I was very disappointed by the lack of decorum at the recent City Council meeting where the council considered whether to appoint Seema Patel, the first alternate, to the Planning Commission. Instead of a fair discussion about qualifications and process, the meeting felt like a public trial without due process. I have come to expect this negative discourse from some speakers who show little restraint toward those they disagree with, but I was especially surprised by damaging claims made by former Police Chief Susan Manheimer about comments Seema supposedly made during a 2022 Planning Commission meeting on the Fish Market project. The recording does not support the chief’s claims. The chief did not speak, send comments or, as near as I can tell, attend that 2022 meeting. The actual Fish Market discussion touched on whether public access to a proposed park should be restricted because of a nearby homeless encampment. Seema said she understood the concern, particularly at night, but questioned making the park less accessible to the public. She was respectful and thoughtful. I encourage readers to review the actual tape. Volunteers who serve on commissions should not be attacked in public based on mischaracterizations, innuendo or secondhand claims, whether by the public or by councilmembers. Concerns about a commissioner’s conduct should be addressed in real time, through a fair process, not in a public forum driven by rumor and accusation. San Mateo can and should do better. Seema Patel deserved better, and so does the public.
Mr. Elliott is certainly entitled to his opinion, but what strikes me most about his letter is not what it says — it is what it leaves out.
It is no secret that Frank Elliott is a staunch financial campaign supporter of both Seema Patel and former Councilmember Amo “Envelope Gate” Lee.
That is his right – Mr. Elliott has financially hitched his wagon to the two-headed horse of the Seema-Amo Lee destructive duo.
Readers should understand this perspective when evaluating his defense of Seema.
Elliott appears to be desperately chasing a bad bet he has made.
But more importantly, his letter completely ignores the growing number of residents who have come forward to share their own personal experiences and concerns regarding Seema’s uncivil conduct.
These are not anonymous rumors. They are real people, using their real names, publicly recounting incidents they personally experienced or witnessed. It’s been a train wreck for far too long.
At some point, reasonable people have to ask: how many independent voices need to tell similar stories before they deserve to be heard?
Mr. Elliott characterizes (minimizes) the concerns as "innuendo" and "secondhand claims." Yet many of the residents who spoke were describing their own direct experiences. Dismissing those voices does not make them disappear.
The June 15 meeting was not a criminal trial. It was a public discussion about whether an individual should continue serving in a position of public trust. In that context, character, judgment, temperament, and conduct are not side issues — they are central issues.
What many residents found encouraging and refreshing was the willingness of Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki to acknowledge concerns that others seemed determined to ignore.
Public trust is strengthened when concerns are addressed openly, not when they are dismissed because they are inconvenient – or in this case highlight the failings of a candidate someone has financially backed – you guessed it, like chasing a bad bet.
The growing number of residents speaking out suggests this issue is far bigger than one appointment. It is about accountability, ethics, and the kind of civil civic culture that keeps San Mateo moving forward.
Perhaps the greatest weakness in Mr. Elliott's letter is not what he chose to defend, but what he chose not to acknowledge: the voices of the residents who have finally decided they have had enough.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Mr. Elliott is certainly entitled to his opinion, but what strikes me most about his letter is not what it says — it is what it leaves out.
It is no secret that Frank Elliott is a staunch financial campaign supporter of both Seema Patel and former Councilmember Amo “Envelope Gate” Lee.
That is his right – Mr. Elliott has financially hitched his wagon to the two-headed horse of the Seema-Amo Lee destructive duo.
Readers should understand this perspective when evaluating his defense of Seema.
Elliott appears to be desperately chasing a bad bet he has made.
But more importantly, his letter completely ignores the growing number of residents who have come forward to share their own personal experiences and concerns regarding Seema’s uncivil conduct.
These are not anonymous rumors. They are real people, using their real names, publicly recounting incidents they personally experienced or witnessed. It’s been a train wreck for far too long.
At some point, reasonable people have to ask: how many independent voices need to tell similar stories before they deserve to be heard?
Mr. Elliott characterizes (minimizes) the concerns as "innuendo" and "secondhand claims." Yet many of the residents who spoke were describing their own direct experiences. Dismissing those voices does not make them disappear.
The June 15 meeting was not a criminal trial. It was a public discussion about whether an individual should continue serving in a position of public trust. In that context, character, judgment, temperament, and conduct are not side issues — they are central issues.
What many residents found encouraging and refreshing was the willingness of Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki to acknowledge concerns that others seemed determined to ignore.
Public trust is strengthened when concerns are addressed openly, not when they are dismissed because they are inconvenient – or in this case highlight the failings of a candidate someone has financially backed – you guessed it, like chasing a bad bet.
The growing number of residents speaking out suggests this issue is far bigger than one appointment. It is about accountability, ethics, and the kind of civil civic culture that keeps San Mateo moving forward.
Perhaps the greatest weakness in Mr. Elliott's letter is not what he chose to defend, but what he chose not to acknowledge: the voices of the residents who have finally decided they have had enough.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.