I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF recent letters commenting about our city attorney that were published in The Benicia Herald. I personally prefer people to focus on issues and not staff. It should not be about staff, since they work for the City Council.
What was noted in one letter in defense of the city attorney was, in my experience, the extraordinary, passionate and lengthy defense of the city attorney by Vice Mayor Tom Campbell. Keep in mind the issue at hand is my so-called “biased” conflict of interest based on the E-Alerts I send. It is a difficult position for staff when one Council member questions another. Where do you draw the line? What is in the best interest of the city?
Most of my E-Alerts are about community goings-on, events, meeting notices and issues of public interest and concern. I send these e-Alerts when my workload and time allow. The following is what I always have printed at the foot of my E-Alert:
“This site is my responsibility and my discretion including recipients and material. Requests for posting are honored and I encourage readers to share information. An informed society is essential. Material on this site is my personal domain and does not reflect official city policy. Posting material on this site does not indicate bias for future decision making. Use of words and terminology, notice about events, forums and public concerns is not dicta nor determinative for future decisions. The more sunshine on issues, events, happenings and concerns, the better the public is aware of choices so that government is open and accessible to all and not just the few. Public discourse is the path to fair and informed decisions.”
As my attorney has written, “(W)e understand that you have acted in accordance with this statement, and we have not reviewed any email alerts or other communications which suggest otherwise.”
What differs from my attorney’s information and the city attorney’s outside counsel, Mike Jenkins, is that only select emails were sent to Jenkins while my attorney received multiple batches of complete past E-Alerts as well as all current ones. As my attorney wrote, “(Y)ou have requested our guidance on the laws which apply to you as a public official in California with respect to this matter and similar matters which may come before the city in the future. Our firm has many years of experience and expertise with respect to conflict-of-interest issues for public officials in California.
“As mayor, you have taken a leadership role on providing information to the city residents, and speaking out on the health and safety issues raised by the proposal to increase the (Valero crude-by-rail) train deliveries.
“In summary, based on our review of the facts, it is our opinion that you do not have a disqualifying conflict of interest in the Valero matter based on the Political Reform Act (Gov. Code section 81000, et seq.) which is the primary set of statutes governing public official conflicts of interest and which covers financial conflicts of interest. In addition, since the matter does not involve a contract with the city, Government Code section 1090 does not apply.”
My attorney’s opinion discussed the court decisions holding that public officers must exercise their powers with “disinterested skill, zeal, and diligence and primarily for the benefit of the public,” and that “fidelity to the public interest is the primary purpose of conflict of interest laws.” Indeed, public officers are obliged to fulfill their responsibilities with both honesty and loyalty. If they are influenced by any “base and improper considerations” of personal advantage, they violate their oaths of office.
Jenkins’s opinion cited numerous appellate cases about elected officials having personal reasons for acting toward a city employee and other personnel and contract matters of an elected official. These cases are not on point in my case. My E-Alerts are informing the public about issues affecting public health, safety and welfare.
Jenkins cites another case involving a court holding that a planning commissioner was “biased.” This case is distinguished from the Fairfield case because a) it involves an appointed official, not an elected one; and b) the commissioner actually wrote an argument against a project before it came before the elected body.
The California Supreme Court wrote in the Fairfield decision that “(t)hese topics are matters of concern to the civic-minded people of the community, who will naturally exchange views and opinions. . . . A councilman (sic) has not only a right but an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with his constituents and to state his views of public importance.” The Fairfield decision has not been overturned or revised by the court and remains the law applicable in similar circumstances.
Because my interest is to provide the public information about vital public health, safety and welfare issues, I send, without expressing an opinion on a specific project, information about relevant meetings, including public and quasi-public (Valero) issues and news regarding national, regional and local issues.
Therefore, I will rely on the advice of my attorney, to wit: “Your current course as spelled out in the statement included on your email alerts . . . is certainly consistent with both (court) decisions and prudent under all of the circumstances. Accordingly, we would advise you to stay your current course of engaging in the exchange of information and discussion of the issues and supporting the process for public education and engagement on the issues while avoiding any specific statements of opposition to the pending permit decision and keeping an even-handed approach to your interactions with the public and all others involved in the matter.”
With zeal, diligence and fidelity to the public interest, Elizabeth Patterson
Elizabeth Patterson is the mayor of Benicia.
Sharing is caring!
