Food for Thought
A few years ago, I was in China on business and read in the English language newspaper there about a man who had embezzled the equivalent of $50,000 from some government agency. He was found guilty in court and immediately taken out the back of the courthouse and executed by firing squad. The crime of embezzlement of any amount is punishable by death in China and there is no appeal process. It’s no wonder that this crime is rare in that country. Now I am not holding up the Chinese system of justice as an example of anything to emulate and I certainly do not advocate the death penalty for embezzlement. However, it provides a stark contrast to how we treat “misappropriaters” of public funds in the USA.
In the past year, I have written columns about questionable travel expenses at the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) board, and recently we discussed similar activity at the city’s retirement department and board. The story then was that the city auditor wanted to take a look at the accounts of the retirement department board, who were putting up a wall of resistance, claiming that they had already hired their own auditor who looked into the matter and found nothing. (This is the “Godfather” defense; you know, where Tom Hagen says something like, “My Client, Mr. Corleone, is innocent of all charges. I know because I talked to him about it. For one thing, he says he ‘didn’t see nuttin’,’ and for another, he says he ‘don’t know nobody.’”)
In light of the retirement department’s resistance, I argued for even more intense scrutiny by the city auditor’s office that has now completed its report . And guess what? Yep. They found that in the last 2 ½ years, retirement department officials did not document $50,000 in travel reimbursements and billed the pension funds for $6,300 in ineligible expenses. Fifty thousand bucks filched from the public till by those entrusted with the funds found its way into their pockets, just like the poor schmuck in China. Good thing we don’t have that firing squad solution here in San Jose, otherwise we’d be out headhunting for new department management. Instead, they get a slap on the wrist, are asked to pay back a few bucks, and are required to adhere to a new policy. This is outrageous in my view. At the very least, every one of these people should be shown out the door and banned from further employment in public “service.” The DA should investigate the matter thoroughly and if the evidence warrants it, they should be prosecuted for embezzlement.
The kind of hanky panky going on at the SCVWD and San Jose city retirement department is, I am sure, only a tiny fraction of similar misappropriation of public funds going on in our city, county, state and country. And who is to blame for this? We are. We have abdicated (by default) our civic responsibilities as citizens to safeguard the public (our) interest in favor of thin air. The partisan old-boy (and girl) network of political pyramid climbers have turned their attention to grabbing their own, ever-larger prizes, leaving us to pick up the tab and suffer the indignities of having to finance luxury jet-set lifestyles for those who are supposed to be serving us and managing our institutions on our behalf while we try and make ends meet every day. The best solution is for our citizenry to act and provide our own public oversight for every individual institution that is financed by us and charged with administering our government. Thanks to a few of our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, we actually have the right to do it, unlike, say, the citizens of China.
So, how can we accomplish this in San Jose and Santa Clara County? I would like to hear your ideas. I have one that I would like to propose.
The most sacred civic duty is voting. After that, it’s serving, when called, as a juror. Let’s elevate public oversight to the level of jury service. We have a jury selection system and process in place and it works fine. Let’s adopt that process to constitute public oversight “juries” with the power to look into and monitor anything and everything at a city or county government institution. It can be based on the grand jury model but focused on monitoring a single department (if large enough) or specified group of smaller institutions. Each jury-commission would elect a foreman. Each person selected would serve a specified time, say a year, and service during that time would be required one evening a week, for instance, or as necessary. This service could be in lieu of regular jury service and volunteering would be a substitute for such service where people often find it difficult to take several weeks off work when selected. When anything resembling criminal activity is detected, the oversight jury would be required to hand that evidence over to the county grand jury to handle in the usual way.
In addition, let’s empower the oversight citizen jury with the ability to, by majority vote, overturn any internal policy or financial (such as travel expenses) decision at their department, and subpoena any employee to appear before them and answer their questions and, by unanimous or supermajority consent, terminate employment. The possibility of confrontation with a body of angry empowered citizens, where public employees would be required to justify their own dubious actions or face losing their jobs then and there, would be enough to stop the sort of trough feeding that has been going on at the city retirement department and the SCVWD.
If you have anything to add to this basic idea of systematic public oversight, or, short of adapting the Chinese method, you would like to suggest an idea of your own, I would love to hear it.
