We should all be upset by allegations of campaign finance illegalities in our local elections. We want honest politicians at all levels of government. Not only do violations of campaign laws taint the very outcome of our elections, but the misguided attacks on those who want laws upheld embolden yet more violations by officials of all sorts of laws.

The allegations against Kniss appear to be very serious and clearly not just a paperwork error. The Weekly should applaud, not disparage, all who are willing to stand up for honest government, including on the dais and on these pages.

The title of this editorial should be "New Year ... Old Mayor" as Kniss has already been mayor before. I don't think this choice of mayor bodes particularly well for the results of next year's council actions... although as a longtime politician at least Kniss will have an interest in at least appearing more even handed than Scharff was throughout his term. Next council election is going to be critical to determine the town's direction. I think bringing up the election campaign finance violations was actually appropriate and Kniss's reported tone of response exactly explains why. The alleged violation is such a direct slap in the face and so obviously not an innocent mistake by a veteran politician that it is insulting to the voters to imply it isn't a significant black mark against her serving as mayor.

Nice article but I disagree with the editorial opinion of Mr. DuBois. I think the folks who rightly admire him will appreciate his polite candor and appropriate acknowledgement that violating the law might be a real issue for some folks in an elected leader.

It is a fact that Ms Kniss is under investigation by the FPPC for violations of election laws.
She is under investigation of violating laws that are in place to protect and inform the public. In fact with her vast experience in elections and a competent campaign team it is not easily understood why such mistakes were made.

It remains to be seen what penalty the FPPC will impose
But there is no denying laws were broken she has admitted so.

I'm sure many of us will enjoy Ms kniss' demeanor this year compared to the snarky attitude of the last year.

But don't kill the messenger for politely stating a truth

One Party Government = tyranny and corruption.
Nothing new here....

Kniss again! "Be careful what you ask for...."

This editorial gets virtually every single thing wrong.

1. Yes, DuBois is totally politically tone deaf and wretched at his job. However, he's not wrong about the serious appearance of impropriety by Kniss and the fact that when the FPPC comes back if it finds she violated the law it would look really crappy if she was mayor. Why was he wrong to say that? Isn't he elected to say things even when they ruffle feathers?

2. Then Kniss made his point by saying, essentially, who gives a crap about the law? I am above the law, it's just a little thing. Pretty much, that was grounds for not electing her mayor or anytihng else. She openly mocked and flouted the law right there before your eyes. But for some reason instead of praising DuBois for stating the obvious, which is that she's an entitled [portion removed] politician who cares zero about the public finance laws, you attacked Tom, the (admittedly terrible) messenger.

3. Then you praised Greg Scharff for nominating Filseth as if that was a reach across the aisle when in fact it was a reach around because Filseth has gradually been moving over and has been subject to flattery and sycophancy from Scharff and the pro-development crowd. This was his reward. All this means is that Filseth has changed his position. If there's an iron law of Council it's that Greg Scharff is for Greg Scharff so if you see him doing something that appears to be against his interest, you are a few puzzle pieces short of understanding it and you need to try to figure out how this was in the interest of Greg Scharff.

Wholly terrible editorial. Liz Kniss is not some elder statesman. Come on. Praising her "extensive network?" Who wrote this. Gawd.

It is disturbing to read an editorial critical of Council Member DuBois for addressing an issue as significant as campaign finance. Isn't that something the public should expect from its elected officials? Surely it isn't better to pretend issues do not exist. What Council Member DuBois did may not have been a politically astute move, but so what? City Council is supposed to be about public service, not politics.

Kniss' remarks in reply were the surprise to me. "I'm not the only one" and "it's only a Commission" aren't the best defense. Nor is it comforting to be reminded that the dais is populated by multiple people who have come under investigation of the FPPC. Think about it - how hard is it to correctly report campaign income?

We have a beautiful city.
We have a of good leaders including Liz.

Stop this garbage about accusing Liz until the report comes out.

We elected two most bright people Liz and Eric. Let us honor them and support them to get some great things accomplished.

Make Palo Alto envy of sister cities.

Respectfully
Sea
INNOVATION INTEGRITY INCLUSION 3 pillars for leadership

@ Citizen Cane

Cory Wolbach nominated Eric Filseth for vice mayor, not Scharff, but I didn't know until I read the article that Cory knew he wouldn't get enough votes to be elected vice mayor. Scharff apparently told him in advance, or he found out another way, that Scharff would support Filseth. Then Cory did the right and honorable thing by nominating Filseth. I think this has a good chance of working out very well for our community Hmmm! Now, how do I get my fingers uncrossed?....Ah, there, I just did it.

I'll just let all the foo foo rah about the FPPC investigation, Tom's comments, and Liz's response, wash away. Let's get going CC, with all the issues you have before you!

