The defence of Kelly Fergusson by Heyward Robinson
Original post made by oldtimer, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park, on Sep 20, 2012
A recent letter from Ed Moritz purports to provide "facts" about Menlo Park Councilmember Kelly Fergusson, even suggesting that Ms. Fergusson's punch was spiked. Given the large number of falsehoods in his letter, Mr. Moritz appears to be the one who's imbibing "strange ingredients". Consider:
* a FALSE claim that 35-40% of Ms. Fergusson's 2008 election contributions were from unions. Most came from individuals; less than 10% were from unions.
* a FABRICATED claim that Ms. Fergusson supported an employee salary increase that was outside of "normal" labor negotiations. The city strictly follows national and state laws in conducting labor negotiations and there have been no increases outside of "normal" negotiations.
* a FALSE claim that Ms. Fergusson opposed placing the pension reform measure on the ballot. In May of 2010, the Council unanimously voted to put Measure L on the ballot. * a FALSE claim that Ms. Fergusson traveled to Washington to seek funding for HSR. Ms. Fergusson's trip, in her role as a member of the Council sub-committee on HSR, was to reinforce the City's lobbying efforts against the proposed four track, elevated design. As an elected official himself, Mr. Moritz should appreciate the added impact when elected officials are directly involved in lobbying.
* a MISLEADING claim that Ms. Fergusson had a conflict of interest between her job at Siemens work for the City. Ms. Fergusson received an FPPC opinion that there is no conflict.
It took me less than an hour to verify these facts. Mr. Moritz's letter thus receives five Pinocchios and a Pants On Fire rating. Let's hope his fact checking improves in future letters."
I don't care to endorse Moritz's comments, but Heyward's defense of Kelly has its own "Pinocchios". As a former supporter I can only say NO MORE.
Kelly was one of the strongest proponents for raising the pension benefits of the staff. From this she cannot escape. Although she may not have voted against putting Measure L on the ballot, she was certainly against Measure L. She headed up the campaign to have it defeated. Fortunately almost 80% of the voters disagreed.
She then got caught in a Brown act violation, and seeking to polish up her images, she, without approval from council tried to piggy-back on a trip to DC, dealing with High Speed Rail. She could and should have just had a local conversation with Anna Eshoo, saved her time and money. She accomplilshed nothing.
Although she is not currently in a conflict with her job at Siemens, Siemens will no doubt shorty be pursuing contracts for High Speed Rail; at that time a conflict most likely will occur.
Her 2 terms on council have led many of her former supporters to abandon her. The fiasco with the Park Theater. Her entering into lone negotiations with David Bohannon on his project and claiming a big victory --- what a joke. I voted for her twice before. It won't happen this time.
Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 15 comments | 1,385 views