From: Martin Engel <martinengel_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Fri Mar 07 2008 - 17:01:14 PST

Honorable Mayor and members of the Menlo Park City Council:

At the urging of a number of colleagues and fellow residents, I am sending the following, but with some reluctance given the nature of this issue. Present circumstances and the anticipated Council meeting on March 11 oblige me to send it now.

---

Letter #1:

Name withheld:

Among our priority projects on the list to be presented to the Council, I note that the project, identified as T-11, now falls below the recommended line. It was one that the Transportation Commission unanimously identified as their second highest choice on the priority list.

Furthermore, I notice that the description for this project includes the following sentence: "This could be subject to other regulations because of school bus requirements that may not allow City shuttle buses to be used for that purpose." Unless you intend the project to be rejected by the Council a priori, it is puzzling why you would add such a sentence to the description of a project to be studied. It is a form of editorializing. None of the other "below-the-line" projects are appended with such pre-qualifying contingency conditions.

It would be one of the functions of the study to establish what, exactly, the vehicle requirements and constraints are to meet the purposes of the mixed use of the shuttles. Why would you negatively anticipate the outcome of that inquiry? Shoot first and ask questions later?

It seems implausible that, were a mother or father to board the shuttle with their youngster in tow, regardless of their destination, that the driver would be obliged to put them off or deny them access because the vehicle does not meet school bus criteria. Shuttle buses presently are not prohibited from carrying children. In other words, it is not clear, given the intent of the study, that your concerns are correct or relevant.

Public buses, such as those operated by VTA or SamTrans, consistently carry passengers of school age, who pay their fares and make the trip daily to attend school (or any other destination). School bus standards are not selectively applied in cases such as this.

The entire issue of reducing private vehicle use in school transport seems to be a central theme in making school access far safer, and reducing carbon-based traffic to and from schools. Furthermore, these goals seem to be among the highest priorities of the Transportation Commission and the City Council. This project aims to study exactly those considerations with the intention of providing mitigation. The sole object of the proposal and study is to cost-effectively contribute to solving these problems.

In short, the purpose of this study meets all the criteria matching the most pressing goals of our city, even at a cost perhaps lower than the one presently attached to the project.

I do not require a response from you that explains away my concerns. As they used to say in my past corporate life, "Don't tell me why it won't work, tell me how to fix it." I do understand that staff also has its agenda. Nonetheless, I feel the need to register my puzzlement about the underlying decisions.

Cordially,

Martin

---

Letter #2

Name withheld:

As a recent recruit to the Transportation Commission, and in response to a request for projects concepts to place before the City Council in the form of project priorities for '08-'09, I submitted an idea for a modest study involving the transportation of students to and from schools via our shuttle service. The idea, written about in some detail, went into the hopper with several dozen other ideas.

Via a process carefully managed by staff, a priority list of these projects was formed into rank order. The project alluded to above was ranked first, and then, at a subsequent meeting, ranked second. This list was delivered to staff as the unanimous will of the Commission.

To be presented to the council this coming Tuesday, the new, staff-reconstructed priority list has been totally changed, re-arranged and edited from the Commission's priority list. The formerly second ranked project, described above, is now below the line cutting off staff-recommended projects from un-recommended projects.

In short, staff judgment has taken precedence over Transportation Commission judgment. To all intents and purposes, there was no need or purpose for the efforts of the Transportation Commission. One might even say that there is no need for a Transportation Commission any more than for an Arts Commission. Our work, and I say this as a Commissioner, is no more than busy work.

What is at stake here, with this instantiation, is not the modest project described above, which is only a case in point. It is a much larger problem that will not surface at this Tuesday's council meeting unless brought to the attention of the Council by a considerable number of citizens and residents.

After sitting on two Commissions, it is apparent to me that most of our Commissions, excepting the state- mandated Planning Commission, have been reduced to tokens or gestures of public participation in the political process. They are neither substantive nor influential. While I cannot speak first hand for most of the Commissions, members of those have concurred with my perceptions about all this.

In effect, Commissions advise staff, not the council. They discuss only what meets staff convenience; that is, regardless of their interests and concerns, Commissions are staff-constrained in what they may or may not consider. Commissions are staff managed and controlled, not staff supported, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Perhaps all this is really not important enough to fuss about. On the other hand, we have all, in our various ways, persistently called for greater public participation in the political process. Insofar as the staff/administration manages the Council agenda based on and expressed through its recommendations, the proverbial tail is wagging the dog. This is not going to change for the better unless we collectively insist.

Martin

---

Letter #3

Name withheld:

Let me be clear, I am not wedded to my using-shuttles-for-kids idea. It is something that can be looked at in the context of other studies pertaining to school safety and vehicle reduction. What I'm trying to make clear is the relationship between staff, the Commissions and the Council. Staff, it seems to me, has too much control and Council does not have -- or does not exercise -- enough control. That's it in a nutshell.

I do want staff to do their homework and collect information, assemble it and present it in a meaningful way. However, no, to answer your question, I don't want them making recommendations which are, after all, choices. Making choices is the Council's job. Staff does not represent the city, Council does. Staff does not speak for, or have the best interests of the city at heart, Council does. In the absence of clear, unambiguous policies, staff will fill that vacuum with their own policies.

My experience, dating back to my time on the EQC, is that staff controls Commissions very tightly. Although I have no first hand experience, I am told that this is true of the Planning Commission as well.
Through that control, they -- de facto -- create, or at least perpetuate, policy. And, policy is the Council's most critical role. We have heard from former Council members numerous times that when Council makes policy and priorities crystal clear, administration is obliged to and will implement them. You can tell much better than me how that has or has not been working.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the commissions exist to advise Council by bringing citizen-expertise to the various issues and concerns of the city. Staff is there to provide support, period. Instead, staff rejects, constrains, distorts and ends up producing reports and recommendations that suit its purposes, not the Commissions' or that of the city. My most recent Transportation Commission experience is merely a concrete example of what appears to be standard practice.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response,

Martin

-- 








**********************

Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net


**********************

Received on Fri Mar 7 17:07:26 2008