Prompted by a citizen complaint, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has launched an investigation into the campaign of Palo Alto Vice Mayor Liz Kniss, whose re-election bid was boosted by a flurry of late contributions from developers and who did not disclose most of these contributions until well after the election.
The state agency, which enforces the requirements of California's Political Reform Act, informed Kniss in a March 10 letter that it has initiated an investigation into whether she violated the act. The FPPC has not made any determinations at this time, the letter states.
The anonymous complaint that triggered the investigation pertains to Kniss' Jan. 11 campaign-finance statement, which covers the period between Oct. 23 and Dec. 31. The statement shows that between Nov. 18 and the end of the year, Kniss received $19,340 in contributions, with the lion's share coming from local developers and property managers. Earlier in the campaign, Kniss said she would not accept contributions from developers.
As the Weekly previously reported, two developers who gave to Kniss said that they had actually contributed to her campaign before the Nov. 8 election and well before the dates in which their contributions are listed on Kniss' statement. In addition, Kniss reported that she had received a $2,500 contribution from the California Association of Realtors Political Action Committee (CREPAC) on Nov. 18, while the association's own filing shows that the contribution was made on Oct. 18.
The list of late donors to the Kniss campaign also includes developers Jim Baer, Chop Keenan, Joseph Martignetti, Premier Property and Thoits Bros. In almost all cases, the occupation of each contributor is listed on Kniss' campaign filing as "unknown."
When the Weekly asked Kniss about these contributions in January, she acknowledged she had not initially intended to accept developers' contributions because of negative perceptions from the community and potential accusations of being "in a developer's pocket." She also attributed her late reporting of the contributions to the fact that her treasurer, Tom Collins, was in rehabilitation from knee surgery and did not open any mail between Oct. 22 and Nov. 15. That explanation did not, however, account for the four contributions she had received and reported between Oct. 26 and Oct. 30 – from Hal Mickelson, William Reller, Martha Kanter and Josh Becker.
While the FPPC received the complaint in late February, it did not announce its decision to investigate Kniss until this week. The agency is also investigating the campaign of Greg Tanaka, who was elected to the City Council in November. Tanaka, who had campaigned alongside Kniss and now-Councilman Adrian Fine, finished second in the 11-member race for four seats. Kniss finished first.
The FPPC has also received a complaint against Fine but had not announced any investigations based on that complaint.
Kniss said Wednesday that she is aware that "an organized group has filed complaints with the FPPC against the top three vote getters in the November election."
She said she is working with an attorney to address the issues raised in the complaint and provide the answers to the FPPC.
The six-page FPPC letter is filled with excerpts from the complaint, which alleges at least six violations of the Political Reform Act. The complaint, signed by "Palo Alto Residents," alleges that Kniss failed to comply with a requirement that pre-election contributions of $1,000 or more be reported within 24-hours. Even allowing for "extraordinary postal delay," the complaint states, the Oct. 18 contribution from CREPAC "must be deemed to have arrived in the committee/candidate's (or their agent's) possession prior to election day on Nov. 8."
The complaint also took issue with Kniss' explanation about why the check wasn't received until Nov. 18. Both she and Collins are "campaign veterans," the complainants wrote, and were well aware of the 24-hour reporting rule. The contribution, the complaint states, should have been listed in the Oct. 22 campaign filing, the final major statement each candidate must submit before the election. Instead, the contribution was "forward dated: as received well after the election," the complaint states.
"The candidate/committee's failure to ensure prompt and accurate disclosure and reporting consistent with financial disclosure requirements hid the CREPAC contribution from voters," the complaint states. "The candidate/committee's inconsistent and inaccurate reporting undermines public confidence in campaign-finance transparency, creates the appearance that candidates/committees may freely 'sit' on pre-election contributions in order to manipulate the system, and may well have hidden the existence, source and amount of several large, pre-election contributions from the voting public."
In addition, the complaint notes that for 18 individuals who made late contributions to Kniss, the occupation/employer is listed as "unknown." The FPPC's Campaign Disclosure Manual for local candidates states that committees must return contributions of $100 or more within 60 days of receipt "if the committee has not obtained the contributor's name, address, and, in the case of a contributor who is an individual, his or her occupation and employer."
