Claim for Damages Against the City of East Palo Alto

By A. Peter Evans

This Claim was filed in July, 2008 in an attempt to get our City Council to take action to correct the manner in which the City is being run and to inform citizens of the deplorable situation and to hold accountable those who are responsible. If I am re-elected, we will correct this egregious situation.

TO: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

2415 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303

1. CLAIMANT'S NAME: A. Peter Evans and Ujima Security Council
2. CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 1111 Beech Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. AMOUNT OF CLAIM: See Attached HOME PHONE: 650-321-1009
4. ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF DIFFERENT FROM LINES 1 AND 2: Same
5. (a) DATE OF INCIDENT: On-going; Serial violations of Municipal, State and Federal Laws (b) LOCATION OF INCIDENT: City of East Palo Alto
6. DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT INCLUDING YOUR REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR YOUR DAMAGES: See Attached
7. DESCRIBE ALL DAMAGES WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE INCIDENT: See Attached.
8. NAME (S) OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (S) CAUSING THE DAMAGES YOU ARE CLAIMING: Alvin James + City Manager, Michael Lawson + Former City Attorney, Valerie Armento + Acting City Attorney, Special Counsel Suzanne Solomon of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Mayor Patricia Foster, Vice Mayor Donna Rutherford, Council Member David Woods, Council Member Ruben Abrica.

Attachment to Claim Against the City of East Palo Alto A. Peter Evans July 7, 2008

3. The amount of claim reimbursement is not known at this time. Claimant seeks $1.00, plus costs and attorney fees. The intent of this claim/action is to seek reimbursement to the City of East Palo Alto of all illegally distributed public funds that were done or caused to be done by the persons named in item 8. The further intent of this claim/action is to set the Banico settlement aside because it was not approved by the City Council. Additionally this claim seeks a complete investigation into the running of the City Manager's office and each City Department by an independent agency with Claimant's approval.

6. The four elected officials named in item 8 are members of the East Palo Alto City Council. They took an oath of office to defend and protect the City of East Palo. It is clear that all four of them have deliberately and willfully violated their oath of office.

The others listed are staff members hired by the City to manage and/or provide professional contract services to the City. In the matter of the Banico case staff and/or contractors have provided secretive incompetent service that has harmed the City of East Palo Alto and its citizens.

I, A. Peter Evans, have been an East Palo Alto Council member for nearly four (4) years. I have attended most of the City Council regular and special meetings during that time. I am aware of the functions of the City and civil laws. During this time I have witnessed the egregious abuse of discretion and violation of civil laws of our City. In most cases the violations have been deliberate and willful, instead of honest errors. Most of these Abuse of Discretion acts have escalated to serial violations of Municipal, State and Federal laws.

Accordingly, without reservation, I can testify under oath that the four council members and staff persons listed above have deliberately allowed the City of East Palo Alto to be misgoverned into a deplorable state. Almost every department in the City is managed and operated in a manner to not deliver even a minimum amount of service to our constituents. I have listed in my claim, charges against the persons named in item #8 consistent with my oath to defend and protect the City of East Palo Alto and its citizens.

I. MARIA BANICO CLAIM The persons listed in Item #8 refused to investigate the Banico allegations because it would reveal CORRUPTIOIN AND A COVER-UP by Council members, Attorneys and staff.

HISTORY OF THE BANICO CLAIM: On March 13, 2008 the City Manager, Alvin James, fired Maria Banico, Planning Director for the City of East Palo Alto. The City Manager fired Ms. Banico by his interpretation of insubordination and neglect of duty. Ms. Banico's claim dated May 4, 2008 stated that she was fired for refusing to "sign off" on an inspection card.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by staff and Council members.
1. The City never investigated the Banico claim.
2. Banico filed a written claim against the City.
3. Banico appeared in person at a City Council Meeting and read her claim into the record.
4. The Banico claim named City Manager Alvin James and then City Attorney Michael Lawson as the persons who had harmed her.
5. The City Council hired special council Suzanne Solomon to defend the City regarding the Banico suit.
6. The City Council allowed Ms. Solomon to defend City Manager Alvin James without Council approval. The City Council never voted to use public funds to defend the actions of Mr. James. I made this fact clear to the Council in closed session, but they refused to act on this concern.
7. Special Council Solomon refused neither to report to the City Council nor to provide any legal papers to us during the defense of the Banico suit. I requested a copy of the papers of those persons who were deposed during this claim. City Manager Alvin James, previous City Attorney Michael Lawson, and Maria Banico all gave depositions in this case. However Ms. Solomon refused to give me a copy of any of these depositions, and the other council members supported her actions. I made a written request for a copy of the depositions and Mayor Patricia Foster ignored that request. Additionally the Mayor also refused my request to agendize the Banico matter.