Sorry Mayor Patterson you have divided the council and the residents. It appears you lose 4/1 on the council side and have no possibility of getting elected Mayor again if you choose to do so. Public behavior sticks and your perfornance at the last council meeting will stick. Many folks do many good deeds and also supply info that is just a repeat to what is already known. Then are brought down by in some cases one issue. You appear to fall into that cattegory. Just what info have you supplied that the local residents would not have been able to get from local outlets. None. But you did supply info from other areas about Crude By Rail that was without a doubt very biased. As an example the 47 that were killed in the Canada rail explosion. It seems that you forgot to tell the folks that it was negligence and three people have been indicted. Why didn’t you report that if you are not biased. I could go on and on about your bias against fossil fuel which means the refinery’s but you have already done that with great zeal. You talk about your hero Tom Butt all the time. You know the newly elected Mayor of Richmond. Yet you make no comment about his comment about the City Attorney. His post said it looks like the Benicia needs a new City Attorney.. Do you think that also? You also say one council member questions another. You did the same thing privately with Council member Hughes on the MCE issue. It was eventually stated at the council meeting you were the one going against a fellow member. If that is not true I will stand corrected. Questioned if he should be recused. You lost and he did it on his own. You publicly at the last council meeting attermpted to shut down Council member Schwartzman on a point of order. It was a NO cry of pain . It happen3ed anyway and you were dressed down by the City Attorney. Mayor Patterson it appears you want it your way and your way only. You are not stealth and should now put the City of Benicia above yourself.
The one-man crusade and anti-American sentiments aside, I’d like to thank the mayor for keeping the residents informed and resisting efforts to silence her. She is a great mayor and Benicia is lucky to have her!
It is not a one man show nor anti-American crusadfe. It is all about folliwing proceedure and personal agenda issues. That is not what we expect from non-partisan elected officials. The council and others do not agree with the mayor big time on this issue. That is all it is about. BiASED
It is not a one man show nor anti-American crusade. It is all about following procedure and personal agenda issues. That is not what we expect from non-partisan elected officials. The council and others do not agree with the mayor big time on this issue. That is all it is about. Biased reporting and opinion before there even is a vote by the council. Clearly defined and the mayor should recuse herself or continue to face the heat. More important it could put the city in a position of litigation if Crude By Rail goes down. What ever the decision by the Planning Commission is it will be appealed by the losing side. The Mayor puts the city in a position it does not need to be in. The line has been drawn and the mayor choose to step over it placing herself above the best interest of the city.
The mayor is right. Take your one-man show on the road. And stop with the suppression of free speech. Anti-Americanism at its worst.
The law is on her side.
The Mayor was not referring to me. The law is not on the side of the Mayor. Free speech is not the issue. If that were the case all jury’s and Lawyers would be talking openly about cases that are under trial and no decision has been made. When you have a council backed by an outside decision presented by the City Attorney the Mayor would not win in court. The best decision the Mayor could make is to recuse herself immediately. This could remove any issues with litigation against the City. The Mayor must put the City above herself. This is a very important issue and must not be abused by biased opinion.
This is a very important issue. The mayor’s E-Alerts have not disqualified her to vote on it. The law is on her side. Well done, Mayor Patterson.
Hank do you recieve any of the MAYORs e-alerts? If so tell us all about them and why she should not be disqualified. and why the law is on her side. By the way the Mayors lawyor bill at last look was being paid by her finance committee. If you are so dedicated to the MAYOR Hank she may need a contribution of say $500.00. Will yiou help her Hank?
A complete list of your political donations first, please. Also, I get the mayor’s e-Alerts, unlike you, and read every one.
By the way thanks for demonstration that this is a one-(crazy stalking) man crusade. Keep commenting, it proves my point.
Hank that old trick does not work. I donate only to the Republican Party and have never donated to local politicians. Also have never backed a local politician. You seem to be just giggly over the mayor. So send the money, she needs it.
Only tricksters need tricks. You seem to know all about it. Please keep commenting, one trick pony. And don’t worry, the city is in good hands under the excellent leadership of our wonderful mayor.
Hank just how much are you sending the Mayor?
Mind you own business you old busybody.
Sorry Hank it is public information. I do not see your name on the last report. But there will be a new one in Jan. and I suppose you will on there as a big contributor. If not you are all talk and no action.
Which name — mine or my wife’s? My sister is on there too. Keep trying you old busybody.
Hank as I said the new report is not out yet. Did you report your donation under the Harrison name or is Harrison not your name. Well in about thirty days or so we will know how much you gave. It will be interesting being you said you your wife and sister apparently gave money. I believe you may find out that small donations are grouped. You knlw less than a dollar
You’re as bad as Will Gregory.
