You know that the situation is a bad one when your choice is to give a contract to an indicted and decidedly unscrupulous garbage company, who has a reputation that smells to high heaven, or take the chance of garbage piling up in the driveways of San Jose’s residents. There is no good alternative.
How did we get here? There has to be some answers.
I will not take the time to recount the long and tawdry history that has resulted in the current legal problems for the garbage company, the mayor, and his top aide; they are too well known and too unfortunate to recite again ad nauseum. But what I will do is treat the failures of attention, analysis and judgment that resulted in this sorry spectacle—the lowest point in our modern municipal history.
Our form of government is based on many checks and balances. The San Jose City Charter provides most of them—aside from a good character—and foremost are a strong, principled mayor, an independent city manager and an informed city council. When any of these fail, there will be problems; if two fail: fiascos; and if all three fail: chaos and catastrophe. We have seen the failure of all three.
We know well the first problem; let’s take the second. In the past city manager, we had a person of some intelligence, but little backbone. He let down his staff, his profession, and the people of San Jose with no more than a backward glance. It is no wonder that the staff at City Hall greeted the new manager, Les White, like a condemned man greets a stay of execution. The system has to work like this: policy direction by the mayor and council and implementation by the professional staff. It’s simple when it works. In past times, the staff and manager would have had some recourse to the other council members when they had a problem, and those council members would speak out and stand strong on issues of principle. Yet, in these amazing and distasteful times, the council members have been either part of the problem, or a complete zero in any solution. Surely, we must do better.
There is hope. A new mayor will be elected soon. The first order of business should be a directive to all staff and council members to speak out, to follow their conscience, and become part of the very long journey to restore pride and integrity to city government. It is the right choice to make, but a journey where the first steps are the hardest.
Maybe concerned citizens should form a Scrutiny Committee to watchdog elected officials. Such a committee could expose questionable situations before they reach crisis situations. No doubt that newly elected council members and mayor will have their headaches with what’s left for them.
I say right on to that. But do any of them have the guts to speak out. They certainly didn’t under Gonzo, he had them totally intimadated. Why or how I’m not sure. think he would have hard time scaring a second grade class. Seems like the last few months of his term is lasting and eternity. Where will he end up I’m very curious. I’d say working for a garbage company would be my guess.
Mayor Tom,
Very good article and analysis. I would however like to add one other element to the checks and balances a free society needs – an aggress watchdog press. One of the fundamental reasons the constitution provides extraordinary freedom to our press is the need for their ability to print bad news.
You described how all of the branches of SJ government failed. Well, so did the Murky News. Yeah, there were a few articles hear and there but none of the hard hitting exposé’s that coulda/shoulda happened.
So, did Gonzo get to them like he purportedly got to the council? How’d he do that? I’d like to hear from the Murk how they let the ball drop.
Tom, wait. Our next mayor will be either the protege of the former mayor ora person whose leadership ability is in some doubt. Both are members of a clearly spineless and inept city council that sat by clueless while we spiraled downward as a city. What reaonable hope is there that these old dogs will learn new tricks?
I seriously hope I have misjudged this situation, but I see a holding pattern until someone emerges to run for mayor in four years. Too bad Dave Pandori hocked it all this time; he may not have the $$ to try again in four years.
This is beyond depressing; it’s totally pathetic.
If that new mayor is Cindy, it will be just so much lip service and that will be the extent of it Tom. I’m not so sure it would be too much different if Chuck got in.
How did we get to our current city government corruption crisis?
