_________

(If No) What is your reason for opposition? ___________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

11. Would you cross an organized labor picket line?
Yes No_______


12. Would you support an organized labor boycott?
Yes No_______

13. Do you support the right of workers to form or join a union?
Yes No_______

14. If elected, would you be willing to use your public stature to support union organizing?
Yes No_______

15. Would you support the use of binding arbitration to settle economic disputes between management and labor?
19. Briefly discuss your campaign strategy for getting elected (i.e. fundraising, campaign targets, endorsements, number of votes needed to win, etc.)
*******

Why aren't the answers to these questions being made available to the voters?


Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2013 at 1:55 pm

@seeforyourself--very well said, I totally agree. @Carolyn Clarke, madam your two posts say it all for me. First, to insult my intelligence with a feeble attempt to play on words ("direct", c'mon!) shows that, either, you are truely unqualified to hold public office, or, you have no respect for the intelligence level of the voting public. Second, you're not "joining a board", your running for elected office....geeees!


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Looks like Ms. Clarke has just confirmed the conflicted and paid-off union candidates. "Vote for Clarke and Nelson" with the sole fire board member endorsement coming from Silano. In other words, vote for Clarke, Nelson, and Silano to be the majority of the board. 'Nuf said!

Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson!


Posted by Vote for Fair Treatment, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:23 pm

The taxpayers need to treat the hard working fire fighters more fairly. We live in homes worth 1 to 5 Million dollars. We can afford to be a little bit more generous with our money and give the fire fighters a handsome wage for their dangerous and heroic work.

I hear all this nonsense about fiscal responsibility. We can afford to give the fire fighters more money. It is not like there are hundreds of qualifed people waiting in line to become fire fighters.


Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm

@VoteforFairTreatment--I live (and vote) within the MP fire district. You might want to check to see what the geographical boundry of the district is. Many of us do not live in $$1-5Million homes, in fact most of us don't. Many people rent. The fact is fire fighters in this district are well paid--deservedly so as is the case with all emergency first responders--but that doesn't entitle them to be greedy.


Posted by concerned, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:39 pm

[Post removed for posting using multiple names in the same thread.]


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Vote for Fair Treatment:

You are clearly out of touch with this ridiculous statement!

"It is not like there are hundreds of qualifed people waiting in line to become fire fighters."

It has been well publicized that firefighting jobs are in such high demand that hundreds apply for a very few open spots. Take your head out of the sand!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Anyone who is interested in the qualifications and positions each of the five candidates can go to:

Web Link


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Concerned:

Nice try, but the defamation lawsuit filed by John Woodell (Kirsten Keith's husband) has nothing to do with this fire board race. However, if you want to bring it up, Carolyn Clarke has already admitted to the Daily Post that Woodell is working on her campaign. Should she also drop out of the race since the person suing two innocent people has a stake in the outcome of this fire board? Also, since Nelson's campaign website is almost identical in style to Clarke's, it begs the question whether Woodell is working on Nelson's campaign, too.

I saw the article, and Kiraly probably does have a real case for defamation against Woodell. I'm sure Woodell in his infinite wisdom and delusional mind really believes that Kiraly somehow stole his personal cell phone and was trying to frame him while she was running her own campaign for the fire board in 2011. Really?

The real issue is how desperate Nelson (maybe) and Clarke must be to have Woodell as part of their campaign team. Don't know about Nelson, but Clarke has already confirmed that.

Don't mix up the issues and try to muddy the water. The lawsuit, which was originally filed by Woodell, has nothing to do with this fire board race or fire board business. Nice try, though!


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Thank you, Peter Carpenter! Let's get back on topic and deal with the issues and look at the candidates' qualifications. Clearly, Concerned is concerned about getting Clarke and Nelson elected. Desperate attempt to stay off topic!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Both "citizen" and "concerned' have been removed for posting using multiple names in the same thread. It make me wonder who it was???


Posted by Bob, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm

To Vote for Fair Treatment:

MP Firefighters' average salary is about $125,000. A fire captain earn a little more, supervises 2-3 people, and has been working 10+ years; some have college degrees.

