Santa Clara’s Agnews State Hospital served mentally ill patients from 1885 until 1977, when it was closed following the passage of the Lanterman Act.

A stranger attempting to lure a three year old away from the child’s older sister with candy is odd, not to mention, bold. For the stranger to then follow the two children into their home and try to pry the younger child from her mother’s arms is unbelievable.  Although this might sound like a nightmare, this scenario actually took place last week in San Jose. The stranger is a woman whom suffers from mental illness and was subsequently arrested.

We come in contact with people suffering from mental illness every day.  Many people who suffer from mental illness can function quite well under medication and psychiatric supervision. However, there are others with mental illness who are unable to function well or cannot fit in under societal norms because they experience delusions.  For example, some people who have bipolar disorder can function and be fully employed and provide shelter for themselves and family. On the other hand, people who suffer from schizophrenia are usually unable to work but may be fortunate enough to be cared for by family or perhaps in a group home. Unfortunately, many mentally ill people are homeless.

In 1963, Pres. John F. Kennedy sent a special message to Congress to replace mental institutions with foster-home services. At the state level, Gov. Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for the deinstitutionalisation of facilities for the mentally ill. In my view, their decisions have contributed to the lack of care for mentally ill people in our society and have caused many to become homeless. As a result, we see many mentally ill people living in parks and creek beds within our neighborhoods.

Mental illness is a complex issue and a difficult one for police departments to deal with on the street level.  On one hand, we want to help those who truly cannot help themselves, which includes individuals with mental illness. On the other hand, like in the example I stated above, when a crime is being committed and/or about to be committed, and a call for service comes from a resident who sees someone doing something “weird” or “threatening,” police respond. These calls are risky and may require the use of physical force by police and sometimes deadly force due to threatening behavior from the suspect towards police.

I believe that if we brought back institutions for the mentally ill that many of these encounters would not happen. I am well aware that there is a cost to provide these services, however, the cost of not providing them is higher since there is the cost for police, ambulance, increased public health care costs, etc… Personally, I feel tax revenues that go to people who truly cannot help themselves is a good use of our tax dollars.  (Similarly, I view Social Security as a tax that I pay for existing retirees with no expectation of actually receiving the benefit myself.)

What has replaced a centralized institution for those that suffer from mental illness are disparate group homes often run as a business where proper supervision is not provided.  These homes often upset neighbors with the occupants’ strange behaviors, like talking to themselves and personal appearance, in part since proper medical supervision is not provided.

Those that are truly mentally ill are not people we should throw away but rather the challenge is how do help them even though they may decline assistance? How can someone who is unable to reason coherently be able to opt out of assistance that could help them?

Understanding that this is a state/county issue, as with most everything else, it all rolls down hill to cities. I remember one of the reasons I voted for Al Gore in 2000 was that Tipper Gore, his wife at the time, was an advocate for the mentally ill. Also, this issue can put partisan politics aside when Republican Senator Pete Domenici and now deceased Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone collaborated on federal legislation regarding mental illness. The side story is that both Senators had a brother that suffered from mental illness.

This blog is an observation of where state policy does not provide for the needs of mentally ill people and as a result, puts undo pressure at the city level.

Last week, “the Feds” visited Pioneer High School to present an initiative collaborating with cities to prevent a terrorist action. They distributed a brochure titled “Building Communities of Trust.”

The Feds included the Department of Justice and the FBI. I attended to hear first-hand the details and the comments from attendees that were assembled. Most of the attendees represented various groups like the ACLU, South Bay Islamic Association, Little Saigon Foundation, Labor Unions, Silicon Valley DeBug, NAACP, local law enforcement and the San Jose Independent Police Auditor. Several of these groups are also on the police chief’s Community Advisory Board.

The Feds’ goal nationally is, if in the line of duty police observe suspicious behavior of a person or a group, the local police pass it on to the Feds. The idea is that if all cities participate than enough collected data on suspicious behavior might result in an analyst spotting a trend and thus investigating the behavior(s) further.

There were concerns raised about privacy and a possible police state. The fact is that our daily routines are already tracked and that data is sold to others. I am referring to all of our credit/debit card transactions where all of our transactions are data mined for what we buy including brand, where we buy and what time. This is a much more comprehensive collection of data than random observations from the police. The internet is another area where we have given up privacy.

There was also a concern from attendees that this data would be used for racial profiling. The Feds said that most of the data that comes in today does not even have a name associated with it and they are only gathering data about suspicious behaviors, whomever it involves.

Other concerns that were raised that all the presenters were Caucasian, followed by questions like: What is the redress procedure if incorrect observations are made of an individual? Will there be sensitivity training of police by race? Who has access to the data? Will this involve collection of data on minors?  How would they make sure that data collected does not end up of having disproportionate numbers from a certain race?

Cities do not have to participate so San Jose will have to decide whether or not it should opt in.

Do you think San Jose should opt in or opt out? An alternative might be using technology like 24/7 video surveillance of sensitive areas, as is done in other cities nationally and globally.