Ms. Solomon appeared to discuss the Banico suit in closed session on two occasions. Once she came to discuss the legal defense of Mr. James by the City and once to discuss the settlement of this claim. Both were verbal reports. The Council was never given anything to read. I objected to this lack of information and demanded to see documents of the depositions and the mediation hearings. Ms. Solomon refused to provide us any mediation papers that she filed regarding the Banico case and the settlement conference. The Council members present + Abrica, Foster and Rutherford, supported this refusal.

A few days later I read in a local newspaper that the City had settled the Banico suit for over three hundred thousand dollars ($325,000). Attorney Solomon did not have the authority to settle that suit without Council approval. Ms. Solomon's charge was to negotiate a settlement and to report back to the Council for final directions. The City Council never voted on this settlement amount nor reported out of closed session that a settlement had been agreed upon. The Banico case was illegally settled with no investigation, no Council oversight and no community awareness and must be set aside.

8. I am attaching a copy of the claim by Maria Banico that the City refused to investigate and then "settled" illegally as a part of my claim inclusively.

II. NICHOLSON COMPANY CLAIM

HISTORY

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws
1. The City Staff never gave a copy of this claim filed on December 26, 2007 to members of the City Council nor did they let the Council know about this claim/request for payment.
2. The City staff never let the members of the City Council know about the Nicholson lawsuit filed on May 16, 2008 nor gave Council a copy of it.
3. On June 17, 2008 during a closed session, the Nicholson case was discussed.
4. At the closed session on June 17, 2008 I advised the acting City Attorney that the council members had not received any information regarding the Nicholson claim. I requested information regarding this matter, but Ms. Armento refused to give me any written information. Council members Foster, Rutherford and Abrica said that they did not need or want to see any legal information regarding the Nicholson claim/lawsuit. (Mr. Woods was absent.) However I insisted that as a Council member I could not make a decision on a claim against the City if the legal information was denied to me. I therefore demanded information regarding the Nicholson claim/lawsuit. On June 19, 2008 I received a copy of the Nicholson Lawsuit in my City mailbox. Ms. Armento had attached a sarcastic note to it in her own handwriting.
5. Nicholson Lawsuit Case # 472971 The Nicholson Company was contracted by the City of East Palo Alto to lease the land and to construct the Police Station on Demeter Street. This contract never went out to bid, and was simply awarded to the Nicholson company in violation of the Municipal and State bidding processes. The contract included the installation of two modular buildings to be used by the Police Department. However the Nicholson's suit alleges that on September, 2007, the City expanded the Agreement to include installation of a third building on the premises. The suit alleges that on August 24, 2007 the Nicholson Company prepared and sent to the City a monthly increase which reflected payment for the additional improvement costs of a third building. The suit further alleges that the City failed to pay the increased amount. The suit states that as of March 24, 2008 the Nicholson claim against the City of East Palo Alto is $165,986.33 plus interest, penalties and attorney fees.

The City Council was neither advised of the increase cost of the Nicholson Agreement, about the claim for additional reimbursement, nor about the lawsuit. These items later were on the Council agenda as information items and in closed session. The suit did appear on the Consent Agenda as a general routine action item for denial. It appeared that the City Manager had obligated the City, without Council understanding or knowledge or public discussion of the issue, to an expenditure of $165,986.33 plus interest, penalties and attorney fees. The City Manager, Acting City Attorney, Past City Attorney and Council members deliberately hid this construction project claim and lawsuit from the Public and me. This public/secret contract began in September 2006 and will soon be two years old.

The City Manager should be immediately suspended without pay until this matter is completely investigated and resolved. The City Manager has authority to approve a certain amount of expenditures. But it certainly isn't $165,986.33. Council approval is required for anything above $7,500. Mr. James stated publicly that no public funds would be used for the Police Station construction. Mr. James should also be held accountable for any public funds dispersed not in accordance with local ordinance or State laws.

