|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 7:49 PM
Six candidates welcome fire district challenges
Three seats open in November race, with only one incumbent running
|
|
by Renee Batti
Almanac Staff
Labor talks are stalled, firefighters are working without a contract, morale is low, and financial concerns are causing capital improvement projects and other spending to be put on hold in the Menlo Park Fire Protection District.
So why would anyone want to join the district's governing board at times like this?
The six candidates for three seats on the board say they're willing and eager to tackle these issues and to work to put the district on solid financial and operational ground in the long term.
With incumbents Peter Carpenter and Ollie Brown not seeking re-election, former district firefighter Rex Ianson is the only incumbent running. The other candidates are James Harris, Jon Mosby, Stephen Nachtsheim, Jack Nelson, and Robert Silano.
What follows are summaries of each candidate's responses to questions posed by The Almanac. Biographical information about the candidates' professional and civic experience can be found in the profiles following the main article. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order.
James M. Harris
Mr. Harris has worked as the CEO of several companies and a director of several large organizations at National Semiconductor. His leadership and operating experience as a businessman give him the tools he needs to be an effective governing board member, he says.
His goals as a board member would include helping to put in place "a financially sustainable budget process," he says. It is clear, he says, "that the present revenue level will not cover the projected expenses if the rate of expense increase is not reduced."
Mr. Harris says reining in employee costs "is the primary reason I am a candidate." The method of setting district salaries using comparisons of salaries in other fire agencies in the area, he says, "is the reason we're spiraling out of control" and must be altered if costs are to be contained.
The district board recently came out in support of consolidation of services with other fire agencies to save on staffing, equipment and facilities costs, and bolster purchasing power. Mr. Harris says that all cost-cutting methods need to be looked at, but that consolidation "only makes sense if it brings about sustained financial savings" -- an unresolved question in his mind.
Mr. Harris notes that the function of the district is changing, judging by statistics indicating that an increasing number of fire calls are for medical emergencies, and firefighters are responding to fewer fires. This shift is something the district needs to study and plan for, he says. The board "needs to think about what (the district) is going to look like" in five or 10 years.
Rexford Ianson
Mr. Ianson cites his institutional knowledge as both a board member and firefighter as one reason voters should return him to the board for a second term.
Other reasons, he says, are his determination to help the district stay the course on sound budget priorities and maintaining a healthy reserve, and his commitment to the community. "My number-one priority is to maintain the same level of emergency response and service to the community," he says.
With the district and firefighters at an impasse in labor negotiations, the next board will have to focus on improving employee relationships, he says, but it will also have to address rising employee costs. Options include: considering part-time staff positions or contracting for some services; looking at alternative retirement benefit options; and rethinking "the way we pick comparables (with other fire agencies) for wages/benefits, look(ing) at total compensation, not just salaries."
The board has already frozen some six or seven staff positions, he notes.
Mr. Ianson supports consolidation of services with other fire agencies to make the services more cost-effective, but notes that "it can't be done overnight."
Mr. Ianson supported board measures to slow spending, including scaling back plans to replace two aging fire stations and upgrade another. The district is moving ahead, however, with the planning phases of the upgrades so that the projects will be "shovel ready if applied-for grants become available," he says.
Noting that future district revenues at the current rate are in doubt, Mr. Ianson says he has supported a conservative approach to spending during his tenure. "At present, the budget is on target and reserves are sufficient to carry the fire district through the dry funding period."
Jon N. Mosby
Mr. Mosby's interest and expertise in community emergency preparedness programs demonstrate his commitment to community service, he says, and give him solid understanding of an important fire district function: preparing and training residents to care for themselves and their neighbors in the event of a disaster.
He is a long-term volunteer with CERT -- the district's volunteer community emergency response team -- and before that, he volunteered with similar programs in the county.
Mr. Mosby acknowledges that his disaster preparedness expertise far exceeds his knowledge of the district's budget. "I was encouraged to run for the board right before the (filing period) cutoff," he explains, adding, "I'm late getting started."