I think San Jose should participate, since data in a silo is less valuable than data that is aggregated and shared. Cities need help from the Feds on possible terrorist events since they are looking at the big picture, but the Feds need the eyes and ears of individuals to connect the dots. If cities are able to participate in other federal initiatives like affordable housing, environmental compliance and transportation requirements than certainly we should participate in avoiding a tragedy that could rock the local economy and individual freedom of movement. If a terrorist action can be avoided by simply passing on information about suspicious behavior we would be so fortunate.

At the June 21 Council meeting, a city employee (who was about to be laid off) spoke during the open forum section of the meeting.

“Thank you Mayor and Council. My name Michael Medlin. I am a resident of District 4. I quickly wanted to thank the City for the opportunity of working at city hall for the past 5.5 years. This is one of the highest levels an unarmed security officer without a Department of Defence clearance can achieve and I have enjoyed serving the both residents and employees of San Jose.

“To Councilman Oliverio, I sometimes raise my eyebrows and do double takes at some of your ideas but appreciate your out of the box thinking. I would simply ask that you continue your efforts to reevaluate the current seniority system to include performance evaluations.

“As I talk with many co-workers I sense the majority consider evaluations as a positive rather than a negative tool. In fact many have said the feedback on their performance has been helpful in them achieving exceptional status. The problems that council faces with our current deficits is truly unique and one question will always remain while others have been answered.

“How many of the city’s best and brightest will leave employment each year before we finally address this issue?

“It is time to level the playing field and send the message that bias and favoritism claims do not hold merit.” He ended with: “I thank your for your time and hope our paths will cross again.”

Michael’s testimony is a reminder that layoffs and step increases (salary increases) are done 100 percent based on seniority and zero about performance. Michael’s question is a good one in that many of our best and brightest are laid off through no fault of their own by simply getting hired a month after someone else.

What do you think?  Is it fair to lay off outstanding performers in any organization while others who may be burned out remain?

Back in July 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare independence from England and adopt the Declaration of Independence. However, there were several votes before the final vote that were not unanimous as some colonies voted no or chose to abstain.

Voting is an opportunity not everyone across the globe is afforded. We know that in close elections every vote counts. We also know that in our respective legislative bodies (at different levels of government) that each vote casted by an elected official has a magnified impact.

There have been many times throughout my elected tenure that I have casted the sole no vote. There was the time when I voted against spending $2.26 million dollars on golf nets for the already problematic golf courses the City owns.  Most recently I was the only vote against transferring Old City Hall to the County.  Other no votes included funding Mexican Heritage Plaza (again), raising residential recycling fees at a rate higher than inflation, labor contracts that tie the City’s hands, converting industrial land to housing, subsidizing Hayes Mansion or housing developments that do not pay property taxes yet require more services.

The City Council met on June 24 to discuss the mayor’s proposal on providing guidance on current negotiations for proposed ballot language and retirement reform. There were five councilmembers in support of the proposal put forward by the mayor and there were five against.

It came to me to cast the final vote. I could have supported the Mayor’s proposal, however, I needed the negotiations of such an important issue to be public. Negotiations really need to be made pubic, in my opinion, so that retirees, employees, residents, basically everyone, could see what is being said.

The largest union by membership, AFSCME-MEF, wanted negotiations to be public and I feel that the concept of public negotiations is good.  I attended most of the public negotiation sessions for our city attorney union and found the sessions extremely valuable to hear for myself what was being said. These meetings simply let any member of the public sit and listen. No speaking was allowed by members of the public, however they could observe.  This seemed to be a fair way of doing it instead of some suggestions like mandating that only certain members of the City Council could attend the negotiations and no members from the public, or that negotiations should be done during a council meeting which would possibly make council meetings last several days.

Issues of trust have been brought up and I feel public meetings would make those who feel there is a lack of trust be confronted with the reality of seeing for themselves what is said.

I asked that the motion on June 24 be amended to allow public negotiations for those unions that are open to having them conducted as a public meeting. The city cannot force a union to make the meeting public as they must offer.  We debated the topic for 45 minutes going back and forth. The first motion did not entertain making these meetings public if a union was open to it. The vote on the first motion was 5-6 no, which included myself voting no. After considerable discussion a final motion was made that allowed review of proposals for public negotiations. The proposals from the unions would be brought back to the Council for consideration. My preference was to automatically accept proposals that followed the city attorney union public meetings model however there was resistance on the council.

The final motion which included the opportunity for public negotiations passed on 6-5 vote, which included myself voting yes.

Sometimes a single vote can be symbolic and sometimes it can be the deciding factor. In either circumstance my votes are consistent.

San Jose’s old City Hall was given to the County of Santa Clara to settle a debt, under the threat of a lawsuit, at a time when both municipalities were experiencing serious financial stress.

As I have shared in prior blogs, issues that are discussed in closed session meetings are suppose to remain confidential until the City Attorney reports out at a public council meeting. Well, that is the way it is supposed to work anyway.

I have wondered how people associated with interest groups speak to issues that were discussed in closed session that have not been made public yet.  I will speak to that in another blog.