In comparison a lieutenant colonel (Army, Marines, Air Force) commands between 300 - 1000 people, has been in the military about 20 years, and earns about $125,000. More often than not a lieutenant colonel has an advanced college degree, and many have been in hazardous situations around the world. Additionally, military personnel usually have to relocate every 2-4 years.

Yes, firefighters can have a tough job, but I think our firefighters are fairly paid. I hope the Board and candidates keep this comparison in mind.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Actually a Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) with 20 years of service has a base pay of $7,283.70/month or $87,404/year.

1 - The pilot of Air Force One is a USAF Colonel usually with 20-25 years of service.

His base pay is $11,007.30/month or $132,087 /year

He also receives about $500/month or $6000/year of flight pay

He supervises a crew of approximately 26 (not including the Secret Service agents accompanying the President).

He can retire with 2.5% of the average of his last three years base pay for each year of service but capped at 75%.

2 - a US Forest Service Smokejumper ( a firefighter who parachutes from airplanes to put out forest fires) are in GS-5 to GS-9 pay grades and start as $27,026/year and top out at $53,234/year at the top step level for non- supervisory ( includes crew chiefs but not management level) smokejumpers

MEDICAL AND PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: Smokejumper duties present unusual hazards and require that personnel be in excellent physical condition and possess a high degree of emotional stability and mental alertness. The health of individuals must be such that they have the capacity to meet demands for performance in the position and for human reliability. Before entrance on duty, and periodically during employment, smokejumpers must undergo a medical exam, physical conditioning, and an adeptness test. Failure to meet any of the required standards will be considered disqualifying for employment or a basis of termination. The adeptness test will be given in one time period and consists of performing 25 push-ups, 45 sit-ups, 7 chin-ups, and a 1.5-mile run which must be completed in 11 minutes or less. In addition to the work capacity test at the arduous level (as referenced under Other Significant Facts), a smokejumper pack-out test is required and consists of completing a 3-mile hike over level ground carrying a 110 pound pack in 90 minutes or less. The health of individuals must be such that they have the capacity to meet the demands for human reliability and performance in the position.

3 -Maj. Jennifer Grieves is the first female helicopter aircraft commander in the history of Marine One, the HMX-1 helicopter the president of the United States flies on. She makes about $84,000 and she can retire with 2.5% of the average of her last three years base pay for each year of service but capped at 75%.

4 - NASA's civilian astronauts are in the GS-11 through GS-14 pay grades, based on academic achievements and experience. Currently, a GS-11 astronaut starts at $59,493 per year; a GS-14 astronaut can earn up to $130,257 per year. To date 13 out of 321 who have flown in space have died in the line of duty or a fatality rate of about 4%.

In comparison, the firefighters in our District get paid on average over $130,000 in salary and benefits.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Correction: Actually a Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) with 20 years of service has a base pay of $8,118.00/month or $97,416/year.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Just out of curiosity, how many firefighters in our district have been killed in the line of duty?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 6:50 pm

So, I did a little research on my own. In ALL of California there were only 33 firefighter deaths between 1977 and 2012. That's 33 deaths in 35 years. Less than one per year. Oh, and the majority were due to heart attacks. Generally accepted as a lifestyle or genetic problem. Sorry, but that's hardly a "very dangerous" occupation. More construction workers are killed in one year in California than firefighters, yet I don't see anyone clamoring for increasing the pay and benefits of construction workers due to their hazardous work. Why? Because firefighters show up when called and help people? That's what they get paid to do. Quite handsomely.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Sorry, forgot to post a link: Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"In ALL of California there were only 33 firefighter deaths between 1977 and 2012."

And almost all of those were wildland firefighters.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2013 at 7:22 pm

"And almost all of those were wildland firefighters."

Doesn't describe the Menlo Park Fire District Firefighters does it? Sorry, I'll put my or my brother officer's going through doors when you didn't know what was on the other side up against the "danger" firefighters face any day. As I posted a while back, the stats from the federal government regarding the most dangerous occupations DON'T EVEN LIST FIREFIGHTERS.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Fire Board adopted the following policy, which I helped draft, when I was last serving on the Board.