1) San Jose voters changed our form of city government from City Council – City Manager which previously had many checks and balances to a Strong Mayor who controls budget, who becomes City Manager and all Council, Commission and Board appointments which when a politically ambitious unburdened by conscience Mayor is elected results in
“power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Corrupt – is single word that describes our current San Jose city government
1. destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
2. To ruin morally; pervert.
3. To taint; contaminate.
4. To change the original form of
2) San Jose has many decades tradition of political back room deals, a few insiders and good old friends controlling our city government and a ” deal done” style of city government so the start of our corruption were already in place
3) Starting in mid 80’s, we electing less experienced Council members who were motiviated by political careers not community service and as each Mayor exercised greater political control new Council members did not understand they could push back and city staff who understood Mayor controlled City Manager and Council gradually gave up fighting battles they could not win and kept quiet, retired or left
“Never pick a fight, you know you cannot win”
4) Gonzales was elected with Silicon Valley hitech money and his dad’s labor support and he appointed like minded senior staffers “Obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience” who saw a potential state or national political future and quickly replaced or forced out Commission members, Department heads or city staff who questioned any of Mayor’s decisions or directions
5) Joe Guerra before Gonzales election wrote “Two things I can assure you both,” Guerra promises. “First is I am Old World Italian … and I don’t forget anything. Second, next year there will be zero tolerance for staff in either the administration or the Agency who do not follow council direction. To be honest, I am not angry about all this,” “just keeping my list and checking it twice.”
The Mayor controlled city government and It was only a matter of time before absolute power and political ambitions of Mayor and his senior staffers, inexperienced political careerist Council members who ” went along to get a long” to further their political careers and a fearful city staff unwilling to object resulted in our city government becoming absolutely corrupted. Many city public policies and spending decisions were made for Mayor’s political purposes until numerous abuses reached the level that indictments were issued
Why you are surprised about the consistent history of corruption of all Strong Mayor city governments?
A new Mayor will not solve or fix our corrupted San Jose city government many additional solutions are needed to fix decades of corruption of our City Council / City Manager form of city government and make it actually accountable to the public
#5 JMO I couldn’t agree more. November is an exercise in futility with the choices we have. This election stinks on ice.
Fire. Ready. Aim.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/norcal/15339390.htm
Any chance of San Jose getting annexed by a neighboring community with city mgmt that knows how?
Kudos to Rich for predicting this one several months ago.
Looks like Cindy must have gotten the results of a new poll. She seems to have changed direction in her campaign of futility. Now she wants us to “help her fight for safe healthy neighborhoods, a fiscally responsible City Hall, and a “Greener” San Jose.” It’s a little late for her to start fighting for a fiscally responsible City Hall since she did so much to make it fiscally irresponsible. And since when has she done anything “green?” Looks like she has dropped the idea of also being superintendent of schools. Stay tuned for the next poll so we can learn what her next campaign platform will be.
We should also thank her for her leadership in helping to get us into the garbage mess. Can’t wait to pay more for worse service.
As much as I detested Borgsdorf’s submissive brand of “helmsmanship,” we’re kidding ourselves here if we dismiss his flawed performance as isolated or unique. Borgsdorf’s strategy of trading the rules and responsibilities of his position for job security represents what has become the state-of-the-art in government. His ability to genuflect when necessary was not only the reason he was hired, it is a minimum requirement in the résumé of any top-level manager.
Think not? Name a big-city manager, city attorney, or police chief who has proven him/herself unwilling to violate their oath in the face of controversy or political pressure. Borgsdorf took his hit for ignoring contract safeguards, leaving us taxpayers with the task of making good a blank check written in a back room. He would have been better off had he instead violated a rule likely to be ignored by the media, you know, something like unlawfully discriminating against white male employees, granting illegal benefits to gay couples, ignoring blatant minority criminality, or illegally funneling taxpayer dollars to minority groups.
After endless calls from the misguided public that rules be bent or broken “just this once to help those people,” we have no more right to blame government officials for moral weakness than we do for their lot having lost its spines to natural selection.
Ah, Finfan. You almost had us going there, thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. But, then you just had to veer off course and crash and burn.
Lets ignore your racial diatribe and just focus on the spineless former city manager. Borgsdorf was a special breed—one who was willing to sellout himself and the city he worked for. That is not a common trait in most city managers—be it a big-city or a little-city that they manage. Most are professionals who believe in candor and support their staffs. Borgsdorf believed in neither. He violated most established codes of ethics and professional conduct. Most city managers do not do this.
So, don’t paint with such a broad brush. Go after those who have betrayed the public trust and let the others go about doing their jobs in the professional manner they are accustomed to.
#11 ansd 12:
Borgsdorf got off easy. After five years of supine service, he became fully vested in the City’s retirement system and is receiving a pension from the taxpayers for the rest of his life.
Borgsdorf was able to quickly assess the situation, determine the Mayor wanted to go “national”, eliminated any professional staff opposition to Ronzo’s ambitions and kept the rest of the City Council in the dark.
It’s hard to be an assertive City Council member when Borgsdorf and Mayor’s staff controlled all of the facts of any issue.
The next Mayor and City Council need to demand from the City Manager and senior staff (1) all of the critical facts, (2) sound analysis, and (3) a well considered recommendation.
We’ve missed this kind of professionalism in the last 7 1/2 years. Sadly, the taxpayers will pay dearly for these past mistakes.
Dear Mayor Tom:
“How did we get here?” The answer is very simple: Corrupt leaders, an undedicated press, and an apathetic citizenry.
1) There really are little or no standards when it comes to the current administration. Never mind the indictment…the mayor kept the truth from the public and his colleagues on a deal that cost taxpayers an extra 11 million dollars. In the private sector, one would be removed from a position of authority instantly.
2) The Mercury News has looked the other way on a number of major issues. To this day, the paper has failed to report on the FACT that the authors of the alternative sites study for the new city hall assigned the high costs of the Meier designed building to their “analysis” of the existing city hall site. If an “honest” report had been produced, two Sobrato-like towers could have been built for $200 million. The city would have excess capacity and a surplus of funds that could have been used to pave the roads and keep the community centers staffed. (How could a big city newspaper fail to report on such a crucial piece of information, and why do the continue to refuse to print an op-ed piece that provides these details?)
3) Most of the people of San Jose are more consumers than citizens.
Pete Campbell
I don’t disagree with Tom that it the way it should work in a perfect world.
But the world and certainly San Jose, is not perfect. The current City Manager Form of gvoernment is a hybrid, giving the Mayor more power than individual Councilmembers, at the sametime limiting the power of the Mayor to be chief executive.
The increased powers for Mayor came during Tom’s stint as Mayor and the changes were good for the community. As we have district councilmembers only the Mayor is elected by the City at large.
Both San Francisco and Oakland have strong Mayor forms of government. I advocate strongly for that type of system. The citizens of San Jose did not elect Del and they had no say in Les.
Both Del and Les owe their jobs to keeping 6 people on the Council happy at all times. It normally includes keeping the most powerful politician, the Mayor, happy. This was no different during Tom’s tenure.
But a strong, competent Mayor—as there is in San Francisco and Oakland allows for better and more streamlined decision making. Even in San Francisco where politics borders on the macabre, Gavin Newsome is able to make decsions—that’s why he can get the stem cell research center, negotiate with and for a major league team, assure businesses and negatiate contracts.
His credibility is without question. When our Mayor gives assurances, negotiates or makes stone.
Our Mayor can speak, but his assurances are always limited by his ability to get the bureaucracy to act and a majority of elected officals egos massaged. Nor can a City Manager negotiate, give assurances or play the role of a decision maker, unless he can convince a majority of the Council, especially the Mayor.
City Manager forms of government belong to small entities where the Coucil’s are part-time. Big time Cities need a big time Mayor.
To those critics who would say they don’t want “Ron” as a strong Mayor. In any system, as Tom pointed out, it is the quality of the individuals who make the difference.
But I would certainly have put this power into the hands of Norm Mineta, Janet Gray, Tom, and especially, Susan Hammer. Imagine how much more they would have accomplished as Mayor.
I think it takes a long to time to change the “climate” of any company and City Hall is no different. But it comes from the top down and we shall see who that top person is come November…
RR,
San Francisco had Willie Brown who as Mayor presided over a hugely corrupt organization. Checks and balances with an independent City Manager is the best defense against this type of abuse of power.
#5 JMO
Amen to that!
