At the upcoming Tuesday May 25,2021 meeting, the Los Altos City Council is poised to use a RESOLUTION to pass judgment on Councilmember Lynette Lee-Eng as GUILTY of lying and ‘negatively impacting’ Los Altos BLM activist Kenan Moos with her spoken words describing texts he sent her during a Nov. 24 council meeting.
According to the local paper, Mr. Moos believes her words on Nov.24, 2020 put a target on his back, and he is now more likely to be killed by the police. At that meeting, the council reviewed, modified and passed six police reform motions recommended by the Citizens’ Police Task Force including removal of the School Resource Officer at Los Altos High. For the past six months, supporters of the Moos family narrative have shown up at virtually every subsequent council meeting consuming between 30 to 90 minutes with comments demanding Councilmember Lee-eng be punished in some way. Her name has been all over the mainstream papers implying she is not really supportive of racial justice but is a racist … as Mr. Moos had warned.
In the United States, city councils have some powers of each of the three branches of government – legislative, executive, AND judicial. Although the proposed council resolution on the agenda May 25, 2021 finds her GUILTY of “negatively impacting” Mr. Moos, it says it will commute any and all sentences on Lee-Eng. It “does not seek to punish, embarrass, or discipline.”
The resolution has been drafted by a 2-person subcommittee of the 5-person council – namely by Mayor Neysa Fligor and Councilmember Jonathan Weinberg – both attorneys by profession. As attorneys, they can easily ascertain that a California city council has no power to punish or remove one of its elected officials. At the May 25 meeting, the Mayor will probably ask City Attorney Jolie Houston to explain to the attending public that the council has no latitude to remove, punish, or discipline Lee-Eng [except for the media publicity that will undoubtedly emanate from this resolution for a GUILTY verdict of course!]
Lalahpolitico: Will the Kenan Moos supporters accept this reality of council powerlessness or continue to demand that Lee-Eng – re-elected Nov. 2020 with over 9,000 votes – ‘voluntarily’ resign? Maybe Moos supporters will relent and just settle for letting mainstream media continue their onslaught on Lee-Eng. But that’s a beast that needs feeding.
TRUTHINESS
The draft resolution doesn’t state any untruths. Lalah will not quibble with what is ON the page, only with what is NOT ON the page.
It publishes all 4 of the Moos texts, but it does not publish Lee-Eng’s second set of remarks she makes: “People are concerned about voicing concerns. If you’re concerned voicing concerns because of how you’re being treated, I’m very concerned about how I’m being treated as well. So thank you.”
It does not correct the Moos text assertion “it looks like you are the only one against” [some of the police reform motions]. Actually both Enander and Lee-Eng voted NO on the first motion.
NOW THEREFORE, Lalah acknowledges
Lynette Lee-Eng on Nov. 24 in her remarks to the council and the public about “Vanguard”
- DID NOT claim she was physically threatened by Mr. Kenan Moos
- DID NOT mention Kenan Moos or the Moos family by name or slander them in any way
- DID mistakenly say Vanguard called her racist when what Mr. Moos actually did say was ‘We know there are racists that supported you.’.
Lalahpolitico: [Wink!] we all know that although some – ok most – of Trump’s supporters were racists, nonetheless he was in no way a racist. Right!? No one was calling ex-president Trump a racist because of his racist supporters, right? It was only because he owned some rental slums in NYC!
The draft Resolution blames Lee-Eng for not mentioning Mr. Moos’s last, fourth text to her at the Nov. 24 meeting. The problem is timestamps show the first three texts arrived ~40 minutes before she spoke about those three texts.
The fourth text where Moos asserted he made no threat, just expressed disappointment, appears to have been triggered by and sent by Moos sometime AFTER Mayor Jan Pepper used the word ‘threat’ and the City attorney brought up the ‘Police’. How can anyone know when Lee-Eng actually saw the fourth text?
The written RESOLUTION claims Moos sent the 4th text BEFORE the four council members and the city attorney reacted — before Pepper said “Threat” and the attorney said “Police.” That seems highly improbable. Fligor and Weinberg are asserting Lee-Eng saw the 4th text in near real-time.
Debatable Stories, Narratives, POVs
Here are some of the more interesting but debatable stories, narratives, and POVs Lalah had heard expressed by citizens over the past 6 months about this Nov. 24 incident and its aftermath. This is stuff various people BELIEVE to be true and or moral or right or just. It’s opinion.
DEBATABLE POV 1:
“Kenan Moos breached no council norms”
- FYI existing norms pertain to members of the public attending a council meeting, include for example, not speaking out-of-order, not interrupting proceedings, or not making uncivil remarks directed to the public or council.
- If Moos did any of 1) that was a just trivial faux pas. Lee-Eng’s words to Moos were uncivil. Mr. Moos’s speech to Lee-Eng was appropriate. He has the right to insult/chide his elected officials. He has the right to interrupt council proceedings.
DEBATABLE POV 2:
“It’s part of a council member’s role to just suck it up and take it. Lee-Eng doesn’t understand that.”
Council and Commission members ALWAYS just have to “suck it up” when the public behaves badly and says critical, rude or incendiary things. Keep a poker face and carry on! Lalahpolitico: I guess Councilmember Jeannie Bruins handled her job well at the Nov. 24 meeting. About 10 minutes after the “Lee-Eng incident,” Councilmember Bruins can be seen and heard as she was being harassed via texts for criticizing certain unnamed LAHS teachers. No one has been curious about that 2nd texting incident and what Bruins said about it Nov. 24. ‘Who dun it’ to her?
