City Hall Diary
It is 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday May 8. I just finished attending my second community meeting of the night. The day has flown by!
My day began at 9:30 a.m. with a long closed-session meeting followed by a “Good Government” event at Adobe. I then went to the 1:30 p.m. Tuesday afternoon city council meeting. The garbage rate increase was on the agenda today. Although many people attended the meeting, I felt that this item should have been heard at night.
On a side note, my agenda item regarding outsourcing park maintenance at the historic Rose Garden Park was moved from the 1:30 p.m. May 2 city council meeting to the 7:00 p.m. May 15 evening meeting. My item was deferred and moved to the evening so that the unions could attend the meeting. However, the garbage increase of 28 percent was not moved to accommodate San Jose residents.
The council was asked to approve a 28 percent increase for the new garbage and recycling contract. Why? The current council policy on bidding ties our hands in delivering efficient and effective city services. Other garbage companies did not even bid on the San Jose contract because of the restrictive rules. These “rules” do not benefit the residents of San Jose; they benefit special interest groups. Unfortunately, the city does not have a true, open, competitive bid where more companies participate. San Jose should deliver better service without having to raise fees. In addition, San Jose should guarantee some sort of safeguards that service will improve before asking for any increase, especially a 28 percent increase.
I acknowledge that the price of services in relation to waste collection may rise due to labor cost, fuel, and new equipment. However, why did the cost have to rise so much? The percentage seems pretty high to me. For example, what would you do with a 28 percent increase in your household expenses? Wouldn’t you try to shop around for something cheaper? You probably would compare prices for a more affordable alternative.
Countless San Jose residents lined up and spoke against the fee increase at the council meeting. In addition, the city clerk’s office received over 2,000 protest letters. One speaker in particular stood out. She spoke against the increase at the city council meeting and pleaded with the council. She said: “Fight for me…I don’t feel that anyone is representing me.” Her words solidified my vote. I don’t think passing on higher than needed garbage rate increases is “representing my constituents.”
The only person who spoke in favor of the rate hike was the head of a labor union who blamed the increase on the war in Iraq. Whether you’re for or against the war, this problem of passing the buck to San Jose residents was grown in San Jose, not Iraq.
I believe the bidding process in our city leads to inflated prices for our residents. If we are a true democracy who cares about the wellbeing of our residents, we would work to change policies that hinder productive outsourcing capabilities that the city could utilize. In addition, the residents have to pay the fee regardless of whether the garbage companies pick up the refuse or skip a house.
The City of San Jose should run the city as a provider of services for its residents, not as an employer who pays above-market rates to its employees because of special interest polices.
Editor’s note: To read Pierluigi Oliverio’s op-ed piece in today’s Mercury News click here.
Hey PO—Terrific blog! How incredibly rare to have an elected official express themselves in writing, and so well, and so thoughtfully. I wish the mayor would follow your lead in that—and in taking on the real powers in San Jose “government”—the bureaucrats. How amusing that the parks and wreck dept. found the wherewithall to get out to the Rose Garden after you made a fuss. Keep this up and you’ll be elected in a landslide over the flunky the union will put up against you next year.
An open decision-making process at CH is a
crucial change in the status quo, but that overlooks the need for accountability in the vast army of bureaucrats in parks and wreck,
streets, etc. IS there regular and meaningful evaluation of planners, sewer fixers, gardeners, etc. I’d bet money there isn’t. And which dept. is best run, which worst? What dept. heads are effective, which useless? There’s so much WASTE. It could easily close the budget gap if someone went after making sure the citizenry got what it paid for. The street sweeping is a case in point. The street in front of my downtown property hasn’t been swept in years—even after signs went up promising tickets to permitted parkers on certain days. The tickets were delivered, but never the sweeping. When I complained, the street honcho said I needed to sweep the gutters so the sweeper could sweep. Are we in Wonderland with the Mad Hatter, or San Jose?All this with Les White (doing a heckuva job!) at the “helm” (if there is one on this rudderless ship). George Green
Pierluigi,
Loved your editorial in the Mercury News today.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5891603
Your ideas on making government services more efficient make so much sense. Keep fighting the good fight!
JohnB
Overrun by weeds in the Rose Garden
“The City of San Jose should run the city as a provider of services for its residents, not as an employer who pays above market rates to its employers because of special interest policies.” (Are we allowed to say that?)
It’s only a matter of time before Oliverio will be recalled for being such a free thinker. Bravo!
Pete Campbell
GreenTeam picks up my garbage and recyclables. I fill a garbage can about twice per year, and the recycle can about every 2 weeks.
2004 cost—$33.60/billing; 2005, $36.60; 2007 $40.30; and another rise on the way. The service gets worse by the week. For one 6 week period earlier this year, five days were missed. Since our day is Friday, and since the office closes @ 5:30, by the time I got home from work it was too late to report the failure of service. But if you pay late, they can lien your house.
