Outreach of San Mateo Heritage Alliance

Shawn,

I recently revisited the San Mateo Heritage Alliance's board members list on their website and noticed something interesting. Last year, one of their board members actually resided in Sunnybrae, but now that person seems to be missing from the list. During dinner, my son mentioned the Internet Archive, where I found the original full list from last year.

Here's the comparison:

Before:

Laurie Hietter, President, Baywood

Keith Weber, Vice President, Aragon

Laurie Watanuki, Central

Dianne Whitaker, Secretary, North Central

Lisa Vande Voorde, Beresford-Hillsdale

Ruthmary Cradler, San Mateo Park

Shirley Melnicoe, Baywood

After:

Laurie Hietter, President, Baywood

Keith Weber, Vice President, Aragon

Laurie Watanuki, Central

Dianne Whitaker, Secretary, North Central

Lisa Vande Voorde, Beresford-Hillsdale

Ruthmary Cradler, San Mateo Park

Shirley Melnicoe, Baywood

Thomas Morgan II, Treasurer, Sunnybrae

Can you believe it? There are only two (yes, just two!) people on their board who actually live in Baywood. This suggests that a significant portion of the funding and effort for this initiative is coming from individuals outside of Baywood. How can they claim to be a Baywood grassroots movement? It's nothing but a sham. Perhaps Ethics San Mateo should take a closer look at this situation.

It would be great for Ethics San Mateo to take a closer look but we know this ain’t gonna happen based on who is listed on their state filings:

* Dave Cohen

* Connie Weiss

* Randy Hietter

* Mike Nash

Would be great for Ethics San Mateo to look into this but this ain’t going to happen based on who is listed on the organization’s state filings:

Dave Cohen

Connie Weiss

Randy Hietter

Mike Nash

Shawn and GasCar1956,

First, the mission of Ethics San Mateo is to lead and support the residents of San Mateo is served by a CITY GOVERNMENT that operates with the highest of ethical standards. The San Mateo Heritage Alliance is not a government body.

Secondly, Mr. Nash is NOT currently on our Board of Directors. He filled a board position while we were forming the organization, a Corporation. It was determined that because of the potential of a conflict of interest as the Historic District debate "heated up", he resigned and was replaced. Recheck the Ca Secretary of State's web site to see the current Corporate Information filing.

Many of our members from across San Mateo are also active in the community. That makes sense;; people who care about local issues tend to be involved in more than one "cause". Ethics San Mateo is issue-agnostic We strive to .focus ONLY on the ethical behavior of our city government official;s. We have a independent Advisory Council to assist us in that, and the Board of Directors has determined a number of times not to pursue an investigation because it would cause us to potentially be viewed as taking sides on an issue. Simply because some of our members are also involved in issue-based organizations it does not mean Ethics San Mateo supports that organization's goals.

It is telling that GasCar1956, and others, use pseudonyms apparently to hide their identity, and perhaps associations with organizations.

We also find it difficult to understand how anyone can oppose our mission. You don't want our city leadership to operate ethically?

Dave Cohen

President/CEO Ethics San Mateo

A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation

Based on your own logic every overlapping board member with SMHA should resign which would include Connie Weiss and Lisa Vande Voorde. They would have stronger conflicts than Mike Nash who is “neutral” on the historic district (or is he?)

Instead of avoiding the topic due to the appearance of a conflict of interest, members of Ethics San Mateo have raised concerns, but ONLY about the people who are speaking out against the San Mateo Heritage Alliance. Not a peep about Mayor Nash who publicly stated she would recuse from discussions or votes on the topic of a Baywood Historic District, but then failed to do so - twice!

Nobody is taking "Ethics San Mateo" seriously because it's obvious to everyone that the organization doesn't really care about transparency or ethics - it's just a tool for weaponized harassment against the people and policies its members don't like.

Mr. Cohen,

I must express my deep confusion regarding the actions of Ethics San Mateo. It appears that they have involved themselves in various city policies that are completely unrelated to the code of conduct for city officials. One striking example is their clear stance on bike lanes on Humboldt Street, as outlined on their own website: https://ethicssanmateo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/3-30-2023-SOP-2023-2-ESM-Ethics-Watch-North-Central-Bike-Lanes.pdf

Furthermore, the stated goals of Ethics San Mateo, as mentioned on their website, are as follows:

"1. Promote and advocate for the establishment of an Independent Ethics Commission as part of our city's governance. The Commission would be established and operate in accordance with the City Charter.