Now, he's studying up, and was planning to meet with outgoing board member Peter Carpenter, a member of the board's finance committee, earlier this month for a crash course on the district's financial picture and employee costs, he says.
In general, though, Mr. Mosby says the board "needs to look at and think about almost any innovative idea that may improve the district, lower costs, and/or improve morale and safety."
Mr. Mosby is one of three board candidates endorsed by the firefighters' union -- at a time labor talks have stalled and firefighters are working without a contract, leading to heated exchanges and a complaint filed with the state.
Mr. Mosby says the endorsement will not affect his actions if he is elected to the board. He says he needs to learn more about how far apart the two parties are, but adds that he wants to hear from both sides "so that I have the best understanding possible."
Stephen Nachtsheim
Mr. Nachtsheim says his years as a CERT volunteer and involvement in organizing the Walsh Road neighborhood in Atherton to be prepared to evacuate during an emergency "caused me to learn about the breadth of services provided by the fire district.
"It also caused me to understand some of the areas for further focus in the ... district such as financial planning, strategic plan development and community outreach, especially in the disaster preparedness arena."
His experience on boards, in business -- he's chairman of the board of a Fortune 1000 company -- and in the community gives him "the knowledge base that can help the district in these areas," he says.
In the next four years, the board must maintain the fiscal soundness of the district "while continuing the excellent levels of services," he says.
Other issues include outreach and cooperation with communities and other agencies to achieve common goals, such as disaster preparedness, in times of tight budgets, and exploring cooperative efforts with other emergency service agencies to improve service and control expenses, he says.
Employee costs are a concern, he says. The district must "avoid long-term expense commitments until the future revenue picture is clearer," he says. The board should review the district's hiring and compensation comparison practices, and should look at private sector comparisons for non-safety jobs, he adds.
In general, he says, the district should "look at every opportunity to cut costs" to address the short-term problems caused by the state's borrowing from local agencies, and by rising CalPERS retirement costs; and the "potential longer-term problem that may be caused by reduced property tax revenues."
Jack Nelson
Mr. Nelson ran for a seat on the board four years ago - along with eight other candidates. He's a longtime volunteer CERT team leader, and trains CERT trainers. And, he proudly states, he has attended fire board meetings for some eight years, making him "more than aware of the current issues and future challenges facing our district."
Acknowledging the rising costs of employee compensation, Mr. Nelson says the district must offer "contracts that are and will be financially sustainable for now and in the future." With some public agencies adopting a two-tiered compensation program, with new hires receiving less in pension and other post-retirement benefits, Mr. Nelson says the district should look at such options, but he doesn't think a two-tiered system will be adopted in the next contract. "It could be an item of negotiations next time," he says.
Mr. Nelson is one of three candidates receiving endorsements from the firefighters' union. Although the district and the union are at impasse in negotiations, he says the endorsement won't make him feel obligated to favor union demands in contract talks.
"I told them (during the endorsement interview), we need to go forward ... and I'm willing to listen," he says. "Both sides are going to have to show good faith."
After the election, the majority of the board could be newcomers "with open minds and open hearts," he adds.
Regarding the district's general financial situation, he says the board was right to slow spending, and "should do everything in its power to closely monitor projected revenues, maintain reserves and eliminate untimely spending, putting larger expenditures on hold until revenues become more predictable."
Robert J. Silano
Mr. Silano says a prime motivation for his board candidacy is a desire to "contribute to a mutually agreeable solution" to the contract stalemate. "Continuing to operate without a contract not only risks losing valuable members of the fire service and employees of the department, it will be very costly in the end."
Solutions to rising employee costs could include a two-tier retirement system, trimming the top management level and combining some management tasks, and establishing some district positions as "civilian" instead of emergency worker, he says.
"One sure method of controlling unpredictable escalating costs in the future is to find common ground in order to reach a fair and balanced contract with the union," he adds.
Mr. Silano's endorsement by the firefighters' union shouldn't be viewed as a conflict, he says, even though labor talks are stalled. During the endorsement interview, "I told them I wasn't going to be a rubber stamp for them," Mr. Silano told The Almanac.
Mr. Silano's experience in government service, primarily as a special agent with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, has given him "an expertise in operational, budgetary, labor and personnel issues," he says.
Issues the board will have to address in the next four years, in addition to labor negotiations, include controlling costs "in order to maintain our current level of services," and community protections. For the latter, Mr. Silano says the board "must prepare an evaluation of the personnel and equipment needs of the fire district, review all personnel files of all district personnel, and establish a requirement for the installation of sprinklers for all new construction and remodels within the district."
Brief biographies of the candidates
James Harris
Residence: Menlo Park
Profession: Businessman
Community/Civic experience: I vote in every election
Age: 67
Rex Ianson
Residence: Menlo Park
Profession: Incumbent, retired firefighter
Community/Civic experience: Member, Menlo Park Fire Protection District board of directors; active in Nativity School, Christmas toy drive, VA hospital support, Christmas in April.
Age: 68
Jon Mosby
Residence: Menlo Park
Profession: Retired electronic engineer and administrator
Community/Civic experience: Over 20 years as a volunteer instructor of emergency preparedness to San Mateo County nonprofit agencies, organizations and the general public; volunteer, CERT program -- the district's volunteer community emergency response team.
Age: 68
Stephen Nachtsheim
Residence: Atherton
Profession: Chairman of the board, Deluxe Corp., St. Paul, Minnesota
Community/Civic experience: Volunteer, CERT program -- the district's volunteer community emergency response team; board of directors, Cinequest San Jose Film Festival; Walsh Road Disaster Recovery Group; Atherton Yes on W Campaign; Habitat for Humanity volunteer; coach, various girls sports teams, 2004-07; referee, AYSO soccer, 2003-06.
Age: 64
Jack Nelson
Residence: Menlo Park
Profession: Logistics and corporate safety
Community/Civic experience: Team leader, CERT program -- the district's volunteer community emergency response team; member, CERT team "Train the Trainer" program.
Age: 64
Rob Silano
Residence: Menlo Park
Profession: Chief, Threat Intelligence; security consultant; retired special agent, U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.
Community/Civic experience: Parks and Recreation commissioner, Menlo Park, 2000-04; former vestry member, senior warden, Holy Trinity Church, Menlo Park; Habitat for Humanity volunteer; former coach, Menlo-Atherton Little League, AYSO soccer; former board member, AYSO.
Age: 57
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Atherton Dems, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm Last night the Atherton Dems had the 4 Fire Board candidates speak.
A mixed bag. Two of the candidates did not come, Harris & Nachtsheim, obviously we weren't important enough for them, and no one was sick! Mosby had nothing to contribute, why run ? Ianson was factual, but not exciting, Silano had to read from his script, you would think by now he would know his subject matter by heart! Nelson was the better speaker, he was interesting, to the point but we feel he should have talked longer, in relation to the other candidates. We got the feeling he had much more relavent information to contribute but didn't..Why ?? Maybe he needs more practice. Good luck to all of you who attended and we hope it was time well spent, as we are group of better informed voters now. Thank You
|
|
Posted by Should have checked, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm To the Atherton Dames -- Mr. Nachtsheim was out of town on business and therefore unable to attend.
|
|
Posted by Candidate Silano, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2009 at 7:12 am Atherton Resident: Call me so we can discuss the issues of this race. I thought I was very clear as to my positions and answering many fielded questions. If I was off the point, let's discuss............Thanks for you attending the event, an informed citizen is most important. These town hall meetings are right on..........Come to the ZOE Cafe, I will be there as I have been to all public events to include all of the union ones. Even though 3 of the candidates felt it was not important??Maybe that's why I have both the fire fighters and San Mateo County Labor Council endorsements.......I will listen to everyone, Regards, Rob
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2009 at 10:14 pm [Post removed; off-topic, baseless accusations; see terms of use]
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:48 am Posters beware anything that is posted directly at Peter Carpenter will be erased. Also in the town square forum you can look back at postings over two years ago and still post a comment if you so desire. Unfortunately as soon as Peter Carpenter is corrected on his "facts" the Almanac shuts down the discussion. The article titled "Fire board member decries union ads" has now been locked and is only 9 days old with 67 comments. Apparently Mr. Carpenter can control the local media. That is scary whatever side you are on. So please don't make the Almanac the only place you get the "facts".
