Local Government Decision Making Discussion and Consensus April 2006
Last June, when League adopted this local study, we knew it was going to be a hot topic. And it is! How local governments make decisions and whether those decisions are made openly are indeed front-page topics.
The League study group has done its work and will be addressing four facets of decision-making through consensus questions. While the group focused on San Jose, we expect that a position resulting from the consensus would apply to local government jurisdictions generally. The exception is the section on balancing district and city-wide interests. Along with San Jose, a position on districts could apply as well to agencies and authorities where representation is by geographic district. School districts are another instance in which a position could be useful.
Recently support has grown for a Sunshine Law in San Jose, similar to ones adopted by cities across the state to ensure that governmental actions are open and above-board. These laws usually include provisions such as: staff reports and significant facts made public a specified number of days before meetings; a universal calendar of meetings; procedures for disclosing actions at closed meetings; and public access to all government records unless they are specifically exempted for good cause.
The Mercury News has proposed a Sunshine Law and our League is co-sponsoring it. Several neighborhood associations are supporting it as well. In addition, members of the San Jose City Council are proposing such laws. Our discussion will address how Sunshine Laws might/might not help the public be better informed and result in more transparent government.
Unlike some past studies, this one draws on our own experiences with local government, such as observing council and school board meetings, looking for information about agenda items or public policies, and contacting our local officials to let them know our opinions. Here is a brief rundown on the consensus questions and some background material.
.
CONSENSUS QUESTION #1: How can/should the public effectively participate in decision-making? How can/should the decision-makers generate public input? Evaluate public input?
Encouraging and exploring ways in which the public can and should participate in government decision-making is at the core of the mission of the League of Women Voters. It encourages informed and active participation of citizens in government and works to increase that participation through its advocacy for civil liberties, open government and the public's access to government information.
California legislation such as the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, as well as local charter and resolutions, provide for public notice of meetings, access to documents, and participation in local government. Local jurisdictions increasingly use websites to provide these types of information
However, public participation may be at its most visible, but be least effective, when it takes place at meetings of the councils or boards. Present and former San Jose city officials repeatedly pointed out that speaking at council meetings was "too little, too late". On the other hand, most formal procedures emphasize that this is the opportunity to speak and the means to let our opinions be heard.
To participate effectively, it is important to get involved long before an issue comes on the council meeting agenda. Council members said that they do listen to public input, but of necessity they come to council meetings prepared to make a decision. They and their staff do their homework, read the reports, look for constituents' opinions, get answers to questions, and form at least tentative decisions.
So the citizen participant should be part of that homework: contacting city staff for information, attending community and council committee meetings, and communicating with the district staff through email, phone calls and letters.
The discussion also will look at ways in which local governments can encourage and respond to public participation .
CONSENSUS QUESTION #2: What are the criteria/requirements for well-informed decision-making? For a well-informed public? How can these criteria be accomplished?
THE COUNCIL:
In interviews, council members said they relied on the following sources of information:
• city department staff and the council packets
• the City Manager and City Attorney
• committee meetings with other council members and city staff
• recommendations from the council person representing the district affected
• members of their own staff; some specialize in areas such as land use, planning
• lobbyists, who can provide information as well as advocate for their clients
• Constituents, through phone calls, email, contacts with their staff, neighborhood and community meetings
Persons other than San Jose council members commented on a lack of discussion at council meetings which contributes to the impression of ‘closed' governance or inattention to city-wide interests. While some felt that the Brown Act contributes to that, most said it was due to the mayor's leadership style and willingness to follow the lead of the district's council member. The frequent use of last-minute submission of agenda items and memos has raised concerns of by-passing notice and discouraging in-depth discussion.
THE PUBLIC:
For the average citizen who seldom is concerned with a specific governmental issue, finding information can be daunting, especially when so many discussions and decisions are made before the issue is heard at council meeting. All the persons interviewed emphasized that being well-informed involves tracking the issue as early as possible. This has been League's experience as well.
Sources of information include:
• websites where agendas and informational reports can be found, as well as basic information such as charter, ordinances, procedures and departmental functions.
