California’s sunshine law, The Brown Act, begins with the following words:

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Ralph M. Brown Act

PRFO attorney contracted to advise the City on Blair Park project – City waives any conflicts of interest

A second private deal (see below) has surfaced that was signed out of public view between the City Council and attorneys for Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), the sports group proposing to develop Blair Park into a $6.5 million, multi-use sports facility.  The agreement was signed by City Administrator Geoff Grote more than two months ago.  > Click to read more…

Many Questions About Why No Public Discussion or Council Vote

A Reimbursement and Indemnification Agreement was entered into between the City of Piedmont and the Piedmont Recreation Facilities Organization, PRFO, on August 12, 2011.  The agreement was executed by Geoffrey Grote, “City Manager” (sic) and Thomas Curry, City Attorney for the “Municipal Corporation Piedmont” on behalf of the City and Jessica Berg, President, on behalf of PRFO.  The Agreement with PRFO was recently posted on the City’s website with no reference to discussion, hearing, or approval by the City Council.

> Click to read more…

An August 25, 2011 letter from Kathleen Quenneville, who served on the Task Force on Undergrounding of the League of Women Voters

Dear Council Member Wieler:

I guess you didn’t really mean it when you apologized for your “Piedmont Taliban” article in the Piedmont Post.  That may be inferred from your “Nattering nabobs of negativity” article in the August 24 Piedmont Post.

I thought you recognized that name-calling was not a productive means of encouraging dialogue about the issues on which we disagree.  Apparently that is not the case.  It is shocking that you would unilaterally dismiss those who criticize Piedmont’s governance as “people who are never satisfied and who will show up and complain at every public meeting.”  This illustrates that you do not understand your fiduciary responsibilities and are not fit to serve on the City Council. > Click to read more…

Unanimous Committee Wants Immediate Change – Before Parcel Tax Vote

At its August 17 penultimate meeting, the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) expressed its “grave concerns” that unless the Council implements recommended steps, “not only will the parcel tax not cover planned expenditures, but also renewal itself is at risk, if the public lacks confidence in the City’s fiscal management.” 

The Committee agreed unanimously (Hollis and Weiner absent) on a final set of strong fiscal reforms to recommend to the City Council.  (A few minor changes will be made in the Committee’s final report for adoption on August 31.)  Four Committee members (Ryan Gilbert, Tam Hege, Eric Lindquist and Steve Weiner) intend to submit a “supplementary statement” (at p. 9) that requires the Council to take specific actions on fiscal reforms before they will recommend voter support of the parcel tax.  Both the unanimous report and supplementary statement propose postponing the parcel tax election from February until June or November 2012 to give the Council time to enact the recommended fiscal reforms.

Below is a summary of highlights of the MTRC’s unanimous report and the supplementary statement, presented at the August 17th meeting.  The full text of both reports has not been released. > Click to read more…

Shutting Down Mismanaged Program Costs Piedmont $146,000 – so far

The City of Piedmont has agreed to make a payment of $146,000, plus pay additional amounts in the future as needed, to shut down an organization located in Alameda County intended to provide programs to low-income residents.  The cost to fully resolve the debts and pending litigation of the Associated Community Action Program (ACAP) has not been estimated.  (Staff report of 5/2/11t; staff report of June 20, 2011, fn at p. 2.)  Piedmont’s obligation for these liabilities stems from its participation in a Joint Powers Agreement (with Alameda County and 11 other cities) creating the ACAP.

The demand for payment from Piedmont came after an Alameda County audit “confirmed the [ACAP] program has “grossly” mismanaged hundreds of thousands of dollars of grant monies and attributed the loss to lack of oversight by its governing board” according to an Oakland Tribune article.

An Alameda County audit reveals that the board only met twice in 2010, although it was required to meet at least once every 90 days.  The audit also reports that ACAP was not audited in 2010, despite the 2008 and 2009 audits showing “significant deficiencies in ACAP’s accounting controls.” > Click to read more…

A PCA Editorial: The City has taken over operation of the Piedmont Pool at taxpayer expense.

A Piedmont asset that was built and operated for half a century at no cost to taxpayers has begun to drain funds from the City budget at a rapid rate. City operation of  the pool will exceed the costs borne historically  by a group of volunteers. Numerous assumptions have been made regarding pool usage without adequate operating data.  The only certainty is that swimmers will now be subsidized by Piedmont taxpayers, rather than swim club members. > Click to read more…

A PCA Editorial urging increased online access  and broadcast of important civic meetings

Piedmont is in the midst of making critical decisions on expenditures.  Meetings are being held, yet not televised on KCOM, nor videotaped, and in some cases no minutes will be available.   Meetings take place in venues other than the City Hall Council Chambers, while the Chambers are available.  Due to the cost of videoing from other locations, only meetings held in the City Hall Council Chambers can be readily videotaped and broadcast. > Click to read more…

On April 18 the Piedmont City Council unanimously approved the first reading of a seven year lease permitting the newly formed Piedmont Center for the Arts free use of the City-owned former Christian Science Church located across from Piedmont High School at 801 Magnolia Avenue .

The rush for approval of the lease is being generated by the proponents of the project who have secured commitments from various contractors to provide services at reduced prices and started plans for activities.   The group is eager to move into the facility and wishes to take possession of the property by June 3 .  > Click to read more…

A Letter Identifying Issues Common to Undergrounding and Blair Park Construction Administration

Dear Council Members,

City staff and the Council have failed to exercise proper due diligence in allowing a private group to control the planning process for the use of public land. The project proponents have sold the citizens of Piedmont a bill of goods, claiming their project is a “gift” and repeatedly claiming it will be built and maintained “at no cost to taxpayers,” yet public records clearly show the City has already spent hundreds of thousands toward the environmental review, > Click to read more…