March 23, 2006

City Council initiates examination of Sunshine proposals

Vote to establish task force to look into implementing different reforms

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

After an agonizing nearly three hours of debate, the City Council passed a motion Tuesday night for the city hall staff to sift through a proposal of Sunshine reforms that members hope will make city council business more transparent and open to all San Jose’s citizens.

In addition, the motion suggested that the staff develop a task force, similar to the Blue Ribbon task force on ethics, to help determine exactly what Sunshine regulations are needed.

The lone dissenting vote came from Mayor Ron Gonzales who said that while he supports Sunshine laws, there could be “problems of unintended consequences. We need to step carefully. I don’t want them [sunshine regulations] to impair our ability to make decisions. I’m concerned about the impact on the ability of future mayors to lead and keep the city moving.”

While Gonzales found it “difficult to disagree with my colleagues work,” he expressed concern that exploring this area would “bog down” the processes of getting the city’s work done.

However, Council member Dave Cortese supported the reforms “reluctantly. This [the process Cindy Chavez put together along with three other councilmembers] was a public task force. It’s a great thing that had people at your house. But I wasn’t invited to bring my ideas there. I find it too bad that this has become so political.”

Cortese was upset that Council member Chuck Reed’s amendment to the reforms wasn't included in the package that the city manager’s staff and a possible task force would be evaluating. The majority of council members said they felt in many cases they already had voted on the legislation and saw no reason to add it.

Public included
The Sunshine Reform memo was developed by Vice Mayor and District 3 Councilmember Cindy Chavez along with three other council members—District 1’s Linda Lezotte, District 9’s Judy Chirco and District 10’s Nancy Pyle. The four met often with a large number of different groups including neighborhood associations, community groups and the Strong Neighborhood Initiative to determine what is necessary to open up city government.

The memo is designed to meet the need for more openness in San Jose’s governance. Among its suggestions is a line-item budget or a means of explaining the budget and its changes to everyone involved.

During the debate, Chavez said she wants a budget the public can understand, one that shows the actual impact of change and is easily accessible to the public. “It would be a challenge to make it user friendly and put it on line so that everyone can see and understand it.”

Other suggestions include a citywide calendar that details all the activities pertaining to the city. That would include neighborhood association meetings as well as city council meetings. It would be one place that the community and the media can find out everything that’s happening in the city.

Agenda items
Another portion of the memo recommends that all city council agenda items be on line by 5 p.m. each Thursday. This would allow anyone in the city to weigh in on various agenda items, and it also would provide the public with the ability to get their feedback to the council. In an amendment to the motion, Cortese suggested this be moved to 2 p.m. Wednesday when the Rules Committee actually puts the agenda for the next meeting together.

The memo also suggests that there be a detailed accounting of every expenditure over $1 million or that the council override this with a two-thirds vote. This brought up a significant amount of debate as to whether the amount should be lowered and whether the two-thirds vote was legal.

Other portions include a public records requirement in which all documents would be scanned and posted on the city’s Web site making it easier for the public to access information.

District 6 Councilmember Ken Yeager noted that it was important to direct the staff to come back with a workplan, sooner rather than later. They can sift through the material, he said, and determine the higher priority items to focus on instead of bogging down with everything and delaying the important ideas.

The items should be categorized and arranged in the context of short, medium and long term. “Some of these ideas will be easy to implement, others costly and complex. Some will take 30 days to decide on, others maybe 60 or 90 days and some may never be accomplished,” he said.

“The point is, for example, the citywide calendar. There is so much demand for it. We can get it done fast and it becomes a great community benefit.”

Pyle later concurred. “I want this done expeditiously. I’m in no way voting for anything that will take 18 months. My goal is to get this going and move on.”

District 2 Councilmember Forrest Williams asked several questions. “I have a general concern. I’d like to see a definition of the problem we’re trying to solve. It’s definitely import to frame what we are looking for. This is crucial if we are going to invest an inordinate amount of resources to make this work.”

He also asked for measurements to enable the council to check to see if the Sunshine requirements will be there. “Without measurements, we really don’t know” what’s going on, he said.

More than 12 citizens commented favorably about the Sunshine ideas. Several suggested other plans, but all strongly praised the four councilwomen for their work and actions.

Following their comments, Chavez moved to develop a workplan for implementing these items. She also suggested that a task force, similar to the Blue Ribbon task force on ethics, be implemented. “It’s a long process and it will be difficult to have serious reforms without public participation,” she said.

At that juncture, Reed moved to amend Chavez’s motion to include a memo he’d written containing 35 recommendations. He called the four council womens’ proposal a “good elementary proposal,” but said it was only “partly cloudy with a few breaks of sunshine.”

“We need to look at it all,” he said. “We need to consider Sunshine Laws from San Francisco, Oakland, the League of Women Voters and others. We shouldn’t do this by half measures.”

Cortese then asked to add a couple of amendments to which Reed agreed. These included his earlier suggestion that all council memos for the weekly agenda be presented to the Rules Committee by 2 p.m. on Wednesday, as well as:

- The city attorney or task force enhance the process for San Jose and its city council for censure and reprimand to a civil grand jury to remove an elected official who has done something against the city charter.

- Report lobbyist fundraising actions within a 48-hour “real time” reporting period.

While Yeager supported Reed and Cortese, most of the others on the council felt that much of the information in the second motion and its amendments already had been discussed and defeated at previous meetings. Reed’s amendment was defeated by an 8-3 vote.