By the way thanks for demonstration that this is a one-(crazy stalking) man crusade. Keep commenting, it proves my point.
Please explain for all to see how your constant attacks against Bob do not serve as a “thanks for demonstration” (sic) that your assaults are not a “one-(crazy stalking) man crusade” against him?
.
Dennis this poor fella has no clue. Says and claims a lot but no answers, just negative attack comments. It does not matter what anyone comments back it goes on plugged up ears and closed eyes.. Thats OK everyone has his number.
I agree. We’re both crazy. Good thing everyone has Bob’s number, too.
Are you sad that no one comments on your book reports anymore?
Thank goodness we have a mayor who is willing to stand up for her first amendment right to free speech. When we live in a society where public official can not inform their constituents about matters of health and public safety we might just as well have a bonfire and burn all of our copies of the Constitution. What Mayor Patterson is doing is vital to a free society. Thank you Mayor for protecting our Constitutional rights.
Kathy you are an Attorney and do know what free speech means. Do you expose your free speech rights on any client/attorney realationship? If so tell the folks how you do that under free speech.
False analogy alert.
I believe the mayor has every right to voice her opinion. And I have every right to disagree.
Now that the city manager has spoken out that Benicia faces long term revenue problems, greatly affected by a decline in revenues in the industrial park, I would state that the mayor’s anti- business policies are hurting our city.
Mayor Patterson is quite active in her determination to penalize Valero at every step. There are ramifications to her actions and they are now becoming apparent.
The mayor can speak out all she wants. And the city should listen and vote her out. We need a pro-business mayor and council. Before we grow broke.
Very well spoken Matter. Lets hope the residents are now catching on. Yes she is very anti big busuiness.
Very badly spoken, and very ignorant of the reality in the Industrial Park. Fortunately the local business community does not suffer from such ignorance.
I’d like to point out once more that critics of the mayor in this thread number exactly two, and one of them, a known stalker, has posted 11 of 27 comments (as of 9:36 a.m. Tuesday).
Hank you just topped me. Talk about a stalker with no points of interest except that well informed Bob Livesay.
A couple of thoughts:
If one doesn’t care for Mayor Paterson’s email blasts, Opt Out. I did: Game, set, match, over.
Once upon a time in my former life, I would look at email time sent vs. response. If I viewed responses almost immediately or say within 15 minutes I would question ones work load and/or free time available for value added projects.
I seldom read comments or opinions and I’m sure one person will respond to this comment. However, trust me, I will not read, let alone respond.
You both have too much time on your hands. Volunteer for a good cause. Your average response time to each other’s email / text / blast, or whatever is proof in the pudding.
Ps. You may want to use Spell Check.
Ken,
I agree. The only thing I would add is that sometimes the posts break down into little more than a chat room discussion. I really think we need to have some higher standard on this in order to keep meaningful comments effective, both for the poster and the reader.
Reg and Ken I do not disagree with either of you. But at the same time when provoked after someone makes a negative personal comment about me I will come back hard. I would rather all comments be civil but when I have to be negative about someone I will. My desire is only to give the best info possible and at the same time try to give reasons why I do not agree with a Forum article. When someone writes a forum article they open up negative comments. That is why I like to write LTTE. You want to comment back write a LTTE. I think I am well informed on many issues and do not mind saying so. I will not opt out of the Mayors e-alerts. They give you a guide to her reasoning and stance on many issues that the council/mayor face and could eventually vote on. Ken as someone who already declared to run for Mayor I would assume that info could be very good info for you in seeing what makes an elected mayor twice tick. . .
ARE LIVE WORK AREAS SAFE?
Tragic news coming out of Oakland this Morning. My heart goes out to those that lost Family members in this fire. We in Benicia have a large live work area and are they held to the same City codes as any other dwelling or Business? I don’t think so, I have seen the area and there seems to be hazards with debris and flammables stored both on the outside and inside. I believe the area is held to a different standard due to City Halls political leanings.
Some questions for City Officials,
• Are the live work spaces inspected like any other Business or dwelling?
• Are Business permits required for live work spaces?
• Is there any retail operations operating in the area and are they up to City, State and US Government code?
• How often has the fire inspector visited live work areas?
Thank You,
Kevin Reed
Kevin, Are you talking about the residential over commercial area at the end of first street? Or, are you talking about the artist studios in the Arsenal? Is there a concern that this type of tragedy might repeat itself in these types of zoning areas?