If the committee returns the check to the donor who does not cash it within 90 days, the committee is required to forward the amount to the city's General Fund within the next 30 days, the manual states.
The FPPC manual also lays out provisions for what campaigns should do if a treasurer is unable to carry out his or her duties. It notes that contributions may not be accepted and expenditures may not be made if the treasurer's post is vacant at any time.
"If the treasurer is unavailable to carry out his or her duties, a new treasurer must be designated and the committee's Statement of Organization (Form 410) amended," the manual states.
Kniss has consistently maintained since January that her campaign hasn't done anything in proper. In a late January text, Kniss pointed out that she has been a candidate in nine previous elections "and to my knowledge, have always complied with all rules and laws as I have done this time."
After the Weekly inquiry in January, Kniss also solicited the advice from an FPPC hotline. Unlike the FPPC's Enforcement Division, hotline employees do not perform their own fact-finding and rely solely on the information provided to them by those seeking advice. The hotline employee concurred with Collins' position that because he "had not opened the $2,500 contribution (from CREPAC), the contribution is not considered 'received.'" As a result, he would not have been required to make a separate filing for this contribution.
After receiving the FPPC advice, Kniss forwarded the email from the hotline employee to area newspapers, prompting the Daily Post to run a story with the headline: "State: Kniss didn't break campaign cash rules."
The complaint accuses Kniss of "manipulating the press" and notes that the Daily Post "reported the content of that limited, hot-line advice as fact, implying that the FPPC had ruled that there had been no campaign finance violation."
"In REAL FACT, there has been no investigation and no finding that 'Palo Alto Vice Mayor Liz Kniss did not violate rules,'" the complaint states.
Comments
Midtown
on Mar 16, 2017 at 6:06 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 6:06 am
Wow. First Tanaka and now Kniss. [Portion removed.] But it makes it easier to understand some of the city councils recent pro-developer decisions, such as with ADRs. I am worried that they will support more pro-developer issues and in the process worsen PA's traffic and parking problems.
What can we do? How easy are recalls? I wish I had more time to work on getting these folks out of office, and replacing with others that care more for the quality of life in PA and less about making developers even richer.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 6:24 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 6:24 am
"In addition, the complaint notes that for 18 individuals who made late contributions to Kniss, the occupation/employer is listed as "unknown." The FPPC's Campaign Disclosure Manual for local candidates states that committees must return contributions of $100 or more within 60 days of receipt "if the committee has not obtained the contributor's name, address, and, in the case of a contributor who is an individual, his or her occupation and employer."
If the committee returns the check to the donor who does not cash it within 90 days, the committee is required to forward the amount to the city's General Fund within the next 30 days, the manual states."
Wow! Any comment from our City Attorney on this nice little loophole and why she didn't see any conflict?
18?? One or two might be understandable slip but 18?
Tanaka cites the City Attorney as one of his defenses for not recusing himself in the Wong decision in the yesterday's Merc article! Web Link
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:55 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:55 am
More dirty politics, and a good reason to drain the swamp.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:57 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:57 am
The way the Fair Political Practices Commission works is that it receives complaints but only opens an investigation on those that after careful evaluation (the information, candidates financial records, and law) indicate that campaign laws may have been broken. The point being that one can't just file a complaint and have someone investigated automatically but rather a complaint must reach a threshold to get an investigation opened by the FPPC.
That both Kniss and Tenaka crossed that threshold indicates there is at least smoke, if not fire. We await the result with great interest.
That Kniss loudly assured us all that she had done nothing wrong after she herself checked with the FPPC is why we need and have good reporters to go after the actual truth.