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm Gunshow...Never forget that those that own the paper decide what will be published.Yes, even on a so called "Town Forum". It is clear that any opinion the Almanac Publishers deem "off topic or baseless accusations" will not be allowed to see the light of day on this forum. I guess the Almanac Publishers feel we are all too stupid to decide for ourselves whether posts to this forum are either. Its ironic given the screeching howls by newspapers about censorship. Gunshow, you are correct, the Almanac has indeed removed comments about Peter Carpenter that Peter Carpenter might find difficult to respond to. It was Peter Carpenter who made suggestive claims that candidates for the MPFPD were conducting themselves in an illegal manner. It was Peter Carpenter who finally acknowledged his claims were baseless. It was Peter Carpenter, who being held to a reasonable standard decided he would no longer participate in the discussion.
I have no doubt this post will not last long, but Mr. Gibbony, you had better think long and hard about what you think your role is in publishing a local newspaper. Your role is NOT to suppress opinions you do not agree with. Nor is it to sublimate yourself to the current "illiterati". Either have a public forum or don't. But under no circumstances should you claim to provide a public forum and then censor those who participate.
As I said, I doubt this post will last very long.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm Interested ( whoever that might be?) stated:
"It was Peter Carpenter who made suggestive claims that candidates for the MPFPD were conducting themselves in an illegal manner. It was Peter Carpenter who finally acknowledged his claims were baseless. It was Peter Carpenter, who being held to a reasonable standard decided he would no longer participate in the discussion."
Interested is simply wrong on all three matters.
The fact is that the ONLY accusation I made was the one reported in the original article - That the union had misrepresented itself as speaking for ALL of the firefighters, which it clearly does not.
I then asked a series of pointed questions (but did not make a single accusation) that Interested incorrectly interpreted and repeatedly characterized as 'claims'. Fortunately, repetition does not make a false characterization true in spite of Interested's efforts.
I specifically stated that all of the individuals involved were 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I specifically stated that I did not have any answers to the questions which I had asked.
And I decided to drop out of the discussion because there were no other discussants bringing new facts or information to the table.
It is disappointing that some anonymous posters prefer to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the subject matter of the thread being discussed - as the Forum rules state " 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."
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:03 am [Deleted. Discuss the topic, not other posters.]
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:44 am This is what the current Fire Board should do rather than simply passing this mess on to the next Board:
"Palo Alto's largest labor union will face reduced health care and pension benefits after the City Council voted Monday night to impose unilaterally what the city called its "last, best and final offer" to more than 600 city employees.
Despite pleas, jeers and criticism from the roughly 100 members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) who attended the emotional meeting, the council voted 7-1 -- with Yiaway Yeh dissenting and Sid Espinosa absent -- to impose the city's proposal.
City officials estimate the plan will save about $2.55 million in the current fiscal year, less than the $3 million the city set as its reduction goal from the negotiations as part of an overall reduction target of $10 million from efficiencies and deferred projects as well.
The city's move comes after five months of tense negotiations, which concluded last week with the city declaring an impasse."
So declare an impasse and unilaterally impose the District's last offer for 2009/2010 and then let the new Board start over with fresh negotiations on a new follow on agreement for 2011.
|
|
Posted by Candiate Silano, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:29 pm Dear Editor,
As a candidate that The Almanac chose not to endorse, I wish to address some errors in your endorsement article, as well as defects in your analysis underlying your endorsement. Your article begins by telling the voters that the “race for three seats on the Menlo Park Fire Protection District board has boiled down to a contest between union-backed candidates and three others who might not favor granting firefighters an 11 percent pay increase over the next three years.”