Plus, we pay the bill to The City Of San Jose. So that guarantees extra and unnecessry overhead of unneeded city staffers.
I got lots of excuses from an area manager, who said increases in housing units stretched their capacity. But a driver told me they have only two extra pieces of equipment, so if three trucks break down or are in for maintenance, and entire area misses its pickup. That is unacceptable.
It seems like the new companIES to replace Norcal want to amortize all their new equipment in one year.
More $$ for less service. Just great!
Why isn’t San Jose following it’s own City Council policy 0-29 – Public Private Competition where city employees compete with private companies for who can cost effectively do same work
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/TaskForce/SRTF/pdf/CouncilPolicyManualRulesCommitteeReport.pdf
Policies? POLICIES? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ policies!
You are so refreshing, you don’t even know it!
During the RFP process of the contract, Norcal had the option to extend, but because they were losing so much money operating in SJ, they opted out of their extension…. in the hopes during the re-bid process they would be able to capture some of the costs that they did not include the first time. That was a risk that they lost…
This lead to a premature RFP process mid contract term. Staff met with local hauling companies, and with the city’s terms and the length of the contract, it didn’t make sense for most companies to bid the contract over such a short period of time. Not to mention, SJ contracts are the most managed by staff, and for a hauler that means high maintenance contract, an expense you can avoid by bidding other smaller communities less regulated….
Since the term is only 6 years and you have smaller companies shelling out big bucks, there isn’t enough time to amortize cost, hence the larger increase.
You are on the right track Pier, it’s the process.
Great job exploring the outsourcing of jobs. The city will be broke if we keep up these high paying jobs for low priority work. The unions, the retirement pay will have the city paying for three work forces soon and we can’t afford it. Keep up the good work. We must find new ways of doing old things.
Pierluigi,
Maybe the citizenry should give some thought to outsourcing City Government in its entirety!
Jack,
Feel free to consider this as its own topic. Many thanks,
Jill E
————
Why I’m Suing San Jose Unified School District
You may have read in the Merc that my group, Citizens for School Bond Accountability, is planning to file a lawsuit against SJUSD challenging the District’s decision to double-dip the taxpayers for an additional $22 million of proceeds from the 1997 Measure C school bond, all of which must be repaid through our now artificially inflated property taxes.
It’s interesting to read San Jose Inside about the opposition to the garbage rate increase because that cost pales in comparison to what taxpayers are paying to fund the unauthorized $22 million SJUSD cash-out. But because people don’t receive an itemized bill for this stealthily imposed school taxation, people don’t know about it, don’t understand it, and don’t challenge it.
So, what happened here?
Instead of refinancing to lower the tax burden (which the law allows), SJUSD refinanced Measure C in order to take out $22 million for its own use while providing only a token amount of savings to the taxpayers (which the law doesn’t allow). It’s sort of like buying a Pepsi with a $10 bill and getting only $1 in change, and the cashier asking, “Why are you complaining? You got some money back!”
No one knew about this transaction because the cash-out was never mentioned in the agenda or the minutes of any District board meeting, and the District disbanded the Measure C oversight committee before undertaking the cash-out. The District made a concerted effort to keep the cash-out under the radar. I discovered the cash-out after months of research and pouring through documents received in response to public records act requests.
In the end, this is all about school districts trying to find a way around the requirement that they must hold an election before raising funds for capital projects from property taxes. Would voters have approved of an additional $22 million in bonds, as the District apparently presumed when it engaged in the cash-out? What do you think?
I think it’s critical to air this issue in public. (Full disclosure: I’m a registered Democrat and have always supported school bonds.) Nothing prevents the District from holding another bond election and making its case to the voters if it really feels it needs building funds beyond the $165 million Measure C and the $429 million Measure F. I have three kids that have been, are currently, or will be enrolled in the public school system, and I want a great district, but one that acts with integrity and honesty. A district that makes closed-door deals that disadvantage taxpayers is not a district I want to be involved with. An engaged community that demands ethical behavior will translate over the long run into a higher quality school district.
With Norcal, with VTA, we’ve seen what happens when government plays fast and loose with tax dollars and the public trust. I was disappointed to find out what was going on behind closed doors at SJUSD, too.
Jill Escher
ji*********@gm***.com
For more information, see the blog:
http://www.citizensforschoolbondaccountability.blogspot.com
And see the article about the SJUSD cash out in The Bond Buyer:
http://www.bondbuyer.com/article.html?id=20070426N1IRYX8T
Pier,
I just finished watching the portion of the Council Meeting, regarding your proposal on outsourcing park maintenance. I know that you took a real beating tonight, but I hope you realize that you won more than you lost. By standing up for your constituents and their needs, you have done what you promised to do if they elected you into office. That in it’s self is vital. Job well done!