Liz might carry some baggage, but she is undeniably the most experienced and well connected member on council...including her relationship and involvement at city, county, and regional levels. And the other good news is that Joe Simitian was just elected Chair of SC County's Board of Supervisors. Liz and Joe are close friends, and long time...very long time...friends, and you can bet he will do everything in his power, being a PA resident, to look out after our interests with Liz at the helm in PA.

We can't have more housing without first improving our infrastructure and transit options.

I continually hear about the increased number of daytime residents in town, but I hear nothing about numbers of those leaving Palo Alto for work each day. The Caltrain lots are full long before 9.00 am and just seeing the number of people waiting on the train platforms each morning show that many who live here use trains for their commute. The onramps to the highways are also busy each morning.

Increasing housing is a fine idea, but hibernating inside their homes is probably not what people want to do after work.

To make Palo Alto vibrant we need to provide basic infrastructure improvements and increase the quality of life by increasing recreational, medical, shopping, personal business and other things that people do to live their lives. Building more and more pack and stack housing is not going to make life pleasant for any of us otherwise.

Unless the mayor and CC start putting those of us who actually live in Palo Alto first we will just be worsening the already poor situation. I do not believe she has the integrity to do this.

Palo Altans for Common Sense.

I agree with other commenters here. Since when is expressing the truth that Kniss has yet to be cleared by the FPPC "inappropriate and a bad political move". It looks to me more like Tom DuBois is looking out for his constituents.

"...with her vast experience in elections and a competent campaign team it is not easily understood why such mistakes were made."

Mistakes? Surely you speak ironically.

Kniss' reporting "mistakes" were coolly, cynically calculated to conceal her sugar daddy developers until the election was history.

"One Party Government = tyranny and corruption.
Nothing new here...."

As a lifelong Democrat I must agree 100% with you. The local Democratic party is thoroughly corrupt.

@ Resident

Re infrastructure....I invite everyone to come down to my end of town and observe the installation of bulbouts, or whatever the traffic engineers call them, and the roundabout at the Ross Rd and East Meadow intersection. Your tax dollars hard at work...to piss off drivers and endangering lives of young bicyclists riding to school! We're not England. Putting in a roundabout on a narrow neighborhood street intersection is insanity, in addition to the dangerous calming devices installed at the YMCA entrances/exits.

Liz Kniss is a consummate politician. Tell people what they want to hear. Liz Kniss told voters she would not take financial support from developers. Then she quietly reneged, not only taking developer money but not reporting it as required, plus loaning campaign money much of which was quietly repaid after the election by developers.

We will never know how many votes she would have had if she had acknowledged how much financial support developers where giving her.

Both Scharff and Kniss got RE-elected by misusing representations of Bob Moss’s support. In Kniss’s case the deception went further with the hiding of developer contributions. TheFPPC said Fine misled the public. They aren’t going to do anything about it - that’s up to the public.

I have voted for Kniss before and deeply regret it. I will lend a hand in the recall but someone has to get it rolling.

The Weekly’s reporting, just prior to and immediately after the city council’s 2018 election for mayor, and related to the still-open, 10-month FPPC investigation, was both proper and relevant. But in its post-election editorial, there is an incorrect parallel between its criticism of Councilmember DuBois’s valid comments and the dismissive responses of Mayor Kniss.

There is no question that there were violations in the Re-Elect Liz Kniss for City Council for 2016’s reporting to the FPPC:

(1) Occupations and employers of contributors were omitted,

(2) A contribution of $1,000 or more (from the California Real Estate Political Action Committee) was not reported within 24 hours,

[These two violation categories were also present in the Greg Tanaka for Palo Alto City Council 2016’s reporting, resulting in the candidate signing an “FPPC Stipulation, Decision, and Order” last September and agreeing to pay a fine of $733.]

and

(3) Six checks, covering a total of about $12,000 from the campaign committee, were made out to candidate Liz Kniss; a total no-no.


The anonymous complaint submitted to the FPPC in January 2017, after end-of year campaign statements were filed and made public, raises other FPPC regulation questions, including whether:

(a) Other pre-election contributions of $1,000 or more were also not reported within 24-hours, and

(b) Other contributions made in the final pre-election reporting period, that extends up to 16 days prior to the election, were not in the overall filing for that period due five days later.

A simple request for copies of cancelled checks from the committee’s bank account should be able to resolve these questions.

So why is the FPPC’s process for this investigation taking so long?

Is the agency understaffed to handle its current caseload, including this matter for which there appears to be relatively straight forward questions and answers?

Or perhaps, do the violations rise to a higher level requiring more senior FPPC staff as well as campaign committee legal counsel in order to bring the parties to final decision and acceptance.

In this case, a key component may be the issue of intent.

In the boilerplate used in the Tanaka campaign ruling, underneath the “Description of Violation” section, and to the right of the last of the four check boxes, it reads “Found no evidence of intent to conceal.” It was checked in the Tanaka decision.
Web Link ]