http://almanacnews.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=6956


Town Square

Will Atherton say 'yea' to Willie Mays Way?

Original post made on Feb 3, 2012

With the backing of most residents of the street, a local Little League leader wants the town of Atherton to rename Mount Vernon Lane to Willie Mays Way, after one of the street's most famous residents.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 3, 2012, 9:10 AM

Comments

Posted by Robert D., a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Feb 3, 2012 at 9:28 am

Sean
That is great news. I have talked with Willie Mays several times dating back to the mid 1980's and he is a great person even if he never played baseball. I for one appreciate your effort and hope this gets approved.


Posted by Kathy Schrenk, a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 3, 2012 at 1:47 pm

Seems like a no-brainer to me.


Posted by Another conflict of interest, a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Another big conflict of interest for Jerry Carlson who also lives on Mt Vernon Lane. He must recuse himself from this as he should have done for High Speed rail.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"He must recuse himself from this as he should have done for High Speed rail."

Wrong. The FPPC was asked to make a ruling in this matter and Carlson and others who lived near but not on to the HSR corridor were determined to not have a conflict of interest.


Posted by Another conflict of interest, a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Are you sure about that Peter, or did you mean to say Wynn Furth was asked to make a ruling? (And, not surprisingly, she exonerated Carlson as she did Lewis and Marsala). I don't believe the FPPC ever ruled on Carlson's alleged conflict.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

It is my recollection that the FPPC did issue a ruling defining the "public generally" in small jurisdictions as it applied to HSR issues. This ruling covered, but was not specifically addressed to, Carlson based on the details of Atherton's population and the location of his residence.


Posted by Another conflict of interest, a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Thank you for confirming that the FPPC never exonerated Carlson for participating in HSR. Wynn Furth, the former city attorney used her (in my opinion, tortured) interpretation of FPPC rules to exonerate Carlson. Since Carlson and the other two council members exonerated by Furth (Lewis and Marsala) controlled Furth's evaluations and $800,000 legal budget (some of which flowed directly to her pocket as the law partner managing the Atherton account), my personal opinion is that Furth's analysis is not an unbiased examination of Carlson's possible conflict.

Of course, if the regulation were only homes that directly abutted the HSR corridor had conflicts of interest (which defies common sense; clearly homes several houses down from the corridor will have their value adversely affected in a significant way), this does not explain the presence of Jerry Carlson's ally, Jim Janz, a former Atherton council member, on the Atherton HSR committee, as his home does directly abut the proposed HSR corridor.

Either way, there are very troubling signs that this HSR issue has not been managed in a proper, conflict-free way. I hope the same does not apply to "Willy Mays Way".


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Thank you for confirming that the FPPC never exonerated Carlson for participating in HSR."

That is NOT what I said - It is my recollection that the FPPC did issue a ruling defining the "public generally" in small jurisdictions as it applied to HSR issues. This ruling covered, but was not specifically addressed to, Carlson based on the details of Atherton's population and the location of his residence.

" there are very troubling signs that this HSR issue has not been managed in a proper, conflict-free way"

If you feel that way then please file a complaint with the FPPC:

II. Filing a Complaint

A. Sworn Complaint

The law provides that if you suspect a violation of the Act you may file a sworn complaint with the FPPC (Gov. Code Sec. 83115).

The Act and FPPC Regulations provide that a sworn complaint filed with the FPPC entitles the complainant to certain rights and processes, described below. A sworn complaint must comply with certain requirements. Using the complaint form and providing as detailed information as possible will assist the FPPC in processing your complaint. At a minimum, you must do all of the following:

1. Submit your complaint in writing.

2. Sign the complaint under penalty of perjury.

3. Identify the person(s) who allegedly violated the Act and list the specific provisions the person(s) violated.

4. Describe with particularity the facts constituting the alleged violation and provide any evidence to support the complaint.

5. Include names and addresses of witnesses, if known.

The FPPC may only act on complaints alleging violations within its jurisdiction. In order for us to process your complaint, all of the pertinent information the form asks of the complainant must appear on the form, not as an attachment. The complaint must state a specific violation of the act including the date on which it occurred, and must also state how you have personal knowledge of the violation. It may be helpful to contact our Enforcement Division prior to filing a complaint to determine whether the activity presents an issue on which the FPPC has jurisdiction to act. For immediate assistance from the Enforcement Division, call 916-322-5660 or toll free at 866-ASK-FPPC.