San Jose City Council
April 11, 2022

Final Report
of the
San José Charter
Review Commission
Friday, December 3rd, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Chair
6 Summary of Recommended Changes
9 Governance Structure
9 Charter Recommendations
9 Voting & Elections
9 Charter Recommendations
9 Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
10 Charter Recommendations
10 Policy Recommendations
13 Signature Page
14 Charter Review Commission Overview
15 Introduction to the Charter Review Commission
15 Charter Review Commission Members
15 Commission Roster
16 Commission Directives
16 Approach
17 Recommendations and Ad Hoc Subcommittee Process
18 Recommendations Process
18 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Process
19 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Structure, Topics & Assignments
19 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting Process
20 Communications Process
20 Commissioner Agreements
21 2
Recommendations
23 Governance Structure
23 Preface
23 Charter Recommendations
24 Maintain
a
“Council-Manager”
Government
Structure
and
Allow
Council
Members to Make Nominations for City Manager Candidates 24 Establish Future Charter Review Commissions
28 Expand Council to 14 Districts
30 Policy Recommendations
32 Voting & Elections
33 Preface
33 Charter Recommendations
33 With Regards to the Timing of District Elections
33 Move San José Mayoral Elections from Gubernatorial to Presidential Election Years 34 Implement Ranked Choice Voting
38 Elevate the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices to the City Charter 47 Policy Recommendations
48 Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
49 Preface
49 Charter Recommendations
49 Reform Boards and Commissions (Article X)
49 Add a Native Land Acknowledgement to the City Charter 56 What is the recommendation?
56 Use Gender-Inclusive Language In The Charter And City Documents 58 Create
a
Police
Commission,
an
Independent
Investigation
Department,
and
an
Office
of
the Inspector General
61 3
Establish Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments 72 Address Equity And Inclusion In City Programming and Budgeting 77 Establish Regular Department-Level Audits
82 Policy Recommendations
84 Create A Climate Action Commission
84 Explore a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act
92 Promote Home Ownership Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of San José 98 Strengthen
Community
Input
to
the
Smart
City
Advisory
and
Innovation
and
Technology
Advisory Boards
102

APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX ONE - Minority Report
106
Governance Structure
106
Charter Recommendations
106
Maintain a “Council-Manager” Government Structure
106
Expand Council to 14 Districts
109
Grant Mayoral Emergency Powers
110
Policy Recommendations
113
Explore Adding Council Districts
113
Voting and Elections
116
Charter Recommendations
116
Policy Recommendations
116
Additional
Policy
Recommendations
for
the
Board
of
Fair
Campaigns
and
Political
Practices
116
Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
120
Charter Recommendations
120
4 Create
a
Police
Commission,
an
Independent
Investigation
Department,
and
an Office of the Inspector General
120
Establish A Climate Action Commission In The City Charter 121
Promote
Home
Ownership
Opportunities
for
Low-Income
Residents
of
San
José
(Article XX)
123
Policy Recommendations
124
APPENDIX TWO - Research, Speakers & References
124
Full Commission Meeting Speakers
124
Governance Structure Speakers & References
127
Speakers
127
References
127
Voting & Elections Subcommittee Speakers & References
129
Speakers
129
References
129
Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion Speakers 133
Speakers
133
References
134
APPENDIX THREE - Public Engagement Process
168
Goals and Objectives of the Public Engagement Process
168
Public Engagement Strategy
168
Public Meeting Schedule
169
Public Outreach
170
City Clerk Communications
170
Commissioner Outreach
171
Community Partner Outreach
172
Community Partner Selection
172
5 Summary of Community Partner Engagement Activities
173
Community Partner Outreach Activities
174
Summary of Audience Demographics
175
Outreach Debriefs from Community Partners
177
Public Comment Speakers
179
APPENDIX FOUR - Supporting Documents
181
6 Letter from the Chair
Councilmembers,
I
am
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
have
served
as
the
chair
of
the
2021
San
José
Charter
Review
Commission.

The
Commission
not
only
represented
each
Council
district
but
also
represented
diverse
lived
experiences,
a
variety
of
professional
expertise,
as
well
as
coming
from different cultures and communities.

What
all
Commissioners
held
in
common
was
their
incredible
dedication
to
this
process,
as
witnessed
by
their
attending
29 meetings
of
over
100
hours
of
meeting
time,
as
well
as
numerous
ad
hoc
subcommittee
sessions
and
5 public
hearings.

Their
diligent
study
of
the
issues,
hours
of
volunteer
time
and
absolute
resolve
to
be
of
maximum
service
to
the
benefit
of
the
City
of
San
José
is
commendable
at
the
highest
level.

I
have
been
honored
to
serve with them.

From
the
beginning
of
this
process,
the
Commission
has
challenged
itself
to
examine
every
possible
way
in
which
we
could
dedicate
our
deliberations
to
the
values
of
equity,
racial
and
gender
justice.

This
included
asking
me
to
go
back
to
the
Rules
Committee
and
then
to
Council
for
additional
resources
to
compensate
community
partners
to
elicit
feedback
for
the
Commission
from
hard
to
reach
and
highly
affected
communities.

We
examined
the
issues
sent
to
us
from
the
Council’s
memorandum
establishing
the
Commission
on
the
questions
of
governance
structure
and
timing
of
elections.

In
addition,
we
also
examined
the greater equity, transparency, accountability at City Hall directive from the memo.

The
design
we
followed
was
multipart:

Commission
study
sessions
of
the
issue,
subcommittees
drafted
recommendations
to
present
to
the
Commission
and
revise
the
recommendations
from
Commissioner’s
and
public
feedback,
hold
preliminary
vote
to
move
the
recommendation
forward,
send
those
recommendations
to
a
public
hearing
and
make
any
additional
edits
then
presented
the
Commission
the
final
recommendation
for
a
vote.

In
our
deliberations
we
recognized
that
there
were
some
important
issues
that
did
not
or
should
not
rise
to
a
charter
revision
so
the
Commission
is
also
submitting
a
few
policy only recommendations.

Since
this
is
the
first
Charter
Review
Commission
in
35 years,
I
felt
that
it
was
of
utmost
importance
to
thoroughly
document
the
proceedings
and
so
our
report
is
very
detailed
in
7 Therefore, on behalf of the 2021 San José Charter Review Commission, I submit this report for your thoughtful consideration.

Since
rely,
FRED
ERICK J. FERRER Chair
Lan Diep, Citywide Barbara Marshman, Citywide
Sammy Robledo, District One Yong Zhao, District One
Christina Johnson, Vice Chair, District Two Sherry Segura, District Two Elly Matsumura, District Three José Posadas, District Three Huy Tran, District Four Thi Tran, District Four
Veronica Amador, District Five Louis Barocio, District Five Elizabeth Monley, District Six Magnolia Segol, District Six Rick Callender, District Seven George Sanchez, District Seven Jeremy Barousse, District Eight Maria Fuentes, District Eight Linda LeZotte, District Nine Garrick Percival, District Nine Tobin Gilman, District Ten Frank Maitski, District Ten

Summary of Recommended Changes
The
San
José
Charter
Commission
approved
the
following
recommendations
by
a
majority
vote.

Governance Structure
Charter Recommendations
Maintain
a
“Council-Manager”
Government
Structure
and
Allow
Council
Members
to
Make Nominations for City Manager Candidates
The
Commission
finds
that
keeping
the
current
“Manager-Council”
form
of
governance
model
maintains
accountability,
representation
and
inclusion
at
San
José
City
Hall.

Furthermore,
by
giving
members
of
the
Council
the
ability
to
nominate
prospective
City
Managers
along
with
the
Mayor,
increases
equitable
representation
in
the
applicant
pool
for the City Manager appointment process, which will benefit all residents in San José.

Establish Future Charter Review Commissions
Appoint
Charter
Review
Commissions
at
the
second
regular
meeting
of
Council
in
the
year
2028,
and
of
each
succeeding
tenth
year
thereafter,
and
at
any
time
council
may
call
for
such a commission, to review and recommend amendments to this Charter.

Expand Council to 14 Districts
Expand
the
number
of
council
districts
from
10 to
14 to
bring
the
ratio
of
residents
to
representatives
more
in
line
with
what
they
were
in
1978,
when
the
ten
districts
were
originally established.