III. APPEAL Public Hearing Re: 2371 University Avenue On June 17, 2008 the City Council scheduled a Public Hearing on an Appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding a parking exception and special permit. This decision was regarding a permit to operate a retail store at 2371 University Avenue.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Council and City staff.
1. Prior to the Hearing time the appellant advised City staff that he could not attend the Appeal Hearing because he was out of town and requested a continuance to a later date. Routinely such a request by an appellant is granted.
2. However in this case on the scheduled date of the Public Hearing the City Council granted the request for the continuance, but held the Public Hearing anyway WITHOUT THE APPELLANT BEING PRESENT!
3. At the time I objected to the holding of a Public Hearing without the Appellant who filed the Appeal and paid a fee for the Appeal to be heard.
4. All Planning Commission decisions are advisory and only become final if there is no appeal to the City Council within 15 days. By law the City Council holds a Public Hearing on the Appeal and then makes a final decision.
5. On June 17, 2008 the City Council held a Public Hearing on an Appeal WITHOUT the presence of the Appellant. At the conclusion of such a violation of local ordinance Council member Donna Rutherford made a suggestion and ultimately made the motion to grant the Merchant the business license and permit to operate until the Appeal is resolved.
6. The motion passed by a majority vote. I objected to the action of holding the Public Hearing without the Appellant and to granting a business license and permit to operate until the Appeal is heard and resolved at a later Council Meeting.
7. City Manager Alvin James and Acting City Attorney Armento sat by, making no comment while this strange and unlawful behavior was played out.
8. Vice Mayor Donna Rutherford verbally attacked me and attempted to stop me from speaking on her illegal motion to grant the business license and permit to operate BEFORE settling the Appeal.

IV. YMCA/EAST PALO ALTO On June 17, 2008 the City Council heard a request by the YMCA regarding a negotiated sub-lease Agreement, approved a proposed fence at Bell Street Park. Several years ago the City Council gave Bell Street Park to the YMCA for 55 years for $1.00 per year. The City also waived over $100,000.00 of permit fees and improvements. Historically Bell Street Park was the home of Ravenswood Recreation and Park District that was dissolved into the City upon its incorporation in 1983.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by the City.
1. During negotiations for the initial Agreement between the City and the YMCA, the YMCA agreed to guarantee $160,000 per year for the residents of East Palo Alto to use the East Palo Alto facility.
2. At the Council Meeting I requested that the City obtain some kind of proof that the YMCA had in fact provided $160,000 to our residents during the past years. Staff seemed to be unaware of this requirement.
3. The City Council refused to require the YMCA to provide evidence that the Y is not in violation of the Agreement.
4. Additionally the City Council approved the erection of a fence by the YMCA; an approval normally done by the Planning Department or the Building Department.
5. The YMCA also requested permission from the City Council to make one of the restrooms in the model of APARTHEID + the worst form of segregation practiced on our people. It would bar the residents of our community from using the restroom in the same way that the restrooms were off limits to certain people in South Africa or in pre-1970 Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.
6. I pointed out to the City Council that I am against apartheid restrooms as well as the apartheid fence. We would be re-introducing State sponsored segregation. The members of the City Council would not understand this and approved the YMCA request to maintain an exclusive public restroom outside the YMCA for use by their staff ONLY!
7. The City failed to investigate my claim that the YMCA had stolen large heritage Palm trees from Bell Street Park at the time the facility was built. The trees were apparently sold with the proceeds NOT coming to the City of East Palo Alto. Unsanctioned selling of valuable trees from public land is regarded as a theft of public assets and must be investigated and prosecuted.

V. FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH The City of East Palo Alto received a claim from Faith Baptist Church regarding a water supply line.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by the City Council.
1. The City Council failed to investigate the claim from Faith Baptist Church regarding the water supply line.
2. The increased water line capacity was a condition of approval by the Menlo Park Fire District at the time the Faith Baptist Church building was constructed.
3. The City of East Palo Alto made no such requirement and therefore was not liable to reimburse the church for its expenditure.
4. The City Council voted to pay a claim for several thousand dollars to Faith Baptist that was several years old. The City revised or updated old documents to justify the spending of Public Funds instead of properly investigating the claim.