Maybe this will be a life lesson for her, to be less arrogant and self righteous - but I doubt it. At least perhaps we can be spared from her future protestations criticizing her opponents' above-board, legal, transparent conduct and finance of their campaigns, unlike perhaps her own.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 16, 2017 at 8:28 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 8:28 am
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
Barron Park
on Mar 16, 2017 at 8:37 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 8:37 am
What is really insulting and ironic about Kniss is that she railed, as did her PAF surrogates, about her strongest opponents taking large contributions from donors. These donors stated they were giving the contributions to balance those from developers to the campaigns Tenaka, Kniss and Fine. Greg and Liz - you both owe Arthur Keller and Lydia Kou an apology, and their donors. You took tons from developers and hid it from voters to get elected. For shame.
Palo Verde
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:29 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:29 am
[Post removed.]
College Terrace
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:52 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:52 am
I attended two Liz events and both times she laudly and proudly blasted Kou and Keller for accepting sizable donations from the prominent individuals. Funny enough, both times she put Tanaka center stage during her talk and directly asked him if he took large developer donations. Seemed like she was putting him on the spot as if she knew something. Perhaps they were competing for the same donor dollars. Liz is blaming those who filed s complained regarding her finances, just like Trump was blaming the White House leaking, rather that his compromising actions.
College Terrace
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:53 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:53 am
[Portion removed.] The three of them should do the honorable thing and resign. Why can't we have elected officials who simply follow the rules and play fair? I guess there's a reason why the developers always seem to win in this City. I say throw out Kniss, Tenaka and Fine, and fine the developers who think they can throw the election. Action needs to be taken.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:05 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:05 am
It is time for LIz Kniss to step down from the City Council. [Portion removed due to factual inaccuracy; there are term limits.] Her positions throughout her time on the Council have consistently been pro-growth. Moreover, as an experienced campaigner, there is no excuse for her lack of transparency in disclosing campaign contributions from developers in a timely manner. Let's elect Council members who are not beholden to donors and who are thoughtful and open-minded about future directions for our city.
Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:08 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:08 am
Reller is also a developer -- don't be fooled.
Community Center
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:21 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:21 am
Resident- you say action needs to be Taken? Go for it. Start gathering signatures for a recall. These complaints are clearly a coordinated attempt to intimidate certain pro- progress council members. The PASZ side cannot believe they lost the last election by such a large margin. This effort is being abetted by the weeklys one sided stories on this matter.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
I sincerely do hope that a recall is initiated.
Pro-growth does not equal "pro-progress" except to PAF and the developers.
Dismissing people who object to clearly unethical and probably illegal conduct "sore losers" is simply a distraction and an attempt to avoid responding to legitimate complaints. This is the same diversionary tactic used before the election to condemn "attack ads" that dared to question the positions of Kniss, Tanaka and Fine.
Blaming PASZ creates a false equivalence since PASZ is hardly a major political force compared to PAF and/or the Chamber of Commerce and/or the well-funded real estate PACs.
Calling people "sore losers" doesn't change the reality of the acts and is hardly a worthwhile defense.
Professorville
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:44 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:44 am
I just wanted to say thank you to whomever made the anonymous complaint. Whether they are found guilty or innocent I applaud you for paying attention to our local politics. I am saddened that there could even be questions like this on our City Council.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:50 am
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:50 am
Web Link
This story has the names of many developers whose contributions were not reported.
Very experienced dissembling. Also she mentors the newbies who did not report. She accompanied Tanaka to the Democratic party meeting where they endorsed him. She also mentored Wolbach, according to his public statement.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:52 am
Registered user
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:52 am
No doubt politics get dirty wherever land values are high, but there's really no good way to look at all of this. If Kniss and Tanaka played fast and loose with campaign financing, that is bad. If they did not and these complaints are purely politically motivated, that is bad. I'd like to think that this city could operate above that level and ethics would prevail, but apparently we cannot.
Regardless of the outcome of the investigations, we have a City Council that has voted to remove programs from the land use element of the Comp Plan and that appears to be inclined to short-circuit debate on important issues. A friend who has lived here her entire life had this to say: Wake Up Palo Alto. I think she makes a good point. Change is inevitable but that doesn't mean it has to be bad.
Community Center
on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:11 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:11 pm
[Post removed.]
Community Center
on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm
[Post removed.]