Voting & Elections
Charter Recommendations
With Regards to the Timing of District Elections
9 The
Commission
finds
that
transitioning
even
and
odd
number
districts
to
the
alternative
election
cycle
(e.g.,
even
districts
to
the
gubernatorial
cycle
and
odd
districts
to
the
presidential)
would
knowingly
decrease
turnout
in
some
districts
while
increasing
it
in
others.

Further,
a
recommendation
to
adopt
Ranked
Choice
Voting
is
intended
to
increase
voter
engagement
and
turnout
city-wide.

As
such,
the
Commission
could
not
discern
any
clear
benefits
to
the
city
as
a
whole
and
decided
not
to
make
a
recommendation
that
would alter the timing of city council elections.

Move San José Mayoral Elections from Gubernatorial to Presidential Election Years Change
the
timing
of
San
José’s
mayoral
elections
from
the
gubernatorial
cycle
to
the
presidential
cycle
beginning
in
2024.

To
initially
sequence
the
city’s
mayoral
elections
to
the
presidential
cycle,
the
candidate
elected
mayor
in
2022
would
serve
a
2-year
term
with
that
term
expiring
in
2024.

All
candidates
for
mayor,
including
the
then
incumbent
mayor,
would
be
eligible
to
run
for
a
regular
4-year
mayoral
term
in
2024.

The
commission
urges
that the City Council act as expediently as possible on this recommendation.

Implement Ranked Choice Voting
Consolidate
Primary
and
General
Elections
for
candidates
and
allow
voters
to
rank
multiple
candidates
in
San
José
elections
via
Ranked
Choice
Voting,
an
election
system
in
which
voters
rank
the
candidates
for
office
in
order
of
preference,
and
the
ballots
are
counted
in
rounds that simulate a series of runoffs until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

Elevate the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices to the City Charter Elevate
the
San
José
Board
of
Fair
Campaign
and
Political
Practices
from
the
Municipal
Code to the City Charter.

Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
Charter Recommendations
Reform Boards and Commissions
A.

Remove
citizenship
requirement
for
all
applicable
Boards
and
Commissions
as
permitted
by
Senate
Bill
225
,
which
revised
membership
requirements
to
all
10 California government boards and commissions;
B.

Ensure
all
Board
and
Commissions
a)
receive
training
in
ethics,
civics,
and
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion,
b)
elect
their
chairs
and
vice-chairs
democratically,
and
c)
incorporate
racial
and
social
equity
analysis
to
promote
the
use
of
an
“equity
lens”
for decision-making;
C.

Provide a stipend to all members of Boards and Commissions.

Add a Native Land Acknowledgement to the Charter
Formally
include
a
Native
Land
Acknowledgement
of
the
Muwekma
Ohlone
Tribe
in
San
José’s Charter.

Use Gender-Inclusive Language in the Charter and City Documents Update
gendered
language
in
the
Charter
and
official
City
documents
(e.g.,
ordinances,
resolutions, and City policies) to be gender inclusive or gender neutral.

Create a Police Commission, an Independent Investigation Department, and an Office of the Inspector General
A.

Create
and
add
a
Police
Commission
to
the
Charter
that
conducts
regular
(e.g.
monthly)
public
hearings
on
San
Jose
Police
Department
policies,
rules,
practices,
customs,
and
General
Orders,
as
well
as
address
the
public’s
concerns
regarding
problems
with
the
Office
of
the
Independent
Investigations
Department,
the
Office
of
the
Inspector
General,
and
the
San
Jose
Police
Department.

The
Police
Commission
shall
have
subpoena
authority
and
full
unfettered
and
unredacted
access
to
the
documents
contained
by
any
City
department
or
any
employee
relating to SJPD;
B.

Convert
the
Independent
Police
Auditor
Office
to
the
Independent
Investigations
Department,
with
subpoena
authority
and
full
unfettered
and
unredacted
access
to
the documents contained by any City department or any employee relating to SJPD; C.

Create
an
Office
of
the
Inspector
General,
with
subpoena
authority
and
full
unfettered
and
unredacted
access
to
the
documents
contained
by
any
City
department
or
any
employee
relating
to
SJPD,
to
assist
the
Police
Oversight
11 Commission
in
conducting
reviews
of
patterns,
practice,
trends,
systems,
and
policies at the Police Department.

Establish Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments A.

Add
a
statement
of
values
to
the
Charter
that
defines
social
equity,
inclusion,
and
racial
and
social
justice
as
guiding
principles
for
the
decisions,
policies,
budgets,
programs, and practices of the City;
B.

Outline
objectives
intended
to
advance
the
aforementioned
values
through
the
areas
of
safety,
environmental
health,
water
and
sanitation,
parks
and
recreation,
mobility
and
transportation,
economic
development,
housing
standards,
workforce
protection and housing amenities;
C.

Conduct
an
equity
assessment
for
the
annual
operating
and
capital
budgets
as
contained
in
the
Recommended
Budgets
generated
by
the
City
Manager
each
fiscal
year and for major policies and programs to be decided upon by the City Council.

Address Equity and Inclusion in City Programming and Budgeting The
purpose
of
this
recommendation
is
to
guarantee
San
Jose
residents
are
equitably
included
in
the
benefits
of
City
services
and
have
the
benefit
of
equal
access
to
City
services.

The
Mayor,
City
Council
and
the
City
Manager
need
to
promote
equity
and
inclusion
among
all
residents
especially
in
the
budget
for
the
City
of
San
Jose.

The
absence
of this requirement in the Charter has and may continue to cause inequities.

Therefore,
it
is
recommended
the
City
Charter
be
amended
with
recommended
language
for
Article
IV
The
Council,
Article
V
The
Mayor
and
Article
VII
City
Manager.

This
recommendation
is
specific
adherences
to
the
Commission
recommendation
on
Equity
Values,
Equity
Standards,
Equity
Assessments.

Article
IV
the
Council
would
require
adherence
to
the
Statement
of
Values;
Article
V
The
Mayor
would
require
specific
adherence
to
Equity
Assessment;
Article
VII
City
Manager
would
require
specific
adherence
to Equity Standards.

Establish Regular Department-Level Audits
Ensure
that
department-wide
performance
audits
are
conducted
for
all
city
departments,
to
assess
key
performance
against
their
mission,
goals
and
objectives
in
order
to
ensure
12 accountability
and
fiscal
responsibility,
as
well
as
to
identify
theft,
fraud,
embezzlement,
campaign finance violations, or other crimes.

Policy Recommendations
Create a Climate Action Commission
Create
a
“Climate
Action
Commission”
(CAC)
in
the
municipal
code,
composed
of
a
combination
of
17 community
members
and
special
eligibility
seats
to
study,
create
reports,
and
recommend
policy
and
programs
that
help
to
identify,
mitigate
and
prepare
for
the
impacts
of
climate
change
and
global
heating
as
it
may
manifest
in
San
José,
and
to
support and give feedback on the Climate Smart San José program.

Explore a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act
Explore
policies
that
will
prioritize
establishing
and
continuing
to
support
a
Community
Opportunity
to
Purchase
Act
(COPA)
and
creating
new
sources
of
funding
for
affordable
housing
community
ownership
models
and
anti-displacement
and
the
continuation
of
tenant protections.

Promote Home Ownership Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of San José Explore
new
policies
to
support
the
purchase
of
affordable
housing
by
low-income
San
José
residents
while
not
impacting
existing
policies
or
resources
available
to
support
affordable
rental housing for its residents.

Strengthen
Community
Input
to
the
Smart
City
Advisory
and
Innovation
and
Technology Advisory Boards
Alter
appointments
to
San
José’s
Smart
City
Advisory
Board
and
the
Innovation
and
Technology
Advisory
Board
with
the
goal
of
strengthening
community
input
on
the
effects
and consequences of technological change.
13 Signature Page
14 Charter Review Commission Overview
Introduction to the Charter Review Commission
The
Charter
Review
Commission
was
established
by
the
City
Council,
pursuant
to
Resolution
No.
79722
(see
Appendix
3),
as
an
advisory
committee
to
Council
to
consider
potential
changes
to
the
San
José
City
Charter
related
to
the
City’s
governance
structure
and
mayoral
election
cycle,
and
additional
changes
to
improve
accountability,
representation, and inclusion at San José City Hall.

As
stated
in
the
Commission’s
By-Laws
(see
Appendix
3),
the
aftermath
of
the
murder
of
George
Floyd
led
to
calls
for
racial
justice
and
equity,
and
the
members
of
the
Charter
Review
Commission
voted
to
consider
all
proposals
to
amend
the
Charter
of
the
City
of
San
José
through
the
lens
of
racial
and
gender
equity
and
address
historic
and
institutional
racism, inequity, and disenfranchisement of the residents of the City.