VI. MEASURE C and TRANSPORTATION TAX Both Measure C and the Transit Occupancy Tax were measures to provide revenue to the City of East Palo Alto. Measure C was a ballot measure approved by the electorate.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by the City Attorney, City Manager and by the City Council majority.

1. Immediately after voter approval of Measure C there were major problems with the collection and administering of the funds.
2. Measure C, a voter approved ordinance, has been revised twice by the City Council. The manner in which the County Tax Collector could collect and process the funds was inconsistent with State law. The Measure C language was changed by the City Attorney and ratified by the majority of the City Council without voter approval. The Election Code requires voter approval to make changes in a voter-approved ordinance.
3. The City Council majority did not like the manner in which the Measure C initiative had setup the Advisory Committee. Therefore the City Council revised the ordinance to include the appointment of an Ad-hoc committee. This revision also violates the Election Code because the original ordinance was approved by a vote of the electorate.
4. The City Council refused to investigate, or even consider, my charge that the City Attorney Michael Lawson had revised the language of Measure C after the measure language was approved by the City Council and was passed by the voters. To date the City Council has not appointed the fifteen (15) members to oversee the administration of the Measure C funds. Instead public funds are being spent to finance this illegal Ad-Hoc Committee.
5. Recently Mayor Patricia Foster and Council Member Ruben Abrica nominated and voted for themselves, with a vote from Council Member Donna Rutherford, to be a City Council Advisory Committee for Measure C administration. This action puts those with legislative authority in a position to advise where public funds should go and to whom, in place of the intent of the initiative that put that authority in the hands of the Advisory Committee.

VII. 350 DEMETER STREET (PROPOSED CITY CORPORATION YARD) A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws.
1. At the time of the preliminary discussions for locating the Police Station on Demeter Street, the City Manager submitted an alleged claim against the City regarding a contract at 350 Demeter Street.
2. The facts surrounding this claim are very unclear because the City Manager and the then City Attorney refused to submit to the City Council a copy of the claim or any of the legal documents. I repeatedly requested both, but was ignored.
3. However the City Council voted to settle the 350 Demeter Street invisible claim/lawsuit for over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000)!
4. Apparently the 350 Demeter Street claim concerned an alleged violation of an Agreement between the City and the 350 Demeter Street claimant.
5. The City refused to discuss aborting the negotiations for the Police Station at the other site on Demeter Street and utilize the site under dispute and thus save the City money.
6. As a result of this the City paid over $300,000 to someone NOT to build at the 350 Demeter site, and then entered into a contract for the Police Station for ten thousand dollars $10,000 a month for ten (10) years, at a site right down the street. .
7. The cost for rent of the Police Department did not include building/renovation costs, furnishings, equipment, etc.

VIII. COUNTRY TIME MARKET (Presently located at University Ave. and Bell Street) Country Time Market was previously located on Donohoe in the Redevelopment Area and had to relocate due to the coming construction.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws

1. The alleged owner applied to the City of East Palo Alto for a permit to relocate to University and Bell.
2. The approval process took several weeks to pass through the City Planning requirements, alcohol license approval and several City Council Public Hearings.
3. There was a public outcry from various members of the surrounding neighborhood who objected to granting a liquor license to the store. In its old location there had been numerous incidents of public drunkenness, drug sales and other forms of behavior that they did not want to move to their neighborhood.
4. The Applicant appeared at about a dozen hearings on his application.
5. The City Council eventually approved the move by Country Time Market to University and Bell, ignoring the pleas of the neighbors.
6. However the Applicant/owner of Country Time never opened the market as he promised. At multiple hearings the Applicant testified to his commitment and desire to get all permits and operate his store at a level of excellence and responsibility that would make it an asset to the City of East Palo Alto.
7. Mayor Patricia Foster called a community meeting regarding Country Time Market that was basically a secret. She invited some City staff, the pastor and deacon of the Community Church, and me, but NO residents who would be impacted by the presence of the Market. The day before the Meeting I spoke to one of the neighbors and realized that the neighbors did not know about it. I called several people and a few came on that short notice.
8. There was no agenda, but the Applicant seemed ready to assure the residents that he would be a good business neighbor and would immediately take care of any problems that arose.
9. At the next regular City Council meeting when I protested this secret meeting, Mayor Patricia Foster asked the Acting City Attorney to investigate my charges. However the written report on this investigation submitted by the Acting City Attorney was regarding the Brown Act and an illegal meeting. That was not the subject. The report ignored my protest of the Mayor holding a SECRET community meeting.
10. However the Applicant did not open the store. It has had two different owners since it opened and the Applicant is not one of them. It is not safe to assume that the promises the Applicant made to the community and neighbors during the Public Hearings and the "secret" meeting will be honored.
11. The City staff has failed to investigate the legality of the above situation. The citizens who came to protest the location of this store in this neighborhood were assured by the Applicant of his good intentions.
12. The City Council apparently made the decision based on those promises, and now he is gone. This is a situation that possibly involves fraud and requires investigation and prosecution if indicated.

IX. COOLEY LANDING A few years ago the City of East Palo Alto became owner of part of Cooley Landing, bay front property at the end of Bay Road in the Ravenswood Industrial Park area. Several months ago there was a major fire at the Cooley Landing Site.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Manager and City Council members.

1. The City Manager has not reported on the fire to the City Council or the community. No report has been made on the cause or extent of damage by the fire, and possible City liability.
2. At a public meeting shortly thereafter I made the Council, City Manager and Public aware that neither the City Manager nor staff had given a report on the Cooley Landing fire. I asked for a report of what had happened.
3. To date no report has been given formally or informally. There is no indication of possible liabilities that may exist for the City.

X. CITY WORKERS INSURANCE CANCELLED Recently the medical insurance for several City employees including Police, Managers, Council Members and other City staff was abruptly cancelled.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Manager and City Council majority.

1. The affected persons were not given a warning that the insurance carrier was about to cancel their medical coverage or why.
2. I complained at a public meeting. Additionally members of the management staff filed a written complaint with the Assistant City Manager regarding the frightening situation that they abruptly found themselves and their families in.
3. The Mayor, the Vice Mayor and Council members Woods and Abrica failed to insist on a written management report regarding the cancellation of the medical coverage for employees.
4. The true reason why the medical coverage had been cancelled is still unknown.
5. Another plan was offered in place of the old coverage, but no one knows if the same conditions that caused the other to be cancelled continue to exist. A report has not been made to the City Council regarding coverage for those who were previously covered. We are left to assume that everyone now has proper medical coverage.

XI. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The information technology needs of the City have been handled in a piecemeal and haphazard manner. The City has contracted its IT out first to the City of Palo Alto and now to Redwood City since my almost four (4) years on the Council. No performance requirement with measurable evaluations has ever been a part of any of these agreements. There is no IT Plan that systemizes the City's efforts and includes plan for growth and development of City capabilities.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws
1. The City of East Palo Alto has paid out over $300,000 during the three years of each contract to the two cities. Palo Alto declined to continue to do the IT work for the City of East Palo Alto after two contract periods of 3 years each.
2. The City of Redwood City was contacted by staff and now has contracted to provide IT for the City of East Palo Alto for over $300,000 for a three (3) year period.
3. I strongly objected to renewing the IT contract with Palo Alto after the first three (3) years because the City of East Palo Alto should develop its own IT capability after 20 years of incorporation. The City Manager disagreed and the rest of the Council agreed with him.
4. My efforts to include a training program for local people into the contract were also rejected by the City Manager and the rest of the Council members.
5. After the second three-year contract with the Palo Alto, they refused to enter into a third IT contract with the City of East Palo Alto.
6. After that the contract for IT for the City was offered to the City of Redwood City. There was no bid process with either Palo Alto or with the City of Redwood City.
7. Again I strongly disagreed with our City spending almost a million dollars to a sole source provider with no bidding process and no training program. This program could provide citizens with the necessary skills the opportunity to be hired in the IT department of the City of East Palo Alto. It should also have a training component to prepare our own residents to do IT work for our City. This would also bring us closer to developing our own comprehensive in-house IT program and department.
8. To date the City has spent over $900,000 of public funds for IT with no consideration for building a strong in-house capability or for training local people for any of the jobs that have to be done.
9. There have been clear performance requirements and expectations for the work that has been contracted out. Additionally there has been no method for measurable performance evaluation of the IT work that has been done for the City of East Palo Alto for the past seven years.

