Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

No on Agenda item I3. We do not need the extravagance of a PR firm

From: domainremoved <Stuart>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:26:02 -0700

The proposed retention of a Washington lobbying firm is wrong on multiple

Whose idea was this? Do tell.

1. Envisioned public works project (such as a cross bay railroad) is
outside the city’s core competence (what is its core competence btw? Any
ideas?) It also involves other jurisdictions, not in this picture. Why is
MP doing this lifting?

2. The city does not need a political advocacy firm

3. Placing this item at the end of the meeting when the public has left
the chambers suggests it’s a midnight sneak. Make it the first item so the
public can speak.

4. Such development projects will require an increase in staff

5. The city dance card is already full with projects n to even even
started. – M2, overpasses, underpasses, the Rapp project at the train

6. Focus. Focus. Do one project right

7. There are three seats open on the council in 2018. Council
seriously needs fresh minds and experience.

Stu Soffer
Menlo Park
Received on Sat Nov 04 2017 - 19:30:42 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)