Charter Review Commission Members
The
Charter
Review
Commission
was
composed
of
23 members,
all
residents
of
San
José
-
two
residents
nominated
by
each
Council
Member
from
their
District,
and
three
at-large
members
residing
anywhere
in
the
City
nominated
by
the
Mayor.

The
Mayor
nominated
one
of
the
at-large
members
to
serve
as
the
Chair
to
preside
over
meetings
and
who
may
vote
only
to
break
a
tie.

The
Vice
Chair
was
elected
by
the
Commission.

The
composition
of
the
Commission
was
intended
to
represent
a
cross-section
of
backgrounds
and
professions,
including,
but
not
limited
to:
labor/union,
business
and
development,
academia, legal, and government.

Per
Council
Direction,
the
Commission
was
facilitated
by
an
Independent
Consultant
and
supported by Staff members of City Attorney and Clerk’s Offices.

Chair:

Frederick Ferrer
Vice-Chair:

Christina Johnson
Consultant:

Lawrence Grodeska, CivicMakers, LLC
Commission Secretary:

Megan Roche (City Staff)
15 Commission Roster
Sammy Robledo, District 1
Yong Zhao, District 1
Christina Johnson (Vice-Chair), District 2
Sherry Segura, District 2
Elly Matsumura, District 3
José Posadas, District 3
Huy Tran, District 4
Thi Tran, District 4
Louis Barocio, District 5
Veronica Amador, District 5
Elizabeth Monley, District 6
Magnolia Segol, District 6
Enrico Callender, District 7
George Sanchez, District 7
Jeremy Barousse, District 8
María Fuentes, District 8
Garrick Percival, District 9
Linda Lezotte, District 9
Frank Maitski, District 10
Tobin Gilman, District 10
Barbara Marshman, City-wide
Frederick Ferrer (Chair), City-wide
Lan Diep, City-wide
Commission Directives
At
the
recommendation
of
the
City
Clerk,
the
Charter
Review
Commission
served
as
an
advisory
committee
without
decision-making
authority
with
responsibilities
to
provide
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
as
outlined
in
the
resolution
passed
on
July
28,
2020
by the San José City Council.

The areas for those recommendations were as follows (emphasis added):

1. Examine
the
current
governance
structure
as
well
as
a
governance
structure
consistent
with
the
“Mayor-Council”
government
structure
found
in
other
cities
in
the
United
States
in
which
the
Mayor
has
executive
authority
and
the
Council
has
legislative authority;
16 2.

Research
and
solicit
community
input
on
strong
mayor
and
other
potential
charter
reforms
to
improve
and
update
the
City’s
governance
structure,
including
the
direction
to
“Align
mayoral
executive
authority
with
residents’
and
local
business’
reasonable
expectations
for
responsive
and
accountable
democratic
governance in a major U.S. city”
;

3. Evaluate
whether
the
Mayor
elected
in
2022
should
serve
a
two
(2)-year
or
six
(6)-year
term
to
transition
the
mayoral
election
to
the
presidential
election
in
2024
or 2028, respectively;

4. Evaluate
transition
of
the
election
cycle
for
odd-numbered
districts
to
align
with
the
presidential
election
cycle
and
the
even-numbered
districts
with
the
gubernatorial election cycle;
and

5. Consider
additional
measures
and
potential
charter
amendments,
as
needed,
that
will
improve
accountability,
representation,
and
inclusion
at
San
José
City
Hall.

These responsibilities can be fairly grouped into three areas of focus:

1. Governance structure (Nos. 1 & 2)
a.

Role
of
mayoral
executive
authority
in
residents’
and
local
business’
reasonable
expectations
for
responsive
and
accountable
democratic
governance

2. Timing of elections (Nos. 3 & 4)
a.

Mayoral election
b.

District elections

3. Additional
measures
and
potential
charter
amendments
that
will
improve
accountability, representation, and inclusion (No. 5)
The
Commission
was
directed
to
submit
recommendations
on
the
above
by
December
14,
2021.

Based
on
the
Commission's
recommendations,
Council
is
to
determine
further
revisions
of
the
Charter,
if
necessary,
to
be
included
as
a
ballot
measure(s)
in
the
2022
primary and/or statewide general election, or other future elections.

Approach
To
address
these
responsibilities
and
generate
recommendations
for
the
Council,
the
Commission followed the following phased approach.
17 Recommendations
and
Ad
Hoc
Subcommittee
Process
To
facilitate
the
development
of
potential
recommendations
by
the
Commission,
Commissioners
met
in
ad
hoc
subcommittees
to
discuss,
research,
and
vet
ideas
before
bringing
potential
recommendations
to
the
full
Commission
for
consideration.

Per
Council
guidelines,
ad
hoc
subcommittees
were
created
by
the
Commission,
assigned
a
narrow
task, and completed their work in less than 6 months.

Recommendations Process
Commissioners
vetted
potential
recommendations
via
ad
hoc
subcommittees
before
bringing
them
forward
for
consideration
by
the
full
Commission
in
the
form
of
Recommendation
Memos
.

Ad
hoc
subcommittees
were
assigned
topics
based
on
suggestions
heard
during
Commission
meetings
or
public
hearings.

Suggestions
from
the
public
were
referred
to
the
appropriate
ad
hoc
subcommittee
for
review
and/or
development into Recommendation Memos.

The
process
for
developing
Recommendation
Memos
included
considering
the
following
criteria, as outlined in the Recommendation Memo Template:

1. What problem(s) are you trying to address?

2. How
has
this
problem
possibly
benefited
or
burdened
people,
especially
BIPOC,
low-income, undocumented and immigrant, those experiencing houselessness, etc.? 18 3.

What change are you proposing?

4. Is this change feasible?

5. Who might benefit from or be burdened by this change?

6. What are the arguments against this proposal?

7. Must this be a charter revision?

8. Are there other examples of this change?
All
Recommendation
Memos
submitted
to
the
Commission
by
ad
hoc
subcommittees
were
considered
and
discussed
during
Commission
meetings
and
shared
with
the
public
via
public
hearings.

Ad
hoc
subcommittees
tasked
with
evaluating
ideas
and
developing
Recommendation
Memos
were
asked
to
do
so
in
support
of
an
informed
and
open
discussion
by
the
Commission
rather
than
in
the
sole
pursuit
of
a
specific
agenda.

Ad
hoc
subcommittee
members
were
allowed
to
submit
“minority
reports”
stating
their
opposition
to
recommendations
contained
in
a
specific
Recommendation
Memo
by
using
the
same
Recommendation Memo Template.

Ad Hoc Subcommittee Process
Ad Hoc Subcommittee Structure, Topics & Assignments
Ad
hoc
subcommittees
reflected
the
three
areas
the
Commission
had
been
tasked
with
evaluating
by
Council.

Each
ad
hoc
subcommittee
was
tasked
with
evaluating
a
list
of
related topics. There was one ad hoc subcommittee for each of the following categories:

1. Governance Structure

2. Voting & Elections

3. Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
Ad
hoc
subcommittee
assignments
were
based
on
preferences
expressed
by
Commissioners
and
in
an
effort
to
balance
the
size
of
ad
hoc
subcommittees.

In
order
to
avoid
Brown
Act
issues,
Commissioners
only
joined
one
ad
hoc
subcommittee
and
did
not
attend other ad hoc subcommittee meetings.

Governance Structure
Voting & Elections
Policing, Municipal Law,
Accountability & Inclusion
Louis Barocio
Elizabeth Monley
Veronica Amador
19 Jeremy Barousse
Garrick Percival
Enrico Callender
Lan Diep
José Posadas
María Fuentes (
past Oct 25
)
María Fuentes (
to Oct 25
)
Sammy Robledo
Magnolia Segol
Christina Johnson
George Sanchez
Sherry Segura
Linda Lezotte
Huy Tran
Yong Zhao
Frank Maitski
Thi Tran
Barbara Marshman
Elly Matsumura
To
ensure
ad
hoc
subcommittee
deliberations
aligned
with
the
interests
of
the
community,
the
Commission’s
first
public
hearing
was
used
to
solicit
community
input
to
finalize
the
topics
for
each
ad
hoc
subco
mmittee.

Ad
hoc
su
bcommittee
topics
and
assignments
are
outlined in the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Topics and Assignments document.

Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting Process
Ad
hoc
subcommittees
met
at
a
time
agreed
upon
by
ad
hoc
subcommittee
members.

During
the
first
meeting
of
each
ad
hoc
subcommittee,
leads
were
chosen
by
ad
hoc
subcommittee members. Initial meetings were facilitated by the Consultant team.

Each
subcommittee,
with
the
facilitation
of
their
respective
lead,
used
the
Ad
Hoc
Subcommittee
Work
Plan
Template
(See
Appendix
3)
to
create
a
work
plan.

Ad
hoc
subcommittee
work
plans
were
presented
to
the
Commission
on
the
Friday
before
the
June
14th
meeting.

Ad
hoc
subcommittees
took
notes
for
meetings
using
the
Ad
Hoc
Subcommittee
Meeting
Agenda
&
Notes
Template
(See
Appendix
3)
and
shared
with
City
staff for posting to the Commission website.

Communications Process
Each
ad
hoc
subcommittee
reported
back
in
writing
to
the
full
Commission
in
time
for
posting
on
the
Friday
before
the
next
Commission
meeting.

Ad
hoc
subcommittee
reports
included the following information:
20 ●
Agenda
and
meeting
notes,
including
full
list
of
topics
and
next
meeting
topics
(using Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting Agenda and Notes template)● FYIs
or
questions
for
the
full
Commission
or
other
ad
hoc
subcommittees
in
order
to
facilitate
the
necessary
exchange
of
information
about
related
topics
being
addressed by different ad hoc subcommittees.●
List of attached draft recommendation memos for Commission (if ready) Beginning
with
Phase
2,
each
Commission
meeting
had
an
agendized
“Subcommittee
Reports
Discussion”
item
to
allow
for
discussion
of
questions
brought
forth
by
ad
hoc
subcommittees,
as
outlined
in
ad
hoc
subcommittee
reports,
as
well
as
subsequent
public
comment.

This
item
did
not
include
a
verbal
report
for
each
ad
hoc
subcommittee,
only
discussion
of
critical
items
to
facilitate
information
exchange
between
ad
hoc
subcommittees
during
a
public
meeting
(as
required
by
the
Brown
Act).

It
was
expected
that
Commissioners,
especially
ad
hoc
subcommittee
leads,
read
reports
from
other
ad
hoc
subcommittees before Commission meetings.

Commissioners
were
regularly
reminded
of
Brown
Act
considerations
and
encouraged
to
conduct their Commission-related communications accordingly, including the following:
●
Commissioners
were
asked
to
use
(or
at
the
very
least
CC)
their
official
Commission
email addresses for all communications.●
Ad
hoc
subcommittee
email
threads
included
ONLY
those
Commissioners
assigned
to that specific ad hoc subcommittee.●
Ad
hoc
subcommittees
avoided
communicating
with
each
other
to
avoid
a
potential
“serial meeting” violation of the Brown Act.

Commissioner Agreements
The
Commission
desired
to
operate
in
a
manner
that
ensured
its
decision
making,
discussions,
research,
and
drafting
was
transparent,
accessible,
accountable
and
inclusive
of
the
feedback
it
received
from
members
of
the
public.

As
such,
the
Commission
adopted
the following agreements.

We Value Diversity
We
believe
that
bringing
together
a
broad
range
of
ideas,
experience
and
backgrounds
will
result
in
the
best
outcomes
for
San
José.

We
keep
an
open
mind
and
seek
to
learn
from
others.
21 We Are Present
We
commit
to
attending
every
meeting.

At
each
meeting,
we
minimize
external
distractions
and focus on the meeting.

We Respect Each Other
We
listen
intently
to
each
other
with
the
intention
to
understand.

We
do
not
attack
each
other.

We Make Room for Everyone To Speak
We
want
to
hear
from
every
Commissioner.

This
means
we
need
to
share
our
time
together
and
not
let
the
conversation
get
monopolized.

When
speaking,
we
are
mindful
about how much air space we are taking up.

We Seek Meaningful Engagement
We
actively
reach
out
to
members
of
the
public
and
provide
accessible
ways
for
them
to
be
involved.

As
representatives
of
the
community
of
San
José,
we
wish
to
elevate
and
center
the community voice in this process.

We Are Focused and Prepared
We
have
a
clear
picture
of
where
we’re
going.

We
do
our
homework
and
ask
for
the
information
we
need
to
make
good
decisions.

We
ask
good
questions
to
move
the
conversation forward.

We Follow a Fair, Transparent, and Efficient Process
We
use
many
methods
to
allow
for
dialogue
so
we
may
best
understand
the
positions
within
the
group,
and
to
make
decisions,
when
necessary.

Ultimately,
consensus
is
our
goal, but we will not rule out methods like voting if we need to move past a disagreement. 22 Recommendations
The
following
recommendations
were
approved
by
the
Commission
by
majority
vote,
and
consist
of
suggested
changes
to
San
José’s
Charter,
as
well
as
additional
policy
recommendations
for
Council’s
consideration.

This
section
is
organized
into
the
Commission’s
three
areas
of
focus,
and
the
verbiage
for
each
recommendation
is
taken
directly
from
the
Recommendation
Memos
developed
by
each
ad
hoc
subcommittee,
and
approved by the Commission, with minor editing for clarity, readability and uniformity.

Please
note
that
any
new
or
revised
Charter
section
numbers
referenced
below
are
for
illustrative
purposes
only.

Additionally,
if
one
or
more
recommendations
are
moved
forward
by
the
Council,
the
City
Attorney’s
office
will
implement
these
recommendations
as
directed by Council and reconcile them into the Charter.

Governance Structure
Preface
This area of focus covers the following directives from Council:

1. Examine
the
current
governance
structure
as
well
as
a
governance
structure
consistent
with
the
“Mayor-Council”
government
structure
found
in
other
cities
in
the
United
States
in
which
the
Mayor
has
executive
authority
and
the
Council
has
legislative authority;

2. Research
and
solicit
community
input
on
strong
mayor
and
other
potential
charter
reforms
to
improve
and
update
the
City’s
governance
structure,
including
the
direction
to
“Align
mayoral
executive
authority
with
residents’
and
local
business’
reasonable
expectations
for
responsive
and
accountable
democratic
governance
in
a major U.S. city”;
These
directives
informed
the
research
and
deliberations
of
the
Governance
Structure
ad
hoc
subcommittee,
as
well
as
the
recommendations
they
put
forth
for
consideration
by
the
full Commission.
23 Charter Recommendations
Maintain
a
“Council-Manager”
Government
Structure
and
Allow
Council
Members
to
Make
Nominations
for
City
Manager
Candidates
What is the recommendation?
The
Commission
finds
that
keeping
the
current
“Manager-Council”
form
of
governance
model
maintains
accountability,
representation
and
inclusion
at
San
José
City
Hall.

Furthermore,
by
giving
members
of
the
Council
the
ability
to
nominate
prospective
City
Managers
along
with
the
Mayor,
increases
equitable
representation
in
the
applicant
pool
for the City Manager appointment process, which will benefit all residents in San José.

This
recommendation
was
passed
on
October
18th,
2021
with
19 aye,
2 nay
and
1 absent
votes.

What
problem(s)
does
this
recommendation
address?
If
mayoral
power
is
expanded
in
San
José,
this
increased
power
will
impact
and
potentially
limit
the
current
powers
of
Council
Members
who
are
elected
to
represent
their
districts
in
San
José.

Residents
in
the
council
districts
will
not
be
able
to
lean
on
their
Council
Member
because
they
will
be
limited
in
power
to
help
address
their
concerns,
which
will
be
detrimental
to
the
community
overall
because
council
districts
are
usually
the
first
point
of
contact
for
residents
when
it
comes
to
accessing
city
services.

In
addition,
giving
the
mayor
more
power
would
further
disenfranchise
residents
who
live
in
historically
under-resourced
districts.

According to the latest census the race ethnicity breakdown for San José is:
●

39.9 % White●
3% Black or African American●

0.6% Native American●

35.9% Asian●

0.5% Pacific Island or Native Hawaiian●

5.3% Two or more races●

31.6% Hispanic or Latino
This
data
shows
the
incredible
diversity
of
San
José.

However,
San
José
also
faces
a
long-documented
wealth
gap.

