Oops, council took this one straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, assign someone who wants to destroy/dissolve a government entity to preside over it. No one saw this coming?

Ditto on the previous comment. So like it.

I don't see how Tom Means has a conflict of interest. He was appointed to the committee to represent landlord interests. Landlords are predominantly against rent control. The fact that he also was paid to represent the same landlord interests in another city does not show a conflict of interest or an ethical lapse -- his position and the interests he represents are aligned.

The charter amendment was written to allow for some landlord representation on the committee. The fact that a majority of the committee cannot have any affiliation with landlords or property management means that the tenants interests will always have the upper hand. However, people voted for the charter amendment as written and might not have supported it if it had no balance of interests on the committee.

Tom Means has been doing his job of representing landlord interests and should not be removed.

Ditto the previous comment ("Neighbor"). Why are we picking on Tom? Wouldn't we want a pro-rent control member to be able to work to enable rent control in other cities?

I'm glad the above commenters are explicitly stating that Tom Means role on the Rental Housing Committee is to represent landlords interests. Such honesty is refreshing. The Voice should ask City Council if that was their intent as well when appointing Mr. Means, since the two landlord-affiliated seats are currently occupied by Ms. Honey and Mr. Grunewald. If Tom Means is a landlord advocate as well, as his paid work seems to indicate, the balance of power is not tilted towards tenants, but instead to wealthy landowners.

They should replace him with a Mobile Home Owner :)

@Shame You are right. I didn't realize that Tom Means was not meant to be one of the landlord representatives. Though not a technical violation of the charter (assuming he is not a landlord -- I thought he was), it does seem like that spot should be filled by a tenant advocate.

I don't like the rent control charter myself, but fair is fair.

However you feel about Tom Means or his particular action under scrutiny, I think we can all agree that there needs to be SOME procedure for removing members of the Rental Housing Committee, in case of unethical behavior or dereliction of duty. Some independence is probably a good thing, but a total lack of oversight was one of my biggest concerns about Measure V that Mountain View voters approved in November 2016. I'm glad that council and staff are trying to straighten it out.

I agree that there should be an established protocol to censure or remove members from any city committee or board. However, removal should not be for political reasons, as it appears to be with Mr. Means. The convoluted legal gyrations being put forward by those seeking his removal as justifiable, are transparently political. Balance is needed and should be fiercely required on any governmental body lest it become tyrannical.

In response to Bob you said:

“I agree that there should be an established protocol to censure or remove members from any city committee or board. However, removal should not be for political reasons, as it appears to be with Mr. Means.”

The fact is this is not for political reasons, Tom Means has demonstrated a direct financial conflict of interest, and an inability to comply with the requirements of the codes of conduct, and the Political Reform Acts disclosure requirements. You are simply not understanding the gravity of the situation. You also said:

“The convoluted legal gyrations being put forward by those seeking his removal as justifiable, are transparently political.”

As I just demonstrated above, you ignore the major problems that Tom Means himself caused, intentionally, regarding the City of Mountain View. You also said:

“Balance is needed and should be fiercely required on any governmental body lest it become tyrannical.”

Balance YES, BIAS NO. The fact is Tom Means directly markets himself for financial gain to those who will pay for his “research”. Given that his research does not comply with the American Economic Association Disclosure Policy seen here (Web Link it cannot be considered economic science. It is simply his profession to market unqualified propaganda in the guise of research. That profession simply either must cease while he is a RHC board member or he must resign. Whichever he chooses.

Dear Buisnessman,
You agree that balance is good, but what are you balancing if not bias?

So.... I assume this goes both ways? If a committee member is being removed for being "too landlord friendly" then a member can also be removed for being "too tenant friendly" right? It's only fair. After all, this committee is a government program funded by taxpayers.

Tom Means would not be removed for being "too landlord-friendly." He would be removed for accepting payment from a political campaign while he was a sitting member of the Rental Housing Committee, possibly in violation of the prohibition against honoraria in the Political Reform Act. I hope that clears things up, KTT.

"Critics say the paid political work calls into question his suitability and impartiality to administer Mountain View's rent control program."

So the complaint against Means is that he took payment for representing a view on the issue? I seem to recall there are several people on this committee who have been very forward with their "pro rent-control views", so thus are also not at all expected to be "impartial" when it comes to administering this program. I don't see them being asked to step down. So the issue is the payment then, not the view point, is that correct?

