Special interests versus constituency

You recently reported on the 4-1 Foster City Council vote against discussing campaign reform. Councilmember Jon Froomin proposed to examine prohibiting donations from special interests like a labor council, apartment association, a political party, etc. He also expressed that a spending limit might enable more people to run for council seats. Unfortunately, even the subject of geese was more important to place on a future agenda, as indicated by Councilmember Patrick Sullivan. He and the majority of the council rejected the proposition.

In contrast, the San Carlos City Council is willing to explore suggestions to prioritize its residents. In late August, Councilmember AdamRak asked if there was interest in discussions requiring members of the public to identify if they are employed by developers or special interests. Anyone who has attended any area council meeting (or other city meeting) is all too familiar with the onslaught of speakers who are paid to pack meetings regarding development or other hot topics. It only seems sensible to know who is doing the talking so city representatives can properly weigh their comments against those of actual residents. The majority of his council agreed.

I’d certainly like to see San Mateo and other area councils place both these items on their upcoming agendas. Our representatives should be “loud and clear” with good examples like those San Carlos is setting forth.

Lisa Taner

San Mateo