At its November 15, 2011 Board Meeting, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board of Directors unanimously approved Resolution 1498-2011, which Reconsidered and Amended Resolution 1493-2011. The changes are made pursuant to the District's Labor Relations Policy and Plan (attached as Exhibit A), as well as the District's Compensation Philosophy (attached as Exhibit B). All changes are consistent with principles of fairness, transparency, fiscal sustainability and accountability. The changes are designed so that no employee will see a reduction in their gross hourly rate.

5.11 Fire Board Employee Compensation Policy

The Fire Board values its represented and unrepresented employees and seeks to provide equitable compensation for each group and classification. The District's Board of Directors may observe this policy when adopting compensation plans and contracts covering District employees.



Principle No. 1 – Recruitment and Retention: Compensation should, when
economically feasible, be set at a level sufficient to recruit and retain employees who are qualified and committed to provide high quality services to the community. One critical measure of whether compensation meets this criterion is whether there are a sufficient number of qualified applicants for advertised job openings.



Principle No. 2 – Fairness: The Board may strive to ensure its compensation
program is fair and equitable from all legitimate perspectives, including the perspectives of the community, labor and management. The District may choose to survey public and private employers to evaluate the appropriateness and fairness of its compensation program. The Board is directly accountable to the District's constituents, and the Board accordingly retains the discretion to determine the fairness of all compensation programs.



Principle No. 3 – Transparency: Compensation for all District employees should be 100% transparent – i.e., the public should be able to see all pay elements, including the cost of all health, pension and welfare benefits, applicable to each employee. District pay packages should be simple and easily understood. Safeguards must be in place to prevent abuses such as pension spiking and maximizing overtime through manipulation.



Principle No. 4 – Fiscal Sustainability: All compensation commitments must be made consistent with principles of fiscal sustainability and to ensure the District's long term success in achieving its mission. Compensation adjustments must not compromise the District's ability to successfully meet its ongoing and future financial commitments. The Board may observe its Labor Relations Policy and Plan.



Principle No. 5 – Accountability: All compensation commitments must be expressly delineated and are subject to formal approval by the Board of Directors. The Board will not abide "implied" or unwritten contracts, or unspecified "past practices," that purport to require employee compensation.



Principle No. 6 – Performance Based Pay: Whenever reasonably possible, compensation may be tied to merit and performance. The District may not permit pay increases based merely on the length of employment.


Principle No. 7 – Economic Climate: The District may consider the overall economic climate and condition affecting the District and its constituents when setting compensation levels, including regional economic indicators such as the rate of unemployment, inflation, current and projected revenues, and the District's anticipated ability to pay in the long term.



Principle No. 8 – Legal Compliance: The District will ensure that its pay practices comport with the Fair Labor Standards Act and, to the extent legally applicable, State law. The District renews its commitment to negotiate in good faith with labor pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act ("MMBA"), and to abide by all requirements of the MMBA.



Principle No. 9 – Flexibility: The District may strive to remain flexible and innovative in light of changing conditions and improving technologies, and may continually re-evaluate its pay practices to ensure they are consistent with best practices.

*********

Here is the status of the Fire District's efforts to reach a new agreement with the firefighters"

"The Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) and the Menlo Park Firefighters Association, District 10 of I.A.F.F., Local 2400 are working together as partners to make positive changes and improvements which will benefit the firefighters, the District and the Community that we serve. With that commitment in mind, the District has developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a starting point to return to the bargaining table. As part of the Fire Board's transparency policy to the community and their employee's , this draft MOU is posted to our website to assure that everyone is aware of the District's starting position for the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment on which the District would like to reach agreement.

The draft MOU, includes the current hourly pay rates, supplemental earnings, medical benefits, and cash allocation plan, annual leave requirements and hours, treatment of bereavement, unpaid and other leaves, insurance, retirement, grievance procedures and union issues. The Menlo Park Firefighters Association has declined to return to the bargaining table."

**************************

Absent a new agreement the firefighters continue to average more than $135,000/year in salary plus benefits and a very expensive pension plan that allows retirement as early as age 50 with 90% of their last years' salary.