According
to
the
income
data
from
the
2010
Census,
24 high-income
households
are
concentrated
in
Districts
10,
9,
8,
and
4,
whereas,
low-income
households
are
in
Districts
3,
5 and
7 (US
Census,
2010:
see
Appendix
1,
Section
2).

Election
turnout
is
also
higher
in
the
high
income
council
districts
versus
low-income
council
districts.

This
widening
income
gap
also
impacts
social
capital.

According
to
a
study
published
by
the
International
Monetary
Fund
that
examined
whether
the
downward
trend
in social capital is responding to the increasing gaps in income found that, “...
the
increasing
income
inequality
trends
in
recent
decades
for
many
advanced
countries
may
have
negatively
affected
overall
trust
levels,
and
thereby,
increased
social
gaps
in
society
in
the
wake
of
widening
income
gaps.

Given
that
trust
has
been
found
to
be
an
important
determinant
of
the
macro-economic
performance
of
many
countries
,
these
findings
suggest
an
important,
albeit
indirect,
way
that
increasing
inequality
may
be adversely affecting a country’s growth and development over time.” Moving
to
a
Mayor-Council
form
of
government
will
dilute
the
overall
power
and
representation
of
communities
of
color,
further
burdening
and
widening
the
gap
of
inequitable
policies
through
an
inequitable
practice
that
siphons
the
shared
collective
power
to
one
person,
the
Mayor.

This
will
also
impact
social
capital
because
trust
in
city
government
will
be
eroded
by
districts
that
will
continue
to
be
disenfranchised.

San
José
has
historically
been
known
as
the
Valley
of
Heart’s
delight,
where
people
know
who
their
neighbors are. It is not in San José’s DNA to centralize power into one seat.

Furthermore,
if
a
Mayor
has
the
authority
to
hire
and
fire
other
city
officials
outside
the
merit
system,
it
could
be
perceived
due
to
political
connections
or
favors,
instead
of
hiring
qualified
or
trained
professionals
as
department
heads.

There
is
the
temptation
to
make
decisions
regarding
the
hiring
and
firing
of
key
department
head
positions
such
as
the
police
chief,
public
works
director,
and
finance
director
based
on
the
applicant's
political
support
rather
than
his
or
her
professional
qualifications,
which
could
have
an
impact
on
how
their
department
delivers
city
services,
which
could
unintentionally
burden
BIPOC
(Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and People of Color) residents in San José.

City
managers
are
typically
hired
based
on
their
educational
background,
experience,
and
administrative
ability,
without
regard
to
their
political
views,
and
they
have
incentive
to
act,
as
the
name
suggests,
as
managers
of
the
city
operations.

This
argument
was
also
made
by
former
City
Manager
Norberto
Duenas
during
our
study
session
on
April
5th,
2021
(Charter
Review Commission meeting, 4/5/2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3). 25 Studies
show
that
self-interested
elected
officials
are
more
likely
to
‘bureaucratize’
their
administrations.

The
main
testable
proposition
is
that,
in
governments
with
a
higher
concentration
of
powers,
politicians
will
bureaucratize
their
administrations
to
overcome
time
inconsistency
problems
in
their
relationships
with
public
employees.

This
prediction
is
tested
with
data
drawn
from
US
municipalities,
where
two
main
types
of
local
governments
co-exist:
mayor-council
and
council
-manager.

Results
show
that
municipal
governments
with
a
higher
concentration
of
powers
(i.e.
mayor-council)
tend
to
have
more
bureaucratized administrations.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
Strong
political
leadership
isn’t
the
only
thing
needed
to
build
a
thriving
and
equitable
community.

San
José
needs
intentional
and
thoughtful
Council
members
who
will
work
hard
to
understand
their
constituencies’
needs.

An
effective
mayor
will
work
with
council
members to establish appropriate policy to benefit the wider community. “There
are
two
important
features
of
council-manager
government
that
have
an
impact
on
mayoral
leadership.

First,
the
mayor
and
council
are
“constitutionally”
checking
and
balancing
each
other;
they
are
part
of
a
governing
body.

Second,
the
mayor
does
not
execute
or
directly
promote
the
accomplishments
of
tasks.

Thus
the
mayor
can
and
should
exert
a
different
kind
of
leadership.

The
mayor
leads
by
empowering
others-in
particular,
the
council
and
manager
-
rather
than
seeking
power
for
himself
or
herself,
and
the
mayor
accomplishes
objectives
through
enhancing the performance of others.”
-
(Svara,
James
“Effective
Mayoral
Leadership
in
Council-Manager
Cities:

Reassessing
the Facilitative Model”).

According
to
Section
702
of
San
José's
Charter,
the
Council
may
remove
the
City
Manager
from
office
at
any
time.

The
City
Manager
may
also
be
removed
from
office
by
the
People
of
the
City
pursuant
and
subject
to
the
provisions
of
Section
1604
of
the
Charter
according
to
Section
703.

Based
on
these
provisions
in
the
Charter,
there
are
less
obstacles
involved
in
removing
a
City
Manager
vs
a
Mayor
under
any
form
of
governance
since
a
Mayor
can
only be removed by the voters through a recall election.

We
believe
that
everyone
will
benefit,
including
the
Mayor,
by
keeping
our
governance
structure
the
same,
as
it
maintains
equity
in
the
process.

In
this
amendment,
however,
more
power
will
be
shared
with
Council
but
at
no
cost
to
the
Mayor’s
pre-existing
appointment
powers.

Additionally,
by
enabling
Council
Members
to
submit
their
own
26 nominations,
the
process
will
improve
efficiency
and
avoid
situations
where
nominee(s)
are
rejected, forcing the Mayor to restart the time-sensitive process.

This
change
is
feasible
and
will
increase
equitable
representation
in
the
applicant
pool
for
the
City
Manager
appointment
process.

The
Mayor
and
Council
already
regularly
review
candidates
based
on
skill
and
experience.

Allowing
the
entire
Council
to
submit
(if
they
so
choose
or
to
back
another
Council
Member’s
nomination)
will
foster
collaboration
and
ensure
equitable
representation
by
allowing
Council
Members
to
submit
an
applicant
that
aligns with their/constituents’ values.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The
commission
identified
two
primary
arguments
against
maintaining
the
current
Council-Manager form (or for expanding Mayoral powers):

1. Under
our
current
governance
form,
the
Mayor
is
viewed
as
a
figurehead
and
doesn’t
have
enough
power
to
get
things
done,
whereas
the
City
Manager
has
too
much power and is not directly accountable to the public.

However,
the
fact
is
that
the
City
Manager
has
to
answer
to
the
council
members,
which
include
the
Mayor.

If
the
City
Manager
isn’t
performing
their
job
satisfactorily,
it
is
the
job
of
the
Council
and
the
Mayor
to
hold
them
accountable.

The
Mayor
and
Council
can
employ
management
strategies
like
annual
evaluations
that
are
public,
performance
markers,
ensuring
that
the
City
Manager
and
their
department
is
properly
resourced.

Under
the
current
governance
structure
the
Mayor
is
granted
enough
power
to
achieve
their
vision
through
collaboration,
an
example
of
this
is
Mayor
Chuck
Reed’s
Green
Vision,
which
he
was
able
to
see
to
fruition
because
he
had the support of the Council.

2. Former
Mayor
Ron
Gonzales
also
shared
in
the
Commission
study
session
on
April
5 that,
under
the
current
governance
structure,
the
Mayor
already
has
enhanced
powers.

An
example
of
this
is
the
ability
of
the
Mayor
to
prepare
the
city’s
budget
message,
which
lays
out
the
policy
direction
for
the
city
manager.

Mayor
Gonzales
also
passed
bond
measures
for
affordable
housing,
open
spaces,
strong
neighborhood
initiative
and
libraries
using
the
leadership
of
the
Mayor’s
office
during his tenure.

Proposed Charter Language
27 Amend
“ARTICLE
VII
CITY

MANAGER

SECTION
700
Appointment”,
Term
and
Compensation
of the Charter as follows:

There
shall
be
a
City
Manager.

The
Mayor
and
members
of
the
Council
shall
have
the
ability
to
nominate
one
or
more
candidates
for
Council
consideration
for
appointment
to
the
position
of
City
Manager.

The
City
Manager
shall
be
appointed
by
the
Council
for
an
indefinite
term.

The
Council
shall
fix
the
compensation
of
the
City Manager.

Establish Future Charter Review Commissions
What is the recommendation?
Appoint
Charter
Review
Commissions
at
the
second
regular
meeting
of
Council
in
the
year
2028,
and
of
each
succeeding
tenth
year
thereafter,
and
at
any
time
council
may
call
for
such a commission, to review and recommend amendments to this Charter.

This
recommendation
was
passed
on
October
18th,
2021
with
21 aye,
0 nay
and
1 absent
votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
The
current
Charter
Review
Commission
was
established
by
the
Mayor
and
City
Council
as
a
singular
event.

The
previous
San
José
Charter
Review
Commission,
similarly
established,
completed
its
final
report
in
1985.

Hence,
over
35 years
have
passed
since
San
José’s
Charter
was
thoroughly
reviewed.

San
José
experienced
significant
change
during
that
time.

An earlier review of the Charter may have been more appropriate.

Historically
in
San
José,
the
Charter
has
only
been
reviewed
when
requested
by
the
Mayor
and/or
City
Council,
usually
from
public
concern
over
a
specific
issue.

Considering
the
dynamic
change
of
the
San
José
community,
a
periodic
review
of
the
Charter
is
more
appropriate
to
determine
if
any
changes
are
needed,
rather
than
waiting
for
a
specific
issue
or problem to initiate the review.

This
proposal
benefits
the
San
José
community
at
large
by
providing
a
requirement
for
residents to review the City Charter at least every 10 years.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
28 Similar
sections
in
other
city
charters
exist
that
establish
charter
review
commissions
on
a
regular
basis
making
this
recommendation
feasible
and
needed.

Furthermore,
the
general
San
José
community
will
benefit
from
this
proposal
since
it
establishes
a
mechanism
in
the
Charter for the residents to review it on a regular basis.

The
recommendation
was
changed
after
the
Commission
had
a
discussion
and
came
to
an
agreement
to
remove
the
notion
that
the
Commission
would
send
super-majority
supported revisions directly to the ballot.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The
Charter
is
the
foundation
of
San
José’s
government
and
sets
forth
guiding
principles
for
its
governance.

As
such,
the
Charter
should
be
kept
as
general
as
possible
to
allow
the
Mayor
and
Council
flexibility
to
address
the
needs
of
the
community
through
policy.

The
Charter
should
not
be
used
to
directly
set
policy,
address
the
“issue
of
the
day,”
or
advance
a political agenda of any person.

A
mandated
periodic
review
of
the
Charter
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
Charter
amendment
process
to
be
used
inappropriately.

Limiting
review
of
the
Charter
minimizes
this
risk
and
focuses
future
reviews
on
Charter
issues
identified
by
the
Mayor
and/or
Council, presumably by input from the community.

The
Mayor
and
City
Council
are
the
elected
representatives
of
the
community
with
a
full
time
focus
on
its
needs.

As
such,
they
are
closer
to
issues
that
may
require
an
amendment
to
the
Charter,
and
are
in
a
better
position
to
determine
when
a
Charter
Review
Commission is needed.

Proposed Charter Language
Add
a
new
section
to
the
Charter,
“ARTICLE
X
BOARDS
AND

COMMISSIONS
Section
1002.1
Charter Review Commission,” as follows:

A
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
be
appointed
at
the
second
regular
meeting
of
council
in
the
year
2028
and
of
each
succeeding
tenth
year
thereafter,
and
at
any
time
council
may
call
for
such
a
commission,
to
review
and
recommend
amendments
to
this
Charter.

The
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
be
reflective
of
the
City
in
terms
of
its
racial
and
ethnic
diversity,
age
and
geography.

The
mayor
shall
nominate
three
(3)
Charter
Review
Commission
members,
and
each
member
of
the
Council
shall
nominate
two
(2)
Charter
Review
Commission
members
from
29 their
District,
who
shall
all
be
subject
to
confirmation
by
the
Council.

The
term
of
the
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
be
no
more
than
two
years
unless
extended
by
the
City
Council.

The
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
determine
its
own
rules
of
procedure.

No
member
of
the
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
serve
as
an
elective
officer
of
the
City
during
the
member’s
service
on
the
Charter
Review
Commission.

The
City
Council
may
establish,
by
ordinance,
criteria
for
eligibility
on
the
Charter
Review
Commission.

The
Mayor
or
Council
may
request
that
the
Charter
Review
Commission
review
specific
sections
of
the
Charter,
but
the
work
and
recommendations
of
the
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
not
be
limited
to
such
specific
sections.

The
Charter
Review
Commission
shall
be
provided
all
reasonable
resources
it
identifies
are
needed
to
complete
its
review.

The
Commission
shall
provide a written report of its findings to the City Council.

Nothing
in
this
section
shall
limit
the
authority
of
council
to
submit
any
proposed
charter
amendment
to
a
vote
of
the
people
unless
otherwise
provided
for
in
this
charter.

A
vacancy
exists
on
the
Charter
Review
Commission
upon
a
member’s
resignation,
death,
inability
to
serve
or
failure
of
a
member
without
cause
to
attend
three
successive
regular
meetings.

If
there
is
a
vacancy
on
the
Charter
Commission,
the
Mayor
or
Council
member
who
made
the
original
nomination,
or
that
member’s
successor
in
office,
shall
nominate
a
person
to
fill
the
unexpired
term
of
office,
subject to confirmation by Council.

Expand Council to 14 Districts
What is the recommendation?
Expand
the
number
of
council
districts
from
10 to
14 to
bring
the
ratio
of
residents
to
representatives
more
in
line
with
what
they
were
in
1978,
when
the
ten
districts
were
originally
established.

Future
Redistricting
Commissions
may
recommend
further
expansion if appropriate.

This
recommendation
was
passed
on
October
18th,
2021
with
14 aye,
7 nay
and
1 absent
votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
30 As
San
José
has
grown
in
population
so
has
the
feeling
of
residents
that
they
are
not
being
fairly represented within their respective council districts.

San
José
originally
was
governed
by
a
7-member
city
council
elected
citywide.

In
1978
voters
passed
Measure
F
which
established
an
11-member
city
council
and
district
elections for 10 of the council seats.

San
José’s
population
in
1980
was
629,442
with
each
council
member
representing
approximately
63,000
residents.

Today
each
councilmember
represents
approximately
100,000 residents.

Through
this
proposal,
we
are
trying
to
address
the
increase
in
population
in
San
José
during
the
past
40 years.

Increasing
the
number
of
Council
Districts
would
reduce
the
number
of
residents
per
council
district.

This
would
ensure
better
representation
of
each
Council District.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
Until
the
reform
made
possible
by
district
elections,
our
Black,
Indigenous,
and
People
of
Color
had
been
largely
unrepresented
in
city
council
and
as
a
result
their
communities
received less government services and funding for their neighborhoods.

Our
city
council,
through
district
elections,
now
better
reflects
the
demographics
of
our
residents
but
the
increase
in
population
(nearly
double)
has
resulted
in
less
meaningful
representation of those residents in their respective districts.

These
individuals
get
less
attention
due
to
the
larger
number
of
residents
in
each
district.

A
smaller
population
per
council
district
would
allow
each
Councilmember
to
better
deal
with
the
issues
of
the
unhoused
population,
immigrants
and
the
myriad
of
problems
that
come
with an ever-increasing population.

We
recommend
a
change
in
the
number
of
council
districts
to
the
City
Council.

Specifically,
we
request
that
the
composition
of
the
city
council
be
more
in
line
with
the
ratio
that
existed
when
Measure
F
was
approved,
and
each
council
district
represented
fewer
residents than is the case currently.
31 What are the arguments against this proposal?
One
argument
could
be
that
there
is
no
need
for
such
a
change
to
Council
Districts
at
this
time.

There
is
currently
a
Redistricting
Commission
in
place
that
is
working
on
the
2020
census
to
bring
about
an
equitable
distribution
for
all
current
Council
Districts.

Another
argument
would
be
that
the
current
system
has
worked
well
for
the
past
40 years,
so
why
change things at this time.

Another
unintended
consequence
could
be
more
“me-first”
politics
when
narrower
communities
have
a
stronger
grip
on
their
council
members.

This
could
lead
to
a
less
functional council.

Other arguments against this recommendation include:
●
Cost, depending on how the change is structured.●
Increased NIMBYism as council members represent narrower constituencies.● The
council
can’t
expand
infinitely
as
a
city
grows,
and
10 is
a
reasonable
size.

Six
of
the 10 largest cities in the country have 11 or fewer council members.