The first line of defense should be the press. Unfortunately the Mercury News no longer has the resources or the interest to play a role in keeping our public officials honest.
Coruption and inefficiency go hand in glove with government programs. The most effective way of limiting the amount of waste is to limit the scope of Government. Limit Government and you limit corruption.
As voters, we should be extremely skeptical of candidates who claim that, if elected, they will “fix” a perceived problem.
Watch out for bond measures that, when passed, usually have the effect of providing these public “servants” with even more bloated pension and benefit packages.
The amount of abuse of power in Government is directly proportional to the level of apathy and inattention of the people. So San Jose is in big trouble.
Generally speaking, I doubt if there’s any City in this country with a population that is more inattentive to local affairs than is San Jose. Unfortunately, we can’t MAKE people care.
Who is John Galt? Is he / she actually involved in improving San Jose or lives in another city and just comes to San Jose to make more profits?
John sounds like many SJI daily complainers with lots to say but who actually do little to change or improve anything in San Jose –
They talking about what others should do but don’t get involved
Lately many on SJI seem to have one thing in common – they don’t live in San Jose
and object to San Jose residents actually having a say in what is or is not approved in San Jose and how our city government works
San Jose has changed from Gonzo and his lobbyists who’s “greed is good: and used political power and public’s money for themselves and friends
Reed is way better than Gonzo but we still need more accountability for where taxes are spent
San Jose is way better than most large scandal ridden cites where politics and greed rule
Good topic Jack but as “insider ” tell rest of us who are ” partisan old-boy (and girl) network of political pyramid climbers ” grabbing taxpayer dollars
SJI can do public service by Naming the Names
Jack, not few names of good old boys and girl, everyone SJI knows so tell us
“It’s no wonder that this crime is rare in that country.”
WTF! If you believe that about China, I have a bridge somewhere to sale you.
The death penalty most be why Chinese health & safety / environment / zoning regulation is so effective.
Any official caught violating expense policy should be immediately hauled out back by the collar, and have a column written about him/her in San Jose Inside.
Kanchou #5
I figured someone would say this. According to what I read at the time, embezzlement is (was) rare relative to the enormous population in China as compared to the USA and Western Europe. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover this is wrong. After all, the death penalty doesn’t keep people from committing murder here. However, it’s not the frequency of embezzlement in China that is the point of this column, but how we deal with similar corruption here.
#3 WIJG,
Good knowledge on the handle!
But if you really want to know who John Galt is you’ll have to read the whole book, not just the first paragraph.
Also, I’m not sure why you would assume that many SJI posters are out-of-towners.
“Also, I’m not sure why you would assume that many SJI posters are out-of-towners.”
Because they say so in their comments or others have told us where they live
San Jose residents should always question motives of non residents from Chamber, SVLG, and other organizations who frequently make recommendations to the Council about – giving tax subsidies, approving excess housing over San Jose’s job needs, paying for costs that other cities, county, state, or federal government should share or pay for which will result in serious reductions in San Jose’s already low city services
Do these non residents have reasons that are non in San Jose public interest?
– San Jose should do it for region since no other city will
– excessive business profits from land conversions,
– no other city will approve this project,
– San Jose gives us tax subsidies,
– San Jose will build more housing for our city’s employers, affordable housing or government buildings which do not pay full cost of city services,
– San Jose should provide social services since my home city will not and we don’t want those people in my city,
– My city restricts housing but quickly approves new businesses since San Jose worker will commute to work for our businesses
GA&SJF; #9,
OK. I think I see what you’re getting at.
It’s probably a good idea to question the motives of non-residents and residents alike.
It seems to me that San Jose is really 2 cities in one. There’s downtown that sucks up all the revenue. Then there’s the rest of the city that is largely ignored by city hall- other than to collect taxes from us.
So, from my perspective out here in the hinterlands, any poster advocating more RDA projects downtown IS an out-of-towner. He certainly doesn’t live in MY San Jose.
What about you? Do you think San Jose City Council is doing a good job of serving the public’s interest? Are they careful and conscientious about how they spend the peoples’ money? Are we within our rights to question the salaries and benefits that we pay the people that work for the City? Apparently, most of us don’t think it’s any of our business.
And City Hall KNOWS it.