Charter Review Commissioner Provides Perspective on How a City Process Went Astray
San Jose resident Tobin Gilman joined SJ's Charter Review Commission to explore mayoral powers and election cycles. He ended up participating in a case study on how progressives hijack city boards and commissions to advance a radical agenda. In an exclusive Opp Now interview, Gilman provides his perspective on how it happened.
Opportunity Now: Most everybody thought the Charter Review Commission was tasked to study two things: mayoral powers and the mayoral election calendar. Instead, the Commission came back with 12 recommendations that elevate progressive wish list items to city charter commitments and policy direction, such as:
A climate action committee
Equity assessments driving all city programs
Native Land Acknowledgements
A Police Commission
Using gender-inclusive language
Privileging nonprofits in the housing market
These topics have nothing to do with commonly understood city charter responsibilities and are redundant with other activities already taking place in city hall. What the heck happened?
Tobin Gilman: When the Charter Review Commission was convened, it was given guidance in a memo authored by Vice Mayor Chappie Jones to focus on three things: mayoral powers, the election cycle and--pay attention here--"consideration of additional measures and charter amendments as needed that will improve accountability, representation, and inclusion in San Jose City Hall." I should note that I was appointed about halfway through the CRC process as a replacement for someone who dropped off the commission. Much of the subcommittee research on mayoral powers and election cycles had been completed by the time I joined.
ON: Let me guess, what appeared to be a boilerplate, good government statement turned into a crack in the door that progressives drove a convoy of trucks through?
TG: Well, it's true the third, seemingly incidental directive became the biggest one. So, the extra recommendations were not technically off brief, but many were clearly beyond the spirit of what the commission was expected to do. The open-ended wording in the third bullet of the guidance memo invited what I consider to be extensive mission creep.
ON: So how did it look from the perspective of a commission member?
TG: I expected, and I think the council and general public as well, expected a robust analysis of the 2 main questions and detailed recommendations. While I’m not critical of the commission’s work on those issues, I was surprised at how quickly they moved through them and expanded the scope into multiple areas that had nothing to do with election cycles, mayoral powers, or even the City Charter itself.
ON: In retrospect, how could the council not anticipate that they were inviting a free-for-all?
TG: I can't speculate on the council’s thought process, but this was the City’s first charter review in about 35 years. I think many commissioners viewed it a chance to advance personal hot button agendas and an opportunity to facilitate major change. Remember that people apply to be commissioners. Applicants are then appointed by councilmembers and the mayor. So, the membership is skewed toward people who raise their hand and volunteer. It's usually not competitive because the pool of applicants is small. In any case, I believe a big lesson from this is that future charter review commissions need to have very precise directives on their scope of work.
ON: So, what happens next? Are all these progressive wish list items going to sail through?
TG: It's on the council to do the right thing. My guess is they will focus their attention on the top two agenda items the task force was asked to address. Some of the recommended charter amendments, particularly in the areas of ranked choice voting, policing, and climate change, are very complex and controversial. It’s hard to imagine the Council and staff completing the necessary work and gathering community input in time to place them on the ballot in 2022. Any recommendations the council accepts must be approved by voters. Cluttering the ballot with too many polarizing and complicated charter amendments could jeopardize the prospects of any of them passing.
ON: It's hard not to look at the process and be floored at how activists brazenly hijacked a bureaucratic procedure to advance their agenda. This does not feel like democracy.
TG: One of the things that really jumped out at me during the process was the huge amount distrust of institutions among commissioners and members of the public that provided comments. Distrust of the council, the mayor, the city manager, and the police. For example, at one point, City Manager McGuire wrote what I considered to be a friendly and helpful advisory memo alerting us to potential overlap with the work of another citizen committee. Some commissioners and members of the public took it as overreach and meddling. A similar memo authored by Vice Mayor Jones and Councilmember Jimenez garnered the same reactions among some folks. In another case, the commission discussed granting the mayor the power to declare a state of emergency. It presently rests with the city manager. The question was discussed in the context of the Coyote Creek flooding a few years ago, and the downtown protests and rioting during the summer of 2020. Ultimately no change was recommended, but there was an abundance of distrust expressed toward the city manager, the mayor, and the police department.
ON: So, when it comes to the mayoral powers and election cycle recommendations, what should people keep an eye out for?
TG: There is an interesting paradox between the election cycle recommendation and the mayoral powers recommendation. The commission recommended changing election cycle to increase voter participation. At the same time, they not only recommend against expanding mayoral powers, they actually recommend weakening it a bit more. So, if the council approves those recommendations, voters agree, and things work out as the CRC intended, we’ll have odd situation. More people will go to the polls to elect the weakest big city mayor in America.
ON: Final thoughts?
TG: I was extremely impressed by the professionalism and hard work of the Commission Chair, Fred Ferrer, City Clerk Toni Taber and staff member Megan Roche, and City Attorney Mark Vanni. I also appreciated the support and guidance the commission was given by City Manager McGuire, Vice Mayor Jones, and CM Jimenez.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.