XII. CONSULTANT TO HIRE A FINANCIAL DIRECTOR The City Council appropriated $10,000 to hire a consultant to find a replacement for the City Finance Director. A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Manager and City Council majority.

1. After several weeks the City Manager announced that a new Finance Director had been hired.
2. It then appeared that the City spent the $10,000 to hire the consultant and then hired the same acting Finance Director that had been working for the City for several years.
3. Staff has provided no report to the City Council regarding the expenditure of the money that was appropriated: Was the consultant actually part of the selection process? Was the consultant paid $10,00 for the hiring of an in-house person? Was that an appropriate expenditure?
4. City Council majority seems uninterested in knowing the answer to any of these questions.

XIII. RAIL SPUR AT PULGAS AVENUE There has been an old unused railroad spur off of Pulgas Avenue for many years. It needed to be removed to allow for land utilization. A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws.

1. A few months ago there was an action item on the City Council Agenda regarding the removal of this rail track in relation to the Byrd/Brock Project.
2. The management request was to reimburse/forgive the contractor that removed and sold the rails without City authorization.
3. I advised the staff member giving the report that it appeared to me that City property had been stolen and sold without City knowledge or approval.
4. Additionally I reminded the staff member that the rail spur site had been purchased by the City using Park in Lieu Fees.
5. Staff agreed to research this and to bring this item back for resolution.
6. To date, almost a year later, the rail spur has NOT been re-agendized by the City Manager, the Mayor or the Vice Mayor.

XIV. BAY ROAD CONSTRUCTION AT CLARK TO FORDHAM Several years ago the City received a Federal Grant through the office of Senator Diane Feinstein for road reconstruction. The work has been going on for the past two months from Clarke Avenue to Fordham Street on Bay Road.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws

1. Recently the City Manager has had this item on the City Council Agenda because the major portion of work at this site has been completed. The Agenda item was to move the payment for this project forward.
2. If one goes to this site, it is readily apparent that very poor construction has occurred on the street. There are large stress fractures in the new concrete at the corners of Clarke and Bay and Illinois and Bay. Most of these cracks are several yards in length in multiple places in the center of the street and sidewalk.
3. As I am writing, the workers are preparing to pour concrete on the other side of the street.
4. It appears that the cracks that are readily visible were created because the concrete was improperly prepared, since the cracks had appeared before auto traffic was allowed on the street.
5. There has been no staff report to the City Council about the inferior condition of this newly constructed road. No willingness or ability is demonstrated by City Manager to properly assess this project before asking for the release of public funds to pay for shoddy work.

XV RENT CONTROL/RENT STABILIZATION BOARD The Rent Stabilization Board of the City of East Palo Alto was established to insure the continued existence of affordable housing in the City. It is composed of citizens from three groups: tenants, landlords and homeowners.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Staff and the City Council majority.

1. The Rent Stabilization/Rent Control Board of the City of East Palo Alto has been reduced to two factors: a. Eviction of Tenants b. Lawyer fees paid by the City for lawsuits.
2. This reduction in responsibilities is the result of the actions of Council members, City Staff and legal advisors.
3. The recent Rent Moratorium ordinance that was adopted by the City Council was overturned by the Superior Court.
4. The Appeal of this decision was a waste of Public funds because this ordinance was scheduled to sunset shortly after an Appeal could be filed or decided by the Appeal Court.
5. The City failed to hire an attorney who is experienced in Rent Control and Tenant's protection matters in order to litigate this successfully.
6. Recently many of the tenants on the `west side' have relocated because of the drastic rent increases there.
7. In the July 8, 2008 edition of the Palo Alto Daily studio apartments in that area were advertised for $1, 050 per month and one bedroom apartments were advertised for $1,400 per month. Those advertised rents are more than a 100% increase above much of what had been charged before.
8. Although it was common knowledge for the last several years that one company was buying many of the apartment buildings on the `west side', the City Manager and staff failed to take note of this and failed to take any steps to protect the tenants. Additionally the Mayor or Vice Mayor refused to agendize this item for discussion and consideration by the City Council.
9. The City Council refused to take appropriate action to assist our low-income tenants in keeping affordable rents and staying in their homes. Many have already been removed due to high increases and other scare tactics.

