BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
The city of Palo Alto paid a law firm to investigate a complaint from a tow yard owner who said that Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson asked for special treatment after his daughter’s car was towed from a city parking garage.
Now, the city is refusing to release the lawyer’s report — a report that, you, the taxpayer paid for — saying it’s confidential due to attorney-client privilege.
The “client” in this case is the city council. The report cost up to $50,000.
One council member, Mayor Vicki Veenker, may have already waived the city’s rights to keep the report confidential by discussing it with our reporter in a story published Saturday.
But it seems to me that the client, the council, has the ability to decide whether the report should be public.
Peterson shouldn’t have any objections to its release. He said the report’s “scope was limited to determining whether the alleged conduct occurred, and the report reached no conclusions of law or policy. On April 13, after receiving the investigator’s report, council reappointed me to the Planning and Transportation Commission. I consider the matter resolved.”
Veenker and three other members of council — Greer Stone, George Lu and Julie Lythcott-Haims — felt that whatever was in the report wasn’t as incriminating enough to keep Peterson from being reappointed to the planning commission.
So I’ve got to wonder — what’s the problem with releasing this report? We paid for the report. Why can’t we see it? What does council have to hide?
Thanks to Dave Price and the Daily again!
I couldn’t agree more. The city has no reason to keep this a secret and making it public has nothing at all to do with attorney client privilege.
Not releasing the report isn’t a smart move; keeping it under wraps raises questions. Releasing it might completely exonerate Mr. Peterson who, frankly, has created a reputation problem for himself. CC is supposed to represent the residents of Palo Alto. They used our money to pay for a report – an expense that arguably should never be necessary if our elected and appointed officials are behaving ethically. Something’s not right here.
Thank you.
If Mayor Veenker already discussed it with the press and thus waived the city’s confidentiality rights, what’s the big deal about releasing the report?
The city’s record on transparency isn’t helping to restore public trust, something about which former mayors have publicly noted needs improvement.
Dad’s ask for special treatment for their daughters all the time. And Wednesday still comes once a week…
Do all dads call their local police departments 8 — EIGHT — times in a one day demanding special treatment or just those convinced of the own entitlement knowing they”ll get a free pass from their council cronies?
(Searching frantically for the latest revision of PA’s new and improved values definitions and missions statements.)
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it happens. There’s a difference. Any type of entitlement is wrong, but PA is an “entitled” city where entitled people push to get their way all the time. A friend of mine in PA once told me. “We have two choices. Accept it or move.” We did one of the two.
Yes, you’re right there is a difference. But there’s a 3d option: don’t elect or appoint them to public office when it’s so blatantly obvious they’re only out for themselves.
Check out today’s page 1 article on the same guy.