Has the Voice of the Taxpayer Been Lost?
During my first four years on the San José City Council, I have been lobbied and visited by many who hope to influence the decisions that I make as a councilmember. There seems to be an endless line of special interests that form to ensure that I know their concerns. This is particularly so during budget negotiations when everyone thinks that the cuts are necessary, but that their project, program or need is the exception to the rule.
Oftentimes the voice of the special interest that is most important to me—the resident is noticeably absent from the long line of influencers. That is why I have made a conscious effort to reach out to the tax-paying residents of District 1—and throughout the city—by attending neighborhood and community meetings, participating in various social media sites, visiting local churches, holding open office hours in the district, creating websites such as S.O.S. San Jose, along with other online tools to give the residents the power of advocacy.
Since his election, Mayor Reed has worked hard to engage the residents by creating a more transparent budget process, hosting district-specific budget meetings, creating the Neighborhood Association and Youth Commission Budget Priority Setting Session and creating taxpayer representative positions on important task forces and stakeholder’s groups. Unfortunately, not all of the elected leaders have been that open to community input. In fact, I was saddened to see that only two councilmembers, Pierluigi Oliverio and I, attended the entire Neighborhood Association and Youth Commission Budget Priority Setting Session on January 29. A couple of other councilmembers stopped by for short visits, but didn’t stay for the bulk of the exercises or discussion. It was amazing to me that many of the councilmembers were not there to hear directly from the most important people in our city: the residents!
That’s why I feel that it is imperative that we, as residents and taxpayers, work together to ensure a strong voice is hear at City Hall.
I’m sure you may have wondered, like I have, why there isn’t a non-partisan organization to represent and advocate for us, the average taxpaying resident. Well there is! It is the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association (SVTA). I hope you can join me in becoming a member. Together we can mount a serious fight for the needs of the taxpaying residents of San José.
You can be the most important special interest of all: San José Resident!
Pete,
Here is a tax saving idea. Go back to work at the police department.
Is there some reason you did not go back and work a desk job with the police department as opposed to cashing a “disability” check from the City?
Your credibility on anything “cost savings” wise is laughable. You collect a full-time pay check from the city and a disability check from the city…talk about milking the system. If you are so disabled then how are you able to work as a councilperson?
You get the automatic 3% cost of living increase every year added on to your “disability” pension, you cashed the 13th bonus check every year it has been sent to you, and you are now paying nothing into your special retirement plan that will pay you another government check equal to 2% at age 55…when do you back away from the public trough that you have been feeding from for decades.
Here is some reform: go to a part time council, eliminate double dipping for councilmembers, eliminate pensions for councilmembers, and only pay councilmembers that show up for work…your attendance record at council meetings/committee meetings/rda meetings….is abysmal.
Constantly trying to rip off taxpayers is what you are about.
“Has the Voice of the Taxpayer Been Lost?”
Good question…. Because we keep asking why your not in jail for workers comp fraud regarding your supposed disability and the fact that you continue to collect funds out of the very system that your trying to change….
If your so disabled as a cop and couldn’t continue your career in the police department sitting behind a desk then why are you sitting behind a desk as a councilman and collecting disability from the system. Simple question that deserves an answer…..
“I was saddened to see that only two councilmembers, Pierluigi Oliverio and I, attended the entire Neighborhood Association and Youth Commission Budget Priority Setting Session on January 29. A couple of other councilmembers stopped by for short visits, but didn’t stay for the bulk of the exercises or discussion. It was amazing to me that many of the councilmembers were not there to hear directly from the most important people in our city: the residents!”
Doesn’t this statement just let you see his insides? Doesn’t this just show up his personality and what kind of person he really is? Stabbing his fellow council members right in the back, in front of the public. To me, that speaks of a lowlife. They are all the same kind of people…him, chuck and plo. The three stooges. They deserve each other. Deceitful and untrustworthy. How can ANYBODY like this man? Does he have any friends? Now what was the REAL purpose behind having to stoop so low? What? Because in reading that, I see something else going on in the background.
“Doesn’t this statement just let you see his insides? Doesn’t this just show up his personality and what kind of person he really is? Stabbing his fellow council members right in the back, in front of the public. To me, that speaks of a lowlife.”
And this comes as a surprise? He has been stabbing his former co-workers at the police department in the back for years. He collects a disability pension from an injury he claims ended what should be an honorable profession and then becomes a boot licker for Chuck Reed and his campaign to dismantle what used to be one of the finest departments in the nation.
