May 25, 2017
Santa Clara News

I attended the Santa Clara City Council meeting on April 16 to observe the curfew discussion regarding the 49ers stadium. From my ten years on the San Jose city council, I am keenly aware of the importance of curfews for places such as the airport, food/alcohol establishments, and sports and concert venues, and the impact they can have on adjacent neighborhoods.

Whether we as individuals agree or disagree with an established curfew, it was passed by a majority of council members and is, therefore, a rule that must be followed. I agreed with this decision back in January when it was last discussed. If this policy goes unchanged, and all other things being equal as far as the duration of concerts goes, then major performances should be scheduled for the weekend nights only.

Given the importance of this issue, I was surprised that the 49ers did not send a representative, and that not all councilmembers attended the meeting. I enjoyed watching the discussion unfold, and felt that Mayor Lisa Gillmor and the council majority exercised very sound judgment in delivering an outcome that is in the best interest of a majority of Santa Clara residents. I agreed with the council majority in their 4-2 vote that will put the 49ers on notice that future breaches in contract will not go unnoticed.

-Pierluigi Oliverio

The League of Women Voters – Fremont-Newark – Union City hosted a candidate’s forum on May 6th, and Fremont City Hall.  Click HERE or image below to view it.

Parents of All Political Stripes Agree

The Sunday Internal Affairs column listed an incorrect dollar amount regarding the costs associated with implementing software restricting access to pornography on the children’s computers in our libraries. To be clear, there are three sets of computers in libraries: adults’, teenagers’, and children’s. Back in 2009, the cost to implement porn filters for both the teen and children’s computers was $89,900. The cost for just the children’s computers was half that, or $45,000. Community members even offered to donate the money to pay for the software. Nonetheless, the proposal was rejected by the city council, except Mayor Reed, Pete Constant, and myself. Fortunately, our new library director, Jill Bourne, views this as an important safety measure, and will implement this protection for children without city council approval. It’s not about the money, just common sense. No parent I know approves of unrestricted access to pornography for children.

Pierluigi Oliverio

Every election campaign is the same. Same big money  from out of town, same special interest groups, and the same variety of falsehoods that range from the amusing to the absurd. The election for Mayor of San Jose will bring much of the same, and candidates will promise the world on a silver platter, and have you believe that they are personally responsible for raising the sun and hanging the moon. The words “I” and “Me” will be used often, as some candidates seem to believe they have a monopoly on good ideas, even though this is never the case. The Mayor and City Council form a legislative body, and good ideas come from all of their members, with collaboration and cooperation often producing the best results.

Sometimes, however, inappropriate ideas that are not worthy of our time and attention, such as issues that require the discussion and debate of foreign policy, are brought forward by my council colleagues. This is a source of great frustration for me.  The city council is not the United Nations or the congress, and has a limited ability to influence international policy or coerce foreign leaders into heeding our advice, no matter how noble the cause or intention.  Instead, we should focus our time and efforts in a laser-like fashion on improving neighborhoods and the quality of life of San Jose residents.  Making sure that potholes get fixed and sewer systems function properly may not be as sexy as telling a foreign country what to do, but if elected your next mayor, I would choose to prioritize issues that have the greatest LOCAL impact.

Often times posturing on these issues is common for those seeking a career in politics.  I strongly believe that these futile discussions would not happen if the general public were watching, as city elected officials would run the risk of embarrassing themselves in front of their constituents at the mere mention of items beyond the purview of city government.  Citizens of San Jose must be given increased ability to bring issues of local importance forward, and to encourage this, I believe we need to move city council meetings to the evening.

Most San Jose residents typically lead very busy lives, working during the day and tending to household and family needs well into the afternoon. Thus, the ability to attend a daytime San Jose City Council meeting is limited. While meetings are ostensibly “for the public,” many of those in attendance at daytime council meetings are lobbyists or other paid representatives of special interest groups. I proposed moving meetings to the evening back in 2012, however this concept did not receive backing from the city council. Some of my council colleagues seemed to think that the average citizen has little interest in the topics discussed during these daytime council meetings, but I beg to differ.  Making sure your voice is heard is one of the single most important ways that residents can shape the future of San Jose. When citizens speak before a legislative body such as the a city council it helps elevate and prioritize the issues that are most important.

