After receiving the Mountain View Voice Issue Volume 25, No. 40 on the front page was this headline:

“Anti-rent control work drawing scrutiny

RENTAL COMMITTEE MEMBER HIRED TO WRITE CAMPAIGN ARGUMENTS AGAINST PACIFICA MEASURE

By Mark Noack

This news article discusses that Tom Means:

In Mountain View, some critics see a case of the fox guarding the henhouse at the city's Rental Housing Committee, the panel tasked with implementing the voter-approved rent control program. In recent days, criticism has been mounting against the Rental Housing Committee member Tom Means for penning an economic study portraying rent control as a misguided, policy that brings "more harm than good."

MEANS WROTE THE STUDY LAST MONTH AS A PAID CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (SAMCAR) FOR A CAMPAIGN OPPOSING A SIMILAR RENT-CONTROL MEASURE BEING PROPOSED FOR THE CITY OF PACIFICA.”

This appears to be his common practice, getting involved in political activity under the guise of doing “economic studies and reports”. The story goes on to say:

“Means' political work in Pacifica came to light in campaign finance reports filed last month by a SAMCAR's political arm, the Pacifica Coalition for Housing Equality. SO FAR, THE POLITICAL GROUP HAS RAISED MORE THAN $300,000 FOR AN OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT A RENT-CONTROL MEASURE IN PACIFICA THAT IS LARGELY MODELED ON MOUNTAIN VIEW'S PROGRAM. MEANS IS LISTED AS A PAID CONSULTANT IN THE GROUP'S CAMPAIGN REPORTS.

IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE VOICE MEANS SAID HE WAS PAID A TOTAL OF $1,500 FOR HIS WORK ON BEHALF OF SAMCAR. THE CONTRACT WORK CAME ABOUT AFTER HE WAS CONTACTED BY SAMCAR AND ASKED TO SUMMARIZE HIS OPINIONS ON RENT CONTROL IN A REPORT, HE SAID.”

In fact if you read the report it appears to have been written by the CSU SJSU, the report found here (Web Link indicates he wrote the report as a assignment for SJSU and NOT the San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR). It would appear he is committing a kind of academic dishonesty by claiming his work was performed as an assignment from CSU:SJSU and NOT SAMCAR. If in fact it was done under his “Consultant” role, it should not be cited as:

Tom Means
Professor of Economics
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0114
Tom.means@sjsu.edu 408-924-5414

But instead indicate:

Tom Means
Professional Consultant
(His Consultant Business address)
(His Consultant email address)
(His Consultant phone number)

So this in fact states he received $1,500 in payment to do a summarization of a report he did funded by the CSU:SJSU? It appears to be YES.

Was this report done as an employee and a researcher paid by the CSU San Jose State? It appears to be YES.

Was the report that he used to substantiate his summary the property of the CSU:SJSU? It appears to be YES.

Was this report designed to make use of the SJSU standing in the community to influence a political situation? It appears to be YES.

Does the results of the report advocate the private interests of his private client? It appears to be YES.

Did he take the payment he received from SAMCAR and submit it to the CSU:SJSU for payment to use proprietary intellectual property that was owned by CSU:SJSU? It does not appear in this story that he did, so NO.


The new report goes on to say:

“HE ENDED UP PRODUCING A 10-PAGE STUDY THAT REHASHES MANY ARGUMENTS FAMILIAR TO MOUNTAIN VIEW VOTERS DURING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION….

In an interview, Means defended his report, saying it was in line with his job as a San Jose State University economics professor to study the rental market.

"I don't think there's anything controversial about what I said, EXCEPT AMONG PEOPLE WHO AREN'T TRAINED," he said. "THE FACT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO PRICE CONTROLS SHOULDN'T COME AS A SURPRISE TO ANYONE."”

HERE IS MY RESPONSE. I AM TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND BUSINESS ETHIC AS INSTRUCTED BY THE CSU:SJSU BY STUDYING THE COURSE OF : BUS3 186 Professional and Business Ethics. So I am trained by CSU:SJSU, and my understanding is this is a VERY CLEAR VIOLATION of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I will be happy to demonstrate that he violated the 10 principles of academic integrity regarding his action in this matter in another submission.