What a great article. I am taken aback from this article. I actually live in Pacifica and I often wonder where our taxes are going. These links are so helpful.
Pete,
I appreciate the idea of getting the residents involved, but your serious lack of credibility keeps the message from being heard. I have never seen you vote against a housing project, even though our structural deficit is clearly the result of too much housing and not enough jobs. Until you seriously take on the development community that sells out San Jose’s General Fund with every housing project that only adds to the structural deficit, you are just another Council person beholden to special interests. Talk is cheap, show some real leadership.
Pete,
Some folks here have some very good questions for you that most feel deserved to be answered. You are very outspoken publicly about changing the pension system and benefits for currently city employees including Police. I want to repeat the question that others have asked. I was hired before you at the Police Dept. and remember you as one of those employees who was always on disability. To be quite frank I question how many years you actually showed up to work and worked the street. You left with about 10 or so years of service counting on the disability time that you where off yet claimed 50% retirement plus 3% COLA plus educational expenses. Just the 50% retirement equals out to 5% a year for a total of 50% collected when you were what, mid 30’S? Plus free medical, a second $90K a year job with benefits and a 2nd retirement. And to top it off you have time for a personal photography business. Sir, in my opinion you owe the citizens an answer to these questions that are being asked. This is you blog and it’s is obvious that you will be reading these comments but the silence that follows the questions is very telling of you character. Also I have a couple of other questions for you. Are you the only city employee out of the thousands and thousand who have worked for the city that has been allowed to double dip with the City of San Jose by collecting disability retirement and a second salary as well as second benefits including retirement? Did you have the City Attorney change the rules just for you to allow you to do this? That is the rumor circulating, can you please clarify. (man, I was trying to add up Pete’s combined salary form the City and it has to be over $160K plus, Wow, does anywone know if that is public record?)
This column was taken from Councilmember Constant’s monthly constituents letter and posted by an SJI editor. The councilmember wasn’t aware that it was online until this morning and I’m informed that he’s been in session all day today.
The thing is Eric, Oliviero and Liccardo responded relatively quickly and it seems like frequent visitors to this website kind of expected there wouldn’t be any reason Constant wouldn’t do the same. As the reader comments were negative in nature, it just appears Constant is in no position to defend himsel.
This isn’t right. SJI should get permission from the author before reposting their content as an SJI blog post.
Councilman Constant,
Americans have economic and politically schizophrenic identities. Economically, we have divided ourselves into “consumers” and “producers”. We chase the cheapest product as consumers,then wonder why our jobs have been outsourced to foreign lands with weak environmental, labor and intellectual property laws. We would be so much wiser if integrated both sides our economic identity when we buy and sell goods and services.
Likewise, we should not be one-eye prophets with our political identities. You’ve divided us into “taxpayers” and “special interests”. As tax payers, we are told that all forms of taxation is theft – that we must starve the beast. Mission accomplished. The beast is starved and the city does not have enough money to operated its chartered services. I am for running government more efficiently, not government on the cheap.
Instead of naming someone who gets paid to push a specific group or policy, I sometimes think the term “special interest” is applied to people who “disagree” with a politician. I have been personally been called a “special interest” when I went beyond voicing general dismay and asking for specific items like fully funding the libraries, community centers, police stations and arts programs like Xmas in the park.
Lastly – Unlike the past couple of years, I hope you believe that libraries are necessary city services – that they are in the “must do” bucket and not just the “want to do”.
Dear Councilmember Constant, I think it is time you finally address the Elephant in the room: your disability paycheck from the taxpayers of San Jose. Please provide the transparency you talk about and share the nature of your disability, why you can’t work a desk job in the Police Department, but you can wrestle a kid and work as a Councilmember and a semi-professional photographer. How much do we pay you in disability? How much of that is tax free? How much more do we pay for your salary as a Councilmember? The taxpayers of San Jose deserve to have these questions answered.
Pete throws his fellow council-members under the bus…..
“In fact, I was saddened to see that only two councilmembers, Pierluigi Oliverio and I, attended the entire Neighborhood Association and Youth Commission Budget Priority Setting Session on January 29. A couple of other councilmembers stopped by for short visits, but didn’t stay for the bulk of the exercises or discussion. It was amazing to me that many of the councilmembers were not there”
Pete…you are such a hypocrite….Weren’t you the one who was gone on a $10,000 city paid weight loss leave of absence program? Isn’t your attendance record the worst of any city council member? Did you ever speak with your fellow council members before you threw them down in public?
