Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells council Monte Sereno survey was 'horrible' and questions methodology
Summary
A resident who participated in the consultant-conducted verbal survey criticized its execution and sampling, saying the poll lacked trade-off questions and felt unprofessional, while still agreeing with the conclusion that the city is not ready for a near-term ballot.
During public comment, Phil Levine, a Monte Sereno resident who participated in the survey, told the council he found the polling implementation "horrible" and "unprofessional." Levine described lapses in interview technique, a lack of forced trade-off questions and what he called fear-focused items near the end of the survey.
Levine said those flaws led him to question the survey data, though he also said he believed the consultants’ overall conclusion that the city was not ready for a near-term ballot. Consultants and council members acknowledged concerns about the survey execution but pointed to the broader pattern of results—high satisfaction with services but weak linkage to funding need—as the basis for planning more outreach and education.
Levine urged transparency in any future election scheduling, warning against using low-turnout special election timing to the city's advantage and suggesting major-day elections instead.
The council accepted the public comment and used it as part of its discussion about improving outreach and verifying methodology before any further polling or ballot decisions.
