The Daily News
Guest Opinion: Redwood City officials too secretive about their ties to Saltworks project
By Marsha Cohen
October 13, 2009

There seems to be a preference for privacy in the air in Redwood City and it could have lasting effects on the environment and your quality of life, not to mention the democratic process.

The city is stonewalling requests for public records relating to Cargill/DMB’s plan to develop more than 12,000 new homes on 1,400 acres of Redwood City's shoreline. Redwood City’s official penchant for privacy leaves me wondering: What exactly is going on?

Cargill's plan to reshape the city's Bayfront is controversial throughout the region.

With billions of dollars in private profit on the table and the Bay’s health in the balance, the citizens of Redwood City and the Peninsula should demand a public, transparent process.

I have requested records from the city under the California Public Records Act about correspondence between the city council, city staff and Cargill/DMB. The city declined to turn over records I requested about council members' cell phone calls or e-mails because, it claims, they are on private and not city accounts. But not all cities consider official business a private matter. This past August, the San Jose City Council approved a new policy that makes officials' personal e-mails and texts about city business public records.

E-mails and cell phone messages are public records and subject to disclosure.

The city has also refused to disclose records regarding the mayor’s employment as vice president at the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA). As reported last year on the blog Peninsula Politics, the mayor may be wading into an ethical breach. SAMCEDA is a probusiness lobbying organization and DMB sits on SAMCEDA's Board of Directors. (DMB is the developer hired by Cargill to develop its 1,400-acre site in Redwood City). SAMCEDA has enthusiastically embraced Cargill/DMB's development plan, calling it critical to the Peninsula's future and quality of life. I wonder how likely is it that the mayor could fairly represent the public's interests on a project so crucial to her bosses?

Public officials shouldn't put their personal interests in conflict with their official duties.

California law bars public officials from using their position in any way to gain future employment or to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest, direct or indirect.

When this issue was raised at a city council meeting last August, Mayor Roseanne Foust lashed out, claiming that people were seeking to deny her the right to work. In the same breath, she made clear that she was aware of the possible conflict and had repeatedly consulted the city attorney.

She announced that at this point, according to him and to the Fair Political Practices Commission of California, I have no conflict. So where are the records?

The city council did nothing to eliminate the appearance of favoritism with its decision to award a no-bid contract for over $784,000 for key advice on Cargill's development plan to a consultant who has worked for DMB in the past and has an office in Cargill's hometown. Council members based their contract award choice on the city manager’s personal relationship with the consultant.

Decisions by our elected officials should be made on the merits-- openly, free of undue influence and unaffected by personal relationships. The democratic process demands that Redwood City disclose these public records and that Mayor Foust recuse herself from further involvement with Cargill/DMB’s development proposal.

Marsha Cohen is a Redwood City resident who is a member of some environmental groups opposed to Cargill’s development plans but wrote this column speaking for herself as a private citizen.