Mayor And Ally Seemingly Don’t Understand City Manager’s Role

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.