BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A majority of Palo Alto City Council voted tonight (Sept. 9) to keep a report secret on a former planning commissioner who was accused of trying to get special treatment from a tow yard.
The same four council members who reappointed Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson decided to keep the report secret. They are Vicki Veenker, Greer Stone, George Lu and Julie Lythcott-Haims.
Councilmen Pat Burt, Ed Lauing and Keith Reckdahl wanted to release the report while redacting the names of those who were interviewed by an investigator.
“This is about the credibility of this council,” Burt said, calling out the majority for an “ethical lapse.”
The majority said they were worried about protecting the identities of witnesses who were promised confidentiality, and the report is moot because Peterson resigned last month.
“We’re fighting over something that would be hard to redact, could chill future whistleblowing, breaks our word to witnesses who participated and honestly isn’t all that useful in the first place,” Veenker said.
The report looks at Peterson’s actions after his daughter’s 1994 Ford Mustang was impounded by police because of a DMV registration issue on Jan. 6.
At the tow yard, Peterson allegedly tried to get a discount, suggested that he could “change the rules” and said he had police friends who would agree with him.
“His repeated invocation of his role appeared intended to influence the outcome of a private commercial matter in his favor,” the tow yard owner said in a complaint to City Manager Ed Shikada.
Shikada hired an attorney for up to $50,000 to investigate the complaint on March 9. The report ended up costing $15,334 and was sent to council on April 7.
Council voted 4-3 to reappoint Peterson to the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 13.
The city released the original complaint, but not the full report, on July 9.
Peterson resigned on Aug. 9, the day before council was scheduled to consider removing him.
Veenker said she supported Peterson because the city didn’t get video from the tow yard that he said would exonerate him, and the tow yard owner didn’t sit down for an interview after sending in the complaint.
“The investigation was thin and one-sided,” Lythcott-Haims said.
Lauing said residents should see the report so they can decide for themselves. Reckdahl said it looks like the city is trying to hide something.
Burt went a step further and said Peterson’s actions were the most serious abuse of position he’s seen, and the majority’s vote was “shocking.” Burt pointed out Peterson is president of the Silicon Valley Working Blue Democratic Club, which carries significant weight in local politics.
“This is not just about whether Mr. Peterson had an ethical or legal lapse,” he said. “What was the ethical lapse of the majority of this council?”
Since Petereson in the past said he wants the report released, what’s the problem? I agree with Pat Burt, the 4 council members who voted against releasing the report appear to be hiding something. I would not vote for Veenker in the upcoming election.
Since Peterson said he wouldn’t have a problem with the report’s release, you’ve got to wonder what secret these four want hidden. The report will eventually come out, though. Just wait.
Veenker is afraid she would be shown as reckless in voting to reappoint him. Which she was.
And don’t let anything get between her and a Dem club president.
Shameful to see Stone, Lythcott-Haims and Lu now try to cover their footprints, having voted to reappoint.
You are looking out for yourselves, not us who put you on council.
We taxpayers paid for this report. We’re entitled to see it.
We’re confident the good people of Palo Alto should know by now that if the Peterson report is made public it will set a mandated precedent in motion, making it necessary for all reports of malfeasance in office to be disclosed to the general public and reported by the local news media. Are Palo Alto residents gullible to believe this is the only sensitive item on the city council’s agenda that council members don’t want exposed to the attention of the media, or the taxpayer? Transparency in government is a widely used talking point peddled by local politicians in office, and can be ignored and discarded when it’s convenient to do so by those same local politicians.
We are entitled to see the report. We’re also entitled to know why Mayor Veenker continues her usual meaningless virtue-signalling and preaching while making excuses to hide her own self-serving ethical lapses defending an obviously unqualified representative who repeatedly called PAPD and harassed a small business owner demanding special treatment.
This obviously erodes the public trust just like it did last December when she willfully ignored all the speakers and letter writers including former Mayor Peter Dreckmier calling for her to rectify or at least revisit the shameful and abrupt firing of Third Thursday producer Carol Garsten at her buddy Julie Lythcott-Haims urging. Note this was right after Veenker had laughably made fair treatment of PA women our “mission statement” and she chose to ignore the petition where 77% of Cal Ave businesses SUPPORTED retaining Garsten and Lythcott-Haims couldn’t even produce her mystery petition demanding Garsten’s ouster without a SINGLE personnel review.
Veenker — and her cohort — do NOT have PA’s best interests at heart and the feckless four consistently ignore reality and objective facts to feather the nests of their pro-density big-money donors.
Remember that when you vote.
The mayor is asking Palo Alto voters to give her another term. That means every major decision made during her tenure is no longer just a policy debate—it is part of her reelection case.
If the mayor wants voters to reward her leadership, she must explain why residents should support four more years after the City’s continued failure to resolve oversized vehicle camping on public streets. If she wants another term, she should explain why neighborhoods that have repeatedly raised concerns should believe the outcome will be different.
If the mayor wants another term, she should also explain why a majority of the City Council chose to keep secret a report involving allegations that a former planning commissioner sought special treatment from a tow yard. Whether or not the decision was legally justified, voters are entitled to ask why transparency gave way to secrecy. Public trust is strengthened by openness, not by withholding information about matters involving public officials.
Every incumbent asks voters to judge results, not promises. The mayor’s record is therefore the campaign. The handling of oversized vehicle camping is part of that record. The Council’s vote to keep this report confidential is part of that record. The public’s growing frustration with City Hall is part of that record.
The mayor is free to argue that these decisions reflect effective leadership. Voters are equally free to conclude they reflect misplaced priorities, weak accountability, and a City Hall that has become less responsive to the people it serves.
Reelection is a referendum on performance\. Before asking Palo Alto residents for another term, the mayor should explain why these decisions deserve to be rewarded rather than replaced with new leadership
“Councilmen Pat Burt, Ed Lauing and Keith Reckdahl wanted to release the report while redacting the names of those who were interviewed by an investigator.
“This is about the credibility of this council,” Burt said, calling out the majority for an “ethical lapse.”
Absolutely. What are the feckless four hiding? It’s bad enough that we don’t have direct elections to the PTC and keep sacrificing objectivity to which side someone’s on but for them to ignore someone’s self-dealing and short behavioral fuse speaks volumes about their priorities.
““The investigation was thin and one-sided,” Lythcott-Haims said.”
She has the nerve to talk about bias after the way she conducted the “teen suicide” hearings where she outright “misrepresented” the student petition to suit her own agenda and then — with no objections from Veenker — wasted our money pushing closing Churchill to prevent a closer look into Paly’s failures only to be told — SURPRISE — closing Churchill violated laws AND would cause massive traffic jams.
Did she get censured for lying about the student petition? Did Veenker tell her to “watch what she said” like Veenker had the nerve to tell Pat Burt when he disagreed with her??>
We deserve better representation and less cover-your-posterior posturing.