BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto City Council has voted to give each of its members $2,000 to spend a year on tech-related expenses, like a new cellphone or a premium Zoom subscription.
The new reimbursement policy comes nine months after council raised its annual salary from $12,000 to $19,200 — the most allowed without going to voters.
Council members can now get reimbursed for 25% of their tech-related expenses if they’re also for personal use, like a cell phone bill.
“Why should the city benefit from the fact that I’ve bought all this equipment that enables me to do my city work?” Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims said at the meeting on Dec. 16. “Nobody should be out of pocket for the work of the city, particularly when the compensation is so, so small.”
Councilwoman Lydia Kou voted no on the reimbursement policy.
Councilman Greg Tanaka said he would’ve used the reimbursement on his premium Zoom subscription that allows him to livestream his office hours every Sunday. Tanaka won’t get to use the reimbursement, since he is leaving council next month.
Councilman Pat Burt and Mayor Greer Stone said they use the free version of Zoom, which cuts off meetings after 40 minutes.
Vice Mayor Ed Lauing said he spends more money on printer ink.
Councilwoman Vicki Veenker said she doesn’t print reports, but she recently had to replace her laptop battery.
“The extra wear and tear, as I beat the hell out of this thing dragging it everywhere, is definitely costing me something,” Veenker said while holding up her laptop.
Burt said he was worried the reimbursement policy is a way to raise council pay without getting voter approval.
The raise approved by council on March 11 was to keep up with a change in state law that allowed for pay up to $19,200 a year. It takes effect next month. Any further increase would require voter approval.
Council also voted in February to reimburse members for trips to eight “sister cities” — the first time they’ve been paid back for international travel.
It’s going to be open season on our wallets when fiscal hawk Tanaka, and Evidence requesting Lydia Kou are gone. Doesn’t Lythcott Haims controlling her own equipment sounds like liability? Is she all forgiven because the victim was a woman?
Contrary to today’s headline the JLH “scandal fades,” it really hasn’t.
Now that she’s stuck us with an unacceptable alternative to Joe Simitian because she couldn’t resist indulging her massive ego and running against him when she hadn’t even finished her first term as a City Council memember — a seat for which she ran under false pretenses knowing that she’d immediately try to overturn a 1990 law governing outside income.
Shame on the City Council for not forcing her out for her dishonesty, her self-dealing and her continuing failure to apologize for her lying smears against those daring to disagree with her.
If VV and Greer Stone think we’ve forgotten their failure to even censure her, they’re sadly mistaken.
We deserve better. We deserve leaders who care about the community, not just about themselves.
Why is JLH still on council? Read her response again — she says the city benefits from here work. She hasn’t done anything to benefit the public since she’s gotten on council. But she embroiled the city in a legal dispute about whether she could get paid for giving DEI speeches. Then she wanted an intern to do run her errands. Then it comes out that she lied about why she left Stanford. It’s just gimme, gimme, gimme.