2. Promote and advocate for a City Ordinance regulating lobbying activities and requiring registration of lobbyists."

If the San Mateo Heritage Alliance does not fit the description of a lobbying group, then I fail to understand what does. What is even more concerning is the complete lack of investigation or questioning regarding the extensive involvement of our Mayor Nash. To the best of my knowledge, Mayor Nash’s husband Mike has been a driving force behind the ongoing historic districting effort. Despite her written promises, including on her own social media, to recuse herself from the issue, she has failed to uphold that promise and has actively voted on the matter. This kind of dishonesty towards her constituents is deeply troubling. While we generally hold Mayor Nash in high regard, it is disheartening to witness her veering so far off course. If she supports undemocratic efforts to take property rights away, then we cannot support her going forward.

It is quite telling that Ethics San Mateo has remained silent on this matter. I fully agree with JJ94402's sentiment - this appears to be nothing more than a farcical spectacle that no one takes seriously.

JJ94402,

I’m not going to carry on an endless discussion, especially with someone who won’t identify themselves, hiding behind a pseudonym, and who purposely twists information in an attempt to appease those, like you, that cannot grasp the simple concept that having a city government with clear, defined, and enforceable Ethical Standards is beneficial to everyone.

For your information, Connie Weiss is NOT on the San Mateo Heritage Alliance Board of Directors.

Lisa Vande Voorde’s membership on that board has been discussed by our board, and we’ve found that she does not bring a bias to our efforts. In FACT, Lisa has challenged a number of potential items of study that relate to the Historical District, forcefully insisting that we could be viewed as supporting the designation. We have avoided those issues. ESM’s only mention of the Historical District in our Statements of Position are the comments by Councilmember Lee, announcing she didn’t know enough about the process to make a decision, but then, at the same time, was demanding the withdrawal of the application. THAT’s an issue of ethics.

Your comment about Ethics San Mateo not being taken seriously by anyone is interesting. I guess the City Council doesn’t count? A former council member told me directly that they had tried for years to get an enforceable and comprehensive Code of Conduct and Ethics Standards in place, only to get nowhere with the Council. ESM has been pushing for such reform. We’ve made presentations to the City Council, written Statements of Position pointing out basic ethics breaches and some more than questionable conduct by City Officials, provided recommendations, and spoken during Public Comments.

The result of our efforts is that Council decided to bring in an outside independent organization to assist in conducting study sessions and helping guide them with expert advice. ESM’s recommendations included that an independent organization with recognized expertise be utilized. Many concepts we’ve presented became part of the Council’s discussion. We accomplished what others have been unable to do – bring the need for enforceable ethics standards and Codes of Conduct to the forefront.

So, you and others who oppose any form of ethics and conduct oversight that might get in your way, need to begin to accept the fact that Ethics San Mateo is not going to cower away from your baseless attacks. Perhaps you need to step into the light as we do and listen to the many voices we represent. So, you and others who oppose any form of oversight that might get in the way, need to begin to accept the fact that Ethics San Mateo is not going to cower away from your baseless attacks. Perhaps you need to step into the light as we do and listen to the many voices we represent. I’ll be ignoring the blatant and baseless attempts to discredit ESM and our many members from across the city.

Dave Cohen, President/CEO

Ethics San Mateo, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation

DEDICATED TO TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICAL CONDUCT IN CITY GOVERNMENT

GasCar1956,

The “Ethics Watch” you are referring to is not a statement of opposition to Humboldt Street, or any other, bike lanes. Area residents were engaging the City Council and they felt that their input had been ignored. Members of the City Council stated during the meeting we referenced admitted there had been errors made when deciding to establish the subject bike lanes. They decided to revisit the matter and remedy the situation. The Ethics Watch details what had happened and simply states we would be following the progress of the city council doing what they promised. Don’t you want your city government to do as they promise?

