By Guest Blogger Chuck Reed
Do the Mayor and City Councilmembers have a duty to disclose material facts to each other and to the public when decisions are being made?
The Grand Jury thought so when they considered the Norcal garbage contract and $11 million amendment approved by the Council majority. (See my memo on why it was a bad decision at http://www.chuckreed.com/Norcal_Amendment.htm)
“Prior to the Council’s first vote on Norcal in October 2000, the Mayor, his Budget Director and Norcal knew that CWS would have to pay higher International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) wages instead of lower International Longshoremen’s Association (Longshoremen) wages, and that this would cost CWS an extra $2 million or more a year. The Mayor had a duty to disclose this information to the Council, but he did not do so, in apparent violation of the City Charter.” (SAN JOSE TRASH DEAL – HOW THE CITY WAS DUPED INTO WASTING $11.25 MILLION— Summary) http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2005/SanJoseTrashDeal.pdf
For me the answer is simple: Yes.
The City Charter says:
The citizens of San Jose expect and must receive the highest standard of ethics from all those in the public service. City officers and employees must be independent, impartial and responsible in the performance of their duties and accountable to the members of the public. (Section 204) http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp#Art2
When I asked that question during the Council’s deliberation over the newly revised Code of Ethics (June 28, 2005, agenda item 10.1), I did not get a simple answer. The City Attorney said that the Grand Jury might have been referring to Section 204 of the Charter, but whether or not the Charter creates a duty to disclose is a matter of interpretation, and the Council might want to make it more specific so we don’t have to guess.
At my request, the Council directed the City Attorney to bring some language back to the Council to consider sometime in the future.
Should there be a duty to disclose? Should it be an ethical obligation? Should it be a legal obligation? Those are questions that the Council will have to decide. I am looking forward to the discussion.
Chuck Reed is a San Jose City Council Member representing District 4 and a candidate for Mayor.
This was absolutely outrageous and the Mayor should resign or be fired. Certainly with all the other things that have happened and I’m sure many unknown to us, the City Council should stand in force the resignation of this Mayor. He has been a disgrace to his ethnicity and to the people who elected him.
Cindy Chavez won’t write until she can concoct some excuse for toddling along behind Gonzo.
Why isn’t anyone questioning the culpability of the City Manager in the negotiations with Norcal?
As the professional administrative advisor to the Mayor and City Council, it is dificult to believe that the City Manager and his staff were not aware of the details of these negotiations. Why didn’t the administration’s staff report disclose all the facts?
Ah, therein is the rub!
It really gets down to this. It’s ugly, it smells, and this time there is no burying it under the carpet. What everyone is forgetting is that Norcal is laughing because they’re the ones who still have and are getting the $11M, and everyone seems to be more interested in pointing fingers. I think everyone is missing the other point. That point is that it was a “gift of public funds”, and it doesn’t seem to be coming back.
That’s okay and understandable. When was the last time you wanted to ask for $11M of free money back from organized crime?
Think about it.
After all the disgraceful and irresponsible conduct we taxpayers have recently endured, do we now deserve to be insulted with the suggestion that a codified directive that our public servants maintain “the highest levels of ethics” was somehow insufficient or vague? Is there a city in America where “the highest levels of ethics” include violating a trust, slandering good citizens (the Grand Jury), and repeatedly lying to the public? I am disgusted by the suggestion that any level of blame for the mayor’s behavior might be directed at the City Charter. Just as well blame the old City Hall? Maybe there were odors or toxins in the air that affected the mayor’s decisions. Was Ron infected with Al Garzarhea? Or maybe it was stroke-related. Perhaps he should sue his brain doctor for failing to detect the necrosis of his conscience.
Chuck,
Please no more laws, no more quibiling over the meaning of the word “is”. You were lied to and the individuals have been identified—deal with them.
New procedures, laws, rules, ordinances do not make people more ethical, they simply invite more criminal behavior through negligence.
How much time are you going to waste debating the meaning of the word “is”?
Secondly, your September memo is cogent, but fails to address a real solution to the real problem. It’s great to stand on principle, but if the garbage doesn’t get picked-up or you have to charge the consumer more than the easier, less principled, fix, what’s a councilmember to do?
All of the lawyers on the Council seemed to understand the legal questions involved, but the City Attorney gave the other members a green light.
Given there is a majority of nonattorneys on the City Council, should they have not had better legal advice? The city attorney advised the council they could, legally, go forward, he is your appointee—what do you do about that?
It is great to be a grandstander on these issues, but the reality is you were unable to lead this Council to make the correct decision.
How would it be different if you were Mayor? Would the Council come around simply because you had the bigger office? I don’t think so.
Finally, what would have been your solution. Would it have cost San Jose more, would it have been worth it? Unless you are willing to get up at 3 am with your overalls and drive the truck, the correct policy answer remains obscure.
Of course, another RFP process, another contract, another set of attorneys, a few more rules and regulations, a couple of ethics ordinances, a few more committee meetings, followed by endless hours of debate which could be used as evidence in a few civil suits would certainly solve the entire problem—or so it seems.
Personally, l think we can refer the entire episode to committee or a blue ribbon task force or an outside consultant to recommend new rules that can be challenged, so they can be sent to committee, reviewed by a blue ribbon task force or submitted to an outside consultant.
Who is with me on this?
Chuck,
Thanks for the info. Here’s another section that the investigator should look into. When the Mayor’s staff told Enviro Services and Finance staff to pay the bill without telling anyone, wasn’t this section violated?
Was Guerra the only one who gave the order? Were there other mayoral aides involved? Was Borgsdorf aware?
How about another memo with these questions?
SECTION 411. The Council; Interference With Administrative Matters.
Neither the Council nor any of its members nor the Mayor shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his or her powers and duties, nor in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any City officers or employees whom the City Manager is empowered to appoint except as expressly provided in Section 411.1. However, the Council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the City Manager anything pertaining to the appointment and removal of such officers and employees.
City Hall Guy,
We have invited Councilmember Chavez to blog and so far she has not submitted anything. The invitation to her still stands and I hope she will take us up on it soon.
Kevin
How come Cindy Chavez never writes? It would be good to get her to say why she supported this deal and why she attacked the Grand Jury.
Rich Robinson has it so wrong. I think everyone should stop reading the Mercury’s hype and look and read carefully the Grand Jury’s report, before we forget what this is all about. Rich, it’s not about the “ends justifying the means” and a “better deal” no matter what. It’s all about politics and an $11 million dollar gift of public funds to mobsters. Sure, everyone is denying everything, but the problem is that most only know a part of the elephant not the whole thing. Why was Ron so scared and changed his story at least 3 times? Why did Del sell his house? Why did Joe Guerra suddenly speak up and tell the truth, versus his previous lies.
When it comes to asking money back from organized crime, people do and act funny.
I think everyone is missing the root cause of all of this.
Richard:
Every time you post, the message is more and more garbled. You are just nuts! I’d be embarrassed if I had written the stuff you have recently. You are getting right up there with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon in suspension of reality.
Much of the discussion here on sanjoseinside.com has been focused on the Mayor and Mr. Guerra. After re-reading the article “S.J. staff part of contract problem” from the Merc last week, I am wondering if others should share more of the blame.
According to the article:
At the Oct 10, 2000 council meeting, union leaders Robert Morales and Amy Dean complain to the council about the low wages in the Norcal bid. Council orders an audit of the bidder’s proposals. Cindy Chavez wants the audit to “pull out the labor costs from the different proposals.”
Days later Mayor strikes private deal with Norcal over increased wages for CWS workers.
On December 12, 2000 city auditor Gerald Silva presents report on bids to council. Mr. Silva’s report fails to account for the lower wages paid by CWS under the Longshoreman agreement.
City attorney Rick Doyle issues report regarding labor issues that fails to “identify the dispute concerning which union would represent the CWS workers and how much they would be paid.”
Environmental services director Carl Mosher reports to council in March 2001 that “prevailing wages and worker retention have been included to protect the interest of the employees.”
From my reading of this article, Ms. Chavez’s instructions to pull out the labor costs were not followed by staff. I question why there was such confusion on the part of staff and why the council did not demand the answers they asked for.
Gift of funds to mobsters? Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton suspended reality?
You guys really want to waste time with a new investigation? Can’t we just take the Mercury News version and call it a day?
Must we have endless debate followed by a new set of ethics laws to eradicate this unethical behavior?
Joe, Ron and Del on Michael Corleone’s short list? And my posts are embarrassing?
Guerra-gate—I’m with you on the grassy knoll theory. But stop while you are ahead.
Driven Nuts—it was a short trip.
Rich Robinson wants to end the investigation.
Rich Robinson is working for Cindy Chavez.
Hmmmmm.
Just for the record. I am not on Cindy’s payroll—I do support her and an investigation would not hurt her. It’s just a waste of time.
The point is that we already know the facts. The Grand Jury has already investigated. While I support holding people accountable, more investigations are a waste of time and money.
I have been very consistent on this point. Government spends too much time on the trivial and not enough on the substance.
For those of you who believe we “lost” $11 million, how much more will we lose by pursuing this mess? How much will we lose by having new hearings, new laws, new enforcement of those laws, new civil suits challenging those laws etc. ? Has nobody heard the term throwing good money after bad?
The Council already has all the tools it needs to hold Ron, Joe, Del, the City Attorney, and City Staff responsible if it chooses to do so.
They don’t need more bureaucracy.
By the way, Cindy disagrees with me on this point and last I heard she supports an investigation.
Finally, please check out my alliances, positions and track record—they’re my best marketing tools.
“Finally, please check out my alliances, positions and track record—they’re my best marketing tools.” -Richard Robinson
I would contend that all one has to do is look at your San Jose Inside postings to see that you are way out in left field and have no sense of reality, responsibility, or morality in government.
Take for example your last post:The point is that we already know the facts. The Grand Jury has already investigated. While I support holding people accountable, more investigations are a waste of time and money.
Who has been held responsible? You should know that the Civil Grand Jury has no enforcement or punative action tied to its investigation.
Not to mention that more material facts and admissions have emerged since the GJ investigation.