• meeting handouts
• department and council staffs who may be contacted for questions or comments
• neighborhood and community meetings
• sub-committee meetings
• newspapers, local TV
The consensus discussion will involve members' opinions about these sources, which are the most important, and how the public, as advocates or information-seekers, can best use them. Are they adequate? Do you have suggestions for improvement?
CONSENSUS QUESTION #3: On what bases should decision-makers balance interests and resolve conflicts among competing interests?
In 1978 San Jose switched from a weak seven member council to a full-time ten-member districted council primarily to provide representation to the entire city and its minority populations. As a result, the council members concentrated on the needs and resources for their own districts, what some term ‘the pothole syndrome', and some became heavily involved in the details of planning and services. Another result was the practice of deferring to the district council person's position on issues relating to that district. In interviews, council members supported this practice on the basis of the local council person's familiarity with the issues, the difficulty, if not impossibility, of keeping up-to-date on all issues, and accountability to the residents. Outsiders and former council persons commented that the practice had a lot to do with ensuring support for one's own projects and positions, particularly in land use decisions, somewhere between back-scratching and vote-swapping.
The San Jose city charter designates the mayor as spokesperson for the city and its leader. Over time and until recently, the council seems to have looked to the mayor to formulate and express city-wide vision and priorities, just as they do for their own districts and, not unexpectedly, the mayors have been willing to see themselves in that light. Several interviewees commented that with this practice council members diminish their own influence as city leaders and visionaries.
The Mercury News describes the council members as ‘mini-mayors' wielding power over their districts, oftentimes with disregard for city interests. The description may be harsh. However, one might judge from some of the interviews that as council members assume responsibility for the districts and their constituents, their sense of responsibility toward the city's interests diminishes. Council members say they will intervene when decisions impact the city's interests. However there have been many instances when, as a former city manager commented, district interests have trumped city needs, particularly in land use and budget decisions.
What is your opinion on the way district needs and city interests are balanced, or unbalanced? What do you think should be the criteria for decision-making?
CONSENSUS QUESTION #4: What are the elements of open, transparent decision-making?
This question follows up on last year's local study on governmental ethics which resulted in a position that specifies and supports good practices and policies, that is, what should be. Interestingly, that year the San Jose City Council's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Ethics examined practices and policies and developed new ordinances to deal with issues such as lobbying, gifts, campaign contributions and a code of ethics. The council termed it a great leap forward; some observers think it did not leap high enough. Some wondered if the council was ready for a cultural change. (League members monitored the sessions and advocated for the relevant elements of the League's position.)
Thus this seemed to be a touchy subject for the council members and officials whom we interviewed for this study, asking them specifically about the quality of ethics in council decision-making. The consensus was that the district representatives are okay and can be trusted. Several thought that the Brown Act discouraged useful discussion. Some felt that there was insufficient discussion of issues at council meetings and would welcome more study sessions.
Outsiders and former council members and officials had a different take on the situation.
Several mentioned the increasing power of the development lobby and the significant increase in the number of lobbyists generally. They also mentioned the lack of significant, in-depth discussion, the frequency of decisions that ignored established policy, the unwillingness of some members to oppose the mayor, and acceding to demands for last-minute decisions. (League observers share many of these concerns.)
MAKING DECISIONS IN SAN JOSE How should it happen?
By Brenda McHenry
Of late, problems with San Jose City governance have been much in the news. The Mayor was censured by the Council; one Council member had to resign; and now both the City Manager and Planning Director have resigned (albeit voluntarily).
Coincidentally, last June our League approved a Local Study of Government Decision-Making. A study committee, focusing on the City of San Jose, has been hard at work these past months, studying and discussing documents like the City Charter, relevant ordinances, Brown Act literature, grand jury reports and much more. They examined videos of a council ethics training session and citizens' workshop on similar issues in Palo Alto.
In addition, a dozen or so persons were interviewed (the list is below). Each was conducted by a team of 2 or 3 committee members. All of this has resulted in a series of four consensus questions which were approved by the League Board.
The committee determined from the beginning that it would not try to investigate the "scandal-of-the-day", but rather would focus on basic principles of sound decision making. The goal is a League position that will serve as a springboard for action on City decision-making issues for many years.