I'm ok with that, but then I expect all the "pro rent-control" people on the committee to also not be allowed to accept ANY form of payment for ANY work they do that supports rent-control here or in other areas. It's only fair that the standards we set for being "impartial" on the committee cuts both ways. This committee makes decisions for ALL in Mountain View, that means they represent landlords as well as tenants. This committee should not be confused with a tenants-rights group. It is not.

Sorry @just to clarify, it is indeed a tenant rights group. Every posting, every article, every discussion is CLEARLY in defense of tenant rights and to argue otherwise is disengenuous.

This may be one time the blatantly biased reporting of the Town Square comes back to haunt them.

It's an admitted fact from Tom Means himself that he received an honorarium for his work on a political campaign from SAMCAR. What Council and the City Attorney will now decide is whether that was in violation of the Political Reform Act or the City Code of Conduct. The allegations against other members, without evidence, are frankly disgusting, and those making those allegations should be ashamed.

In response to bob you said:

“You agree that balance is good, but what are you balancing if not bias?”

Realize that the board is designed for public scrutiny. Thus there is a need of a landlord to substantiate their needs. This however is not bias, this is in fact balance.

In response to KTT you said:

“So.... I assume this goes both ways? If a committee member is being removed for being "too landlord friendly" then a member can also be removed for being "too tenant friendly" right? It's only fair. After all, this committee is a government program funded by taxpayers.”

If you can document any other member working professionally to earn money in the same way as Tom Means, I would be 100% behind you. But you need to establish this. Tom Means himself declared he did what can only be considered a violation of the City Conduct and the Political Reform Act.

In response to Just to clarify you said:

“I'm ok with that, but then I expect all the "pro rent-control" people on the committee to also not be allowed to accept ANY form of payment for ANY work they do that supports rent-control here or in other areas. It's only fair that the standards we set for being "impartial" on the committee cuts both ways”

I agree, when the “pro rent-control” people on the committee can be demonstrated that they have become professional political propagandists like Tom Means, they must go.

Annnnnd let the Witch hunts begin! I agree that the RHC should be subject to all the same rules as the other committees and commissions that the Council oversees. However, I am greatly disturbed that it appears that RHC and possibly other commissions/committees members will now be subjected to scrutiny based on ideological purity and/or political considerations. In my opinion, members should be appointed based on their interest in serving as well as their knowledge of the committee/commissions area of responsibility and the member's abilities.

Based on those clear criteria, Tom Means is definitely one of the most qualified people to serve in any of Mountain View's committees/commissions. I do not see where work in a related area whether paid or unpaid, or even pro or con should have any impact whatsoever on that person's ability or qualification to serve. If that is the case, then RHC vice chair Evan Ortiz would not be qualified based on his extensive involvement with the Mountain View Tenants Coalition ( Web Link ).

In reading the article and the comments, I have so far not seen anything related to any comments or actions taken by Tom Means that are directly connected to the RHC. I am very concerned that the Council will use the new rules to only appoint persons who are in agreement with the Councilmembers personal views and sense of morality, rather than people who are well qualified, but may have different ideas or see things from a different perspective. In my opinion this is a slippery slope.

Should the Council be paving the way to censure or remove Tom Means, in my opinion, they will be clearly stating that independence of thought is not to be tolerated and will be punished; and even worse, they will be disavailing themselves and us of an incredibly valuable resource for our community.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Shame - I fail to see why every time you respond to one of my comments you have to hurl personal insults. I did indeed address the matter when I said that I did not see any actions that were directly related to the RHC or are you saying that the realtor had business before the committee and that Tom failed to recuse himself?

If Tom has violated Political Reform Act rules, then I would think the FPPC would become involved. Also, so far, as far as I know, none of the Council Members has thus far accused Tom of violating any laws, so what do you know that the rest of us do not?


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Dear Shame,
Tom Means has written books on economics, teaches college courses on economics and has lectured to groups on economics. He is an expert on economics and I can think of no better person to have in a rent control discussion. The fact the he has a profession that appreciates his knowledge and pays him for it, should be an asset, not grounds for dismissal. How much credibility would you give to an un-employed economist?

I cannot tell whether either of you have read the Political Reform Act. It does not state that people can take honoraria if the organization providing it has no business before the committee. It does not say that really smart economics experts are exempt from the prohibition. You may not like what it says, but the facts don't care about your feelings.

