Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Mar 6, 2014
This is curious. Aren't there a lot of HP and Stanford employees working as commissioners and even city councilmembers in Menlo Park and Palo Alto? Why single out Google?
@Curious - I would surmise that the decision was not solely based on the commissioner's employer but also on the nature of her job.
Here is the link to Mr. Sosnow's letter to the editor:
I believe Ms. Grossman's resignation was the right thing to do in this situation. That said, I think the environmental planning commission was remiss for going ahead with the appointment in the first place. Once the city had been notified of Ms. Grossman's change of employer (in September) and what her job duties with this new employer - Google - would be, the commission should have selected someone else to fill the role as commissioner.
Let's hope the Environmental Planning Commission makes a more thoughtful appointment to Chair the EPC this time around. Perception matters.
Also, anything the city attorney drafted regarding Ms. Grossman's appointment - as well as whomever is appointed as her replacement - as chair of the EPC should be available to anyone who files a request with the city under the FOIA.
Don't see anything wrong with a real estate professional, if she works for Google, follows the conflict of.interest rules.
How can one spend all day working as a Google executive, being paid to do what is best for Google, and then at 5:00 turn around and do what is best for Mountain View?
Google wants to add 15,000 to 20,000 additional employees. That is great for Google. However, that may not be great for Mountain View.
Conflict of interest definition? "1.clash between requirements or implications: a conflict between the public and private interests of somebody in an official position" aaaand sooo... Grossman's resignation is correct.
Any person who has ties to the private venue which require oversight in the public venue has per se a conflict of interest and their arm's length view is compromised no matter how respected their integrity.
Too many citizens today refuse to see this innate difficulty vav some public officials. It's a real threat to democracy.
I congratulate Miss Grossman for her wise choice.
How many members of the Environmental Planning Commission are members of the Audubon Society, or other such special-interest group, that actively lobbies the City Council, particularly in regards to North Bayshore?
We have City Council members who are Facebook "friends" with lobbyists.
Its hard to resign when you think there's no conflict of interest and the city attorney says there isn't but the public perceives that there is. She did what was right for the public and it's trust in the government. I think we should applaud her for that.
Wow. She resigned for reasons of PERCEPTION of conflict of interest. Sorry honey. As was discussed earlier, it WAS a conflict of interest. Of course, the ERC is almost completely useless here in MV. The staff and the council ignores them. But still....an exec at google should be smart enough to know that it was a serious conflict.
Almost anyone that has been in a leadership role in a large corporation has taken mandatory training in ethics and avoiding corrupt business practices. There is ZERO question this was a conflict-of-interest situation. Shame on Ms. Grossman for not immediately resigning when she accepted the employment that put her in conflict; surely she knew. Shame on the EPC, City Council and staff for not knowing common ethical standards or worse yet, turning a blind eye because it was political or "not illegal." And very very much, shame on Google for once again putting itself in conflict with public interests and doing nothing of their own accord to remedy the situation; the public had to stand up, take the initiative and say "no" before this resignation came about.
"Shame on Ms. Grossman for not immediately resigning when she accepted the employment that put her in conflict; surely she knew."
According to Mr. Debolt's above article, Ms. Grossmann had been serving as a member of the Environmental Planning Commission since 2009. Ms. Grossman notified the EPC in September that she would begin working as a Real Estate Project Executive for a new employer, Google, Inc. Her employment with Google began in November. The city, duly put on notice regarding Ms. Grossman's change in employment AND what her job duties were with her new employer - Google, Inc. - evidently still thought naming her Chair of the Environmental Planning Commission was a sound decision and went ahead and named her as Chair of the EPC in January.
I don't question Ms. Grossman's judgement as much as I question those who thought it wise to name her as Chair of the Environmental Planing Commission. C'mon EPC members, how could you POSSIBLY have thought placing a Real Estate Project Executive employed by Google as CHAIR of the Environmental Planning Commission was a sound bit of decision making?!?
From the city of Mountain View website:
Environmental Planning Commission
The Environmental Planning Commission consists of seven members, each appointed by the City Council for a four-year term.
The Commission has the authority and responsibility to:
Formulate and recommend plans for Mountain View, including the General Plan for the physical development of the City;
Participate in subregional and regional planning;
Establish, maintain and monitor an environmental planning process for the City;
Monitor and communicate with the City Council, public agencies and citizens concerning the City's environment;
Evaluate and communicate with the City Council, public agencies and citizens concerning the progress of plan implementation; and
Coordinate plans of other public agencies affecting the environment.
...more if you hit the link...
"I don't question Ms. Grossman's judgement as much as I question those who thought it wise to name her as Chair of the Environmental Planing Commission."
Really?? Wow. As was said before, in any corporate conflict-of-interest training, these types of situations are covered. Specifically, taking a government posting or appointment that deals with issues that the company deals with. I'm very surprised that Google's governance folks were not all over this, because it can cut both ways. She may use Google information in the ERC to Google's detriment.
Most-of-all, it is the 'appearance' of a conflict that is the litmus test. Let's assume that Grossman wasn't deliberately manipulating the ERC to google's benefit. How would we know this for certain? What if she could cover her tracks well? Also, if it ever goes to a jury, 'appearance' is everything. That's what the jury sees, right?
What's really goofy is that the MV Council members recuse themselves from voting if their house or business is near the subject of a vote. Even if the council person is completely objective and honest. Even if the vote *really* doesn't impact the councilperson AT ALL. So, how could Grossman not be immediately terminated from the ERC? And, why did she not resign? Why did she have wait to be forced out?
If you are going to go down the path of possible nefarious scenarios...
Since Ms. Grossman had served on the EPC since 2009 - while not employed by Google - perhaps Google made her the employment offer based not only on her professional skills but also on the fact of her active service on the EPC...you know sort of hoping that having a Google employee serving on the board might be helpful to them in some way?
Who knows? One would certainly like to believe that there were no ulterior motives in play when Google made it's hiring decision, but sometimes coincidences are not all that coincidental, no?
BTW, I believe the EPC offered Ms. Grossman the position of Chair AFTER having been duly notified of her change in employers as well as what her job duties would be with her new employer, Google. Armed with that knowledge, the EPC should NEVER have named her chair in the first place. And, I agree that the appearance of impropriety is something that one would think (hope, expect?) that both the city of Mountain View and Google would be striving to avoid. One hopes that the EPC makes a more prudent decision selecting a chair of the EPC this time around.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Freebirds Palo Alto shutters, Pieology to move in
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,573 views
A Glimpse into local HS Suicide
By Chandrama Anderson | 14 comments | 2,707 views
Deny the 429 Univ Ave Project Appeal
By Steve Levy | 11 comments | 1,704 views
Now Playing - Your Dinner!
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,008 views
Teens and Cutting, What's Going On?
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 296 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.