What Happens Next: It's Your Turn
First, do your homework. Check out the consensus questions below, and start thinking. Next, attend the consensus meetings. There are two meetings on Tuesday, April 11. The morning meeting has social time from 9:30-10 and discussion from 10-12. Evening is 6:30-7 for social, 7-9 for discussion. Both sessions will be held at the home of Sharon Sweeney.Contact info@lwvsjsc.org for directions. Both meetings are best, one is okay, but you might miss something! And attend the annual meeting in June. The committee will digest and draw up a draft consensus, submit it to the board and then to you in the Annual Meeting kit. The vote will be taken at the annual meeting. Assuming you approve it, the position will be translated into action for years to come.
Consensus Questions
Public Participation
How can /should the public effectively participate in decision-making?
How can/should the decision-makers generate public input?
Evaluate public input?
Information
What are the criteria/requirements for a well-informed council?
For a well-informed public?
How can these criteria be accomplished?
Balancing Interests-Resolving Conflicts
On what bases should decision-makers balance interests and resolve conflicts among competing interests?
Open, Transparent Decision-Making
What are the elements of open, transparent decision-making?
List of Persons Interviewed
Del Borgsdorff, former City Manager
Judy Chirco, City Council member
Terry Christensen, SJSU professor
Peter Detwiler, State Senate Consultant on Local Government
Richard Doyle, City Attorney
Stephen Haase, former Planning Director
Trixie Johnson, former City Council member
Linda LeZotte, City Council member
Harry Mavrogenes, Redevelopment Director
Lee Price, City Clerk
Nancy Pyle, City Council member
Gary Schoennauer, former Planning Director
Les White, Interim City Manager
LWVSJ/SC believes that democratic government is a partnership between citizens and their government based on respect and trust. Democratic government is representative, accountable and responsive. It depends on the informed and active participation of its citizens. League believes that these principles must be protected and practiced at every level of government.
LWVSJ/SC encourages local governmental jurisdictions to adopt and support a mission statement for officials and staff that focuses on integrity and commitment to public service that forwards the goals of the government. The mission statement should include the duties to protect the people's right to know and to facilitate public participation in government decision-making.
LWVSJ/SC encourages local governmental jurisdictions to adopt a code of ethics to be practiced by elected and appointed officials and all employees. The code should set forth clearly the standards of behavior which the community can and should expect from their governments.
The code of ethics should promote behaviors and values such as these:
1. Development and exercise of leadership directed toward the goals of the government organization.
2. Decision-making that promotes the goals of the organization, not parochial interests.
3. Honesty and integrity in communications and decision-making.
4. Adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of laws pertaining to open government and the people's right to know.
5. Cooperation among the organization's sub-units.
6. Helpfulness and responsiveness to the members of the community.
7. Respect for colleagues, staff and members of the community.
The code of ethics should include methods of enforcements such as sanctions, reprimands, loss of seniority and budget restrictions.
Trust in government, confidence that those in office are attending to the people's business and welfare, is essential to democratic government. To a great degree, that trust is based on the openness and transparency of government, the people's right to know what is going on.
To promote the goal of open government, the LWVSJ/SC supports these practices:
1. Timely distribution of easily and readily accessible information about meetings, including agendas, background material, reports and other relevant documents.
2. Timely production and posting of minutes.
3. Clear delineations of lines of authority and responsibility.
4. Public meeting procedures that promote people's understanding.
5. Regulations that address the role and influence of lobbyists and consultants, including registration, disclosure of clients and fees and enforcement of the requirements through sanctions and penalties.
Democratic government is based on the people's engagement in the civic process: ready access, the opportunity as well as the freedom to speak, and the understanding of the process.
To promote the goal of public participation, the League supports these practices:
1. Clear explanation of the processes by which the people can address their concerns, express their opinions and take part in civic engagement.
2. Respect and attention to staff and persons who participate in government processes.
3. Cooperation and assistance for community members seeking advice or information.
4. Outreach that informs people of the importance of and opportunities for civic engagement.
Adopted: 2004
© Copyright
League of Women Voters of San Jose/Santa Clara, California. All rights reserved.
![[LWV]](images/lwv76.gif)
