There has been a good deal of discussion and debate in the community and on this site concerning the relative powers of the mayor and the meaning of the City Charter in the specific areas of Mayoral power. Being intimately involved in the Measure J changes that the citizens adopted in 1986, two things are clear: people wanted a strong, effective leader in the mayor and, secondly, imperative in the proper functioning of the city was a strong and independent city manager.
Well, it seems one out of two is good for government work. Not so in San Jose. Recent much publicized examples and grand jury reports have exposed flaws in the system – and the people. In fact, these recent errors and perhaps far worse transgressions have been the fault of the individuals involved, yet the seeds of some of the egregious problems of mayoral actions were obvious in the failure of the manager and his staff to effectively fulfill their charter role. This may be due to incompetence or even worse.
It was not always this way. City managers have exerted and led the city from the days of Professor Thomas Reed, the reformer and first manager, through the empire-building Dutch Hamann, to the independent and talented Les White in more recent times – but the system has not worked properly since and is now wildly strained. Things have changed with a series of pliable managers who just seem happy to sit in their office, hold innumerable meetings, follow orders, any orders, and cash their checks.
This was not how the citizens hoped it would work, but as has been said before, and I paraphrase, the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves.
Post script: Section 501 of the Charter while clarifying the mayor as the political leader of the city, mandates the mayor to “inform” the council in the vigorous and effective exercise of its responsibility. It seems the “jury” is in on that particular failure to comply with this provision.
You mean we HAVE a City Manager?
Most residents would agree with Tom’s statement that “ imperative in the proper functioning of the city was a strong and independent city manager “ but the intent or the “ unintended consequences “ (if the drafters did not realize it) of Measure J was to effectively change San Jose from a balanced City Council / City Manager form of city government to a “Strong Mayor” form of government, if a future Mayor wanted to be a
“ Strong Mayor” believing they knew better than the residents and City Council rather than the former consensus style of most of our former Mayor’s who willingly worked with everyone
The Mayor after measure J has the power by City Charter to 1) nominate a City Manager 2) controlled the city / redevelopment budget 3) as the political leader “ provides guidance “ to the Council and controls the meetings .
A “Strong Mayor” type of city government was effectively possible for an ambitious professional politician who had strong political experience, understood how to exercise political power directly or through staffers and his appointed replacement City Manager / Department heads, brought loyal staff and recruited ambitious local staffers who would unquestionably follow orders, replaced anyone in the city administration / city commissions who expressed any reluctance to follow orders, and by personality was willing to punish anyone to include City Council members who opposed or questioned his proposed policies as a “ Strong Mayor”
So how does a “Strong Mayor” get around the City Charter prohibition of “ interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his or her powers and duties “ easily by expressing his preferences in meetings, pubic statements or if a city employee ignores the Mayor intended direction by having a loyal staffer remind them of the Mayor preferences
Currently San Jose has an absence of any system of checks and balances on the authority of the Mayor, if the Mayor is willing to create what many in city administration term a “ hostile work environment”.
The question that the resident of San Jose need to soon answer is what style and personality of a future Mayor do we want?
Do we want a “Strong Mayor“ or the more balanced traditional San Jose – City Council / City Manager consensus form of government?
What changes in the City Charter do we need to prevent the “unintended consequences” of Measure J that have occurred with the current “ Strong Mayor “ form of city government?
None, you say well “Those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it.” –
If you do not clearly indicate your preference for San Jose’s balanced traditional City Council / City Manager consensus form of government whoever is elected will be “Different name, same behavior” Strong Mayor ”
Thanks for zeroing on the poor performance of the City Manager. Many of us have been raising this issue on this board for awhile—maybe some day the Council will wake up and dump this guy along with the RG so we can get back to some form respectable city government again.
It is difficult to understand how the Council could sit on their hands all these years while the city manager basically functioned as a lackey of the mayor. The Council is ultimately responsible for our current abysmal state of affairs. The current mayoral candidates have a lot of explaining to do as to why they have done nothing to correct this disaster. Cindy has even more explaining to do since she too has been mostly a lackey for RG. Her vote to give away public money to NorCal has yet to be rationally explained (perhaps because there is no rational explanation to give.)
Although the Council takes the biggest hit for shirking their responsibilities, the people of San Jose share in the blame. Anyone who voted for RG last time also has a lot of explaining to do.
I agree that San Jose’s form of government is flawed.
What if the Mayor didn’t serve on the City Council – like in San Francisco, Oakland, DC, LA, etc., etc.
Rather, the Mayor was an executive that had to deal with a legislature (the City Council). That would be a good balance for Council and the Manager.
The Mayor could be ambitious as hell (Mayor Williams in DC) – but he’d have to work through a legislative agenda to get things done. That takes some serious skill.
If you agree that San Jose’s current government is flawed why make it worst by advocating for a true “Strong Mayor” form of governement without a independent City Manager like San Francisco, Oakland, DC, LA, or San Diego, Philadelpia, New York City etc.
Not examples of great city government unless you are a ” professional politician ” who want strong control
San Jose prior to Measure J had a traditional balanced City Council / City Manager government where the independent professional City Manager made recommendations to the City Council and the Mayor as the political leader worjked with the City Council as representatives of the residents to develop a consensus rather dictate the city policy as he has effectively as a ” Strong Mayor ”
Do you really understand the problems with a ” Strong Mayor” that what you are advocatiing is more of the same or greater problems that we have seen with the Gonzales administration ?