Every time a new opening is announced the District receives more than 100 applicants - hardly an indication that the firefighters are underpaid.



Would you propose to change these policies or the Board's position on negotiations?


Posted by Menlo Dad, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 am

Kirsten Keith's endorsement carries alot of weight with me. It looks like she has enthusiastcally endorsed Nelson and Clarke. They both seem like nice reasonable people. I am confused why all the "pension reform" minded people in town aren't also supporting who Ms. Keith has endorsed. Hasn't she been the leader on pension reform and compensation issues in our City? She has always been reasonable in the past. I am voting with Kirsten.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:39 am

No one cares about Kirsten Keith's opinion. She has a self-inflated ego and thinks she has more influence than she really does. As stated earlier in the Daily Post, her husband John Woodell, is working on Clarke's campaign. Of course, she is going to endorse the candidate who her husband is working for. I bet that would be the same for Nelson. He just hasn't made this admission publicly.

The fact that Keith is endorsing a candidate her husband is working for creates a conflict, in my mind. This conflict alone would make me question the integrity of her endorsement of any candidate, not just these two. I question her integrity because you have wonder if she's always looking out for herself in some way, such as a quid pro quo agreement for higher office or having her face on a mailer for more publicity. Her endorsement carries no weight with me. In fact, her endorsement does the opposite for me and makes me not want to vote for anyone she is supporting, unless there are others who are much more credible who are also supporting a candidate. Silano, Clarke and Nelson's only endorsement from the fire board, would not fit that bill. Keith and Silano endorsements? No go for me.

Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson!


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:43 am

Menlo Dad:

"nice and reasonable people..." I'm sure Clarke and Nelson are such. But are they qualified to be on fire board? Sorry, "nice and reasonable" are not the only qualifications I look for in a candidate. Knowing the issues, especially for an incumbent, is what really matters. Neither of the candidates you support know the issues as seen in the LWV candidate's forum and Nelson's disastrous chairing of the board meeting that was mentioned in yesterday's Daily Post.


Posted by Menlo Dad, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 16, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Couldn't Ms. Keith's husband be working on Ms. Clarke's campaign, because like Ms. Keith, he believes she is the best candidate. It's pretty sexist to suppose Ms. Keith does what her husband tells her to do.

Your just throwing stones because you want your candidates to win. But Kirsten Keith has proven herself to be a leader in this community. Casting dispersions on her because of her endorsements just makes you look bad. There is no reason to doubt the integrity of her endorsements. She is a leader on compensation and union relations issues.

Mr. Nelson has served on the Fireboard for a while. Because of one meeting he should be removed? That's silly.
I trust Jack Nelson and Carolyn Clarke are fit to serve based on the strength of their endorsements.


Posted by NOT A CONTROL FREAK, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm

I have read all the comments about Ms. Clarke, and it appears to me that the issue here is not whether Ms. Clarke is an excellent choice for the MP Fire District Board...but the desire of a few to maintain the "illusion" of their control, while making it clear that "those on the East Side are not fit to be an elected official in Menlo Park."

I have known of Ms. Clarke and her activities in this community for the past 15 years. No matter what challenges she faces...she always lands on her feet! She is smart and resourceful, and she is a winner! Vote for CLARKE and NELSON!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

""those on the East Side are not fit to be an elected official in Menlo Park."

No one has made such a ridiculous statement and suggesting that someone has could only be posted by an individual who had to do so anonymously.

The Fire District takes pride in providing exactly the same level of service to every resident and business in the District. And the District is currently investing $10 million to build a substantially larger station in EPA including one of the best communication towers in the Bay Area.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Somebody's always got to turn it into a "class warfare" thing.

Clarke is clearly not qualified as demonstrated by her performance. In addition, she is backed ("indirectly" - yeah right) by the firefighters union. She is also endorsed by some of the corrupt county politicians that unfortunately "represent" us on the board of supervisors. I'll take anyone without those endorsements any day of the week. The fact that Carpenter, Bernstein and Ianson are eminently qualified and will represent the voters and not the firefighters union is just icing on the cake.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm

Menlo Dad: You're correct. Endorsements speak for themselves. I trust the endorsements of the majority of the board, who have worked with Jack Nelson and have probably talked with Carolyn Clarke. The majority of the board have endorsed Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson. Those endorsements speak for themselves and speak to the strength of these three qualified candidates.

