Any one else notice that neither of the library subcommittee members, Kirsten Keith or Rich Cline, are quoted in the article?

Potential brown act violation.

When the library-related meeting is rescheduled, I would like to see a different approach. The cancelled meeting's agenda combined five separate issues into one agenda topic, which limits public input. Instead, each item should have its own agenda topic. I would also like to see agenda topics added to address the following questions:

1) Why do we need a new Main Library? (A new one might be a “nice to have” but why is it a “need to have?”)

2) Why should a new Main Library be MP’s highest spending priority? (With housing on top, and a new Branch Library added, the bond measure could be $100M or more.)

3) How does a new Main Library fit into current Capital Improvement Project priorities? (We want to evaluate these projects as a group and in relation to each other.)

4) The currently approved CIP projects do not include enough financial information, available to the public, to allow us to evaluate our overall CIP obligations. What are those financial obligations? (We also need the obligations for the CIPs on the “futures” list.)

The Main Library project has raised serious concerns as to how we make decisions in MP. After researching the topic, I’ve become convinced that MP would benefit from a community-based strategic planning process. Among other benefits, a strategic plan would reduce the influence of special interests in our decision-making process. So that we can have a healthy discussion on the topic, I hope that others will join me in reading “Elevating Trust in Local Government: The Power of Community Based Strategic Planning” by Rick Davis and Dan Griffiths.

Keith violated the Brown Act by asking Ohtaki to vote for the Library outside a City Council meeting, after she had already been talking to Cline.

"Uninentional" Brown Act violation is what the City Attorney called it? Kirsten Keith is a lawyer with eight years experience and we are to believe she doesn't know the rules?

Just another example of why Keith needs to go.

Actually, the report doesn't say that Keith asked Ohtaki how he was going to vote, but that she made a comment that she hoped he would support moving forward. That can still be considered a serial meeting. The report reads,

"Based on the investigation above, while it appears there was an unintentional serial meeting before the originally scheduled August 21 City Council hearing, there was no action taken nor any collective decision, commitment or promise by a majority of the City Council to make a positive or negative decision regarding the library improvements and therefore nothing to be cured and no criminal violation."

From the staff report:

"During their brief conversation on other topics not at issue,
City Councilmember Keith made a comment to Mayor Ohtaki that she hoped he would support moving
forward with the library system improvement projects. Mayor Ohtaki responded in a non-committal manner,
stating that he was not sure how he would vote Tuesday."

Kirsten Keith violated the Brown Act. A serial meeting is a violation of the Brown Act. Her conduct was illegal.

The staff report refers to her conduct as an "inadvertent" violation of the Brown Act:

"Staff recommends that the City Council reschedule next steps for Library System Improvement Project and
incorporate information regarding the inadvertent Brown Act violation into the agenda materials for the
rescheduled meeting."

Though the staff report calls the conduct inadvertent, the staff report describes a scenario that makes it sound like Kirsten Keith ambushed Peter Ohtaki with the topic:

"During their brief conversation on other topics not at issue, City Councilmember Keith made a comment to Mayor Ohtaki that she hoped he would support moving forward with the library system improvement projects. Mayor Ohtaki responded in a non-committal manner, stating that he was not sure how he would vote Tuesday."

Kirsten Keith is lucky Peter Ohtaki had the integrity to report the matter and respond the way he did.

Kirsten Keith must go.

Hasn't Keith committed at least one Brown Act violation before?

The last Councilmember to commit a Brown act violation was Ferguson. Voters promptly kicked her out of office.
They should do the same to Keith.

We could argue that any time a council member replies-all to the city council inbox, that is a Brown Act violation. Andy Cohen and other former council members have been known to send emails to the city council inbox, asking for then not to respond to respect the Brown Act, but that could also be considered a Brown Act violation. When a resident contacts a council member and inadvertently describes a conversation with other council members, that can certainly be a Brown Act violation.

In all of these situations, the resolution is to provide a disclosure before any vote. That is how the Brown Act works. In this situation, there was no collective decision, commitment or promise. The staff report provides this disclosure.

Just read the article, not the spin from the troll trying to help Keith.

During the DA's investigation, Fergusson chose not be interviewed as is her right under the 5th ammendment. This is a different situation.