Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mary Beth Ringgold's avatar

Great post! I love the way you think and process challenges. !

Expand full comment
Wayne Camard's avatar

"Valid reason for the rule" presumably refers to your recent post about the FPPC investigation. And one can readily imagine a case where "honoraria" are used to influence a public official. I don't for a moment think this is your case, and agree that its application here is completely unfair, but even for something with as little financial responsibility as Palo Alto City Council, there is still the possibility of influence over how millions are spent. Perhaps the rule should be reformulated to specify a share ceiling from a single source (or one other refinement), but I'm sure the drafter thought they were fighting the good fight by casting a broad net.

My point: Gexxy's comment was unnecessarily harsh, but not ipso facto wrong.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts