Some people are calling it garbage-gate. Others say it’s Gonzales-gate. I’ve even heard a few call it Guerra-gate. Investigations and alliteration are popular at City Hall these days.
No matter what you call it, the next step is a serious one. The council has to decide how to pick a special investigator.
Scott Herhold wrote a column this weekend (link) that correctly concludes City Attorney Rick Doyle should not be the one because he’s implicated in the grand jury report.
I don’t have experience with investigators. But from my days in City Hall dealing with outside consultants, I can tell you that it’s critically important who chooses and directs the work. Investigators will pick up direct or indirect cues from the people signing the contract.
Here are some other choices:
Retired judges—they would be knowledgeable about the law.
City elections commission – they have expertise in San Jose election laws.
City council subcommittee – they would understand City Hall policy and procedures.
A blue ribbon committee – they would give the public confidence that investigation was unbiased.
Tell me what you think or add to this list.
“Investi-gate”.
The goal is to restore public trust. So go with retired judges or blue ribbon panel. No on connected to city hall can be fully trusted including commissioners. They’re appointed by the council for pete’s sake.
The perfect guy to head this up would be retired Judge Tom Hastings. He’s a no BS kind of guy and has handled some of the most difficult and high profile cases in San Jose History.
I think Tom McEnery, Susan Hammer, and Janet Gray Hayes should be a blue ribbon committee that handles the investigation.
Former mayors know the system. More importantly these three know right from wrong. The current mayor could learn something from them.
Sounds like blue ribbon is the way to go with this. So that means the Council will go with Rick Doyle, right?
Stop the madness. All these investigations waste time and money. There’s nothing we can do about it garbage money now.
Here’s a better solution. The Council puts on the next election ballot a question: Is Gonzales the dumbest and most dishonest mayor in San Jose history?
Let him campaign against that question. He’ll have to raise money from dumb and dishonest developers but at least it won’t be tax dollars.
ATP is right. It end up being another BS kangaroo court. Nothing accomplished except more money down the drain.
Jude:
I must be dense, so please explain to me in words of one syllable why we need ANOTHER investigation. We have one—by the civil grand jury. We need some people to decide what the consequences of the wrongdoing will be, but why re-invent the wheel by going over all the same ground the grand jury covered?
I’ve neither seen nor heard anything to make me conclude the members of the civil grand jury were biased or incompetent or lacked investigative thoroughness
I realize those implicated keep saying they want what they term an “independent” investigation, when what they really want is a whitewash by getting another bite at the apple with people who are hardly independent. It’s like a trial lawyer telling you he/she wants an unbiased jury. Of course they don’t. They want a jury as biased as possible in their favor. That’s what Gonzo-Guerra want, as well. A panel appointed by the city attorney would certainly produce such a whitewash.
We don’t need another investigation, we just need someone to pronounce sentence. Judges are good at that. Former mayors would inject politics into the mix, so I think that to be a poor choice. “Blue ribbon” types tend to be the same old hacks with political/family/Bellarrmine-Santa Clara connections.
Calling this a “gate” is quite apt—it’s a middling little scandal that will end up blown all out of proportion by the stonewalling. I guess politicians still haven’t learned the real lesson of Watergate, just as they haven’t learned the lesson of Prop. 13—control spending and reduce government.
John Michael O’Connor
I read the Garbagegate items and think we have all missed the core point for many many years. Our city has routinely done the public’s business behind closed doors, not out of personal malice or for private greed, but from sheer habit. I hate to sound too much like Ross Perot of a dozen years ago or so, but I think we have basically good people serving us in a system that is broken. Our leaders do not have a habit of doing the public’s business in public. They are dissuaded from doing it. It doesn’t appear wrong to operate this way here.
There is a state law that we all know far too well – the Brown Act. This is used in San Jose as a tool of privacy, rather than a device intended to open up public discourse. Items are left off agendas until they are fait accompli and then there is a grandstand show of public participation, but the core deals have already been done. If you see it coming and try to address an item in a public meeting, you are prevented from discussing the item ‘based on the Brown Act.’ If you serve on a public board you are constantly warned not to talk with anyone about the issues that may come before the Board or Commission.
The intended purpose of noticing the public about issues they may wish to discuss is an honorable one but hardly merits the excessive limitations on the basic communication of ideas. An idea is rarely put on an agenda that isn’t fully developed already. As that is the case, then where does the public fit, except in a negative posture? “Come and challenge it if you dare.” The idea that the majority of interested parties reads all the agendas that are prepared in time to sort out what they want to address is not credible. The Brown Act is an honorable concept, but San Jose is too vigilant in its enforcement. It is used to stifle debate, not encourage participation.
I think this is where the City Attorney should be focusing his efforts, not strict enforcement, but affect the intention of open government. The City Attorney should not be asked to determine on what basis a piece of information should be withheld from the public? He should not be looking for the legal basis by which one might avoid the Brown Act. Somebody once said that in its day South Africa’s apartheid system was designed to be forward thinking and progressive, but in its implementation, in the “petty apartheid” policies, if became a shame and a horror. It’s an extreme comparison, but San Jose’s reading of the Brown Act to me is much the same, a plan that had bold intentions, but is applied in a way that inhibits public access. Why should the Mayor’s team have told anyone? Nobody else felt compelled to. Its how business has been done here for a long time.
It appears “none of the above” is the proper answer on Ron’s latest scandal.
What would it take to get someone from the county or state DA’s office to file criminal indictments on any City Councilmember and staff involved in this latest scandal?
Just curious…
Gonzo and his sidekick Joe should immediately resign, not just because of “garbage-gate,” but because they’ve proved incapable of adequately handling virtually every important challenge they’ve faced. The dark side of incompetence is sleaze. We’ve endured far too much of both out of this bunch.
Somebody asked for one-syllable words to explain the need for another investigation. How about these: San Jose got ripped off!
Getting to the truth is good public policy as is accountability. The civil grand jury did an excellent job of revealing the nature of the backroom dealing, but it has no authority to do anything other than issue reports.
It is hoped that a further investigation could lead to substantial penalties that not only punish those responsible, but perhaps undo what seems to be a contract approved under questionable circumstances. If nothing else, those responsible for any sort of abuse of the public trust should not be in a position of working in government, or seeking higher elected office, without having this tacked to their record.
As for who should conduct the investigation: bring in the retired judges. Nobody even remotely associated with City Hall could be considered “independent.”
Absent a recall election, we’re stuck with Ron—but how does Joe Guerro keep his job? Doesn’t his job description include a requirement to fall on his sword to preserve the image, if not the effectiveness, of the Administration?
What a Public Relations nightmare.
Let’s separate the substance from the process.
The NorCal Contract was $50 million less than the next bidder. When they were chosen, NorCal told the Administration there had to be a contingency if their bargaining units changed and their labor costs increased as a result.
Not wanting to waste time, money or energy in a new process—Joe Guerra says “I’ll take care of it.”
The contingency happens, Joe takes care of it. San Jose still saves money, averts a potential work stoppage and gets good service.
But it was the “process” used that becomes the story. A new RFP process would have cost the city more in time and money and they may have lost the opportunity to accept such a low bid from NorCal. Garbage rates would have gone up.
But that’s what they were supposed to do.
The City Attorney advises Joe that he can’t just give NorCal another $11 million, so they come up with a sham for consideration to legally justify in contract increase.
Had the City insisted on enforcing the previous contract, there would have been a labor stoppage and the City would have had to go with another vendor to “cover” the cost. They could have sued NorCal, with the hope of recovering money—an unlikely and costly scenerio for everyone.
But the lone ranger approach by Gonzales, utilized through his agent Joe Guerra, is now coming back to haunt them.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that the three votes against giving NorCal the money were from the lawyers on the Council.
The Council did the right thing by approving it as it saved the city money, but the Mayor and his budget aide have a lot of explaining to do.
It’s messy. As for who should investigate? It doesn’t take long to figure out this deal out.
“I must be dense, so please explain to me in words of one syllable why we need ANOTHER investigation. We have one—by the civil grand jury.”
Seeing wrong actions, then sitting by idle and not doing anything to punish those involved becomes a tacit endorsement of those actions. How high would the crime rate climb if we had the police departments do a partial investigation, then never took the criminals to court to be held accountable for their actions?
It’s bad enough that the city council could vote to end an investigation intp VoIPgate before it is finished. Again, how many criminals would love it if Chief Davis called off all major criminal investigations at the 80% done point?
One of the major problems in today’s society is lack of personal responsibility. It is a wide-spread cancer nation-wide. We are no longer in an era where people hold themselves acoountable for their actions. When people cannot keep their actions in check, society must step in. When politicians cannot keep their actions in check, the public must step in and hold them accountable.
Let’s make it a goal to look at the 2006 candidates for council and mayor and examine their record of personal accountability and ethics. Let’s vow to bring in new blood – can we find someone who is not beholden to the current council or the special interest groups that use them as mouth pieces?
As far as who should investigate, how about a panel that knows something about investigations? Perhaps retired police detectives, or DA investigators? If conflict of interest is that great of a concern, specify that they must have served in a county other than Santa Clara.
From my perspective, many city hall investigations simply ask questions under oath, not must true investigating is actually done. Who better to do this than accomplished professional investigators – the ones that know how to ask the right questions, are skilled in interviewing people to ensure to weed out canned responses and get to the truth, and know how to dig deep and look for the less obvious?
It is difficult to understand those who think “another” investigation is not needed. Those who try to explain this away as just the way business is done, show little concern for ethical government populated by people with integrity.
The ethics and integrity of the G&G Boys has long been know by those inside. Now the public is beginning to get a glimpse of the backroom tactics they have employed since day one.
An investigation requiring sworn testimony is the only thing that will put the G&G Boys in their place and it will likely take down their apologists like Chavez. It’s bad enough she voted for this thing but now she keeps defending it. Anybody who carries the water for only one group (labor) can’t see the big picture and she certainly made clear she only sees the picture if labor is in it.
Perhaps is this were the only transgression foisted on the citizens of SJ, maybe, and only maybe, it might not be such a big deal. The fact that these guys operate on a daily basis like this and the Council sits on its hands and allows it to occur makes this a very big deal.
The investigation should be conducted by one or more retired judges. Doyle should definitely not be the one—even if his hands were clean, the perception of his involvement would taint the investigation from the beginning.
How about a LeZotte-Cortese-Reed panel with power to subpoena?
They all voted against the deal. They are all trained as lawyers. They know City Hall well. They can supervise, via open meetings, an investigator unanimously recommended by a panel of judges.
Also, I agree with the second paragraph from John Michael O’Conner in #9. Betty Cintas, the only member in the grand jury who might be perceived to have conflicts of interest, recused herself because she had worked for Mayors Gonzales and Hammer. So, I would like to know how an “independent” investigator working at $300/hr (Doyle’s estimate per Mercury News) could add value to the investigation.
Such an investigation should tell the public in what way(s), if any, that the grand jury has failed to be independent, competent, fair and thorough in its collection and interpretation of data that may lead us to doubt its conclusions. It should point out inconsistency and unearth relevant evidence not previously considered. Otherwise, we cannot, and should not, discard the findings of the grand jury simply because we do not like them. Last but not the least, the investigation should answer the “so what” question.
Speaking from my experience as a witness in the Terry Gregory investigation, I attest that even a competent outside investigator has to rely heavily on materials provided by city staff so that he or she may complete the report within a short period of time. I’ll be interested to see how the investigator can supersede the effort of the 19-member grand jury. Therefore, we should carefully define the scope and goals of the independent investigation before spending more taxpayer dollars on this issue.
It’s not just the garbage contract. There’s an interesting story in today’s Merc saying the lawsuit filed by Wandzia Grycz may result in “Top City Officials” giving sworn testimony about the Cisco deal. Wouldn’t that be interesting!
Rich Robinson: you have too much time on your hands. Let Ron burn.
Congratulations, SanJoseInside! By its mere existence this site has exposed the greatest scandal to ever hit this fine city. No, I’m not referring to Garbage-Gate or Adobe-Gate or any other shenani-gate of such little consequence. The great scandal, as made evident by the comments above, is that San Joseans, the most law-abiding big city residents in America, have no faith in their officials, elected or appointed. Read the posts: the mayor can’t be trusted, the council is filled with partisans, the city attorney is a lap dog, labor is corrupt, bias is everywhere, honesty elusive. Now this is what I call a scandal, despite the fact that it hurts like a tragedy.
Well, if we can’t be honest, efficient, and fair, at least we can be politically-correct. We have assembled just the right race and gender mix of incompetents, scoundrels, and pathological liars needed to finally compete with San Francisco head-to-head. For those looking for just the right person to investigate this mess, I nominate Willie Brown, for no other reason than he will give us the screwing we deserve.
As much as this garbage deal stinks, I have yet to read of any laws that were broken. Rich sums up what happened well. Another investigation will only get us another press conference with the Mayor saying he is vindicated because the investigation found no laws were broken (almost like the recent announcement in the Cisco case).
We have to face the reality that San Jose residents and media do not pay much attention to what goes on in city hall. Our leaders will continue to do whatever it takes to get the job done. The Mercury News claims the new and improved version this week will focus more on local news. So far I am not impressed.
p.s. Did anybody else read Mike Cassidy’s “I Love San Jose” column today. Last I read the guy loves San Jose so much that he lives in Palo Alto.
Gus,
Too little time—too much information—too important not to comment.
Kevin seems to have it right:
“Let’s make it a goal to look at the 2006 candidates for council and mayor and examine their record of personal accountability and ethics. Let’s vow to bring in new blood – can we find someone who is not beholden to the current council or the special interest groups that use them as mouth pieces?”
Disgusted puts it well:
“Chavez. It’s bad enough she voted for this thing but now she keeps defending it. Anybody who carries the water for only one group (labor) can’t see the big picture and she certainly made clear she only sees the picture if labor is in it.”
Am I the only one who sees a common thread over several of these blogs? Labor is the only special interest getting representation….
Let’s see, we have:
Mayor Ron Gonzales
Term Expires 12/31/06
Linda J. LeZotte Cindy Chavez
District 1 District 3
Term Expires 12/31/06 Term Expires 12/31/06
Nora Campos Vacant
District 5 District 7
Term Expires 12/31/06 Term Expires 12/31/06
Judy Chirco
District 9
Term Expires 12/31/06
Looks like 6 opportunities for change in the near term!
Maybe we should start a posting about who’s throwing their hat in and how it might be possible to instigate some real change!
… people, don’t panic!! Europe’s dark ages lasted one thousand years. SJ is fortunate to have term limits and a maximum of eight years of “service” per Mayor….
Let’s start blogging on the ideal quallities of the next Mayor, including our own short list of favorites for the job.
“We are no longer in an era where people hold themselves acoountable for their actions. When people cannot keep their actions in check, society must step in. When politicians cannot keep their actions in check, the public must step in and hold them accountable.”
Sounds like a viscious circle to me.
How about the investigation be conducted by a special panel of San Jose Inside readers and posters?
“Let’s start blogging on the ideal quallities of the next Mayor, including our own short list of favorites for the job.”
It’s not just the mayor – it’s the council members as well. As the NAACP has pointed out: we are not a strong mayor form of government. The council members have a lot of influence, especially in this time of ‘mini-mayors’
As a city, we have to wake up and realize that while the council members represent a district, their actions affect the entire city.
I agree with New Blood: “Maybe we should start a posting about who’s throwing their hat in and how it might be possible to instigate some real change!”
We must avoid tunnel vision and only look at the mayors race – he’s only one vote, its a mjority of council members that can instigate real change. A new mayor with the same type of council means absolutely no change!
This all sucks and Gonzo and Guerra also. They have run roughshode over the council and they need to get some backbone. They have ruined almost everything they touch. I think they should investigate who pays for all Gonzos golf and then you’ll see where all the sweet deals come from.
Looks like we may be headed towards another grand Jury removal process?? The last Grand Jury was removed after they were seen out in Sal Si Puedes doing an inspection of the Allen Wong Properties next door to the Mexican Heritage. In todays Mercury News “Valley briefs” Allen Wong a Sal Si Puedes landlord, was not only fined for not disclosing the lead contamination of his units but is being made to fix the problem. The EPA fixed what no politician could in the past 25 years. It’s no wonder the Mexican Heritage is drifting out to sea. 14 million Hewlett dollars later the EPA steps up and corrects the future of our children. It’s time to stop folks! It’s not about politics any more, the world is watching. Lets get it straight this time!
The Village Black Smith
Kevin, Scott Herhold wrote a column a while back with suggestions for candidates. While I’m not a fan of cops in general, I have to admit that I agree with him that Rob Davis really seems to have the qualities needed to make a great mayor. I thought he did an excellent job handling the chili finger case and the media circus that it created. I think he’d be a great leader and representative of this town. There’s lots we still don’t know about him, but his Ramadan observance also indicates he’s one who wants to reach out and relate to people. Hardly something Gonzo can be credited with.
I say they hire existing members of the Grand Jury who wrote the report!!
They’re the ones most familiar with the work, and then recruit for 2-3 more individuals who are beyond reproach.
Retired Judges or NON-Political former Commissioners from San Jose or even OUTSIDE of San Jose.
I think Mark T. makes a good observation about Rob Davis. The man’s got tremendous leadership ability.
Interesting to note that when Mayor Ron was having his hissy fit about the Grand Jury Report on GarbageGate, Chief Davis was responding to another Grand Jury report that found fault with police handling of new communications equipment. Rather than “doing a Gonzo” Davis was very straightforward, conceded there had been problems and talked about how the department had addressed them.
Interesting contrast!
So Norcal leaves millions (upwards to $50M according to one writer) on the table during the bidding process, and meets with Guerra and Gonzo to get some of it back. It appears to have been a shrewed attempt to be a guaranteed low bidder, and then try to deal to get back some of the money left on the table.
Norcal essentially used some flimflam excuse about teamsters and longshoreman rates. Whether thats true or not is irrelevent.
It’s been stated that Norcal’s meeting with Guerra took place days before their bid was put before and accepted by Council. This is unheard of, and sets a dangerous precedent for bidding on all City projects, by essentially undermining the bidding process. Now extreme low bidders can just go to the Mayors office and ask for cooperation, before their bid is rejected.
For Public Works projects, City staff cannot and will not negotiate any part of bid before it is sent to Council with either a staff recommendation or rejection. Sure, staff seeks clarification, but not renogotiation. The 2nd bidder’s bid is then evaluated and continues with all remaining bidders.
If no bid is accepted, the contract is put out for bid again. No one likes to rebid, but it is the byproduct of all bids having been rejected.
Then with a straight face, Gonzo sell the Council and citizens that even though $11M was gifted to Norcal, that garbage rates would not go up. He just forgot to mention that taxpayers would end up paying for this.
Another interesting sidebar of all this is that the No.2 bidder is suspiciously quiet about this, even though they got screwed royally. Did Labor pull back on the choke chain??
If San Jose would stop trying to be San Francisco, and instead try to become San Jose, a lot of these problems would resolve themselves.
Not gonna happen.