Also, please quit talking about Keith. This is not her race! Hers is next year when she has to run for re-election to the MP City Council. Please stick with the fire board. I know it's hard because Keith is always looking at the next election and/or office, but we're in 2013, and thankfully, she is not a candidate!

Menlo Voter: Bravo for your comment! Any election should be focused on qualifications- not race or where you live. "Not a control freak" is dead wrong. Clarke is not qualified whatsoever to be in elected office, especially on what I saw at the LWV candidate's forum.

Many of my friends from Belle Haven know Clarke's true track record- that of not showing up to meetings, being late to meetings, playing the victim/martyr, looking for handouts. If this is her reputation in her own community, that is not a good sign!

Bottom line for me is that people should be qualified for an office, and after attending the LWV candidate's forum, Clarke convinced me that she was NOT in any way qualified to be on the fire board or in any elected office.

Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson!


Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

As Co-Chairman of Menlo Park Pension Reform Group (Citizens for Responsible Pension Reform). I want to make clear that I am endorsing Chuck Bernstein, Peter Carpenter & Rex Ianson for The Menlo Park Fire Protection Board.

They are the most qualified candidates to continue the work of The District.

We are lucky such fine candidates are willing to help us lead this important safety function for our citizens.

I urge you all to vote for these three candidates.

Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter & Ianson

Thanks
Roy Thiele-Sardiña


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 17, 2013 at 12:58 am

Thank you, Mr. Thiele-Sardina! I believe your co-chair, Henry Riggs, has also endorsed Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson. Your two endorsements really speak volumes!

Also, below is an email from former MP Mayor Lee Duboc supporting Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson. You may not always agree with Duboc, but she is right on with her endorsement of Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson:

Vote Bernstein, Ianson and Carpenter for Fire District

Fellow Residents

We now have our absentee ballots, and as the campaign for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District unfolds, I am all the more convinced that Chuck Bernstein, Peter Carpenter and Rex Ianson [nos. 415 on the ballot] are the right candidates to fill the three spots. My initial email to you on the Fire District Elections is reprinted below. It contains facts about the Candidates, the District, fire-fighter salaries and pensions.

I am disturbed about 2 events that have emerged since that email.
1. I am especially disturbed (in fact angered) by the campaign of Fire District Candidate Clarke. Firstly, she states in two fliers (one of which she paid for and one was paid for by the Fire –Fighter Union) that she is a "Member, California Society of Public Accountants." I was deceived into thinking she was a CPA. But as the Daily Post revealed Friday, and the Merc on Saturday, she is not.
Worse, she is not even a Member of CalCPA as flatly stated. The term "Member" is clearly confined to certified CPAs. She is at most a Student or Associate Member because she did not pass all the CPA exams. Why the need to misrepresent herself?

2. I am also disturbed by the recent CalPERS announcement which signals that even more contributions will be required than those steep hikes already imposed on the District. I am glad CalPERS is coming clean, but the fiscal stress on the Fire District (and our City) must be confronted starting right now. I believe that Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson-- the 3 candidates not supported by the Union-- are the best candidates to deal with that.

It is difficult to boil issues into a short message. Please email me If you want a scanned copy of the Clarke flier, or if you want links to the Post and Merc articles, or if you want campaign signs for Bernstein, Ianson, and Carpenter. And please don't forget to vote.

Thanks, Lee Duboc (menlofuture@gmail.com)

(First email below)

Why Should We Care About Elections to our Fire Board?

Fellow Residents,

On November 5, we will elect 3 Directors to the 5 member Fire Board of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. The Fire Board controls District policy, much like a City Council does.

Let me say upfront that I am supporting:
•Incumbent Rex Ianson, who has steadfastly held a fiscally responsible line;
•Chuck Bernstein who has created and managed budgets for private and public organizations; and
•Peter Carpenter who served on the Fire Board until 2009. Carpenter felt compelled to run again this year because he feared that, unless non-union supported candidates won the election, the Board would accede to excessive union demands for salary increases, and threaten the fiscal integrity of the District.