I just do not understand how Tom Means cannot be aware of it, except that he refuses to believe he is subject to these behavioral requirements. It goes on to say:

“LENNY SIEGEL, THE LONE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO SUPPORTED MEASURE V, RECALLED HOW MEANS HAD PROMISED DURING HIS APPLICATION INTERVIEWS THAT HE WOULD DO HIS BEST TO MAKE MEASURE V WORK EFFECTIVELY.

"Now I'm not sure if that's the approach he's taking," Siegel said. "He's clearly being ideologically consistent, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT HE'S HELPING TO CREATE A PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY HELPING PEOPLE."

In the months since joining the Rental Housing Committee, Means has dominated many of the crucial policy discussions. OFTEN BRINGING HIS ECONOMICS PEDIGREE INTO TALKS, HE HAS SOMETIMES SPARRED WITH THE CITY'S RISK-AVERSE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ON DRAFTING ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE RENT-CONTROL PROGRAM. The city's team frequently aimed for legal cover by modeling Mountain View's program after other rent-stabilized cities; but Means was inclined to craft more precise methods to tie the program more closely to what he sees as the housing market's realities.”

First, it appears that even at least the Vice-Mayor Lenny Siegal openly criticizes the behaviors Toms has acted on. Second, he has been abusing his credentials as a RHC board member to confuse those on the board that do not have economics education by cloaking political arguments as proven economic information. When in fact, in most cases it can be equally argued his information is inaccurate at best. The story goes on to say:

““It is unclear if conflict-of-interest laws would have any bearing on Means' paid political work. California government code bars public officials from financially benefiting from their position. Mountain View's own policies prohibit public officials from engaging in any employment that is inconsistent or in conflict with their duties.

IN AN EMAIL, MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY ATTORNEY JANNIE QUINN DECLINED TO COMMENT ON THIS SITUATION, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT A LEGAL ANALYSIS WOULD TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME.”

So even the City Attorney of Mountain View cannot argue that Tom Means has a serious conflict of interest regarding the City of Mountain View, the same determination must also follow regarding the CSU: SJSU situation. Thus, there is serious and solid good merit to seek an audit and investigation regarding his activities. Finally the resort goes on to say:

“Means said he had encountered similar questions before when he was on the City Council. At the time, he was being offered an honorarium for academic papers and lectures, sometimes on issues that were associated with municipal government. THE CITY ATTORNEY TOLD HIM ACCEPTING THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE FINE, SO LONG AS THE SPEECHES WERE WORK-RELATED, he said.

"If anything, I was the most well-known candidate," Means said. "IT'S THE COUNCIL THAT PUT ME IN THIS POSITION. IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE PEOPLE HAVE, THEY SHOULD REALLY BE ASKING THE COUNCIL."

I find his statement very questionable and objectionable. When he is using the statement: “It's the council that put me in this position. If there's any issue people have, they should really be asking the council." does not absolve his conflict of interest problems, nor does it raise any defense for potential other legal problems amounting to corruption, or even bribery. Does it?

It appears to me that Tom Means wants to put the blame of HIS actions on the fact that no one appears to be telling him it is wrong. Such behavior could be observed as sociopathic behavior that one is free to harm anyone that interferes with one’s own political interests until they are told it is not right. Should one have to be told by someone else when they are crossing a line regarding conflict of interest or unethical behavior? To me, I would expect he would already be trained to understand the consequences of his actions. However it appears he desires to claim ignorance.

Another quick follow up:

It appears there is a good chance the California State University will investigate Tom Means regarding conflict of interest. I received the following email:

Thank you for your recent email messages (one below; one attached) in which you express your concerns regarding possible conflict of interest issues at San Jose State.

Please be assured that we take such concerns seriously, and I have forwarded both your messages to the appropriate CSU personnel for review and consideration.

You may be contacted if further information from you is required.

Your continued interest in and commitment to your alma mater are much appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Sincerely,

Timothy P. White, Chancellor, The California State University, Office of the Chancellor, 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802.

So, there might be a significant amount of investigation regarding Tom Means conduct regarding his position at San Jose State University.