Proposed Charter Language
The
City
Attorney
shall
review
the
City
Charter
and
recommend
language
that
is
consistent
with this recommendation if this recommendation is moved forward by the Council.

Policy Recommendations
No
policy
recommendations
in
the
area
of
Governance
Structure
were
approved
by
the
Commission.
32 Voting & Elections
Preface
This area of focus covers the following directives from Council:

3. Evaluate
whether
the
Mayor
elected
in
2022
should
serve
a
two
(2)-year
or
six
(6)-year
term
to
transition
the
mayoral
election
to
the
presidential
election
in
2024
or 2028, respectively;

4. Evaluate
transition
of
the
election
cycle
for
odd-numbered
districts
to
align
with
the
presidential
election
cycle
and
the
even-numbered
districts
with
the
gubernatorial election cycle;
These
directives
informed
the
research
and
deliberations
of
the
Voting
&
Elections
ad
hoc
subcommittee,
as
well
as
the
recommendations
they
put
forth
for
consideration
by
the
full
Commission.

Charter Recommendations
With Regards to the Timing of District Elections
The
Charter
Review
Commission
was
tasked
with
studying
the
possibility
of
transitioning
odd-numbered
city
council
district
elections
(1,3,
5,
7,
and
9)
to
the
presidential
cycle
and
aligning
even-numbered
districts
(2,
4,
6,
8,
10)
with
the
gubernatorial
cycle.

How
might
this
change
affect
voter
participation
rates
in
city
council
districts?
The
ad
hoc
subcommittee
on
Voting
and
Elections
collected
data
on
voter
participation
rates
in
odd-numbered
and
even-numbered
council
districts
between
2010-2020.

After
assessing
the
results,
the
ad
hoc subcommittee decided not to recommend altering the timing of City Council elections.

The
data
showed
that
in
Primary
City
Council
elections,
voter
turnout
rates
in
even-numbered
districts
was,
on
average,

10.8%
higher
than
turnout
in
odd-numbered
districts
(41.9%
vs

31.1%).

In
run-off
or
general
election
contests,
the
turnout
rate
in
even-numbered
districts
was,
on
average,

24.6%
higher
than
odd-numbered
districts
(71.9%
to

47.3%).

Because
transitioning
even
and
odd
number
districts
to
the
alternative
election
cycle
(e.g.
even
districts
to
the
gubernatorial
cycle
and
odd
districts
to
the
presidential)
would
knowingly
decrease
turnout
in
some
districts
while
increasing
it
in
33 others,
the
committee
could
not
discern
any
clear
benefits
to
the
city
as
a
whole.

The
ad
hoc
subcommittee
moved
to
recommend
a
change
to
rank-choice-voting
which
should
lessen
turnout
inequities
currently
found
in
primary
and
run-off
contests
in
both
even
and
odd numbered districts.

Move
San
José
Mayoral
Elections
from
Gubernatorial
to
Presidential Election Years
What is the recommendation?
Change
the
timing
of
San
José’s
mayoral
elections
from
the
gubernatorial
cycle
to
the
presidential
cycle
beginning
in
2024.

To
initially
sequence
the
city’s
mayoral
elections
to
the
presidential
cycle,
the
candidate
elected
mayor
in
2022
would
serve
a
2-year
term
with
that
term
expiring
in
2024.

All
candidates
for
mayor,
including
the
then
incumbent
mayor,
would
be
eligible
to
run
for
a
regular
4-year
mayoral
term
in
2024.

Thereafter,
a
mayoral
election
would
be
held
every
four
years
during
the
presidential
cycle.

A
mayoral
candidate
elected
to
office
in
2022
would
be
eligible
to
serve
the
initial
2-year
term
plus
two
additional
(regular)
4-year
terms
as
currently
allowed
under
Section
402
of
the
City
Charter.

A
person’s
total
time
in
the
mayor’s
office
could
reach
a
total
of
10 years
if
they
win
office
in
2022
and
are
reelected
in
2024
and
2028.

The
Commission
urges
that
the
City
Council
act
as
expediently
as
possible
on
this
recommendation,
which
has
been
the
subject
of
broad
public
discourse
in
San
Jose
for
over
two
years
at
the
time
of
the
submission
of
this
report.

With
the
2022
mayoral
election
rapidly
approaching,
voters
and
candidates
getting
engaged
in
the
election
deserve
the
greatest
possible
understanding
and
transparency
from
the
City
Council
about
the
dynamics
and
implications
of
those
elections,
notably
whether
voters
will
be considering the option to make the next mayor’s first term two years long.

This
recommendation
was
passed
on
October
4th,
2021
with
17 aye,
1 nay,
and
4 absent
votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Elections
are
pillars
of
a
representative
democracy.

They
allow
the
people
to
choose
representatives
who
make
decisions
on
behalf
of
the
public
and
help
hold
elected
officials
accountable.

Low
turnout
in
city
elections
weakens
the
bonds
between
people
and
their
elected
representatives.

When
turnout
increases,
local
government
becomes
more
34 representative
and
responsive
to
the
broader
public.

A
more
responsive
and
representative
government
is
particularly
important
in
a
racially
and
ethnically
diverse
city
like San José.

Historically,
voter
turnout
in
city
elections
is
lower
than
in
races
for
elected
office
in
higher
levels
of
government.

The
low
rate
of
participation
is
partly
a
product
of
the
timing
of
many
city
elections
.(Desilver,
July
2021:
see
Appendix
1,
Section
3)
Political
reformers
more
than
a
century
ago
advocated
for
“isolated”
or
“off-cycle”
city
elections
which
are
scheduled
in
years
separate
from
state
(gubernatorial)
and
national
(presidential)
contests.

Off-cycle
elections,
it
was
argued,
allowed
voters
to
concentrate
on
local
issues
and
candidates.

They
were
also
seen
as
a
tool
to
combat
the
power
of
19th
and
early
20th
century
urban
political
machines
who
relied
on
the
political
support
of
racial
and
ethnic
minorities
and
newly
naturalized
citizens.

Middle
and
upper
class,
predominately
white,
voters
were
often
seen
as
protectors
of
“good
government.”
(
Christensen
and
Hogen-Esch,
2006:
see
Appendix
1,
Section 3)
In
elected
contests
for
San
José
mayor—the
only
at-large
elected
position
in
the
city—voter
turnout
rates
are
relatively
low.

Although
mayoral
contests
are
not
isolated
elections
in
the
traditional
use
of
the
term,
the
placement
of
the
mayor’s
race
in
gubernatorial
election
years
depresses
turnout.

Voter
registration
and
turnout
data
covering
the
past
four
mayoral
election
cycles
(2018,
2014,
2010,
2006)
reveal
that
on
average,
less
than
half
of
the
City’s
registered
voters
(43.4%)
cast
ballots
in
the
mayor’s
race.

Research
suggests
moving
the
timing
of
San
José’s
mayoral
elections
to
presidential
years
would
increase
voter
turnout
in
a
range
of
28%
to
33%.

In
San
José,
this
would
equate
to
148,203
to
169,375
additional
voters
in
any
given
mayoral
election
using
current
voter
registration
figures (529,299) in the city. (Percival, 2021:
see
Appendix 1, Section 3
)
The
City’s
current
mayoral
election
process,
characterized
by
relatively
low
turnout,
would
be
less
problematic
if
members
of
the
voting
public
shared
the
same
policy
preferences,
or
had the same experiences with government, as nonvoters do.

Political
science
research,
however,
shows
this
is
not
the
case.

White
residents,
and
residents
with
higher
incomes
and
greater
financial
resources
are,
on
average,
more
likely
to
vote
in
city
elections.

On
issues
surrounding
policing,
housing,
or
the
environment
(among
other
issues),
where
the
interests
and
experiences
of
racial
and
ethnic
minorities
and
lower
income
residents
diverge
from
White
residents
and
those
with
greater
incomes,
low
voter
participation
can
restrict
the
scope
of
political
and
policy
debates.

Low
35 participation
can
indirectly
skew
city
policy
by
not
only
influencing
who
gets
elected
but
also who the mayor feels accountable to.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
The
San
José’s
City
Charter
structures
the
timing
of
city
elections.

Moving
the
timing
of
the
mayoral elections can thus only be accomplished by a change to the City Charter.

Moving
San
José’s
mayoral
elections
to
presidential
years
would
position
the
city
as
a
leader
behind
statewide
efforts
designed
to
increase
voter
participation
in
our
local
elections.