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm
My wow factor stems from the amount of detail on this possible misbehavior -- all this for a city council race! - AND the subsequent fallout with the public. We need local and regional press to communicate all these things concerning our local elected public officials - we do. But it's a sad commentary on the extent of it -- all at the local level!
Community Center
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:25 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:25 pm
If Liz Kniss and Greg Tanaka grossly violated rules on campaign contributions, they should be removed via a recall campaign. And fined. And NEVER allowed to run for office EVER again.
And any decisions made while they were on the City Council should be revisited and voted on again.
Anything else makes a mockery of our political process.
another community
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:19 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:19 pm
What is the connection between the unelected Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and candidates who are elected to local city councils?
Big city politics have reached local suburbs.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm
It's not only that Liz Kniss is utterly [portion removed.] The fact she accompanied Tanaka, a registered Republican up until shortly before the elections to the Democratic party meeting in order to get their endorsement would be funny like an episode from a Nikolai Gogol drama if it didn't have such tragic consequences for Palo Alto. As a lifelong progressive and Democratic voter, I'm utterly ashamed of my party. My guess is that she got the California Democratic party to endorse Fine, another Republican, in a similar fashion. For Palo Alto's future, and for the sake of relatively clean politics in this frightening period in our country's history, I hope this process results in the recall of Kniss, Tanaka and Fine.
I would also like to second the comment by "question". ABAG, an unelected association with a history of fiscal mismanagement and close ties to the building industry, has a had a destructive impact on local politics vis-a-vis development, and hopefully this scandal will hasten its dismantling.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:54 pm
Registered user
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:54 pm
It's time for Kniss and Tanaka to step down from the Palo Alto City Council, or to recall Kniss and Tanaka.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:58 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:58 pm
Given that Fine and Tanaka essentially ran as an informal slate, their election improprieties - strikingly similar - should be looked at together because it's hard to imagine that wasn't collusion, with the more experienced Kniss informing the others how to beat the system to appear less beholden to developers than they portrayed to the public during the election. All three of them. That portrayal definitely influenced the debate and even how the Weekly wrote about the candidates prior to the rlection.
"Kniss said Wednesday that she is aware that "an organized group has filed complaints with the FPPC against the top three vote getters in the November election." If citizens are organizing against this [portion removed], I say, Good. I hope they will organize for a recall [portion removed.]
Charleston Gardens
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:20 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:20 pm
[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]
College Terrace
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm
@anonymous
"all this for a city council race!"
This is not just about a city council race. This year's council members will set in place Palo Alto's commercial land use policies for the next twenty plus years. And this election was also about whether commercial property owners could continue to benefit from a sympathetic majority of the city council members, as they have in the past.
With this year's council deciding Palo Alto's land use policies, which will be fixed for the next twenty plus years, when they vote on the city's revised Comprehensive Plan this year, this election was anything but politics as usual.
The specter of a revised and more thoughtful and measured approach to the impacts of land use policy, together with the possibility of closing off loopholes developers have been taking advantage of, enjoys widespread resident support.
Would Liz Kniss have been elected If the support of commercial property owners had been public knowledge? She clearly misrepresented herself during the campaign by claiming she would not accept money from developers.
Politics as usual. Follow the money.
Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Barron Park
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm
Registered user
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm
> mauricio: "... Fine, another Republican,..."
While Tanaka was a Republican before the campaign, Fine was a "No Party Preference" who changed his registration to the Democratic Party shortly before the official beginning of the campaign, but well in time to get the endorsement.
In contrast, the Democratic Party (County) refused to endorse Arthur Keller who was a long-time party activist and major fund-raiser (leading Anna Eshoo to endorse him).
Similarly in 2014, the Democratic Party refused to consider Tom DuBois for an endorsement based on a false allegation (by Marc Berman and others) that he had endorsed a Republican.
This is just a microcosm of what happened at the national level: In the 1990s, the Democratic Party wrested the title of "The Party of Wall Street" from the Republicans (as demonstrated by the Clinton and Obama administrations and the 2016 election cycle). "The democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (version of Sen. Paul Wellstone and Gov. Howard Dean) has been a consistent loser within the party. The long article "How Post-Watergate Liberals Killed Their Populist Soul" in The Atlantic (Web Link is interesting. Caveat: I don't know enough to know how accurate it is, but Google'ing on the title should get you to discussions.
Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Geez, deleted already. Did I hit too close to a sensitive mark? Why is pointing out that machine politics exists in Palo Alto a no-no? Liz Kniss and her acolytes' actions, including the hanky-panky at local Democratic HQ, admit no other interpretation.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm
Re ABAG and our local politicians, I find that questions about their views on ABAG represent a good litmus test on where exactly they stand.
It's my understanding that Palo Alto's membership in ABAG is strictly optional. Nearby Los Altos, for example, doesn't belong.
The comments about ABAG's financial mismanagement are accurate and long-standing. (Google it) A few years back one of their top financial execs was caught embezzling millions of dollars from ABAG that was slated for community development -- $5 Million as I recall -- to buy himself a house on the Oregon coast
[Portion removed.]
We as voters and taxpayers deserve in-depth coverage of the issues, substantive and honest answers from candidates, and honest and open government.
Crescent Park
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:23 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 7:23 pm
Reading the letter to the FPPC is highly informative. If you haven't read it, click on the link above "March 10 Letter".
The accusations at the end are just as troubling - not reporting individual expenses and grouping as "various tech companies", loaning the campaign funds but reporting it as such, unclear whether money was actually spent or simply diverted to Kniss' personal funds. Zeroing out the account to the penny without accurate accounting. All things that California state law is meant to prevent.
What are you trying to hide Council member Kniss?
Who are these "numerous tech companies"?
Where did the money go?
Palo Alto voters deserve to know!
From the letter:
* Using reimbursements rather than loans: Kniss’s campaign reimbursed her $10,147.34 on her 10/23/16 .. 12/31/16 Form 460 rather than disclosing it as a loan she made to her campaign. So it is unclear when those expenses were actually incurred. If they were incurred in a prior reporting period, this had the effect of making her campaign efforts seem smaller and not funded as heavily by developers. It also hides the exact nature of the expenses by bundling them into reimbursements
rather than as direct payments to vendors. For example, one such reimbursement is labeled as“Numerous Tech companies used during elections.”
* Possibly hiding more expenses: Kniss’s campaign gave her a final reimbursement of $1,842.22 that zeroed out her campaign. It seems unlikely that her reimbursed expenses would match what her campaign raised to the penny. Rather, Kniss may have further campaign expenses that were never disclosed.
* Not disclosing contributions promptly: Kniss failed to file the pre-election Form 497 in a timely fashion or in some cases at all for contributions, transfers from prior campaigns, loans, and unreported loans (later reimbursed).
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 16, 2017 at 9:10 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 9:10 pm
A career politician, bouncing from one elected position to another before bouncing back again. One doesn't accomplish a lifetime attempting to remain viable politically without accumulating debts to special interests. Ms. Kniss is a clear example of this dynamic. She's been in it so long that it's hard for her to see right from wrong. It's time to close the books on her and move on.
Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:12 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 10:12 pm
It is clear that Kniss, Tanaka and Fine knew exactly what they were up to. They claim that they are not bought and paid for by developers and then hide their contributions until after the election by conveniently not reporting them until later. They knew that the money was coming and that is why they felt comfortable "loaning" it to themselves since they knew they would get it back. Low down, manipulative, dirty behavior all around!
And look at all the growth they are handing out. Dwelling units with no parking. Oversized office buildings and massive housing units. Wait until they approve a comprehensive plan scenario that will double the population of Palo Alto in a decade. They don't see anything except the money and helping their developer friends.
Midtown
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:46 pm
on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:46 pm
Do we need a new City Attorney!
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:17 am
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:17 am
Good job to those who filed the formal complaint. I hope the State ethics watchdog fines Ms. Kniss the maximun amount as well as fining her campaign worker who signed the timely the late donations report for another City Council candidate but - such a mistake - not for Ms. Kniss, too.
I don't believe for a second Ms. Kniss does not know exactly what she was doing: shaking down developers for favors given for favors owed and trying to pull a fast one on the voters.