Given the fact that a Professor Timothy Stearns, another “TENURED” Dept of Economics instructor at CSU Fresno faced the exact same kind of problems. That story published on Feb. 16, 2016 can be read here:(Web Link This story indicates that conflicts of interest are serious violations of the code of conduct and being “TENUTRD” does not immunize yourself from this kind of violation

The irony is Professor Timothy Stearns tried to put the blame on CSU: Fresno if you read this article written on Feb. 20, 2016 : (Web Link It would seem that Professor Tom Means is in fact doing the same thing claiming if the City of Mountain View or the CSU:SJSU did their due diligence, he would not have exploited the situation

Professor Timothy Stearns eventually resigned from the “Lyles Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Fresno State a from the article written Feb. 22, 2016 the story found here:(Web Link

The irony is that in this story there was the following passage:

“AL SMITH, CEO OF THE FRESNO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FROM 2005 TO 2015, said that Stearns “was a tremendous asset to this community and the entrepreneurial programs at Fresno State.”

“He will be sorely missed and very hard to replace,” Smith said.”

What is interesting is that John Inks in the Rental Housing Committee meeting stood up and CRITICIZED THE NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SEEK AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING TOM MEANS IN THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROBLEM WITH CSU:SJSU. John Inks is a high ranking representative of the City of Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. I find it ironic that the problems that got Professor Timothy Stearns in such trouble are being replayed almost with the exact script regarding Professor Tom Means.

To me, it appears Tom Means may find himself very busy dealing with the consequences of his actions

Steve,

Stop YELLING at us. Your ALL CAPS make it seriously difficult to read.

Just type like this. Nice, easy reading. See?
Thanks.

No ALL CAPS,

I am not intending to use CAPS as a yelling. My intent is to provide emphasis, the board here does not appear to support "BOLD", "Underline" or "Italicise" of text.
Please be patient regarding my use of CAPS.

As far as Tom Means is concerned, he is just one of many examples of the war on real economics. How can I say this? If you read this article, it is just one of many demonstrating that the study of economics is fraught with conflict of interest by those we “TRUST” to do their best to not skew the information for the benefit of their own interests: Web Link

This report went on to say:

“But the assumption that ethical standards are unnecessary to the discipline has begun to crumble in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008 -- a turn of events that, many say, economists failed to anticipate. MOST POINTEDLY, THE ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY INSIDE JOB HAS CAST A HARSH LIGHT ON THE CHUMMINESS OF REGULATORS, BOND RATERS AND BANKERS -- AND ON THE ACADEMIC ECONOMISTS WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RENDERED DISINTERESTED ADVICE AND ANALYSIS. In recent days, an alumnus at Princeton University and students at Columbia University have raised questions probing the relationships of academic economists at their institutions to powerful financial firms. Columbia adopted a revised conflict of interest policy in 2009 (before the film's release) that requires its scholars to disclose their financial ties when commenting publicly on issues to which those ties might be relevant; administrators there are reviewing this policy once more, as part of a revisiting process put in place two years ago. SUCH INCREASED SCRUTINY HAS BEEN CALLED “THE ‘INSIDE JOB’ EFFECT.”

This report also stated:

“Close examination is coming from within the discipline as well. Gerald Epstein, professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, has focused on the need for a clear conflict of interest policy. He suggests a policy modeled on the one used by the american sociological association. IT WOULD REQUIRE ECONOMISTS TO DISCLOSE RELEVANT SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT “MAY HAVE THE APPEARANCE OR POTENTIAL FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PUBLIC SPEECHES AND WRITING, AS WELL AS IN ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS,” Epstein wrote, with Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, a doctoral student at UMass, in a Jan. 3 letter to Robert E. Hall, the Robert and Carole McNeil Joint Professor of Economics at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, who was then president of the AEA. THE LETTER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ABOUT 300 ECONOMISTS.”

It also went on to state:

“They found that, of the 19 scholars studied, 13 did some work for private financial institutions. Two were co-founders and held key positions in such firms. Another economist worked for two banks -- as president of one and as director of another. Eight served on the boards of directors of private financial firms, while two were identified as consultants or affiliated experts for firms. Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth determined these affiliations mostly through the economists’ curriculums vitae.