As we’ve stated previously, we do believe the San Mateo Heritage Alliance can be considered as a “Special Interest Group”. Ethics San Mateo certainly is, as we advocate for good governance. At this time the argument about if the Heritage Alliance, or even Ethics San Mateo, is a lobbying group is moot. There is no definition or requirements regarding lobbying codified the City of San Mateo Charter or Ordinances. However, as Ethics San Mateo was formed to be qualified as a Tax-Exempt organization under IRS 501(c)(4) so we could lobby for rules and laws we believe will improve trust in our city government and be beneficial to all residents of the city, we’d be 1st in line to register if required by law. We want to lobby for a lobbying law!

Those of you who seem to feel threatened by ESM’s fact-based publications and our unceasing support of good, ethics based, governance should calm down and realize that the residents of San Mateo won’t settle for less.

Dave Cohen, President/CEO

Ethics San Mateo, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation

DEDICATED TO TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICAL CONDUCT IN CITY GOVERNMENT

Interesting commentary and information, JJ94402, Dave Cohen, and GasCar1956 on an organization I’m unfamiliar with. I’ll need to spend a little more time and see what investigations Ethics San Mateo (ESM) has reported on, along with conclusions and recommendations and also to see if there is any follow up reporting to their recommendations.

A few observations thus far:

In Mr. Cohen’s first response, he says that the Board of Directors has determined a number of times not to pursue an investigation because it would cause them to potentially be viewed as taking sides on an issue. So if media reporting or a complaint of a government/official leads one to have ethical concerns, ESM may not take a side? I would hope ESM would perform an investigation and take the “ethical” side. If not, why does ESM exist? ESM states they’re issue agnostic and they do not oppose or support any specific agenda, position, or issue. By not pursuing an investigation because of being viewed as taking sides, they are taking a side. Potential, and continued, unethical behavior. Mr. Cohen also references an independent Advisory Council but on the website, I see only one member in the “Council” - which means there’s no advisory council, just an advisory member.

The first and second responses by Mr. Cohen regarding pseudonyms are a red herring and an attempt to attack the opposition. Would Mr. Cohen’s response change if he saw a “real name”? How would Mr. Cohen know the name is of a real person or just another pseudonym? After all, we don’t know for sure that any username being used belongs to a real person (and many don’t care).

The response from Mr. Cohen regarding opposition of any form of ethics and conduct oversight is a straw man argument since from what I’ve read in this comment thread, JJ94402 and GasCar1956 haven’t said anything about opposing ethics and conduct oversight. I believe their point was that ethics and conduct oversight from Ethics San Mateo may not be adequate, not that no oversight was needed. Why introduce a straw man? It provides an effort to make their “side” sound virtuous, but in reality, it doesn’t, and it definitely doesn’t help the discussion.

In a third response, Mr. Cohen continues with his accusation that others are threatened by ethics and good governance but again, the same straw man tactic. I think we’re all for ethical behavior and good governance but who determines the definition of “ethical”? Who and why would an organization determine whether to investigate or not based on optics? If anything, that’s more reason to investigate.

As a side note, perhaps we need a competing ethics benefit corporation – one who is willing to take sides in an investigation (preferably the “ethical” side). Or an Ethics of Ethics San Mateo organization? Maybe a job for an investigative journalist?

Mr. Cohen,

I sincerely appreciate the extensive information you have provided on these matters. As Terence Y mentioned in his response, nobody doubts the significance of ethics in governing bodies. On the contrary, they play an exceptionally vital role.

I fully agree with your statement, “[…] we would be following the progress of the city council doing what they promised. Don't you want your city government to do as they promise?" It resonates with me wholeheartedly.

I assume we share the same perspective that it is unethical when our elected leaders fail to honor their (written) promises.

On August 7th, Mayor Nash made the following statement on her Facebook page:

"There is a community discussion going on about the potential of applying to the State to designate San Mateo's Baywood neighborhood as a 'Historic District.' I have been advised that, as the neighborhood's City Council representative, there is no legal reason for me to recuse myself. Nevertheless, after careful research and consideration, and to avoid even the appearance of conflict since I own property in the neighborhood, I will be recusing myself from any Council discussion about the Baywood Historic District through the end of 2024. Please feel free to reach out to me at idiaznash@cityofsanmateo.org with any questions on this or any other San Mateo issue. I look forward to seeing you around the District, downtown, or at a future City Council meeting. Many thanks."