If he wanted to stay on the Rental Housing Committee, he could have simply not taken an honorarium, but he chose to do so, for reasons he refuses to explain to the rest of us.

In response to bob you said:

“Tom Means has written books on economics, teaches college courses on economics and has lectured to groups on economics. He is an expert on economics and I can think of no better person to have in a rent control discussion. The fact the he has a profession that appreciates his knowledge and pays him for it, should be an asset, not grounds for dismissal. How much credibility would you give to an un-employed economist?”

But since he does not comply with the American Economic Association Disclosure Policy seen here (Web Link IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ECONOMIC SCIENCE. It is simply HIS PROFESSION TO MARKET UNQUALIFIED PROPAGANDA IN THE GUISE OF RESEARCH. That profession simply either must cease while he is a RHC board member or he must resign. Whichever he chooses.

His Academic integrity simply is open to suspicion when even after 5 years, HE REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURE POLICY. He knows this, if he doesn’t this would be clear evidence that his competency is also quite open to question. The simple fact is you cannot justify his intentional abuse of his position.

Means is an economics professor at a local university. Wasn't he just simply restating what 99.9% of economists already say about price controls?

There's nothing in Measure V that states the committee members can't speak their opinions. If it was the case, then Ramos and Ortiz should be chastised for advocating for similar policies in other cities. Both, identifying themselves as committee members, have attended City Council meetings and spoke before those cities' council members supporting programs like Measure V.

As I previously said, if the city is going to establish rules and guidelines for committee members, then have them apply to ALL members not just ones who have concerns about this disastrous, unnecessary, general fund-robbing Measure V.

In response to KTT you said:

“Means is an economics professor at a local university. Wasn't he just simply restating what 99.9% of economists already say about price controls?”

In fact he simply copies what has now been declared tainted research, given that the AEA Disclosures requirements have not been satisfied regarding the past research.

The best description of this is it is “fruit from a poisonous tree” or if you read this:

“Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.”( Web Link)

Given that the research is done lacking proof of no conflict of interests disclosed, the research is identical to “evidence that is obtained illegally” thus the results and use of this research is the same as “then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well”

The Economist community is required to in effect completely redo all previous researches so that the knowledge base of economics’ is “cleaned” for the “taint” of conflict of interest. Thus no “economics” studies until the disclosures are made public are valid in any way. Tom Means is surely aware of that too.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

BM
Please keep in mind this is not your personal editorial page and people are not seeking your opinion on all of their comments. This is an opportunity for the community to state their views and they have a right to do so. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and just because you do not agree with them you are in no position to tell them their opinion is not valid.

In response to Respectful you said:

“Please keep in mind this is not your personal editorial page and people are not seeking your opinion on all of their comments. This is an opportunity for the community to state their views and they have a right to do so. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and just because you do not agree with them you are in no position to tell them their opinion is not valid.”

However, it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that false information is fact checked. Otherwise, the comments can be used as a political platform for those who want to misinform the public. If you notice, my comments are direct but respectful.

The reason why we have so many problems regarding many issues is that misinformation is used to cloud the problem, thus it never gets resolved. This is equally applied to either “republicans” or “democrats” and “liberals” or “conservatives”.

To these groups, solving the problems would cause them to have to keep it up. But sooner or later, they would run out of topics to use for their “ammunition” in their “political war”.

I cannot wait to observe Tom Means at tonight's RHC meeting.

Given that at least 3 out of 7 city council members have expressed a "NO CONFIDENCE" opinion. It would appear that these members illustrated that Tom Means simply has conducted himself at the very least very poorly.

I still wonder if he will ever disclose his history of professional money making based on political propaganda?

Just a request regarding an update

What is the current situation regarding Tom Means and the City of Mountain View?

Tom Means is a credit to the City of Mountain View and we are lucky he is willing to so freely give of his precious spare time to help out his fellow citizens. If only all members of the Rental Housing Committee had his intellect, experience and dedication, things would be going much more smoothly with regard to fair implementation of the poorly written and ill-conceived CSFRA.

His time certainly seems to be valuable. Look how much he has been paid by a political campaign of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors while he has been a sitting member of the RHC! Maybe, however, it's not his time, but his seat of power and performance on the RHC that was more valuable to them...