August 10, 2006

Questions surround City Council’s proposal
for outside employment restrictions

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

Last June, Mayor Ron Gonzales and Councilmembers Nancy Pyle and Forrest Williams recommended an amendment restricting outside employment and council salaries.

The recommendation indicated that council members should have no outside work or compensation. However, when the amendment was brought up at Tuesday’s meeting, things had changed.

Following a memo from Ken Yeager, Dave Cortese, and Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez, where the three said the earlier memo was too restrictive, the council voted 6-5 to direct the city attorney’s office to develop amendments for council members to disclose time spent on a weekly basis for any paid outside activities and what such activities are.

Councilmembers Linda LeZotte and Judy Chirco derided the idea saying it was nothing more than busy work and an invasion of privacy. Along with several other council members, the two noted they already fill out required forms that take up a good deal of their time, so why should they add to their already full workloads with more paperwork.

“What does it matter whether I am writing checks for our family business or taking a bubble bath in my free time,” Chirco said. “It’s an invasion of my privacy.”

“It’s a paper chase,” said LeZotte. “I’m on duty all the time. And now I have to report what I’m doing in my spare time. I don’t see why that’s anyone’s concern. It’s just paperwork for no reason.”

“Even more worrisome, this type of amendment will discourage small business people from serving on the City Council,” said Councilman Chuck Reed. ”It will be hard to find talented and competent people to run for city office,” he added.

“I think it’s a bad solution for a non-problem,” added Reed. “Form 700 is designated for disclosure…outside travel, pro bono work, political activities and so forth. Council members are doing more than 40 hours of work per week plus other work.”

The public also was clearly confused. Most expected the proposal to discuss employment outside the council.

Bob Hines from the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce said he expected to discuss outside employment. He noted that outside employment has “not been a problem before. It’s already hard to attract good people… This idea is intrusive, client lists are confidential.”

Former mayoral candidate and local businessman Michael Mulcahy commended LeZotte for “exposing this confusion. I don’t buy the basis,” he said. “You’re setting up to control the candidate pool instead of expanding it. It conflicts with the fundamental rights of those who want to serve. The timing for this is very interesting.”

But it was newly elected Councilmember Peter Constant, who will begin his term in January, who spoke most eloquently. “Why are you limiting outside work, when everyone who was running for an office took time off for the primary election,” he said. “I take Little League pictures. If I spend a Saturday taking 10,000 pictures, at $10 per player, do I have to report every kid who paid me $10? What about someone who owns a 7-11, does he have to report each and every candy bar he sells?”

Constant told the Times that if the amendment passed prior to his run for District 1, “I most likely would not have run. I have five kids; I’m working on a degree.

“I think the intent of the ordinance doesn’t match what [the City Council] is trying to do. They are creating a solution that doesn’t address a problem and a problem where there was no problem.”

Prior to voting on the Yeager, Cortese, and Chavez recommendation, LeZotte made a substitute motion that the council defer the entire discussion, except for the salary option, until January when a new administration takes over. However, the motion failed by a vote of 7-4.

When the Yeager, Cortese, Chavez memo came up for a vote, it squeaked by, passing 6-5 with LeZotte, Chirco, Reed, Pyle and Nguyen voting against it.

Part A of the memo, to defer consideration of proposed amendments relating to restrictions on outside employment and council member salary setting to be included as part of a broader future review of the City Charter, brought only limited discussion. Most of the council members were in agreement that they should not determine their own salaries, but were waiting for the Sunshine Task Force to make its recommendations.