BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Candidates for Palo Alto City Council have been critical of City Manager Ed Shikada’s performance.
“I don’t think he’s done a great job,” Planning Commissioner Bryna Chang said in an interview.
Chang said residents have reasonable complaints — about traffic, code enforcement and Cal Ave. — yet nothing gets done.
Chang wants to stop closing City Hall every other Friday — a schedule she said is symbolic of the city’s lack of responsiveness.
“City staff is supposed to serve residents. That’s like their reason for being. And I don’t think our bias has been that way,” Chang said.
Mayor Vicki Veenker said she’s struggled to find the right balance between herself and Shikada in their respective roles.
Veenker said Shikada maintains a positive workplace culture that retains city employees. But there are times she’s expected something to be done, and the opposite has happened.
For example, one of Veenker’s first decisions on council in January 2023 was whether to allow a house to get built 20 feet from Los Trancos Creek
Council didn’t allow the house and decided the city should have rules for developments near creeks.
Veenker said she was eager for the creek protections to come back, but the discussion is still a couple months away.
“That is very frustrating to me,” she said in an interview, while acknowledging that council’s agendas are complex and full.
Councilman Ed Lauing said he’s been frustrated by Shikada’s lack of progress on Cal Ave. He wants to see more signs and kiosks that show where the businesses are.
Lauing also criticized Shikada for unilaterally replacing the city’s handcrafted, wooden park signs without going to council or the Parks and Recreation Commission first.
“Apart from the action, the process needs some attention. Because other folks should’ve known about it,” Lauing said in an interview
Parks Commissioner Yudy Deng said council members aren’t effectively monitoring Shikada, and he has more power than them.
“Council members should decide the trend of the city, not the city manager,” Deng said.
Deng pointed to the influx of RV dwellers and said Shikada should’ve addressed the issue earlier, when around 50 RVs were parked on the streets.
“Then we wouldn’t have today’s situation,” she said, as the RV count is now closer to 150.
Only Dr. Gary Gechlik had no complaints about Shikada, giving him an A+ grade for managing a $1 billion budget and over 1,000 employees.
Gechlik said Shikada has strong personal skills to navigate diverse interests.
“He’s a sweetheart. He works super, super hard,” Gechlik said.
Shikada, 63, has been Palo Alto’s city manager for the last eight years. Before that, he was general manager of utilities and San Jose’s city manager.
Council evaluates Shikada’s performance behind closed doors with facilitator Dan Rich, who was Mountain View’s city manager from 2011 to 2019.
“For example, one of Veenker’s first decisions on council in January 2023 was whether to allow a house to get built 20 feet from Los Trancos Creek
Council didn’t allow the house and decided the city should have rules for developments near creeks. Veenker said she was eager for the creek protections to come back, but the discussion is still a couple months away.”
Really?? If this is the most frustrating example she can cite over the last few years, she’s clearly not paying attention.
It also explains her failure to do anything to hold Mr Shikada accountable on the big issues.
Not soon enough…she gone!
Hope you’re right but wonder how well-informed voters will be. I’m always surprised to hear loud voter remorse complaints that could have been prevented if people had been paying attention. I’m thinking specifically of people’s shock over their first utility bills after PA voted to let PA Utilities OVERrcharge us in perpetuity and funnel that money into the General Fund.
Thank you, Bryna Chang, for hitting the nail right on the head.
The City Manager is a highly paid employee whose actual job is to manage the city—not simply occupy an office, collect a paycheck, and explain why something can’t be done.
Palo Alto is a relatively small city. We are not running a state government or the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet somehow, even straightforward issues can become endless exercises in delay, excuses, finger-pointing, and bureaucratic hand-wringing.
Residents don’t need a City Manager who can explain why every problem is complicated. We need one who can actually solve problems.
If the City Manager cannot respond to legitimate concerns, provide direction to staff, and move issues toward resolution, then perhaps the City Council should ask the obvious question: exactly what are taxpayers paying for?
