☆ 7 reasons SJ's council appointment process crashed
Bad ideas often reveal themselves in time—and so it is with SJ City Council's rushed decision on 12.5.22 to appoint CM's to open seats, bypassing historic precedent and citizen rights for a district vote. In the six weeks since Council's poorly-crafted resolution was passed, what looked like a dubious idea has turned into a train wreck, as promises of transparency and competence have gone off the rails. The Opp Now team surveys the wreckage and the unsound nature of the appointment undertaking. An Opp Now exclusive.
7 reasons why SJCC's appointment process was flawed from the start:
1. The decision-making was rushed.
Although it was evident as far back as June 2022 (after primaries) that there might be empty seats on the Council, the issue never made it to the top of Council agenda. Instead, Council waited until the problem hit crisis stage: As a result, the December 5, 2022 vote, discussion, and process was rushed and incomplete, inviting the missteps that have occurred since then.
2. Nobody asked D8 and D10 voters what they preferred.
Perhaps the biggest howler in the process was the complete lack of outreach to citizens whose voting rights were being abridged. No surveys, no community meetings, no focus groups, no problem-solving seminars. Just a blunt, sweeping decision from seven councilmembers, the vast majority of whom don't even live in the impacted districts.
3. No time to effectively vet the candidates.
Within days of announcing the Council's finalists, local social media is awash in charges that might disqualify some of the candidates—or not. Because of the rushed time frame—unlike a normal election—there will not be enough time for CM's, media, or the public to explore the veracity of those charges thoroughly.
4. No transparency on how CM’s voted in Round 1.
While the memo advocating for the appointment process promised transparency, Round 1 more closely resembled a Star Chamber. Citizens don't know who their CM's voted for—or against—so they can't hold them accountable. Queries as to the legitimacy of these closed-door proceedings have City Hall bureaucrats claiming arcane legal support for stonewalling the public.
5. Deliberations, concerns, criteria—all hidden.
The Great Oz has spoken: Perhaps even more troubling, CM's and City Hall won't reveal their deliberations and discussions regarding their Round 1 vote, further supporting concerns that backroom deals are afoot.
6. Round 1 candidate positions haven't been made public.
The questions Council asked of Round 1 candidates were buried several clicks deep on the City Clerk's website. And—more importantly—how candidates answered is a mystery. As such, the council is effectively withholding from citizens what the candidates stood for.
7. No explanation of why certain candidates advanced, and others didn't.
In addition to playing keepaway with the criteria for their decision-making, the Council won't even provide applicants—nor citizens—with their reasoning for why some advanced, and others didn't. In addition to being profoundly discourteous to candidates who were rejected, this veiled selection procedure only produces skepticism on the part of the electorate, who ostensibly have ultimate authority of these determinations.