As I have made clear on more than one occasion, I do not favor an 11 percent pay raise. If you review the debate hosted by the League of Women Voters at www.smartvoter.org, you will see that I suggested a possible starting point for the negotiations tied to the consumer price index of roughly 2% per year.
Your article goes on to state that in your view, “what the district needs now are board members who will take a much harder look at the rising costs of employee compensation, including retirement, and are willing to find ways to save in other areas, like adopting a two-tier retirement system and sharing some staff with nearby fire departments.” If so, then I am the perfect candidate for the district. Retirement changes, including a two -tier system, and other innovative cost-cutting measures including possible consolidation have been the touchstone of my campaign. Moreover, I am the only candidate who has already saved the district over two million dollars by alerting the district to the need to respond to an Environmental Impact Report for proposed development in the district which would place a financial burden on the fire district. It would appear by your own definition; the I am exactly the candidate the district needs.
Our district has needlessly spent almost another two million dollars on attorney’s fees to continue a stalemate between the board and the firefighters union. Our district cannot afford to waste these precious resources over an unwillingness to communicate. It is time to reach a just and economically sustainable resolution. I pledge, as an outsider to this process, to find a workable, fair solution.
It would appear that I fit every criteria for an endorsement from The Almanac except for the fact that I also have the endorsement of the Menlo Park Firefighters Association. It is a shame that The Alamanc views the Menlo Park Firefighters Association endorsement as a reason to withhold its own endorsement of me as a candidate. Let us hope the voters in the district are more open to the one candidate who will value common sense and common ground over such divisiveness.
Sincerely,
Rob Silano
Candidate for Menlo Park Fire Protection Board
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 6:20 pm Dear Editor,
This is obviously a very important election. I have noticed over the last two days several campaign signs have been vandalized and/or stolen. They also seem to only be the Menlo Park Firefighter Support Signs. I live in Suburban Park and noticed that all along bay road signs are placed in the morning and stolen by the end of the day, and in some other neighborhoods they are just being vandalized with a sticker. This has happened the last two days in a row. Someone out their does not want to play fair. I think we may wan't to interview the candidates again and see what they think of this childish game.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:36 pm The firefighters' union is illegally placing their signs on public property.
The City and Town are quite properly removing political signs which have been illegally place on public property.
Complying with the law is not a childish game.
|
|
Posted by Eye witnesses, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:14 pm They tell us that it's not the city or towns....Nor the water department. We are trying to get a description of the vehicles, license tags and the subject(s)descriptions. The thefts of the signs occurred between 3:20PM and 4:00PM.
|
|
Posted by Rob SIlano, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:19 pm Eye witness. Contact me so we can get to the bottom of these thefts. All of the candidates have had signs removed from all areas of the city. I thought it was the city, but if you have any information, let us know ASAP. Thanks
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 6:23 am innocent until proven guilty....
It appears that you are still calling the Menlo Park Firefighters Assoc the "Union". And that is what the vandals are putting on the signs.
1. Do you think the city is having these stickers made too?
2. Are you or do you know who put these stickers on?
3. Since you are so up on the law why aren't the Harris, Ianson and Nachtshiem signs being removed from the end of Marsh road?
4. Have you removed or paid anyone to remove campaign signs?
This is a tight election I hope that you are not tampering with signs being a lame duck board member. Just asking questions I am not accusing you.
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 6:24 am the above was questions for Peter Carpenter
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 7:02 am The firefighters association is a union - DISTRICT 10 OF IAFF LOCAL 2400.
I don't know who made up and put on the union stickers - it was not me.
I have twice complained to the Town of Atherton about ALL of the political signs placed on the public property on the Marsh/Middlefield corridor.