Votes that happen within closed session are not always unanimous. Just as in open session, councilmembers sometimes vote “yes” and sometimes vote “no.” Of course, since the voting takes place behind closed doors, the public does not know how the electeds vote. However, when the Council chooses to enter into litigation, or sometimes when a legal settlement is reached, the vote is reported out at public session.

At the June 21 Council meeting, the City Attorney publicly reported that the settlement with the County of Santa Clara and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was recorded and that the vote was 10-1 with Oliverio voting no. This is the settlement that involved Old City Hall being given to the County due to threatened litigation. In my view the City blinked by giving direction to settle.

To be fair, there was the chaos that RDA was going to end any day, and folks were thinking “how will the City survive?” The County, also fearing the end of RDA, wanted to get what it could before the governor terminated the RDA.  San Jose RDA has been paying the County each year, more money that any city RDA pays any county government in the state of California. There were some agreements reached with the County in the past so the RDA could borrow even more money. These terms carried in my opinion loan shark penalties if the RDA was unable to make the full payment—even with the situation of declining property values and thus less RDA tax increment revenue.

There is an old adage that when you owe the bank money the bank controls you, however when you owe the bank a lot of money you control the bank. This was my view of the relationship between the San Jose RDA and the County.  I felt we should pay what we could afford to pay at that moment but no more. Thus leaving a small portion of money for economic development, which helps both the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara with new private sector jobs, which increases cash flow in the local economy. Charity starts at home and we need to take care of San Jose first as the Old City Hall could have been sold to benefit the general fund.

In addition, the settlement put liens on 18 city properties, which if ever sold require the permission of the County, and probably require paying the County a portion of the proceeds of land sale. An unnecessary shackle for a future city council in making choices.

A new Grand Jury report says San Jose routinely over-deploys firetrucks, and suggests changes to current rules mandating four firefighters on every call.

In the past, I have written about how fire services are deployed in San Jose with an emphasis on the data that shows the overwhelming ratio of medical calls to actual fires. In addition, I have shared that San Jose’s minimum staffing contract requires four people per fire engine while every other city in the county requires three firefighters or less.

The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, which investigates waste, fraud and abuse, released its report last week on fire services in the county including San Jose. They found that “these agencies remain entrenched in old service and old cost structures” and that “taxpayers can no longer afford to fund the status quo.” The Grand Jury wanted to make a distinction from the 1970s by stating, “it is extremely important to separate the iconography of shiny red trucks and Dalmatians from the reality of today’s firefighting.” Inevitably all organizations need to change as the touch points that engage them change over time.

The Grand Jury interviewed all fire chiefs and public safety chiefs in Santa Clara County responsible for fire departments plus city managers. They, “generally agreed that fire department operations as currently configured are unsustainable.” Unsustainable in that, “it is common to see fire departments over-deploy multiple firefighting apparatus in response to non-life threatening emergencies, seemingly a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Each extra staffing position on a fire engine equals three police officers or approximately six librarians based on covering all the shifts in a month based on the historic 24-hour shift.

Restructuring fire services has zero to do with the actual fire department employee but everything to do with the allocation of resources based on demand and budget. Some of the interviewees described firefighting as “the best part-time job in America” and said “firefighters are paid for 23 hours of sitting around for one hour of work because that is how insurance works.”  Fair point on the insurance analogy but can this cost be maximized or do we want to increase our insurance premium for police instead?

Also from the report: “Fire departments can be more successful and cost-effective when fire chiefs have the latitude to assign and manage staff according to the situation.” San Jose does not have this latitude. Interviewees “describe union pressure to retain minimum-staffing contract clauses, also known as ‘entitlement operations.’ Yet Fire Chiefs pointed out that there are clear peak and low demands for service on any given day, day of the week or season of the year, such that a more flexible staffing model would make much more sense both administratively and economically. Those cities [like San Jose] with fire contracts mandating minimum staffing levels and crew size are at a disadvantage compared to those with the discretion to staff as needed.”  It would make sense to have more resources during peak demand time and less during non-peak demand time but not below a certain threshold.

The report also examined consolidation of fire departments across the county to reduce costs by cutting management while maintaining service levels. Consolidation would also look at sharing expensive fire equipment between cities, the cost of maintenance and personnel training.

I believe allowing fire chiefs more flexibility on minimum staffing and length of shifts would enable staffing per peak demand and at the same time produce costs saving for other city services like police.

Follow this link to review the Grand Jury report.

On a related note, council approved the ambulance contract with the County last week. State law give the County authority over the ambulance contract. Unfortunately our fire department will continue to respond to the jail for medical calls even though the jail has medical personnel on staff and it is the ambulance that actually transports the inmate to the hospital. This is totally unnecessary and an unnecessary risk to firefighters which I tried changing a few years back.

In addition, the San Jose Fire Department under the County contract will still have to respond to sprained-ankle calls. There is a re-opener on the contract which I hope will allow SJFD to stop responding to both the jail and minor injury calls.