…..In regards to attendance, Didn’t you miss an important council meeting last year so you could go on your fishing trip to Mexico? Oh sweet pics of those fish you caught, by the way, on your facebook page. They look a little heavy. That disability is killing you, isn’t it? Way to sling mud at your peers on the city council.
Good God, SJI is scraping the bottom of the barrel!
Plus they are censoring posts again, good old Eric at work….
FYI: I spiked a handful of posts because they were either vulgar, way off topic, or had that “We’re beating a dead horse” smell to them. It’s not “censoring,” it’s “editing.” You could look it up.
I said it once and I will say again Eric, If you are the sole person to determine whether or not something is “off topic” or “Beating a dead horse” and you alone remove the post, that is censorship.
Editing is the act of changing another persons written prose in an effort to make clear or properly punctuate.
Perhaps, you are the one who should check the dictionary.
I would bet that instead, a few calls or emails were made to you by the author himself.
No visitor to this site could reasonably conclude that we are “censoring” comments that are critical of Mr. Constant. I mean … look at this thread!! However, a handful of comments crossed the line that separates vigorous debate from crude personal attack. Call it whatever you want — it is our job as moderators to try and keep things at least somewhat civil.
And please don’t let yourself believe that there’s some kind of conspiracy afoot. I’m sure some regular visitors to this site are getting a kick out of your suggestion that Pete Constant is pulling our strings.
Eric-
Honestly, I got a good chuckle out of that response. OK, we will try it again.
My issue with your claim of “editing” vs “censorship” has to do with comments on a previous thread that were posted after being cleared by the moderator, left on the thread for more than a 24 hour period, then pulled.
Politics is personal. The old adage if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen should apply. If a politician get their feeling hurt because I choose to be passionate in my responses, then they have no business being in politics.
Case in point, on a separate thread, I chose to tell Councilman Oliverio, that I did not care for him very much. I then went on to explain why. Should I have said, OMG, I think you are the bomb and all your ideas are wonderful?? That seems to me to stifle the debate.
Additionally, you referred to your actions of pulling posts or refusing to post them as “editing”. I clearly called you to the carpet on the definition of editing vs censoring and your response is to type, “Call it whatever you want” really? You will have to pardon me if I find that response a tad crude and unintelligent.
I agree that vulgar attacks and name calling has no business here and should be prevented. I can’t be the only regular visitor that thinks when you do this, there may be some truth to that there is a conspiracy afoot.
(insert big laugh over constant being able to pull anyones strings) I think you may see my point of view. I’m OK to agree to disagree, just don;t let the power of the delete button go to your head. Oh yea and what is the definition of a “moderator”?
It’s censoring, Dude have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
PE: You’re really going to prove your understanding of this topic by quoting Wikipedia? That’s not going to win many debate points. But even so: Please read further down the page, where the various forms of censorship are described. You must admit, none of them even come close to describing what happens here on SJI, where 98 percent of the comments that get posted are approved.
It is generally understood that publishers, editors and moderators have the right to decide what is acceptable on the sites they operate. To call what we do “censorship” is a pretty big exaggeration. I will admit this: I’ve been a journalist for more than 20 years and “censorship” is a dirty word in my book—so maybe I’m overreacting.
Agree: I have part of the First Amendment memorized. It says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” That doesn’t give anyone the right to walk into a party and start insulting their fellow guests and not expect to be thrown out.
SJI is an online conversation; it’s my job to keep things on track. Which reminds me: We’ve gotten pretty far from the topic of this post.
Eric-
Maybe you are. Maybe “censorship” is a dirty word in your book. That doesn’t make what happened on the blog related to pulling posts any different. Remember, the perspective of the masses are what matter in a debate. We have see time and time again, that truth doesn’t always win out but how people perceive what you say or in this case post, then pull is all they have to formulate an opinion on “why” you refuse to post/pull. They also see any response from you as an excuse, rather than an explanation.
Your 20 years experience showed in your ability to investigate a simple source for definitions, where is lacks is in your ability to admit to yourself or others that maybe your collective approach to what I call censorship on SJI may be a little one sided.
I do have to say, though, I am enjoying our banter, even if as you said to “agree” that we might have strayed off topic a little!
Sure you can, you just have to be bigger than the other guys physically. You can do a lot if your a big person…
You do get a little carried away with that delete button. We all have the right to free speech, but it seems to be impeded here on this site.