And, three cheers to the free press for keeping this story alive.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
Douglas, Moran, thanks for the very useful background above.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 17, 2017 at 11:28 am
on Mar 17, 2017 at 11:28 am
Maybe I'm not old enough, but I don't remember Palo Alto politics without Liz Kniss. When she is termed out of Palo Alto, she runs for a county position and then bounces back to Palo Alto like a bumerang. [Portion removed.] I can't think of any council member in the past who has been more aggressively in favor of urbanizing and overdeveloping the town, her catch word being "vibrancy". It is obvious that Walbach, Tanaka and Fine are devoted proteges and followers of Kniss, while the current mayor is a close ally. I'll leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions after connecting all the dots.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm
So what, maurucio. Kniss and the other council members were elected by the RESIDENTS of palo alto.
Midtown
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm
@Biased reporting - no I actually think this is good reporting. Kniss's campaign position is very different from what actually transpired. It is good that reporters are bringing this up, so that we can factor into our votes in the next election.
College Terrace
on Mar 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Many voters who supported Liz Kniss did so based on the platform she ran on. When she declared she would not accept any money from developers and misrepresented her position on development unfortunately she betrayed them. That Lis Kniss felt it so necessary to misrepresent her position is an indication that she was very aware that she would not enjoy the same level of voter support if she revealed her close ties with the local development and construction industry over for many, many years. Was she correct? Would they still have voted for her? Would she have still won another term on the council? We'll never know.
Downtown North
on Mar 17, 2017 at 5:50 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 5:50 pm
"Maybe I'm not old enough, but I don't remember Palo Alto politics without Liz Kniss. When she is termed out of Palo Alto, she runs for a county position and then bounces back to Palo Alto like a bumerang."
No surprise why. Kniss's support base is Palo Alto developers Web Link and Web Link . It's a long relationship.
College Terrace
on Mar 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm
Curmudgeon, thank you for those links. Some things never change.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:07 pm
on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Curmudgeon, thanks for those links that date back to 2000.
It's important for new residents and voters with shorter memories to realize how long questions have been raised about Ms. Kniss's and the same developers. 17 years is a long, long time.
Downtown North
on Mar 18, 2017 at 3:57 pm
on Mar 18, 2017 at 3:57 pm
"Curmudgeon, thank you for those links. Some things never change."
"It's important for new residents and voters with shorter memories to realize how long questions have been raised about Ms. Kniss's and the same developers. 17 years is a long, long time."
You're welcome. I forgot to include this item: Web Link
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm
on Mar 18, 2017 at 6:13 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 18, 2017 at 6:54 pm
on Mar 18, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Serious question: Why aren't Tanaka, Kniss and possibly Fine being forced to recuse themselves from Monday's vote on future city development?
If Tom Dubois had to recuse himself from a vote simply because his wife work(ed) at Stanford, why aren't these 3 when their alleged abuses are so much more serious?
PS: Please write to City Council to counter PAF's organized email campaign to get more homes and offices approved! city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Professorville
on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:55 am
on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:55 am
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton, British politician from the 19th century.
College Terrace
on Mar 20, 2017 at 3:58 pm
on Mar 20, 2017 at 3:58 pm
[Post removed.]
Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm
on Mar 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm
on Mar 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm
Why does her party affiliation matter re the demands for her resignation? And as Doug Moran noted above, it's not clear how meaningful the CC members' party affiliations are anyway. In some cases, they're simply opportunistic.
We need direct election for mayor, not to have 9 city council members "elect" the mayor AND the vice mayor who will automatically get elevated to mayor!
In this case, it's ONE single vote by which the Mayor and Vice Mayor Kniss were "elected" with Kniss AND one or two other cc members currently under investigation!
Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm
on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm
[Post removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:16 am
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:16 am
1). People are innocent until proven guilty. Could we please give the vitriol a rest and let justice take its course?
2). Could we please treat our electeds with more civility? I often agree or disagree (sometimes very strongly) with electeds, but I understand that people have different perspectives. I worry that the constant, anonymous, personal attacks on electeds on Palo Alto Online will discourage good people from running in the future. Great communities are defined by excellent leaders. Let's make this a community where good people don't need to feel as though stepping into a public office means being pilloried daily.
