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 ]

Questions regarding Malcolm Smith May 5, 2014 Agreement with the City and City Measure M talking points, news releases, letters to editors, comments to Almanac Online,, Measure M strategy and City website preparation.

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:57:28 -0800

On Monday, November 3, the day before the election on Measure M, the
Almanac reported under the headline *Menlo Park: Consultant’s proposal
was rejected* the following statements:

"Mr. McIntyre said the only piece of work the city hired the consultant
[Malcolm Smith] to do was write content for the city's *website*
<http://menlopark.org/859/Background> about the specific plan and the

"A consultant's proposal that Menlo Park take a proactive role in swaying
public opinion with regard to the specific plan before the Measure M
initiative qualified for the ballot was rejected, according to City Manager
Alex McIntyre".

Whether or not Mr. McIntyre made them, both statements seem to be refuted
and contradicted by his Nov. 5 email, and attachments, raising questions
the headline and article and city's involvement. Also the Nov 5 email
seems to be refuted by its attachments. The March 5 scope of work
attached to the March 5 Agreement is basically the same as the March 3
proposal, and the City agreed to it. The Almanac headline appears false
and made at a critical time. In addition, the services performed by Mr.
Smith below appear to confirm the work scope. The Nov. 5 email doesn't
address all these services. Please take steps to clarify or correct
immediately both the Nov 5 email and the Nov 3 Almanac Article, so the
public can have a clear understanding of what the city has done to possibly
defeat Measure M.

The March 19, without signature or contract modification, is stated to be a
proposal. Why make a proposal after the Signed March 5 Agreement? But
whether ort note it was an agreed amendment, it didn’t seem to affect his
work, which was the essentially same as identified in the March scope of
work, and as performed.

Nevertheless Smith’s invoices show in addition to web site content,
services performed as follows:

            3/5 draft news release, draft speaking points,

            3/18 draft news release

            4/29 draft talking points submission of

            5-May draft letters to editor

            7 May draft letters to editor

            7 May draft news release-signatures received

            14 May write strategy for next steps

 15 May next steps, draft news release , *draft comment for
Almanac online*; redraft letters to editor; talking points

 18 may draft op-ed

 May update strategy

 9 Jun fact of the week item

 2 Jul update FoW;

  8 Jul review/edit talking points, send to MP, 2nd review

 14 Jul emails to clay alex.

These services seem to contradict the purported march 19 amendment and
your statements because Mr Smith did write letters to the editor, talking
points, the comment for almanac online, strategy for next steps, update
strategy. The email today states only: “Malcolm also developed for the
staff some draft editorials and talking points that were never used as well
as two new releases, which were used”. This is even incomplete as described
in the invoices and paid for by the city. It is totally contradictory to
your purported statements in the Almanac Nov 3 Article. What press releases
were used, to whom, and when?

Mr McIntyre expresses surprise that “the Smith Communications attached
contract was not provided in your original public records request.” Is
there also surprise that none of the press releases, letters to the editor,
comment for Almanac online, and news releases whether used or not used were
produced either. Menlo Park had ignored several deadlines in producing and
certainly had time to be comprehensive. The incomplete release the Friday
before the election, with the Almanac article release the day before the
election and published the day of the election based upon non-completeness
and misinformation seems questionable. Certainly the completeness of
production to Public Records act requests is questionable.

In addition, as you know, I have sent two earlier requests with respect to
the clarification and correction of the City’s website and one oral plea to
the entire council. Whether or not the City’s Special Council “found them
to be legally appropriate,” they should have been corrected and clarified
to avoid public confusion.

Mayor Mueller you are “await[ing] all the information surrounding the
matter (the subject of Malcolm Smith) before making judgments... .” As I
said to you and council orally on October 21, 2014 and my earlier email,
Accountability and Responsibility require you and Council to supervise
staff and, at a minimum, correct inaccurate information. Unfortunately,
you did not timely do so when requested on October 8, October 21 and
October 27. Please review the information surrounding this matter
carefully let the public know your judgments.

Although Measure M has been defeated, the public needs to know how its city
operates and what efforts are made by council to do due diligence and keep
informed on Staff actions. Staff and City Council credibility are
important to all, and will be important in the future. Full investigation
and disclosure can help ameliorate any divisiveness remaining after an
election so that Menlo Park can move forward positively. It is important
to the future of Menlo Park.

Thank You for your help and assistance. George C. Fisher

George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton Street
​Menlo Park, CA 94025​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
Received on Wed Nov 05 2014 - 20:52:44 PST

[ 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)