I really don’t know how old you are, but you have to just let things slide sometimes and lighten up. You can’t control everything all the time.
I have posted other NON – threatening or insulting posts that have never been posted.
Yelp.com does the same thing. They post (review posting guide lines)your review and then pull it stating you violated the the guide lines?
But in reality you didn’t violate them. Just like what happens here. The duty is given to one person to interpret in their own views what is NOT acceptable for posting…. This type of petty dictator stuff is very juvenile.
Let me guess this won’t get posted either….
PE: Thank you for clarifying. I was unaware that comments that had been approved were pulled. I’ll check with my colleagues about that. As for editing vs. censoring, you bring up a point that’s worth debating (and I’m pretty sure I would win the debate) but we’ll have to save that for another time. Please email me directly: eric[at]boulevards.com
Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
Editing is the process of selecting and preparing written, visual, audible, and film medium used to convey information through a processes of correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media, performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate, and complete output
Seems like by definition alone you have lost the debate we never had already. Unless, you meant earlier that you strive to “edit” content for consistency and accuracy and that you “censor” those items deemed crude or otherwise hurtful.
Is that what you meant when you posted above that your edit and don’t censor?? That would definitely clarify the issue for me.
After being elected but before being sworn in, Pete Constant requested and received a legal determination from the City Attorney to make sure that his double-dipping scheme was legal.
His moral compass told him it was wrong, but since it was “legal” he went right on ahead.
Shame on you, Pete.
Hey Pete,
Next time you talk to those taxpayers, explain to them how the mayor, city manager, and council lost ONE BILLION DOLLARS of their money. The word is spreading. So the next time you come here for a debate DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Those words sound familiar.
Wow, my hero come to save san jose—he’s kind of like fat Peter Parker.
Curlie, Moe and Larry.
Can we please see the dollar figures for all the years that the city decided that it was not necessary for them to contribute into the retirement fund while rank and file cops contributed 21.9% check after check…When will you and Chuck Greed start telling the truth. You are a fat hypocrite!
It appears the City Council is on a media blitz of their own. Look who has submitted some essays of late. Liccardo, Pyle and Constant. Not one will answer questions asked on this post.
My questions is this:
WHY!? Is the City (via the General Fund) lending money to the SJRDA when the SJRDA is lending money to former Mayors and buying stadium land? Now they are going to try to protect this slush fund by transferring it to the Diridon Joint Powers Authority.
And they say there is a deficit?
Summary of Redevelopment Agency Obligations To The City
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY1011/03ProposedOperating/03.SummaryInfo03.pdf
San Jose has a very educated citizenry. There are some who pay close attention to what takes place at City Hall. There are some who analyze the performance of their politicians and city employees. There are some who watch carefully where their tax dollars go. However, the bulk of the public don’t pay any attention at all. So, the only time they participate is when their councilperson or mayor goad them into it by inflammatory rhetoric or threats of cuts. Suddenly the sleeping masses wake up and start grumbling.
Chuck Reed and Pete Constant have taken advantage of rising angst over the economy and the pathetic mismanagement of city funds in order to further their own agendas. They have been able to demonize their own city workers and now they are looking for other ways to divert attention from their own shortcomings. This supposed “non-partisan” organization to advocate for taxpayers is simply a method for Pete and his ilk to coalesce disgruntled citizens into one group that he can manipulate with more rhetoric to do his bidding.
It also allows him to spoon feed “facts” that support his positions and continue to steer citizens away from the near criminal way the city has managed their budget internally. You will notice that despite repeated calls for answers about his disability retirement he does not provide any answers at all. He believes that if he ignores the questions and keeps pointing the fingers elsewhere eventually people will give up and move on. Sadly, he is probably right.
Thanks Pete,
I’m glad that at least a few councilmembers understand that the ‘public interest’ is not the same thing as the aggregate sum of all the ‘special interests’.
I live in D9. Chirco came and talked to me and asked me my opinion on things- when she was a candidate. After she was elected I never heard from her again. Why? She was too busy listening to people who came to her with their hand out- people who wanted special treatment.
Same thing with Rocha. Last year during the campaign He knocked on MY door- and asked me what I thought! Imagine that! Of course, now that he’s been elected he’s too busy trotting off to Sacto to wheedle some RDA money so he can pander to who? People who want stuff. Special interests.