In their public statements and scholarly writings, VERY FEW OF THE ECONOMISTS ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR PRIVATE AFFILIATIONS -- EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT OPINE ON POLICIES THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE FIRMS THAT PAID THEM, EPSTEIN AND CARRICK-HAGENBARTH FOUND. TYPICALLY, THE ECONOMISTS IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES BY THEIR ACADEMIC POSITION OR THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL BUREAU FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH; SOMETIMES IT WAS BY THEIR APPOINTMENT TO PRESTIGIOUS PUBLIC OR INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

SEVEN OF THE ECONOMISTS -- INCLUDING A PRESIDENT, SEVERAL TRUSTEES AND THOSE WHO SERVED ON THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF PRIVATE FINANCIAL FIRMS -- FAILED TO MENTION THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THESE FIRMS DURING NEARLY 80 MEDIA APPEARANCES. While one economist divulged his or her dealings in all 25 appearances, three others did so only occasionally -- in one-third of 63 op-eds and interviews.”

It also goes on to say:

“STILL OTHERS SAY THAT A CODE OR A POLICY ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, IN ITSELF, ISN'T ENOUGH. INSTEAD, WHAT’S NEEDED IS A CHANGE IN HOW ECONOMISTS THINK ABOUT ETHICS, SAID GEORGE DEMARTINO, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER AND AUTHOR OF THE ECONOMIST'S OATH.

Such a change, he said, would encourage what he called a tradition of inquiry, which would shift economists’ narrow emphasis on objective, quantifiable truth and prod those in the profession to consider the implications of their work on other people, particularly those in developing countries. “We learn all these techniques but we don’t have five minutes of training in what it means to have power over the lives of others,” said DeMartino. “ECONOMISTS IMPOSE FAR TOO MUCH RISK ON THE COMMUNITIES THEY’RE TRYING TO SERVE.”

While he agreed with Epstein’s argument that the top tiers of academe ought to have a wider range of perspectives, DeMartino saw the problem as having less to do with free-market ideology than with attitude. In his view, economists are trained to believe too much in the certainty of their conclusions.

“THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN ECONOMICS FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT IS WE CULTIVATE ARROGANCE AND HUBRIS,” HE SAID. THE GOAL, HE SAID, “IS TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT ONE DOES AND DOESN’T KNOW AND WHAT ONE CANNOT EVER KNOW.”

This would seem to indicate that as far as Tom Means conduct in his “FIELD”, he has taken advantage of non-disclosure regarding the statements he makes in public. This raises serious questions regarding his objectivity regarding the works he produces. I would strongly urge the public to have “HEALTHY “skepticism regarding any commentary he publishes.

Business man, do you get paid by the word or by the pound.
I don't even bother reading your stuff anymore.

Lisa,

I understand your feelings.

But at the same time, there have been so many problems with Tom Means regarding his conflict of interest and unethical actions; I simply need to make sure that my opinions are substantiated by those who have expertise in the field.

Tom Means in fact attempted to intimidate me after the RHC meeting on Monday, along with Mr. John Inks.

They both tried to bully me into being a good boy, but it simply inspired me to do more research. Tom Means in essence claims that he is free to abuse his honorary position in any way he wishes. As well as he was immune of all consequences of his actions.

I was pleasantly surprised that this news report occurred right after that meeting. I was surprised that another “reasonable person” would in effect support my thoughts even without having any communication whatsoever. That appears to have occurred with both Lenny Siegel and Juliet Brodie.

So I have a bit of motivation to see that Tom Means receives the proper treatment based on his actions.

[Post removed; feel free to debate the issue, but don't attack other posters.]

Re: ALL CAPS

First, there are other ways to emphasize words in a plain-text forum besides putting them in all caps. For example, *this* word is important, and _that_ word is important.

Second, if everything is emphasized, then nothing is. When you try to emphasize an entire paragraph (whether you do it with boldface, or with all caps, or with something else), then you just make the entire paragraph harder to read. If you're trying to make sure people read that one paragraph, then ultimately, your attempt at emphasis will have the opposite effect.