The vitriol is bad on both sides. This is not good for our community. We can BE better.
College Terrace
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:21 am
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:21 am
Plea for civility- will stated. However this vitriol is what the weekly wants. It is good for their business and for increasing their revenue flow. That is why they are constantly stirring the pot against certain elected officials. All part of their new agenda to please their new masters
Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm
"People are innocent until proven guilty. Could we please give the vitriol a rest and let justice take its course?"
The law is indeed doing its thing. But whether or not Kniss and her sidekicks technically violated the state election code, as elected officials they are answerable to the highest authority in a democracy--their constituents. It is essential they earn and maintain their constituents' trust. Lose it and they're instant toast.
The people that elected them can de-elect them. No courtroom trial involved. That is the ultimate authority in this democracy.
The universally available evidence plainly shows these three intended to, and did, deceive the voters by deliberately concealing financial backers whose support many in the electorate might have found questionable. They deliberately lied to us. How can we trust them with governing the city we live in and have invested in? I, for one, cannot.
Fool me once, your fault. Fool me again, my fault. Recall!!
Evergreen Park
on Mar 21, 2017 at 5:32 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Just because a few posters are "unhappy" with certain council members does not mean they have lost the trust of the voters. And we should note that this "unhappiness" started right after the election, before they even took office.
The "evidence" at this point dos not show anything. The commission is reviewing the issue and will release their findIngs later. And let me remind everyone that two of the council memebers are subject to an investigation. The third has been smeared with claims of impropriety but that is not the case.
But, I say again, we have heard plenty of talk from 10 people about a recall. Why don't all the people that have been yelling recall for months,to finally put their money were their mouths are.
A plea is correct there has been a distinct lack of civility regarding these council members, probably organized by a well known local organization that is working hand in hand with one of our local newspapers
College Terrace
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:17 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:17 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm
I'm not sure why you say that. Palanir is run by a Republican who's very close to Trump and there are and have been lots of Palantir folks on various Palo Alto committees like the Transportation Management Commission, Kate Downing on the Planning and Transportation committee, etc. etc. wielding an enormous amount of influence on local strategies, policies, programs, etc. and on PA's image far beyond our borders.
Besides, pitchfork-wielding mobs of outraged residents don't seem to have any impact locally any way.
Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm
"Just because a few posters are "unhappy" with certain council members does not mean they have lost the trust of the voters."
"Unhappy" with election results is normal. Enraged at being deceived is quite different.
"The "evidence" at this point dos not show anything."
Quote of the day: "A liberal is a conservative who's been busted."
[Portion removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:13 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Liz is a [portion removed] corporate Democrat as epitomized by Hilary Clinton and was swept into office by the residual reactionary feminist sentiment entrained in the turbulent wake left by Clinton's coattails as she plummeted into the abyss.
Shielded from the horror of Clinton's plunge by the reflective bubble surrounding the Bay Area, and unfazed by how close the Democratic Party is to the edge of the abyss, Liz continues to boldly serve her benefactors in the real-estate industry oblivious to the peril her behavior poses to what remains of the Democratic Party following the devastating November elections.
Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:21 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:21 pm
[Post removed.]
Barron Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 2:21 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 2:21 pm
[Post removed.]
Adobe-Meadow
on May 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm
on May 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Been a long investigation.....
Downtown North
on May 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm
on May 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm
"Been a long investigation....."
Lots to find ...
Portola Valley
on May 29, 2017 at 8:01 pm
on May 29, 2017 at 8:01 pm
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 4, 2017 at 11:50 am
on Jun 4, 2017 at 11:50 am
As Curmudgeon said,
The universally available evidence plainly shows these three intended to, and did, deceive the voters by deliberately concealing financial backers whose support many in the electorate might have found questionable. They deliberately lied to us.
We cannot let this deception get lost. We must keep alive the truth of what they did.
Hiding big money from developers. Kniss, Fine, and Tanaka have a serious stain on their records.