You’re on the right track Pete. Call your constituents on the phone. Knock on their doors. Surprise them. Don’t assume that what you hear from people who come to the meetings is an accurate indication of the general public’s opinion. The people who come to meetings WANT something. The people who don’t come to the meetings are the ones whom it’s your job to represent. And most of them don’t really want or expect all that much from the City other than not to be taken advantage of.
“This supposed “non-partisan” organization to advocate for taxpayers is simply a method for Pete and his ilk to coalesce disgruntled citizens into one group that he can manipulate with more rhetoric to do his bidding.”
It sounded so phoney. You could tell that the statement was being made for a purpose other than what was intended. It wasn’t sincere.
Once again, Pete is MIA on his response to justify his “double dipping” and his fraudulent disability claim. We know your terrified of the POA, but us bloggers too?
So our voices are only really heard when we participate in groups that politicians can come to? Seems like most people have neither the time nor inclination to get heavily involved, but they still vote and pay their taxes for the most part.
Does it matter that a vocal minority can hijack the public agenda by appearing to speak for the majority. 6 people can form a neighborhood group and speak for 2000? I guess people, even politicians, kinda know this intuitively and balance the competing interests. But it sure gets easy to forget the masses when all you see in the bubble around city hall are spokespeople and lobbyists.
Pete Constant at best wasn’t much of a cop. he reminded most of us of Barney Fife on the Andy Taylor show. Having him move on SAVED LIVES! Police officer lives!
So his monthly check is well worth it!!!!!!
Didn’t think of it that way, but you are correct. It would have saved officer’s lives. Barney Fife??? Hilarious.
Remeber Pete, your hero Chuck Reed was elected by special interest groups like Tom McEnry and Sobrato!
Howdy Pete!
I have read all the mornfull responses to your article.
I do not recall seeing any of the aforementioned authors at any of the Six(6) Council Committee meetings to offer their sage advice and or opinions.
See you at Rules!
David S. Wall
David, it sounds like you are a close associate to “Pete.” Since Pete has not responded to any of these questions do you by chance know the answers? Also since you are somehow connected to the Council Committeee Rules meetings what is your opinion on Pete collecting a disability retirement plus a second income from the city as well as additional benefits. Do you think thats right?
That people who have posted in this discussion are not present at council meetings? Many people who express an opinion here do not sign their real names and even those who use a name many times adopt a fake one at that. Perhaps some of the people here are at those meetings. Also, given that the time limitation at council meetings to speak is a paltry couple of minutes, is that really the most efficient way to communicate opinions? What is the exposure for those comments made at a city council meeting anyway? Is every comment published broadly for all San Jose and Santa Clara County residents to read? Are citizen suggestions and comments recorded and re-read by city councilpersons later? I suspect not.
But are they using thier real names when thier at the public meetings? hmmm??
Councilmember Constant
Your blog title “Taxpayers and Residents Must Become the Largest Special Interest ” is very troubling because it implies that you believe that resident voters are a “special interest group” when in fact Council members are elected to be residents representatives and run city for resident’s benefit
As our elected representatives, the Council owes the resident voters a responsible for the legislative function of the city such as establishing policy, passing local laws, voting budgets, approving land use policy, develop city and government vision, makes major decisions, and wields representative power for residents benefit not for enriching or benefiting politically connected special interest groups
Past and current Mayor/s and Council member/s have frequently acted as if they are representing special interest groups who gave them campaign contributions more than representing the residents who elected them
Council gives 10’s millions in city’s and redevelopment taxes each year to these special interest groups with little to no accountability or transparency about who received our taxes, what was public purpose, did taxpayers receive public benefits or why taxes are going to special interests rather than pay for adequate city staff and services
If Council would stop spending taxes on special interest groups and bring city employees pay benefits and pensions in line with industry jobs San Jose would not have budget problem
None of past or current Council members have taken responsibility for special interest control of city government or indicated they intend to change diverting millions city and redevelopment taxes to benefit special interest groups , clean up city budget documents abd write them in plain language so residents can understand why our taxes are going to benefit special interest grousp rather than residents
Pete,
I don’t agree with a lot that you say and question like others your disability retirement but you are right on one point
San Jose has been politically run with our taxes spent for benefit of special interest groups which includes city employees not taxpaying residents or small businesses
Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association (SVTA) who are primarily in Republic in a Democratic union controlled city has been grossly ineffective at
a) suggesting, leading, being involved with or making any worthwhile city government reform changes or b) getting any city reform candidates elected so most people will not their waste time with them
I agree, with what he said.