At some point, “we’re looking into it” stops being management and starts looking like a job description.
If the person hired to run the city can’t run the city, maybe it’s time to show him the door.
I had never even heard of Gary Gechlik until recently, when he decided to run. How long has he actually lived in Palo Alto—especially in South Palo Alto?
Because if he lives here, he should know what residents are dealing with. OSVs are blocking sightlines on neighborhood streets, creating blind corners that kids, pedestrians, and cyclists have to navigate around. The City itself has acknowledged that oversized vehicles can create serious safety and sanitation problems, including blocked sightlines and improper disposal of sewage.
So what exactly is he talking about? Maybe he’s thinking of another city—or perhaps Atherton\.
He should spend some time actually walking the streets of South Palo Alto and seeing the problem firsthand. Otherwise, saying Shikada is excellent shows that he’s just talking about a city he apparently doesn’t know very well, and it makes him look foolish.
No public official deserves to make what Shikada makes. If Gechlik thinks he’s a sweetheart that really concerning.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. GIVE PALO ALTO TAXPAYERS A DEADLINE.
Ed Shikada has been Palo Alto’s City Manager for eight years. Recent reporting has documented criticism from Council members and candidates about responsiveness, progress on city priorities, transparency and the balance of power between the Council and City Manager. Mayor Vicki Veenker herself has acknowledged frustration with how that balance has worked.
So here is a simple demand for Mayor Vicki Veenker and the Palo Alto City Council:
CONDUCT A FORMAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CITY MANAGER ED SHIKADA AND REPORT THE RESULTS TO THE PUBLIC NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 31, 2026.
Not next year.
Not “when the Council gets around to it.”
Not another closed-door discussion followed by silence.
October 31, 2026.
The Council already conducts performance evaluations of the City Manager behind closed doors. Then tell taxpayers what the evaluation is based on: measurable goals, accomplishments, failures to meet Council directives, responsiveness to residents, management of City staff, implementation of Council policy, and stewardship of taxpayer money.
And don’t give residents a meaningless “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.”
Tell us what standards were used. Tell us what was accomplished. Tell us what wasn’t. Tell us what corrective action is required.
If the Council believes Shikada is performing at the level expected of a highly compensated City Manager, defend that conclusion publicly with facts and measurable results.
If the Council believes performance has fallen short, say so and take corrective action.
Mayor Veenker has said she has struggled to find the right balance between her role and Shikada’s. Councilmember Ed Lauing has also publicly criticized aspects of Shikada’s management and decision-making.
At some point, Council oversight has to mean something.
The City Manager works for the Council. The Council works for the residents.
Palo Alto taxpayers deserve more than bureaucratic stonewalling, unanswered complaints and endless delays.
MAYOR VEENKER AND CITY COUNCIL:
Put the performance review on the public agenda.
Set October 31, 2026 as the deadline.
Publish the performance standards.
Report the results.
And if Shikada isn’t meeting those standards, take action.
No more excuses.
Palo Alto taxpayers are paying for accountability. Now demand it.
It is encouraging to hear council members acknowledge residents’ frustrations with City Manager Shikada. But those concerns should be reflected in how Council evaluates and compensates him.
In December of last year, residents spoke to Council about persistent delays, unanswered requests, and poor contract oversight. Immediately afterward, Vicki Veenker moved to approve raises for Shikada and the other council-appointed officers, saying, “I think we’re fortunate to have this team” and “I wholeheartedly support it.”
For residents who had just described how difficult it can be to get even straightforward problems resolved, those remarks felt remarkably disconnected from their experiences.
Shikada received his merit raise, bring his 2025 total compensation, including employer-paid benefits, to approximately $676,000. The Post previously reported that he ranked sixth among California city managers in total compensation.
At that level of compensation, residents should expect a high standard of performance and meaningful accountability. So if council members themselves are frustrated with Shikada’s performance, what are they doing about it? What measurable results justified a merit raise? And what happens when those expectations are not met?