I have never and would not ever remove a political sign from either private or public property (except my own signs the day after my election.)
|
|
Posted by Gunshow, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 6:26 pm Update on Political Sign Mischief.....Day three of sign theft along Bay Road. Signs were placed prior to 8am. Between 4pm and 5pm all signs in support of Nelson, Silano, and Mosby, were ripped to pieces and left on the ground and thrown into bushes. If anyone has seen the person or persons who have done this please contact police. This is vandalism and is considered mischievous conduct and littering.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm I am somewhat disappointed at the actions taken by the Almanac on editing this topic. Before I make my points, I must state that providing a forum such as this is a laudable undertaking and cannot be easy. However, while I did not see the post made by Gunshow, I assume it responded to Mr. Carpenter. To refer to Mr. Carpenter as "Another Poster" is somewhat disingenuous. Mr Carpenter is a current member of the Board of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. He has as much of an agenda as the "Union", although it is clear they are two sides of the same coin.
Mr. Carpenter now claims that he was not suggesting that the endorsed candidates have broken any laws, yet it was Mr. Carpenter who took the time to post the California Government Code that relates to such illegal activity on this very forum.
If Mr. Carpenter has no evidence of illegal activity by these candidates, why cloud the issue with such innuendo?
I very much appreciated Mr. Silano's previous response. I can certainly understand the Firefighters desire to work for people that would rather talk to them than spend a fortune speaking to their lawyers, which is exactly whats been happening under the current administration. Mr. Carpenter cites the stance of the Palo Alto City Council as the way the District should deal with the Union. He may well be right. However, a discerning person might well ask if Mr. Carpenter believes that why has HE as a current Board Member not previously done what they have done?. Its not an unreasonable question.
I believe that to reject the endorsed candidates out of hand simply because the union have endorsed them would be a major mistake. I do not believe those candidates seek anything other than to serve the community (Lord knows its a thankless job) and it is more reasonable than not to believe the endorsement was made only because the firefighters think they can discuss their issues with these.
It is unfortunate that so much space has been wasted discussing the endorsement and innuendo of illegal activity instead of finding out from all of the candidates their stances on the obstacles the Fire District faces. However there is still time. Mr. Gibboney could still have a reporter come up with a list of ten questions related to the Fire District and report them all so that we can all decide for ourselves based on their responses. I hope he will do so. It would truly be a public service.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 5:43 pm Interested ( whoever that might be) from another community (wherever that might be) asks:"Mr. Carpenter cites the stance of the Palo Alto City Council as the way the District should deal with the Union. He may well be right. However, a discerning person might well ask if Mr. Carpenter believes that why has HE as a current Board Member not previously done what they have done?. Its not an unreasonable question."
The answer is that I have asked that the Board declare impasse and impose new contract terms.
Next question ?
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 6:04 am Mr. Carpenter. What does my name, or my naming the part of the city I live in have to do with the issues concerning the fire board !!!. Is there no end to the depths you will sink. If the Almanac did not wish for posters to present their opinions here and remain anonymous if they chose to do so, those options would not be available.
Your efforts to control the discussion with innuendo and smear tactics are truly concerning to me as they should be to all people who rely on members of the community to dedicate their time and energy serving as local officials.
My "next question" is the same as the first. You should read it again. I never asked about what you have "said" nor what you have "talked" about. I asked why you did not DO it. The problems with the negotiation with the union concerning salary and benefits have been going on for years, years Sir that you have served on the Fire Board.
You state that "This is what the current Fire Board should do rather than simply passing this mess on to the next Board". Yet you know as well as I, that to do so will not clean up the mess you are leaving behind you, it will in fact make it much worse.
When I first became involved in this discussion I was as concerned as you are about voting for candidates endorsed by the union. Reading your posts on this matter I am now as much concerned about your role in the impasse the district and the union now find themselves.
And lets NOT forget that our firefighters are not average government employees. They above all public employees (along with our Police Officers) are worthy of our respect. I am constantly reminded that when thousands of people were doing every living thing possible to get out of the World Trade Center, they were doing everything in their power to get in.
Before you tell me that does not entitle our firefighters a "free" ticket", I am not suggesting it should. I am saying it entitles them to our respect. Sufficient respect to sit around a table with them and discuss the issues they present, something you apparently have been unwilling to do. Given your posts on the election issue I can understand their frustration.