It was an explicit commitment to recuse herself, which has apparently been repeated on multiple occasions to her constituents. However, this commitment has been violated on multiple occasions, e.g. when taking votes on the matter in her function as Mayor. Concerned community members have shared stories of further undisclosed dealings in support of the districting, although I cannot independently verify these allegations and thus refrain from providing specific details here. Nevertheless, these are matters that deeply concern the community. Additionally, Mayor Nash failed to acknowledge the extensive involvement of her husband in her public statement, which raises questions about her ability to make impartial and independent decisions on the matter.

In light of your clear indication that this is a suitable case for Ethics San Mateo to address, I encourage you to follow through, investigate, and issue one of your Ethics statements. Doing so would undoubtedly alleviate concerns that Ethics San Mateo lacks independence and is merely a toothless entity. In addition, taking action in this matter would uphold the ethics and transparency that we all seemingly cherish so much.

GasCar1956, thank you for calling attention to one of Ethics San Mateo’s most biased and misleading complaints. In their March 30, 2023 “Statement of Position” ESM complained that a San Mateo resident speaking on behalf of Move San Mateo was allowed to make a presentation at the City Council’s annual Blue Sky meeting. (Move San Mateo is a local chapter of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition.) Ethics San Mateo stated, “it appears well-funded advocacy groups continue to be given more time and attention” (than residents).

It has long been San Mateo’s policy to allow organized groups to give up to a 15 minute presentation at City Council, Commission and Board meetings. No special favors were provided to Move San Mateo. At this year’s Blue Sky meeting a handful of organizations, including the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, were granted a group presentation. I have yet to see a “Statement of Position” from Ethics San Mateo complaining that these groups were allowed to exceed the individual speaker time limit.

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2971/Speak-at-a-CouncilCommission-Meeting

Ethics San Mateo has also disparaged Move San Mateo as a deep pocketed “special interest group”, noting in their March 30th Statement of Position that its parent organization, SVBC, had an annual revenue of $1.8M and spent $800K on salaries. I reached out to Move San Mateo’s leadership and learned that they’re a volunteer-led organization with no paid staffers. They don’t charge dues. Their annual budget is $500; it comes from the SVBC and is earmarked for supplies. Move San Mateo spends it on events, like the community bike repair clinics they host in local parks. And unlike Ethics San Mateo which is registered as a 501(c)(4) political lobbyist, SVBC is registered as a 501(c)(3) and does not make political endorsements or donations.

Many of Move San Mateo’s members are parents who are concerned about the safety of local streets, particularly near schools. There have been at least three children who were hit by cars while walking or biking to school in the past few months. Painting San Mateans who are literally trying to save children’s lives as a monied “special interest group” is shameful.

As Mr. Cohen explains above, their justification for issuing an “Ethics Watch” about the Humboldt Bike Lanes was “residents were engaging the City Council and they felt that their input had been ignored.” In fact the City sent postcards to 3,000 households, postered the neighborhood, conducted two community surveys and hosted five pop-up workshops in the neighborhood. 41% of North Central residents, 48% of North Central + adjacent neighborhood residents, and 52% of San Mateo residents supported the project, provided additional parking options were implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/live/V_ZFKkoFPhA?si=fMYlj7wRFdE4ZEOL&t=10857

Compare this to the Baywood Historic District where residents have twice asked City Council to agendize the topic and Council has twice declined to do so. The City's only action has been to hold an information session about historic designation, in general. The fact that Ethics San Mateo issued an “Ethics Watch” due to “ignoring residents” over the Humboldt Bike Lanes, but not the Baywood Historic District, speaks volumes.

Seema,

I sincerely appreciate your explanation and the detailed information you have provided. I must admit that I was completely unaware of these facts, and they are truly astonishing. Given Mr. Cohen's silence in response to my previous post, I highly doubt there will be a follow-up as I had requested. This silence has certainly raised many eyebrows on my end. It appears that the earlier statements made by JJ94402 regarding the purpose and impartiality of Ethics San Mateo have not been refuted here. If I were a board member of an organization dedicated to upholding ethics, I would certainly make every effort to avoid such allegations and promptly set the record straight.