SEE http://www.lwvdallas.org/blackwood_compare.html
And the League of Woman Voter’s analysis of the proposal to have a “Strong Mayor ” proposal in Dallas
SEE
http://www.lwvdallas.org/blackwood_respons.html
Borgsdorf will leave first—in the next 6 months.
Then, Guerra—early next year.
Then, finally Gonzales.
The current story from city hall is this garbage deal was a lone wolf operation by Joe Guerra and the rest of the council had no clue a deal was made to pay the additional funds. A brief recap:
October 10, 2000
Union leaders Amy Dean and Robert Morales complain at council meeting about CWS wages not meeting employee expectations. Morales says he filed complaint against with the National Labor Relations Board against CWS. Council orders audit.
March 27, 2002
Council votes unanimously to approve contract with Norcal. Norcal will commence operations on July 1, 2002.
A few questions that could make the basis for another Mercury News article:
1) Did Amy Dean, Robert Morales, or any other union representative offer any negative comments on the Norcal contract at March 27 2002 council meeting?
2) If not, did any council member wonder why the unions were now happy with the contract if nothing had changed in the contract from the October council meeting?
3) Did Amy Dean or Robert Morales know about the deal to pay the increased wages?
4) Did any council members discuss the issues raised in the October council meeting with Robert Morales, Amy Dean, or other union representatives between October 2001 and March 2002 meetings?
5) Did any council members offer any proposals to address the complaints raised by Amy Dean and Robert Morales?
I have a difficult time imagining that Amy Dean and Robert Morales’ complaints about the Norcal contract were ignored by all our council members.
Sorry, my years were off in #8.
The first council meeting was October 10, 2000 and the second was March 27, 2001.
This present day senerio in our village is becomming increasely more interesting as the probe progresses.
Doesn’t anyone accept responsibility anymore?
Blue Robbon Committees, Jams, Out side investigaters, Judges, Grand Jury Bashing, Doonsbury, Peanuts, Mother Theresa!
All of you that enabled this situation go Home, your grounded!
The rest that are responsible, spare us the humiliation!
Isn’t that right, Son?
Hand me a COLD horse shoe this time, Thanks!
The Village Blacksmith
I think the root causes of this present scandal, not to mention the previous ones, may have roots deeper than just Measure J as former Mayor McEnery explains.
I don’t think Councilmembers elected by District are effective any longer. I think they may be too parochial in their outlooks and too inexperienced in City Wide Concerns to adequately be aware of and address issues that are global in scope.
Maybe it’s time to return to City Wide elected Councilmembers. We’ve tried districting for 25 years and things just seem to be on a slippery slope.
Traveling J makes a very good point. The City has suffered greatly in recent years as district representation has taken its toll. Inexperienced candidates tied to special interests are elected by a handful of people and then focus narrowly on their own little part of the city. The city as a whole has declined as a result. Whatever good came from district elections has now deteriorated into what we have now—decisions made on what might be best for a district even if it not best for the entire city. We can and must do better than what we’ve got today. We need councilmembers who have a cohesive vision for the entire city. Wouldn’t that be a novel approach?
City wide elections rather than District elections would result in the 1 or possibly 2 largest special interest groups dominating the city election process and make it eaier for 1 group to dominate local politics so if you applied it to San Jose every election cycle 5 council members would be up for election and using large efficient ($500,000 -$1 millon + campaign spending for mailers and televison ads the top 5 vote getters win the election.
City wide elections sometimes called open elections results in minority groups, neighborhood groups, residents, small and neighborhood businesses etc being disenfranchised. The courts have frequently ruled this illegal and directed district elections be implemented and most people interested in representative government support district elections as the most fair and representative.
The dominate 1-2 special interst groups would easily control city government and implement legislations and regulations to support their narow special interests and would not have the best intersts of the city or residents in mind.
Your concerns about the disadvantages of district election and elected officials not having a city wide vision will not be solved by city wide elections
How we can elect councilmembers who have both the best interests of their district residents and a cohesive vision for the entire city is a more difficult problem.
Many of the proposals that have been promoted as – best for the entire city are in reality only best for a particular special interest group and tehir economiic interests and have significant disadvantages for many residents and other groups if you analyze the proposals and their supporters.
If these proposal are really best for everyone than better communicating the benefits for everyone should result in the necessary support.
Having a city sponsored community leader development program with participation by Chamber , business groups, Developers , Envirnomentists, Organized Labor , Non Profits, husing / low income advocates and other community groups to have an open discussion about the issues and future city policy could help to educate future candiates elected officials and the residents but then the proposals would have to stand on their merits not political maneuvering, back room deals and elected officals wanting projects as historical reminders of their term in office and satisfy their egos rather than the public good.
What city proposals are you specifically taking about and then state how the majority of residents benefit rather than the special interest group promoting them?
What’s keeping the largest special interests from backing the district reps that they prefer today?
Why not have city wide elections for district representatives, but retain districts, requiring candidates to reside within the district that they would like to represent? (did that make sense?) This would make the entire council more attentive to the larger needs of the city, but bring the perspective of their respective districts.
The solution to our problems with a “strong” Mayor, weak City Council and non-existent City Manager is to create a truly responsive form of local government by amending the Charter. The Charter change would make the Mayor and City Council part-time members, with the City Manager as the full time executive. The Mayor and Council could get real jobs and not depend on the tax payers for their existence. The City Manager would operate the various functions of the City and make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on major policy issues, including the annual operating budget.