It is that most pleasant time of year—a season when inveterate lobbyists and flimflam men get a conscience and speak of reform; a season of ethical proposals by those who have exhibited terminal lockjaw on the issue for years; a remarkable era of ideas for a better political process springing full-blown from the heads of consultants, paid hacks and cynics of every type. Move over folks, it’s election time.
The papers are now full of so many changes for the better at City Hall that the casual observer might wonder where in the world all these people were when it was not so in-vogue to issue such pompous pronouncements. The advent of the campaign season makes one wonder about the presence of grace in the political firmament.
I remember testifying before the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Ethics in the early 90s and again a little over a year ago when the total audience could have fit in a closet and the committee members eyed their watches like George Bush the First at a debate. I failed to notice Jerry Strangis, the doyen of the lobbyists and the designated “good guy” of the Mercury News. Perhaps he was enjoying his free Corde Valle golf passes, luxuriating in his Willow Glen fundraising events, or partying with his nightclub clients before a visit to the Emergency Room to check on lost patrons. He was certainly not interested in ethics or reform then. And as he employs and inveigles current and former council members and plies his formidable fundraising talents on the side of righteousness for all developers, the question should be asked: Does he care at all about this city or only about his “success” fees? Strangis was only a bit player on the political stage a decade ago, but money and the ability to help former politicians have made him a star in the pre-NorCal world.
Michael Mulcahy entered the arena of reform with many good ideas on how to change the culture at City Hall in an opinion piece yesterday in the Mercury. I would feel a bit better if he had testified on ethics just once, supported Reed and Cortese or commented on Chavez’s censure of Gonzales at a public hearing. Instead, he has been a sphinx on such issues. Welcome to the fight, Michael. And as Rick said to Captain Renault (and I paraphrase): I hope the friendship is a beautiful one.
Tom, I guess lobbyists come in many forms. I, for example, consider Carl Guardino of the SV Mfg. Group (or whatever they call it now) to be a lobbyist, pimping his group of manufacturers on the BART issue.
How much time and money has he thrown behind BART and why do you suppose he does it? It certainly isn’t out of altruism; rather, Carl wants the expanded labor pool that results from being able to tap workers in Alameda County and beyond.
As well, Carl wants the SC Valley taxpayers to foot the bill for that labor pool and for those who will commute into the valley each morning. Hey, I have a great idea… let the commuters and Carl’s gang pay for BART to San Jose!
San Jose
Speaking of ethics: How is it that Councilmembers Yeager and LeZotte who are both running for Supervisor are involved in the city’s settlement negotiations with the county over the fairgrounds concert hall lawsuit?
This would appear to be a conflict of interest in it’s purest form. Whose interests are they representing…the office they now hold or the office to which they hope to be elected?
I feel that at election time is when everyone plays it so safe b/c they want everyone’s vote – that is what I hate about it. I wish that people would go out on a limb for what they believe in at all times, that takes real courage.
I presume Rick Doyle wrote the revised ethics ordinance which came out of the much ballyhood task force on ethics reform; or at the very least, he passed on the wording.
So, last session of the council there was a vote on amending the ordinance to close a huge loophole re lobbyist-raised contributions.
If a private sector lawyer had written or approved a contract with that large a loophole, he would have been fired at a minimum, and probably sued for malpractice.
Hey, 1,2,3: If you go out on a limb, you don’t get elected. Sad, but true.
I cannot remmeber what topic this was under—how long does it take for San Jose to fix a lightbulb. I do remember someone saying there were only a few city employees in the “Replace-The-Burned-Out-Lightbulb Dept.”
Today on my way from my office to Hawgs for lunch, I passed by a lightpole on S. First Street, just outside the S. First St. exit from the 60 S. Market St. Garage.
I observed NINE men and ONE woman congregated around this light fixture—an antique or replica of a light pole. Some were intent upon the man who had a lower part of the cover of the base unscrewed, as he spoke of some paint issue. I have no idea what the perceived problem was, and they were gone when I returned via the same route ninety minutes later.
But I was struck by the fact that no fewer than TEN “working” adults were required to discuss whatever problem there was with ONE light pole on South First Street!!!!!!!!!! I’d bet the farm that many were government employees, with at least one RDA rep—probably the woman.
That is one small reason why government agencies and bodies at all levels are running deficits. I don’t care what the problem was—this light pole was standing, and was quite unremarkable—it does not take TEN people to view it and discuss it to fix the problem….UNLESS it’s a government job.
Memo to all candidates for elective office—You want my vote, and those of many like-minded people? Cut that sh*t out. Hire people who take ownership of their job and fire them if they don’t. It does not take ten people to diagnose and fix one light pole on South First Street. And if you think it does, you should be fired and replaced.
Oh great…$385 million, and the roof leaks!
http://www.wgresident.com/wg-news3.shtml
Maybe instead of suitcases full of money the lobbyists can bring a few buckets down to City Hall.