#15
Especially Susan Hammer? Where did she shine brighter than Tom?
Rich (#15);
I agree. The quality of the individual makes the difference in any important position, particularly a mayor of a city like San Jose. Unfortunately for us as citizens, Ron displayed an odd combination of arrogance and ignorance. The 2002 re-election of Gonzales was the result of voter apathy, media laziness and business interests that failed to consider the long term.
#15, 20-
I agree that a bad individual makes all the difference.
But you write rules for the bad apples. They will come along now and again, and it’s best if the system limits their ability to do damage.
It would be naive to write rules that work best for boy scouts. The Willie Browns of the world would take us to the cleaners.
Custodian, #22:
… and Gonzo was the first Hispanic Mayor in 150 years!!
Under the “leadership” of Gonzo, the City of San Jose sure has a pitiful track record in reflecting the diversity of it’s own community.
Custodian,
Though you obviously consider yourself not “race conscious,” I suggest you reflect on this: I complained that government discriminated against white males, a class of applicants/employees identifiable by two distinct characteristics: their race and gender. Yet, in your attempt to refute my post, you repeatedly cite high-level positions held by white females, revealing either a failure of comprehension or, more likely, a race consciousness of your own.
A white is a white is a white. Is that it?
I don’t know how you can mistake the presence, or even predominance, of one group (or race, your standard) of people at the top-level of an organization as evidence of anything. Do you argue that it can prove fairness or favoritism? If so, what does the presence of so many Canadians on our local hockey team prove? Or the disproportionate number of Jews awarded Nobel Prizes?
Unlike your observations, my “data” is based upon monitoring three decades of that dogmatic, racist experiment known as affirmative action. My data consists of Civil Service hiring and promotional lists documenting government organizations ignoring standards and testing of their own creation for no other reason but to feed the voracious appetite of the affirmative action malignancy. I’ve seen the scores, read the names, and met many of those white males vanquished to the back of the bus by racist egalitarians. My data consists of real people who played by the rules, labored to make the grade, and were tossed aside by administrators who view themselves as virtuous.
Tell me, Custodian, if you consider it okay to discriminate against white males to help out your favorite groups, how would you feel if others discriminated against _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s to help out their favorites?
Custodian #22 informs us of how many assistant directors and deputy directors there are in numerous departments. Lots of chiefs and not enough indians. Fire a couple of deputy directors in Parks & Rec. and maybe we could hire a dozen or so more people who actually worked in the parks.
#19, I know. Where does Hammer come off as better than Tom?
If Rich likes what Hammer accomplished then I need to grab myself a Great Dane and take it for a walk on his front lawn.
Re: #11, “unlawfully discriminating against white male employees”
?
Del Borgsdorf had an Assistant City Manager and four Deputies during most of his term. That group included one white female and one Asian-American male. Borgsdorf and the other three were white males. Other senior and executive staff in the Manager’s Office were also mostly white males: the Budget Director, the Economic Development Director, the Public Information Manager, the CIP Team Leader, and the QUEST Manager. There were three white women: the Director of Intergovernmental Relations and the Managers of Emergency Services and Customer Service. The only minority staffer, an Hispanic male, was the Director of Employee Relations.
Not much has changed yet. The Manager and two of the white male Deputies are gone, replaced by two white males and one Hispanic (I think) female. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cityManager/staff.asp
[Some of the following is based on surnames and photos, rather than personal knowledge of senior staff genealogies.]
The City Council appoints four other people, who do not report to the City Manager—they all appear to be Anglo: the City Attorney (white male), the City Auditor (white male); the City Clerk (white female); and the Independent Police Auditor (white female).
The Director of the Redevelopment Agency is a also a white male, as are two of his deputies. The fourth is an Hispanic male.
The Director of Aviation is a white male. His senior staff includes five white males, one white female, one Hispanic female, and one Hispanic male.
The Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement was a white male. His four deputies are all white—three males and one female.