It
would
help
signal
that
San
José
values
a
larger,
more
racially
and
ethnically
inclusive
electorate
that
reflects
the
city’s
demographic
and
socio-economic
characteristics.

The
change
would
give
greater
voice
to
people
too
often
left
out
of
our
city’s
politics
and
political
discourse.

It
would
strengthen
our
democracy
in
ways
that
match
the
city’s
21st
century ideals.

Moving
the
mayoral
elections
to
presidential
years
should
increase
the
likelihood
that
the
winner
of
the
contest
has
competed
for
votes
in
an
electorate
that
more
closely
resembles
the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics of the city.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
Several
arguments
have
been
made
against
moving
the
time
of
mayoral
elections
to
presidential
years
and
were
expressed
by
a
few
members
of
the
public
and
Commissioners
during commission meetings.

First,
it
is
argued
city
issues
would
get
lost
in
the
“noise”
of
presidential
year
contests.

As
a
result,
voters
would
not
have
enough
information
to
make
“good”
choices
about
local
candidates or local issues.

These
claims
have
no
supporting
evidence
in
peer-reviewed
academic
research.

Under
current
policy,
the
city’s
mayoral
elections
held
in
gubernatorial
years
already
compete
for
attention
with
“up
ballot”
races
(e.g.
governor,
attorney
general,
secretary
of
state,
etc.)
and
numerous
statewide
ballot
initiatives.

Researchers
have
long
documented
that
American
voters
have
low
levels
of
“textbook”
knowledge
about
politics
and
government.

Instead
of
gathering
complex
or
technical
policy
information,
voters
often
use
what
political
scientists
call
“information
shortcuts”
(such
as
candidate
or
issue
endorsements
issued
by
a
political
36 party,
interest
group,
newspaper,
or
other
trusted
source)
to
help
make
more
informed
decisions
at
election
time.

There
is
no
data
or
evidence
that
suggests
voters
become
less
knowledgeable
(or
more
confused)
about
local
issues
or
candidates
when
mayoral
elections are held in presidential years.

Second,
it
is
argued
that
removing
the
mayor’s
race
from
the
gubernatorial
cycle
will
depress
turnout
in
odd-numbered
City
Council
district
elections
which
are
held
at
the
same
time.

This
presumes,
however,
that
a
large
share
of
voters
cast
ballots
for
city
council
because
of
the
mere
presence
of
a
mayor’s
race.

Political
science
research
on
California
municipal
elections
show
mayoral
races
have
no
statistically
significant
effect
on
voter
turnout in city council races.

Proposed Charter Language
Amend “ARTICLE IV SECTION 402 Mayor and Council Member Term Limits” as follows:

The
regular
term
of
office
of
each
member
of
the
Council
shall
be
four
(4)
years.

The
Mayor and Council members shall be subject to the following term limits:
(a)
MAYOR.

No
person
who
has
been
elected
to
the
office
of
Mayor
for
two
(2)
successive
four-year
terms
shall
be
eligible
to
run
for
election
to
the
office
of
Mayor,
nor
to
serve
as
such,
for
any
additional
successive
term;
but
the
above
shall
not
disqualify
any
person
from
running
for
election
to
the
office
of
Mayor,
nor
from
further
service
as
Mayor,
for
any
term
or
terms
which
are
not
successive;
nor
for
any
parts
of
terms
which
are
not
successive.

Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
the
Charter,
to
transition
the
election
of
the
office
of
Mayor
to
the
same
year
as
the
presidential
election
beginning
in
2024,
the
term
for
the
office
of
Mayor
beginning
on
January
1,
2023
shall
be
for
two
(2)
years.

However,
the
person
holding
the
office
of
Mayor
as
the
incumbent
for
this
two-year
term
may
be
eligible
to
run
for
election
to
the
office
of
Mayor
and
serve
as
such
for
two
(2)
additional
successive
four-year
terms
.

Amend “ARTICLE V SECTION 500 Mayor” as follows:

There
shall
be
a
Mayor
of
the
City
of
San
José́,
elected
at
large,
who
shall
be
the
eleventh
member
of
the
Council.

Except
as
otherwise
provided
elsewhere
in
the
Charter,
the
Mayor
shall
be
elected
by
a
majority
of
the
votes
cast
citywide
at
a
Regular
Municipal
Election,
for
a
term
of
four
(4)
years
from
and
after
the
first
day
of
January
following
the
year
of
the
election.

Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
37 the
Charter,
to
transition
the
election
of
the
office
of
Mayor
to
the
same
year
as
the
presidential
election
beginning
in
2024,
the
term
for
the
office
of
Mayor
beginning
on
January
1,
2023
shall
be
for
two
(2)
years.

However,
the
person
holding
the
office
of
Mayor
as
the
incumbent
for
this
two-year
term
may
be
eligible
to
run
for
election
to
the
office
of
Mayor
and
serve
as
such
for
two
(2)
additional
successive
four-year
terms
.

The
office
of
each
member
of
the
Council,
including
the
office
of
the
member
who
is
Mayor,
is
a
separate
office
to
be
separately
filled.

Any
incumbent
member
of
the
Council
may
run
for
the
seat
of
Mayor,
and
the
Mayor
may
run
for
the
seat
of
Mayor
or
for
any
other
seat
on
the
Council
for
which
the
Mayor
is
otherwise
eligible;
however,
no
member
of
the
Council
shall
hold
more
than
one
seat,
and
no
person
may be a candidate for more than one seat.

Amend “ARTICLE XVI SECTION 1600. Municipal Elections” as follows:

All municipal elections shall be held in accordance with the following:
(a)

REGULAR

MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS.

A
Regular
Municipal
Election
is
either
a
regularly
scheduled
Primary
or
Run-off
Municipal
Election.

Such
elections
shall
be
held
every
two
years,
with
the
election
for
Mayor
and
for
the
odd
numbered
Council
Districts
being
every
four
(4)
years
beginning
with
1994,
and
the
election
for
the
even
numbered
Council
Districts
being
every
four
(4)
years
beginning
in
1996.

Beginning
in
2024,
the
election
for
Mayor
and
for
the
even
numbered
Council
Districts
will
be
held
every
four
(4)
years,
and
the
election
for
the
odd
numbered
Council
Districts
will
be
held
every
four
(4)
years
beginning
in
2026
.

E
ach
member’s
term
shall
commence
on
the
first
day
of
January
next
following,
and
end
on
the
last
day
of
December
in
the
fourth
calendar
year
succeeding,
the
date
of
the
member’s
election,
except
the
member
elected
to
the
office
of
Mayor
whose
term
began
January
1,
2023,
as
set
forth
in
Section
402
of
Article
IV
and
500
of
Article
.

A
regularly
scheduled
Primary
Election
shall
be
held
on
the
same
date
that
the
State
of
California
holds
its
Direct
Primary
Election.

A
Run-off
Municipal
Election
shall
be
held
on the same date the State of California holds its Statewide General Election.

Implement Ranked Choice Voting
What is the recommendation?
38 Consolidate
Primary
and
General
Elections
for
candidates
and
allow
voters
to
rank
multiple
candidates
in
San
José
elections
via
Ranked
Choice
Voting,
an
election
system
in
which
voters
rank
the
candidates
for
office
in
order
of
preference.

The
ballots
are
counted
in
rounds that simulate a series of runoffs until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

This
recommendation
was
passed
on
October
18th,
2021
with
18 aye,
3 nay
and
1 absent
votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Increasing
the
diverse
representation
of
the
communities
in
San
José
by
reducing
barriers
to
running
for
office
and
providing
voters
the
option
to
vote
for
the
candidates
that
best
reflect
their
values.

This
recommendation
does
this
by
reducing
the
costs
of
running
for
office
by
consolidating
the
elections
process,
and
by
allowing
voters
to
rank
multiple
candidates instead of choosing only one.

Ranked
Choice
Voting
(RCV)
is
gaining
in
popularity
around
the
nation,
including
four
cities
here
in
the
Bay
Area.

RCV
has
two
main
benefits:
(1)
allows
voters
to
select
candidates
who
best
reflect
their
values,
and
(2)
reduces
the
costs
running
for
office
by
consolidating
the
primary and general.

Allowing
voters
to
rank
candidates
gives
them
the
ability
to
choose
the
candidate
that
best
reflects
their
values.

Further,
it
does
not
limit
voters
to
pick
the
candidates
who
have
the
best
chance
of
winning
(i.e.
lesser
of
two
evils).