The Voice is right. The applications are public records. Some portions might be exempt from disclosure such as a social security number which may be redacted. The MV-Whisman School District pulled the same lawless stunt last year when it withheld applications to fill a vacancy on the school board. Too many bureaucrats and elected officials do not really value public input.

I believe the council does not want to disclose the applications because some of the candidates either implied or outright stated that they would not enforce rent stabilization as passed by the people of Mountain View. The council has acted shamefully throughout this entire process.

It's a good idea to hide the applications from the general public. Unfortunately, many of the landlord advocates have expressed their opinions with threatening overtones. It's unfair to the candidates to be exposed like this.

@Privacy, if the city council used that as a rationale, I might consider it. Instead, their lack of support for Measure V before the election, adding Measure W to the ballot, statements during the just cause eviction ordinance meeting, and behavior in the CAA lawsuit must lead all of us to be wary of the council's intent with regards to rent stabilization as passed by the people of Mountain View.

I believe that the City Council is right not to release the applications given the volatility of the subject. Once the Council announces the members that have been appointed, people will then be able to voice their opinions. Given the level of threats and harassment that took place during the Electoral College vote and the violence that we saw in San Jose. I think that the Council has every right to protect the applicants and ensure that the Council's deliberative process is not interfered with.




Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@Jim, by California law all deliberations that the city council performs MUST be in public, with few exceptions. They cannot make these appointments without public deliberations, and the public has a right to be informed. If you're accusing the the people of Mountain View of threatening candidates, please come out and say it. Otherwise, there is no justification for keeping the applications secret.

Hey, Jim, how do you justify the council withholding the applicants answers to the questionnaires?

@MVResident - There is nothing in what I wrote that mentions the people of Mountain View doing anything. I was threatened with physical violence from someone who did not even live in this State just because he disagreed with me on an issue.

@Randy - The City Attorney has already explained it.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

That's terrible, Jim. Did you file a police report about this? Hopefully that person has been held accountable for their threats.

@MVResident - It wasn't necessary. I just told the person that I would be willing to speak to him in person if he wanted to talk, but that I had no desire to engage in physical violence over what was basically a difference in philosophy. We also have several common friends that spoke to him as well and told him that his threat was out of line and the matter was resolved. I have found that by engaging in civil conversation, that most issues can be remedied without resorting to violence. Thank you very much for your concern.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I didn't expect you to engage in physical violence. Filing a police report allows there to be a paper trail in case in the future he does something like threaten violence against someone else or, God forbid, escalates it to actually following through on his threats.

Hiding public records from the public is one way to conduct the public's business. But, in general, it is contrary to California law. Only some records are exempt from disclosure. The reported explanation for not releasing the applications is legally bogus. As to the idea that the law should exempt applications for appointed positions, consider that if you do not know who is seeking a position or what he or she has presented to the decision-makers, you cannot participate usefully in the process or hold decision-makers to account. That may be fine and dandy in Russia and maybe in Indiana - but not in California.

The number one lesson plan in economics unfolds. The market sets prices not mob rule. I guess I should start a blog. George Drysdale a social studies teacher

George, we understand that you don't like rent stabilization, but please try to stay on topic for the articles. This is about good government and transparency, where, regardless of your feelings on rent stabilization, we should all be on the same side.

It's not my feelings about rent control. The city council is doing the right thing. If you study history and economics rent control rips a city apart between the haves and the have nots. Full disclosure at this time would fuel a crises. Your assignment: rent control on the internet.

Rent control does not "rip a city apart". Massive income disparity does. What rent control does do is to allow poor and wealthy people to live in the same neighborhood. This notion is repellant to some who would prefer to keep their head in the sand.

I've often thought that In election/selection processes like this, it would be great if applicants' identities were concealed (eg Candidate A, Candidate B, etc) so that judgements would be made on their actual merits and not on reputation, appearances, etc?