The Environmental Services Department under Borgsdorf had a white male Director, a white male Assistant Director (now the Director), and three white male Deputy Directors. Currently, there are five acting Deputies, including three white females, and two white males (one of whom would be considered a minority by people who are _very_ concerned about race, but he is not in one of the races that is a “protected class.”)
Finance: the Director is a white male; two white male deputies; one white female; unsure about the fourth.
Housing: the Director is a white female; the Assistant Director is a white male.
Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services: the Director was a white female; the Acting Director (I think) and two of the deputies are white males; the other deputy is (I think) a white female.
Transportation: the Director is a white male; the Assistant Director and at least two of the three Deputies are white males.
I’m not too sure about the rest of the departments. Perhaps some race-conscious posters have their own data to back up their claims?
Susan Hammer just rode Tom’s coat tails on his ideas and took credit for them once he was out of office. By the time it came to her own ideas she was lost. Talk about a tried and true party line democrat…. remember how she tried to take the nativity scene out of Christmas in the Park?
This was not a dis of Tom. Susan governed under different circumstances. Why must Tom always be better than Susan or vis versa.
Both were great Mayors.
As for Willie Brown, you may not llike him. But anyone in government who worked with him will tell you he is very intelligent and knew how to get things done—legally.
And when he told you something would happen, you could take it to the bank. He made it happen. Though, despite his legend, he did not do it very often.
He is not unethical, the people who know him best are tremendously loyal to him and that says more about him than anythihg else.
He does have the curse of telling people the truth they don’t want to hear, which, of course, is politically incorrect and makes him unpopular in some circles.
Personally, I think it is refreshing. . .in addition he always took responsibility for his own statements and never hid behind a monicker.
#28 RR
You were the one in #15 that put the “especially” before Susan Hammer.
I just wanted to know why.
RR# 28: In describing Willie Brown you stated: “the people who know him best are tremendously loyal to him and that says more about him than anything else.” The same could be said of Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot. Richie, I thought you were brighter than that.
I should have been more clear, people I respect are loyal to Willie Brown.
Certainly there are people who are loyal to GWB, Hitler et al, but I don’t respect them, nor has Hitler or GWB done anything to earn that loyalty.
My friends can give you chapter and verse regarding Willie Brown. If you listen to him on the radio, as I do on 960 the Quake, he makes a ton of sense.
.
Oh No (#12),
Sorry if you find my brush too broad but, unlike you, I refuse to ignore the willingness of city managers everywhere to continue to hire and promote according to race and gender despite legal prohibitions. Though many, perhaps even you, find it easy to justify special treatment when it favors minorities and females, I’m simply unable to ignore the plight of those victimized by favoritism of any kind, and consider the practice destructive and indefensible.
#15. Rich- Del may have “owed his job to keeping 6 people on the council happy” but I get the feeling Les could give a flying fig if the Council is happy. In fact, I suspect the Council is more interested in keeping Les happy. He was hired to clean up their mess, and they need him more than he needs the Council!
Yes, but the Wllie you hear now is not the Willie that was in SF or Sacto. Now that he has no office, he is a different person.
I listen to Willie Brown every morning on the Quake and not having a bias for or against him before I started listening (I didn’t live here when he was Mayor), I find him to be extremlely intelligent, very well read, and usually right on the money when he talks about what people are thinking and what will happen. And he is not afraid to say what he thinks. I find him very refreshing.
Willie floated lots of big ideas when he was mayor like turning Market st into a carless promenade that never happened.
He promoted the building of lots of ugly wanna-be lofts without adequate parking under the lie that they were for “artists” so no parking was required.
He did nothing about the homeless problem that just festered until Newsom came into office. He talked big about a public/private partnership to restore GG park that never got off the ground.
Oh, and lets not forget his plan to bottle Hetch Hetchy water.
And, it is well documented that he brought in cronies who raped the taxpayers. This is not to mention the shady development projects in Sacramento where he put in nothing and walked away with multi-millions. This was all documented in the SF Weekly.
He is however a very smart and charming con man and crook. Smart enough to make sure that those close to him walked off with enough loot that they sing his praises.