Another way for San Jose to offer influence and greater transparency to its residents is to conduct union negotiations as public meetings.  By opening up the meetings to public attendance, it would allow taxpayers, employees and the media to see what is going on first hand.  This would be a huge step in the right direction for greater transparency in governance. The current closed door process is costly in terms of time and money, and contributes to misinformation, which then results in ill will and animosity all around.  Why continue with the same process that drives people nuts? Public negotiations would open up the process so that we could avoid posturing, brinkmanship and emotional pain. This would help restore trust for those who have become disillusioned. I believe it is important.

Continuing on the transparency theme, I believe the city could also do a better job of displaying its finances in real time. As the situation exists today, you can drudge through hundreds of pages online in search of the one aspect that interests you. It is not user friendly. It could, however, be as easy as online banking. Residents could have access to a dashboard, where they could see account balances and monitor how they ebb and flow with each expenditure, just as they do with a household budget.

These are just a few common sense ideas about how we can construct local government to serve residents better. If you found this article thought provoking, I invite you to review over 300 others articles I have written at www.FromHereForUs.com. You may search the articles by topic, and read only those that interest you.

I have extended this quest for greater transparency to my own campaign by not accepting endorsements from corporations, labor unions, special interest groups or former elected officials turned lobbyists

In my conversations with commercial developers, business owners, and those that would simply like to see more high-quality jobs, the most common complaint is that San Jose is a difficult city for conducting business. Our permit process is cumbersome, approval periods are unnecessarily long, and the amount of risk assumed by developers it too great. This is nothing new. Time and time again, previous administrations have formed exploratory committees focused on creating a planning department that is more nimble, responsive, and streamlined. So far, these efforts have produced zero tangible results.  The backlog of pending development projects continues to grow, and the cost of this inefficiency is forgone economic growth for our city.  I feel that a bold move may be required to disrupt the status quo, and it rests with a slight modification to the powers of the mayor.

San Jose has as a “city manager” form of government.  Elsewhere, the “strong mayor” form of government prevails. Some find the distinction confusing. Many residents believe that the mayor is the boss, which is really not the case in San Jose. In actuality, the mayor, who is the only official elected citywide, is merely one vote out of 11 on the City Council.

In a city manager form of government, a career administrator (the City Manager) implements policy from the elected body. The specifics on implementation and responsibility of overseeing personnel also sit with the city manager.

In strong mayor cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, the mayor has the authority to hire and fire department heads, including the Chief of Police. Political insiders have discussed changing our government structure to the strong mayor variety. Instead of a complete change in our city’s governance, however, I would propose an incremental modification.

In this hybrid solution, the city manager form stays intact, but the mayor is granted the authority to hire and fire only the director of the planning department.  Why just the planning director? Simply put, of all the positions that serve at the pleasure of the chief administrator, the planning director is perhaps most closely linked to future economic development. If the mayor could hire and fire this individual at will, and if the planning director was at risk of losing their job if deemed ineffective, then chances are good that improvement efforts would move forward expeditiously. The planning logjam would be broken, and greater economic development would ensue. As more employers set up shop in San Jose, job opportunities would multiply, and a higher tax base would result.  With this proposed change, the mayor would ultimately be judged not only on their own performance, but also on the success or failure of their hand-picked planning director.

(reprinted from the Silicon Valley Business Journal)

The front-page article about “reuse” staffing a community centers in the Dec 13 issue of the The Resident, indicated that I was the only vote opposed to the return of the facilities being run by the city.

However, the article did not explain the cost savings we are walking away from by doing this, and thus why I voted no.

“Reuse” has allowed the city of San Jose to keep community centers open to the public by partnering with nonprofits that provide services onsite. Partnering with organizations such as the Boys & Girls club saves the city approximately $5 million a year. This cost savings can be allocated to city services like police and libraries. If we go back to business as usual, with city staff running these centers and removing the nonprofits, it would require a reduction in spending by approximately $5 million from core city services.

The City Council is constantly faced with policy decisions that have a future and direct impact on the budget. I consistently vote in a manner that saves money, thus allowing the opportunity to prioritize police, since law enforcement services cannot be duplicated by a nonprofit.