Your decision not to run for the Board again was something I originally thought of as a shame. As a result of your posts here, I have concluded it is probably for the best. Perhaps with a new board the firefighters union and the board will be able to resolve the very difficult issues they face.
Ultimately the union will have to accept that a two tier benefit and salary system must be enacted. However getting to an agreement without the input of recalcitrant, ego centric participants will make it much easier.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 6:35 am Interested states:"My "next question" is the same as the first. You should read it again. I never asked about what you have "said" nor what you have "talked" about. I asked why you did not DO it."
My answer was and remains -"I have asked that the Board declare impasse and impose new contract terms."
Any one Board member cannot make a decision without the support of at least two other Board members.
As for sitting at the table with the firefighters please remember that the union has refused to even come to the table for the last 4 months - it is hard to talk to someone who is not there.
Fortunately I have only one more month during which I continue to feel obligated as an elected official to respond to questions from the public - even from anonymous people who may or may not live in the Fire District.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 7:56 am [Post removed; arguing on-topic is welcome, but not attacks on fellow posters]
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 8:02 am It is distressing to see the Town Square degenerate into a diatribe by anonymous persons who do not address the substance of the article which started the thread. Let's keep the Town Square a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.
If you have questions for me about my views or performance as a Fire Board member please simply email me at peterf@menlofire.org and I will respond directly to you so long as I am still a sitting Board member.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 3:35 pm Well I guess the Almanac will remove this post too. I am frankly amazed the Almanac chooses to see Mr Carpenter as just another "poster". He is not. He has a vested interest in this issue to a degree far greater than any ordinary citizen. Shame on the Almanac, but good for Peter Carpenter, he need not respond to difficult questions or statements he finds difficult, they just get deleted. As will this one for being "off topic". You have got to love censorship.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 3:43 pm I have answered every question which has been asked - don't blame me if the answer makes some people so uncomfortable that they choose to ignore the answer.
And I have stated:
If you have questions for me about my views or performance as a Fire Board member please simply email me at peterf@menlofire.org and I will respond directly to you so long as I am still a sitting Board member.
NOW, can we get back on topic:
"Six candidates welcome fire district challenges"
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 4:03 pm No actually you have not answered questions put to you and you do not have to. But I will give it another shot. Why did you post on this forum the Government Code related to illegal election activity by candidates if not to inflame and cloud the issues?
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 4:12 pm Question from Interested:
"Why did you post on this forum the Government Code related to illegal election activity by candidates if not to inflame and cloud the issues? "
Answer: I posted the relevant California Codes so that all concerned would know what are the rules. Catch 22 - if I am aware of the rules and others are not then I would be accused of not informing others about what I know.
Here is my complete posting:
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Here is what the California Government Code says:
3205. (a) An officer or employee of a local agency shall not,
directly or indirectly, solicit a political contribution from an
officer or employee of that agency, or from a person on an employment
list of that agency, with knowledge that the person from whom the
contribution is solicited is an officer or employee of that agency.
(b) A candidate for elective office of a local agency shall not,
directly or indirectly, solicit a political contribution from an
officer or employee of that agency, or from a person on an employment
list of that agency, with knowledge that the person from whom the
contribution is solicited is an officer or employee of that agency.
(c) This section shall not prohibit an officer or employee of a
local agency, or a candidate for elective office in a local agency,
from requesting political contributions from officers or employees of
that agency if the solicitation is part of a solicitation made to a
significant segment of the public which may include officers or
employees of that local agency.
(d) Violation of this section is punishable as a misdemeanor. The
district attorney shall have all authority to prosecute under this
section.
(e) For purposes of this section, the term "contribution" shall
have the same meaning as defined in Section 82015.