DEBATABLE POV 3:
“Lynette Lee-Eng IS TO BLAME for the ways some people misinterpreted her words of Nov. 24 “…concerns…protect… safety…family” as having received a ‘threat of physical violence.”
Rather than waiting for clarification in the press in the coming days about what Lynette meant, some puzzled listeners just made up stuff that didn’t happen. And that’s all her fault that they did that. Lalah: Only hyper-articulate ‘explainers’ should apply to be council members so that the public is not ever puzzled by council remarks.
On Nov. 24 Lee-Eng “could have, should have, immediately figured out that some people” – especially her fellow council members and the city attorney – “were misconstruing” her none too eloquent words. Many people now believe those 5 other city women listening to Lynette Lee-Eng were visualizing Kenan Moos as “an angry black man” threatening bodily harm.
Lalahpolitico: That’s fanciful. Please understand that since June 2020 all those council members had spent hours in private one on one time with Kenan Moos, not to mention time with him at the Townhall meeting, and as part of the Police Task Force meetings. Surely all council members [though not the city attorney] had had the opportunity to come to know him as a mild-mannered, well-spoken, upper-middle-class youth who was dealt the card of being black in a white town. IF ANY OF THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS – as Lee-Eng struggled to express herself Nov. 24 – were visualizing Kenan Moos as “an angry black man” capable of planning to deliver bodily harm or even property harm to her, WELL SHAME ON THEM. Yet some in the public BLAME LYNETTE LEE-ENG for not thinking the WORST about her council colleagues – namely that her colleagues expected the worst from Kenan.[ The attorney’s actual JOB is to worry about the worst cases.]
Screen shot of sanjoseinside web site page with their story about San Jose’s Mayor Liccardo
WAY BACK STORY –
The coast to coast protests at council member homes in 2020
By the weekend after Nov. 24, 2020, Lynette Lee-Eng had given an interview to the Palo Alto Daily. She clarified her ‘concern’ was that Mr. Moos might say things that inadvertently trigger others to swarm her home, doxx her, or execute low-level disturbances or pranks. That was the extent of her ‘concerns’.
At the time, her ‘concern’ was not entirely unfounded. In cities across the country and here locally, apparently leaderless protesters were massing at mayors’ and council members’ homes. San Jose Mayor Liccardo’s house was swarmed August 29, 2020. A Wall Street Journal account said that initially Mayor Liccardo “felt menaced.” He got over it. Property damage was limited to some spray paint on the front porch. The neighbors – including those with prominent BLM lawn signs – helped remove the paint. What a way to get closer to your neighbors! All smiles!
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/san-jose-mayor-liccardos-home-vandalized-amid-protests-friday/
What to Expect at the May 25, 2021 meeting
- Lalahpolitico expects the order of agenda items may change.
Item 7 – the RESOLUTION — is now the LAST item on the agenda. But at the start of the May 25 meeting the Mayor and council could move it to much earlier. Why? The Kenan Moos supporters are accustomed to being able to comment early in a meeting during the period reserved for “comments on items not on the agenda.” But on May 25 the resolution IS ON THE AGENDA. So don’t be surprised if item 7 moves to an earlier position. On the other hand, Lee-Eng’s supporter tilt older and may have trouble staying up late if Item 7 stays last! Lalah: Sigh, ponder which item order mazimizes Moos supporters turnout?! - The Resolution – as written – obviously will get only 3 Aye votes.
Councilmember Anita Enander is on the record as supporting no action by council except encouraging private mediation by the two parties. FYI an attempt at such a mediation broke down last month when the mediator called it off for unspecified reasons. Subsequently, Mr. Moos gave an interview saying the only thing he wanted out of a mediation was for Lynette Lee-Eng to resign! Lalah: Whoa, that was a non-starter for a mediation attempt! - The Mayor can control the approach to the discussion of the RESOLUTION
Will there be a sentence-by-sentence discussion and an opportunity for rewrite and amendments? OR will there be just an Up or Down take it or leave it vote on the whole resolution? Or something in between, till Mayor Neysa Fligor gets impatient with the item dragging on? Will it remain the last agenda item and drag on till 3am? Please bring caffeine, etc.
Lalahpolitico Bottomline
[Wink!] I think the RESOLUTION item should be postponed till the last council meeting this July. Most of our young families and our college kids will be out of town enjoying the summer free from COVID restrictions at last.OR
[Seriously!] If this resolution passes without a major rewrite whereby both sides share some of the guilt, and both sides muster some convincing reciprocal forgiveness, this City will be headed to a very cold winter of discontent. Such a 3-0 Resolution would NOT be a healing of the community. People will remember unfair, unbalanced treatment for a long, long time. Dear Council, Just STOP.RESOURCES
May 25, 2021 meeting agenda City of Los Altos Council document
The RESOLUTION document – Council to find Lee-Eng is guilty…
Daily Mail UK, and many derivative copy cats of this Daily Mail article (owned by the NYPost) – Lynette’s name definitely is “all over the papers” the past week since the May 25, 2021 Council agenda was first posted. But this time around it is with her preferred narrative about Nov. 24, 2021
LAHS Talon, example of a narrative preferred by the Moos family
search Los Altos Kenan Moos
search Los Altos Lynette Lee Eng
More from Los Altos Politico
Youtube video – Justice Vanguard’s newest operation
https://youtu.be/TI5EDEBvGi4