We all value the protection that our District's firefighters provide as they are the first responders to medical emergencies (more than 60% of their calls) and to fires (less than 5% of their calls). And we pay them very well for these crucial services:

Members of the Firefighter Union in Menlo Park earned upwards of $140,000 in 2012. That average excludes management pay. It also excludes the health and pension benefits fire fighters receive. And with a workweek of 48 consecutive hours on the job and 96 consecutive hours off—firefighters can work extra jobs and live far from their stations.

The fact that there are over 300 qualified applicants for every fire fighter opening in our District, demonstrates that fire fighter retention is not a problem .

I will be writing more about the issues as the campaign unfolds, but I know that pension contributions by our District are scheduled to increase by several million dollars and if salaries increase, pension costs (which are based on salaries) will rise even more. And I know that 16 to 18% of our property taxes go to the District now.

Please let me know your thoughts on this important election, so I may be informed as the campaign proceeds.

Thanks, Lee Duboc (menlofuture@gmail.com)


Posted by NOT A CONTROL FREAK, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 17, 2013 at 1:36 am

To: Vote Bernstein, Carpenter and Ianson

Clearly you do not know anything about membership of the CA CPA Society...you are easily angered and that in itself tells all about the type of person you are...how you were .)ever Mayor is amazing! You just made a statement about Ms. Clarke that is so wrong...she does not need to misrepresent herself. (Portion removed.)


Posted by SENSIBLE PERSON, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 17, 2013 at 1:40 am

The things that we value are revealed in the choices we make and to what we give our time, money, and effort.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 17, 2013 at 7:33 am

Yes, "Sensible Person," you're right. And, "Not a Control Freak" really doesn't care about ethics and integrity of who represents the public in elected office as the public should.

"Not a Control Freak": I was never "Mayor" as you allege. I posted information so that residents who do not get a chance to read Lee Duboc's email can do so.

I also wonder how Kirsten Keith was ever "Mayor" (a rotated position in MP) because of the slightly misleading descriptions "Menlo Dad" (who is probably her husband) who thinks she was a "pension reform leader." Clearly that is not the case because every fire board candidate she has endorsed (Silano, Nelson, Clarke) have been paid off by the union. Thank goodness Sardina clarified that an actual pension reform leader, himself, does not support Clarke and Nelson. He is a real pension reform leader, not Keith. Keith just talks out of both sides of her mouth.

I guess, you don't care about misleading statements, which is why you're supporting Clarke and Nelson. However, voters are much smarter than you think.


Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community
on Oct 17, 2013 at 8:43 am

@NotaCOntrolFreak. I just looked up CalCPA's membership requirements on their web site. Rather than just drinking the kool aid, I suggest you do the same. They have multiple types/levels of membership depending on how much money you want to spend in annual dues. The range is from $499 down to free. I'm not a CPA, but for $100 I, too, can be a member of CalCPA. Brings to my mind the old line, I think by WC Field's but not sure, "I would never want to join a club that would have me as a member". The message, initials after ones name do not always indicate a level of competency.


Posted by Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, Ianson, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 17, 2013 at 11:26 am

WhoRUpeople: Thanks for the information! Very interesting!

This election isn't even really about professional designations. This election is about competency and qualifications. After the candidate's forum, there's no doubt that Clarke is not qualified to serve on the fire board or any elected office. After the Daily Post's article, I don't think Nelson is either.

For Clarke, her lack of qualifications plus her misleading campaign literature will be a disaster on the fire board.

Vote for Bernstein, Carpenter, and Ianson!


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Video of this forum has now been posted:

Web Link

And here are the individual candidate's Smart Voter posting:

Web Link

Watch the first and read all of the parts of the second and you will be in a good position to cast an informed vote.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,233 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 36 comments | 1,706 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,026 views

Life, Death and Rails
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 803 views

Live! Menlo Park’s New Website
By Erin Glanville | 9 comments | 703 views