Nice job with #6 there JMO. As for effecting change in this sort of situation . . . good luck with that!
Nice job #6??? Why is it a nice job? As usual, JMoC makes sweeping accusations with no facts. Perhaps his observation is accurate but he has nothing to base his attack on. Next time, stop and talk to these folks, call the City DOT, etc. and gather some facts. You may be correct in your observation but with nothing factual to base it on it is pretty weak.
#9 the significance of your handle was not lost on me, as Cal Trans holds the top spot for most people gathered around a single pothole. Nice job for you too!
Yeah, JMO likes to rant about stuff but I don’t see any reason to doubt what he says he saw. You’ve got to be kidding if you think JMO would get anything other than being passed around from voicemailbox to voicemailbox if he called the City.
Cal Trans, I can understand why the ocassional piece of anecdotal evidence used as a generalization would bother you. But, in fact, when one sees such evidence day in and day out, it begins to represent the norm for City employees. I too have witnessed such incidents many times. Face it, City crews are infamous… nine workers, one with a shovel and eight supervisors.
How come none of you mentioned the construction sites that have 2 or 3 police officers standing around watching—regardless of what impacts the construction is having on traffic? They are city employees, too. Anyway, if you are convinced all city crews have too many people standing around doing nothing, then contact your Councilmember. Better yet, get rid of your Councilmember at election time. Perhaps the worst offenders are the Council themselves—11 of them standing around while one or two of them do the work.
Cal, I’m pretty sure those construction sites are being billed for the police service that’s provided and you and I aren’t footing the bill for that. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the bill when 8 supervisors are standing around a 9th person with a shovel, who happens to be leaning on it and not digging with it.
Methinks Cal works for the city and his job might involve a shovel.
Mark T. – Methinks you are wrong.
Mal # 7: Oh, if only the official figure of $385 mil was correct—with all the off-budget stuff, I’d bet the farm they are bumping $550 mil.
Mark T # 8: You’re right. No way to effect change. “Government Worker” is such an oxymoron. Yeah, I know there are a lot of dedicated folks working at all levels of government; but the vast majority just suck off the system that prevents them from being fired for nonfeasance unless they kill their supervisor AND bloody the furniture while doing it.
CalTrans, you are a complete idiot. My facts are my personal observations of TEN people standing around discussing a bloody light fixture; my facts are 30 years of observing CalTrans crews stand around watching some poor shmuck shoveling. If you took a poll of people who have observed CalTrans “workers (and I use that term sarcastically) on site, the OVERWHELMING majority would agree—they spend a lot of time standing around watching the low man on the totem pole work.
I would really like to see my former long-time running partner Will Kempton(current head of CalTrans) actually do something about the featherbedding that goes on in that department, but I fear he is powerless to effect positive change.
I’ll repeat a story—true, of my own personal knowledge—that I have posted here before. Many years ago the son of a friend got hired by CalTrans. He had a learning disability and a serious physical injury that was related to his job. Within one week of his hire, he was approached by the senior “workers” in his crew and told he was making them look bad by how hard he was working, and that for his safety he needed to slow down.
Fifty years ago, my father, who was a staunch union man, stated that the way to make government workers—not the elected folks, but the folks who actually did the job—more efficient was to fire one-half of them, and INSIST that the remaining folks actually did thirty hours of real work per week. That remains true. The featherbedding of the former Railroad Trainmens’ Union was once the paradigm of work rules that required the most number of workers to do the least amount of actual work. That has long since been replaced by CalTrans.
Another example: ever see the five man crew that prunes the palm trees @ the Fairmont Plaza? It takes five men at least three days to do the job. Go to the Westin Ka’anapali on Maui. Two guys, climbing by hand with no cherry picker, and using machetes instead of chain saws, trim three times the trees in ONE MORNING.
Thanks Mark T #10 & Greg #11.
CalTRans # 12—you’re right about that one—all the cops standing around at sites (like the ever-repeated change of lights @ Market & St. John—are another example of wasted money. But it doesn’t validate the CalTrans one man shoveling while ten men watch paradigm. It’s just another waste of money.
I don’t know who you work for, Cal; but do you work as we know it, or as you define it?
I didn’t define work one way or the other. All I did was ask that you validate your rants with some type of fact other than a drive-by sighting. You may or may not be correct, but seeimg is not always believing.
Responding to #2 “San Jose?s Fake Political Game
I completely agree the same old “reform promises” are tiring. There needs to be specifics in the form of specific, measureable actions to change and improve things around here, and that the vagueness of language in reform proposals must stop.
However, I must say I do believe one of the mayoral candidates sees this need: David Pandori. I consider him to be a refreshing change. He’s about “tomorrow”—our future, and our kid’s future (even though I don’t have kids, but some of you do.)
David Pandori offers up specifics about reform on his website, so anyone interested in hearing specifics check out his speech at: http://www.bettersanjose.com/issues_speech.cfm
I hope folks remember this when they cast their vote in June. We need a BetterSanJose!
Tina