No one should fear an investigation other than the guilty. That’s what transparency in government is all about. The people deserve a clear look into all facts AND they deserve to see someone held accountable.
The Council has the ability to hold those who lied accountable should they choose to do it. The District Attorney, if there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, could act. But there isn’t and he won’t.
‘Not to mention that more material facts and admissions have emerged since the GJ investigation.’
New material facts? I don’t think so. Admissions? Copping to do something that is already been proved is hardly a new piece of evidence.
‘No one should fear an investigation other than the guilty.’
That is pure horse manure. Being the target of an investigation takes time, resources and money. Just because you are innocent doesn’t make it walk in the park.
As for being in left field, we don’t even have a ballpark yet. J
okes aside, I am proudly liberal.
Yet don’t you find it ironic that it it is the liberal that is calling for less government. Kind of turns those political labels into meaningless rhetoric .
Rich is a clown.
You have to sometimes look at the source. The writer that noted that Rich Robinson is on Cindy’s payroll was right on.
Look at where this is all going.
Re-read the Grand Jury Report.
Thinking about the things that are going on.
And just use a little imagination. It doesn’t take much to get to about 80% of the truth.
And oh yes, Discount Rich Robinson. Look at his positions and his alliances. Worse yet, look at his track record and ask those who he has worked for about him.
It’s a sad story.
We do not need another invesitgation. We have a thorough one by the civil grand jury. There is no evidence that investigation was political in any way. The facts are fully laid out.
We don’t need a blue ribbon commission filled with the usual suspects from the Bellarmine/Santa Clara U. clique that fill up every such commission ever appointed.
We do need action taken on the grand jury report—either by the D.A., the city council, or the people. George is retiring, so he could start the investigation and prosecution without any political fallout.
Every mayoral or council candidate needs to be pressured relentlessly until they take a clear, understandable position of the issue of Norcal in particular; not just some of that fuzzy language they paid so dearly to learn from that “ethical consultant” they hired.
But in reality, it will soon become a faded memory like the $60 million bond loss. When was that, again?
JohnMichael O’Connor
JMO’C makes some very good points in #20. But let’s face it, us voters and taxpayers have a right to see smug politicians get tossed out on their behinds for this sort of behavior. IMHO it does our system good to take out the trash.
Richard Robinson is at least honest when he refers to himself as a liberal. Then proves it by suggesting more investigating and hearings and legislative actions and MISSING THE POINT that many of our city pols, if not all of them, are crooked. We now have a nice (costly), new city hall. Why not populate it with all new politicians as their seats come up for re-election. We might even be able to find some that won’t bitch about being at the end of the corridor (see Mercury News 8-7 Special Section) and really like the new air conditioning system that I will almost gaurantee will malfunction in the first month of building use.
I am begining to believe and old proverb I learned in my youth: Not all crooks are politicians but all politicians are crooks. Chicago circa: 1951
And NO, I don’t want to go there.
So, all you bloggers, remember to boycott “The Mayor’s Circle” @ the Jazz Festival this weekend, and urge all your friends to do so.
Oh yeah, that goes for all you mayoral candidates, too. If you want to convince us you’ll be better than Gonzo-Guerra, start now. Don’t go there and shake HizRonner’s hand. Stay away. Make a statement that only you can make. Prove to us that you do not condone what has happened, in the name of collegiality.
JohnMichael O’Connor
Yo Chuck: you posted August 1. Nothing since. There are at least 23 comments. Wanna respond, or was it post-it-and-forget-it? A couple dozen concerned citizens not worth the time to respond? Check the other blogs—a lot of discontent here. How will you fix the problems? Why should we vote for you?
I check every week, Chuck, but you’re not responding. You’re losing me.
At least you and Dave posted. Cindy has yet to appear. She must be on theSanJoseLaborWishlist.com blog.
The Reed Reforms
There are many things that must be done to change the ethical culture in city hall. The Mayor alone cannot make the changes necessary. It will take a collaborative effort among the Mayor, the Council and the professional staff.
Next year we will have a new Mayor, a new Vice Mayor and a new City Manager. It’s a golden opportunity to make major changes.
I am running for Mayor on a platform of Honesty, Fiscal Responsibility and Open Government in order to give the voters a clear choice of direction for the city so that the people can send a clear message that things must change.
If I am elected Mayor, I will present a package of reforms to the City Council for adoption to make city government more honest, open and fiscally responsible.
Some of those ethical initiatives are proposals I made in the past but the Mayor and Council refused to support. Some are new. They will include changes in the Charter, changes in ordinances, changes in policy, and changes in behavior. I am presenting them to the public for critique and debate over the next few months.
The Reed Reforms are posted on my web site http://www.chuckreed.com.
Here’s a link: http://www.chuckreed.com/pressreleases/060110_Reed_Reforms.pdf
Why did windy chavez did i say windy sorry because she’s rons puppet thats why she attacked the grand jury and she has balls to run for mayor ,she should be run out of town . and the sickest thing is THE CROOK IS STILL RUNNING THE SHOW, AKA CIRCUS . THIS CITY IS EVERY OTHERS CITIES EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO ,AND WE ARE STUPID TO LET IT HAPPEN!!!!!!