Concerns by the mayor and her political cohort about how money from an infrastructure bond measure will be spent challenges the role of the city manager.
For months, the Santa Clara City Council has been discussing a bond measure to address its crumbling infrastructure. Time and again, at meeting after meeting, city employees have raised the alarm that Santa Clara has $600 million in “deferred maintenance,” government-speak for things the city should have fixed long ago.
So, the city was all but set to go out for a $598 million bond measure in November, essentially asking voters to pay for the improvements through a property tax hike. Consultants studied the issue at two different bond totals on two separate occasions, no less, and determined public support.
But, during the council’s July 9 meeting, in the eleventh hour, Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Kathy Watanabe pushed for a smaller, $400 million, measure, which passed. That discussion came on the heels of an editorial Gillmor and Watanabe penned for the blog Santa Clara News.
During the meeting, many referred to the article as an “op-ed.” Calling the editorial an “op-ed” is a bit misleading. That phrase — which is shorthand for “opposite” the “editorial” page — historically refers to the publication of views unaffiliated with a paper’s editorial board.
Given that Santa Clara News is a Gillmor-backed outlet, it is more accurate to characterize her as part of the editorial board.
In the editorial, the duo characterized the proposed bond as a “blank check.” They said plans as to how the money will be spent are “vague” and “meaningless,” arguing that “nothing is guaranteed to be built.”
“And ultimately, the City Manager can determine what gets built without the approval of the City Council or voters,” they wrote.
But, such decisions are typically under the purview of the city manager, calling into question whether the council minority understand what a city manager is supposed to do.
Restoring Public Trust
Support for the bond measure has been tenuous. Polling by consultants has shown that even making many assumptions — e.g., ignoring the surveys’ margin of error, assuming that “leaners” will vote “yes” — barely gets the supermajority needed for the measure to pass.
During their presentations, consultants who presented the polling results seemed to be hanging their hat on another proposed ballot measure that would reduce the threshold needed for bond measures to 55%.
Strife about how the money will be spent led to the council throwing cold water on the measure as prepared by city employees. Vice Mayor Anthony Becker said he felt “held hostage” by Gillmor and Watanabe’s concerns, saying he suspected that if the rest of the council didn’t support the change, the duo would embark on a campaign to torpedo the measure.
In their editorial, the council minority detailed where they want the money spent. The projects they call for illustrate that Gillmor and Watanabe clearly understand what those who support them want to see out of their government.
Most of the projects they outline dovetail with the sensibilities of constituents that support them, revealing the duo obviously have their finger on the pulse of their supporters.
For instance, they call for replacing fire stations and increasing police drone security. Both the police and fire unions have been steadfast supporters of Gillmor and Watanabe.
They call for renovations to public libraries and historic buildings, including the George Haines International Swim Center (ISC). Many members of Reclaiming Our Downtown are known council-minority supporters as is the Santa Clara Swim Club. Libraries have been a pet project for Watanabe even prior to her time on council.
What is at issue, they write, is the public’s trust in its government has eroded.
Delineating Between Transparency and Authority
And they are right.
At its priority setting session earlier this year, a community survey showed Santa Clarans are losing confidence in their elected leaders. Gillmor and Watanabe believe a bond measure with a lower cost and these projects earmarked will restore that trust.
Taking issue with the city manager’s authority seemingly misunderstands where the public’s skepticism lies. Even the most recent grand jury report — which the editorial also comments on — that is highly critical of council dynamics, praises the professionalism of city employees.
When now-fired City Manager Deanna Santana held the position, Gillmor and Watanabe regularly chastised their council colleagues for challenging her, often saying the council needed to “trust city staff.” Now that majority-appointed City Manager Jovan Grogan has replaced her, they suddenly have issues with the scope of the position’s authority.
Wanting to restore public trust in the government is laudable. Specificity in how tax money is spent goes a long way toward that goal. Still, the initial ballot measure didn’t empower the city manager to do anything that has traditionally been out of his purview.
Division Of Duties
According to the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the duties of city managers include “managing financial and human resources,” “overseeing the delivery of essential community services” and “planning strategically for community development.”
The ICMA further details the role of the city manager, writing his/her role also includes “preparing a comprehensive annual budget and capital improvement program and managing local government staff, budgets, programs, and projects” and “overseeing the delivery of local government services, which may include public works; police, fire, and public safety; planning and economic development; parks and recreation; libraries; youth services; resource recovery and recycling; sanitation; and utilities.”
Kevin Carter, writing for the ICMA, details this separation of duties.
“The council, as the other half of the council-manager form of government, is responsible for setting the political agenda, approving the budget, establishing tax rates, and voting on public policy,” Carter wrote in “Stereotypes in Council-Manager Governments.”
He continues: “… such a system of government (i.e., the council-manager form of government) is more efficient than the existing mayor-council form … modern council-manager advocates believe that separating the administrative duties of a city from the political process better serves the public.”
Setting policy on the language in the ballot measure, demanding more specificity and transparency, is fair game. But the council minority conflates their noble instinct with their role, calling into question why they waited so long to raise these concerns.
Such a tactic smacks of more of the same. They are doing exactly what the grand jury report — that both think is so important — accuses the council of: unfairly criticizing city employees who are just trying to do their job.
David,
.
I happen to think that the bond measure should have been for the amount of six hundred million. I also happen to think that this would not have passed by a two thirds majority or the fifty five percent that would be needed if the other proposition passes. I would not be surprised if Gillmor and Watanabe would have advocated against the earlier proposal but I would be surprised if it would have passed even with their support.
.
They understand the city manager’s role and you know that they do. Right or wrong they disagree with the city manager having the power to determine how six hundred or four hundred million is spent. And contrary to your insinuation that this is injecting politics into administrative duties the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars raised through increased property taxes is political. There is nothing more political than whether or not to raise taxes and how much to raise them and how to spend the revenue that is raised.
.
Your mention of former city manager Santana is deceptive comparison of apples to oranges. I do not remember Gillmor or Watanabe or anyone urging anyone to trust Santana to decide the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars raised through increased property taxes. If I am wrong in this then please correct me.
.
I hope that the allocations will be made in a balanced way. If there is more allocation to police and fire than seems balanced then I will oppose this bond measure or at least that plan for it. However while you write that Gillmor and Watanabe have their fingers on the pulse of their constituency in what seems to be a catty bit of editorializing I think that they probably have done everyone a favor at least in amending the bond measure so that it has a better chance of passing.
.
The way it was being shaped until they influenced a change the measure was going to fail as certainly as the measure to change selection of the police chief to a public vote was obviously going to fail. There is not only no point in putting forth a bond measure that will most likely fail it is worse because this wastes time and money.
.
We shall see. If the bond measure wins approval by a wide margin then maybe I will blame them for pushing for a decrease in the amount. If the bond measure wins approval by a narrow margin then I will credit them for changing the measure so that an infrastructure bond measure would pass. If the bond measure loses by any margin then the earlier plan would have lost by an even wider margin.
Rename the town Kings Town.