XVI. EXCESS SICK LEAVE PAID TO FORMER CITY ATTORNEY After many years in the employ of the City of East Palo Alto, the City Attorney, Michael Lawson, resigned his position to become the City Attorney of Hayward, California. Mr. Lawson requested payment for his accrued vacation time and for his accrued sick leave.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Council majority.

1. The Personnel Director advised the Council that payment for accrued vacation hours is lawful by the City upon employee separation by the operation of Municipal law.
2. The Personnel Director advised the Council that sick leave is accrual hours and is not protected by law. He advised the City Council that the Attorney presently had sick leave coverage at his new position in Hayward.
3. City Council Members Rutherford, Abrica and Woods voted to give former City Attorney Michael Lawson over twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in public funds for accumulated sick leave that is not lawful. Additionally Mr. Lawson already has sick leave coverage in his new job!
4. Mayor Patricia Foster voted no because she stated that the City did not pay the former City Attorney enough money.
5. I voted unequivocally NO and advised the three Council members that their action is a very serious abuse of discretion and a gift of public funds. Both are very serious violations of Municipal and State law.

XVII. MATRIX STUDY FOR THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO Recently the City of East Palo Alto contracted the services of a consultant for an evaluation of City organization. This consultant has experience in the study of municipal organization. After submitting the final report, the consultant appeared at a regular City Council meeting to personally submit the "Management City Operational Study". The Matrix study was very complete and reflected the operation of the complete City of East Palo Alto government. For the sake of my claim, I will only focus on the Consultant's report dealing with the Planning Department.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Council majority and the City Manager.

1. The consultant found that several departments need attention immediately, but the Planning Department is the worse organized of any he had witnessed in thirty-five (35) years of professional services.
2. The consultant's report regarding technology in the City Planning and Building Departments indicated that both are seriously out of date. A conservative person could infer or interpret the report as saying that technology of Alley Oop and the Flintstones was high-tech compared with what we have in the Planning and Building Departments.
3. The report further stated that the Planning Department is at such a level of organizational dysfunction, that the General Fund of the City is subsidizing the Planning Department. It is supposed to be the other way around: Planning and Building Department subsidize themselves and cities through fees charged by both Departments.
4. It is ironic (and curious) that the Planning and Building Departments where the City Manager has over twenty-five (25) years of related experience is the worse organized and is fiscally dependent on the General Fund.
5. The Planning Department has not had a permanent Director since the firing of Maria Banico.
6. At a recent City Council Meeting, the City Manager stated that no matter how hard he and the City Personnel Director tried to hire a Planning Director, they have not been successful.
7. The next day I contacted a planner that I know who might be interested in the Planning Director job. The following day she informed me that there must be some confusion, because an opening for Planning Director does not appear among the list of job openings on the website of the City of East Palo Alto.
8. Sure enough when I checked, this position does not appear on the City of East Palo Alto as a job opening. As late as the day I am writing this, I went to the City of East Palo Alto website and clicked on "Currently Available Jobs". There are four job openings listed. Two are for policemen, one is for an accountant and the last is for a City Engineer.
9. The veracity of the City Manager's claim to be looking for someone is in question if there is no advertisement on the City website and there has been none posted since he made his allegation. Is this a secret job search?
10. The Council majority must demand some accountability on the part of the City Manager for such a claim. We must demand accountability by the City Council, which is the sole purpose of this claim.

XVIII. REPLY BY CITY TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT The Grand Jury report on many of the actions of the City staff and City Council members was presented to the City. There was a requirement of a response within a certain period of time.

A. Claimant claim of Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Municipal and Civil Laws by City Council majority, the City Manager and the former City Attorney.

1. The Grand Jury Report contains many findings regarding the actions of the City Manager and the City Attorney.
2. The response to that Report should have been handled differently than by allowing these same two people to prepare it.
3. Upon reading the reply I realized that the process had been in error.
4. The majority members of the City Council refused to investigate my charge that the reply to the Grand Jury Report as prepared by the City Manager and the City Attorney was contaminated with fabrications and contradictions
5. The citizens of the City of East Palo Alto have a right to any allegations made by the San Mateo County Grand Jury responded to in a fair and honest manner.

Signed_____________________________________Date July, 2008

A. Peter Evans
Council Member + City of East Palo Alto
President, Ujima Security Council