3205.5. No one who holds, or who is seeking election or appointment
to, any office shall, directly or indirectly, offer or arrange for
any increase in compensation or salary for an employee of a state or
local agency in exchange for, or a promise of, a contribution or loan
to any committee controlled directly or indirectly by the person who
holds, or who is seeking election or appointment to, an office. A
violation of this section is punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for a period not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding five
thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm You see Mr. Carpenter here is where the Almanac will probably draw a line...and I find it quite disconcerting that your strategy will find public acceptance.....But lets give it a try and lets see if you can give an honest response. The Government Code was NOT posted as a caution to all candidates for the District Board. It was posted in a forum that addressed the question of the three candidates endorsed by the union. Regardless of that, what makes you think ANY candidate for the District Board are so unaware of the law they need your advice.
I think you are aware that I entered this discussion thoroughly agreeing with you that candidates endorsed by the union should be viewed with skepticism and voters would be well served by looking very closely at those candidates.I still hold that view. However, I will state again (and you will be glad to know) for the last time, that I have become far more concerned about your agenda, than that of the firefighters.
I hope the voters will take the time to question your motives as much as they question the unions.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 5:30 pm Interested writes:"I hope the voters will take the time to question your motives as much as they question the unions."
Let me be clear regarding my motive - To do what I can, as a private citizen and with my experience of 8 1/2 years as a Fire Board Director, to ensure that the election of new Directors is done with the fullest possible disclosure and examination of the qualifications of each of the six candidates and without undue influence by the massive financial and manpower expenditures by a union which has a tremendous vested interest in the outcome.
My only personal agenda is that our community has the best possible Fire Board to represent our collective interests.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 5:44 pm Nice one. Like every other politician before you, you select the questions you want to answer. You must have missed this part:
"lets give it a try and lets see if you can give an honest response. The Government Code was NOT posted as a caution to all candidates for the District Board. It was posted in a forum that addressed the question of the three candidates endorsed by the union. Regardless of that, what makes you think ANY candidate for the District Board are so unaware of the law they need your advice."
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 5:53 pm Interested asks:"what makes you think ANY candidate for the District Board are so unaware of the law they need your advice."
I know from personal experience as both a Palo Alto Planning Commissioner and as a two term Director of the Fire District that most candidates for public office are unaware of these section of the California Code.
************
Now can we PLEASE go back on topic for this thread - the issues Interested is raising refer to another closed discussion. It is distressing to see the Town Square degenerate into a diatribe by anonymous persons who do not address the substance of the article which started the thread. Let's keep the Town Square a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.
If you have questions for me about my views or performance as a Fire Board member please simply email me at peterf@menlofire.org and I will respond directly to you so long as I am still a sitting Board member.
|
|
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 6:04 pm You know your really are good at what you do.....again you did not bother to answer the main point...."The Government Code was NOT posted as a caution to all candidates for the District Board. It was posted in a forum that addressed the question of the three candidates endorsed by the union."
I must say that I am very pleased you will no longer be on the board. Dealing with someone like you must have been extremely frustrating. I can at last understand why the district is in the position it now finds itself.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 31, 2009 at 6:15 pm Interested states:"It was posted in a forum that addressed the question of the three candidates endorsed by the union."
Interested is wrong!
In fact that forum thread was an article "Fire board member decries union ads"
My posting was directly related to the article in question.
NOW PLEASE let's stay on the topic of this thread. It is distressing to see the Town Square degenerate into a diatribe by anonymous persons who do not address the substance of the article which started the thread. Let's keep the Town Square a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.
If you have questions for me about my views or performance as a Fire Board member please simply email me at peterf@menlofire.org and I will respond directly to you so long as I am still a sitting Board member.
|
|
Posted by observer, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 11:40 am It is my observation that Mr.Carpenter has a major problem and a basic fear of Unions, and in my observations, just the fact that the Firemans sugested ways to save the Distric various moneys, something that did not came out of management, as it should have, and they (Firemans) made it public, it clearly upset management. Mr. Carpenter could make a statemant that he would give back all retirement monies he is entitled as a good gesture and example to the Distric employees and well being etc... He then would be placing his money where his mouth is and be done with these acusations Mr. Carpenter!
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