Secondly, you have put a much needed spot light on the arrogant staffers in the Parks and Recs Department. They have been lazy, and are now being forced to be accountable for their lack of work ethic, and their complacency toward the public.
You have let it be known that enough is enough! I say Bravo to you Pier.
I never thought I’d tell you I am proud of you, but I am. It is never easy to walk the road less traveled. It is never easy to talk about things that rattle the status quo; it leaves you open to attack. However, if we don’t broach these difficult subjects then change, growth, and public involvement in government wanes. That would be a very sad thing.
I only have one suggestion for you in future, try to rally support from your fellow Council Members first, and work with staff to get it your way. Staff is very manipulative, and will either get you what you want, or undermine you every step of the way. Follow the process. You can’t lose.
And remember, Labor still controls three quarters of the Council. As long as the status quo occupies that Council, you and Chuck will never get important issues passed. Collaboration is the key to every good outcome.
You are young and understandably, you are anxious to strike out on your own. But that doesn’t work in government Pier. Only in private corporate America is that type of leadership praised because it is based on profits. Government is a different animal all together. If you don’t follow the rules, you’ll be eaten alive, and they’ll smile in your face while they swallow you whole.
I’m sure JMO can tell you, it’s all about planning, a good strategy, and lots of folks inside who support your goals. No one standing alone wins all the toys.
Some very sage advice from Kathleen.
Process seems to have heightened importance in government, and excessive importance in San Jose. Process is often used as a roadblock by staff and your fellow councilmembers.
I do not believe that it is only the obsessed here on SJI who believe that despite the vote, Pierluigi gained a victory. I hear the Rose Garden is getting spiffed up. Can Willow Street (Bramhall) Park be next?
I do not believe that it is only the obsessed here on SJI who want to kick staff out of the doldrums and loosen the stranglehold of the unions on work rules that allow public employees to spend more time getting out of doing something than they do doing something. If our % of bloat is only half what exists in CalTrans, we’re getting hosed big time in SJ.
After a couple of decades of absence, a crew came to St. James Park(aka The Drug Emporium with the ludicrous “This is a drug free zone” signs posted all around it) to trim the trees. What a messy/completely incompetent job they did on the palm trees in particular. A blind four year old could have done a better job. But you can’t get rid of them unless they kill someone on the job AND get blood on gubmint property.
The road is long and hard, Pierluigi. Larry Stone has fought the union—SEIU, I believe—since his initial election to get performance-based evaluations instituted in the Assessor’s Office. Hasn’t happened yet, and the Board of Supervisors is complicit in that failure. Union money talks LOUD! Luckily, he seems to have a great crew. Not so Parks and Wreck, Building Dept., or the garbage contract overseers, to name but a few.
Keep it up, Pierluigi. I live just across the street from your district, and I support what you have done so far. Consensus building will only improve your track record. Look how quickly Chuck got a turnaround on the Evergreen development vote.
Why don’t the residents of the Rose Garden area volunteer to work on the Rose Garden to help keep down the costs? This park requires much more labor than other parks to maintain due to it’s unique nature. The residents of this area live in multi-million dollar houses and should be willing to donate labor in exchange.
Clean up and general park maintenance would be possible using volunteers, but you don’t want untrained amateurs pruning roses. The RG is a city treasure with 4,000 roses to care for. Any damage could take years to recover.
I seem to recall that many years ago, the Santa Clara County Rose Society offered pruning demos at the RG in the winter, but I don’t know when that practice ended.
The RG is looking for volunteers:
SJ Parks “Adopt-a-Park” program
http://www.sjadoptapark.org/
Tom L,
Hey Tom! Wondered where you were hanging out these days.
The Rose Society stopped pruning demos in the RG for variety of reasons – bit frustrating after demonstrating the correct way to prune roses in a public garden (high for lots of bloom), workers would come in and prune hard and low (wrong for our climate) which as you know was overkill and weakens the plant. On a personal note, though the RG looks good on a drive-by, up close it made me heartsick looking at rosebushes sick, dying and dead from staff using Round-up in the rose beds. Go check out Loeta Liggett, no maybe don’t. Anyway, with the recent ruckus over privatazation, have been assured by Parks they will NO longer use Round-up on roses. Hurrah! However, I am still waiting to see it in writing. . .
Tom L,
I completely agree the rg is a city treasure. Having said that, why would we want it’s care put in the hands of the lowest bidder? The roses have been cared for and thrived in the hands of the city gardeners who are familiar with their needs. If this care goes to the lowest outside bidder the residents shouldn’t be surprised with the results. Much of the real estate value that the surrounding houses have is due to the beauty of the park. I think in the long run it will be saving a dime to spend a dollar if the rg is not maintained properly.
Dave