Major structural reform is in order. Raise the Indians (line workers) to Chiefs (managers) ratio. Outsource IT, HR, Public Works, legal work when and where possible. Merge departments to reduce management overhead.

Big Marketing budgets may have won the election, but we don't have to be the victim. The people are the government and we can collectively "govern from the outside in."

Here is a solid starting point that we can start singing as a "community chorus", and if enough people join the choir, we can drown out the noise of the special interest that want to keep tapping into our bank account.

It is time to inventory and then prioritize City programs and expenditures. Then reduce spending starting with the lowest priorities. Or...carry on business as usual where we bring up each service as a separate topic and discuss them in City Council meetings that will last late into the middle of the night and continue to let the vocal minority will get its way.

We must stop trying to patch the budget: we need structural spending decreases. Stop, inventory, prioritize, cut from the bottom of the list, and get on with good business practices that will restore balance. Combined this with restructured city employee benefits that are more aligned with private sector benefits, and we will break free from an endless financial crisis.

This clarity might be rejected by those who want to manipulate for the benefit of narrow interests. Let's have some real transparency. We cannot accept anything less.

Citizen Gray (formerly known as Candidate Tim Gray)

"Returning to the voters with a better plan next November should be a priority for the council and the business community." The Weekly wants the City to bring back the business tax next year; where does that put the School District's proposed renewal and increase of their Parcel Tax?

History has told us you may not ask the voters for two significant tax increases in the same year, one is bound to fail. The City and the School District are going to have to get together on this one.

I have lived here long enough to see both school bond measures and City taxes rejected by the voters. So assuming that this never happens is wrong.

"Despite the expected critics and cynics who interpret the vote as "business as usual" based on one litmus test or another in Klein's long record of civic involvement, we believe his overall performance has been one of positive leadership, independent analysis of issues and city officials' performance, and a good balance of economic savvy and environmental concerns."

I got a good kick out the above. I am not sure why the editors are so in love with Klein. Yes, he has served for a long, long time on the council. I do not see much in the way of positive leadership from him. He was asleep at the wheel during the PACT scandal (should we mention his clear conflict of interest in this matter during his shrill defense of Pat Briggs and his vilification of the police?). He endorsed the vote for HSR last year, then claimed that he was "misled" when people began to voice opposition. He was asleep at the wheel during the California Street tree removal (he did express outrage over it--but after the fact--when it became clear that many citizens were outraged).
Bottom line, he has not shown any responsibility nor doe she know how to stop spending our money.
Diana Diamond summed it up well in her column in the Daily Post earlier this week.
Obviously a majority of voters in PA like him or were taken in by his spiel. Either way, we are stuck with him for another 4 years.

Why all this hand wringing about who got elected? Any of the top ten candidates would end up caving into the pressure to preserve services. This is Palo Alto, folks. We ARE going to keep our services, and we ARE going to pay our workers top level salaries and benefits. The trivia about a business tax is superfluous, because, in the end, we will increase our utility bills to pay for everything.

Mr. Gray, I don't believe that big marketing budgets is the reason these candidates were successful.

Most of them have been long time participants in city government, and most (that I know) are considerate, caring and thoughtful individuals who work hard, are intelligent and articulate.

People voted for them because they respect and like them, and may know them because of their long time involvement in the community.

I don't agree with all of their positions on certain issues, and I didn't vote for two of them, but I think they are all fine individuals with much to contribute to Palo Alto.

"It will be difficult to blame the new council for long-ago bad decisions, omissions or mistakes — which may make it easier for the council to be forward-looking yet we hope with an eye to history as well."
Since they all signed on to the Palo Alto way, I think we just bought more shiny facades and crumbling foundations.