Memorandum — San Jose City Council, May 10, 2022

1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Lee Wilcox
AND CITY COUNCIL Angel Rios

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: April 28, 2022

Approved Date
4/29/2022

SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

PUBLIC SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION

(a) Refer the recommendations contained in the Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee, with the exception of recommendations 21, 22, and 23, to the City Manager and City Attorney for analysis of operational and implementation considerations, budget and workload impact, legal considerations, and other relevant considerations, and return to the Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee in fall 2022 along with a comprehensive review of all outstanding recommendations for reform and operational improvement being tracked by the Police Department. (b) Refer the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission with respect to creation of a Police Commission, an Independent Investigation Department, and an Office of the Inspector General, along with recommendations 21, 22 and 23 from the Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee, to the Citywide Roadmap prioritization process.

OUTCOME

The City Council will provide direction to the City Manager and City Attorney about next steps for recommendations contained in the report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and for the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission pertaining to public safety.

COUNCIL AGENDA: 5/10/22
FILE: 22-646
ITEM: 4.2

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 2022
Subject: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND

At the June 22, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council established the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee (“Committee” hereafter). The structure of the Committee was based on a proposal from a coalition of community leaders who sought to establish a community-led process to bring forward recommendations on the reimagining of policing in San José. Their proposal was based on desire to revise the initial Reimagining Community Safety process initiated by the City in spring 2021, with the goal of establishing a body that was led by the community instead of by the City and which had the scope to make recommendations on the full range of policing topics of interest to community members.

The City Council designated a list of organizations that would appoint seats on the Committee, as proposed by the community coalition. The City Council further provided that six members of the body must live within Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force areas or Project Hope neighborhoods, with the understanding that members appointed by the designated organizations could count towards that total, and that any additional members needed to round out the full six would be nominated by the City Manager’s Office and seated by the Committee. The City Council also added a seat to the Committee to be appointed by the Billy DeFrank Center.

The reconstituted Committee began meeting in August 2021; staff reported on the Committee’s progress at the Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee in September and November of 2021. The City Council’s direction to include six members from Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force areas or Project Hope neighborhoods was satisfied by inclusion of members from the Washington/Alma, 10th and Williams Street, Julian Street, Cadillac/Winchester, Santee/Phelan, and Valley Palms/San Jose Apartments neighborhoods. A representative from the Billy DeFrank Center was also included on the Committee. The final Committee roster is included as Attachment A.

The Committee met biweekly through April 2022. It adopted its final report on April 20, 2022.

That report is included as Attachment B.

This item also includes the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission pertaining to public safety. The City Council accepted the Final Report of the Charter Review Commission at its January 11, 2022, meeting, and subsequently provided staff direction on next steps related to the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations at its April 11, 2022, meeting. The Charter Review Commission’s report is included as Attachment C. The Charter Review Commission’s recommendations pertaining to public safety were not included in the April 11, 2022, action; they are instead being brought forward along with the Reimagining Committee’s recommendations due to the overlapping subject matter.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 2022
Subject: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

Page 3 ends

ANALYSIS

Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee Recommendations

The Committee functioned as a community-lead body as was envisioned when the reconstituted Committee was established in June 2022. City staff provided logistical assistance, such as with agenda posting or provision of meeting translators, but the Committee set its own agendas, organized its own work, and developed its own recommendations independent of staff. The Committee established four subcommittees, as follows:

• Steering Subcommittee: The purpose of this subcommittee was to organize meetings of the full Committee, perform administrative tasks, and coordinate with City staff.

• Promotion and Prevention Subcommittee: The purpose of this subcommittee was to develop recommendations that address the root causes of violence in the community and promote models of public safety that focus on creating just social and economic conditions.

• Alternatives to Policing Subcommittee: The purpose of this subcommittee was to develop recommendations for alternative service models to address issues that currently intersect with policing.

• Reform, Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee: The purpose of this subcommittee was to develop recommendations for reforms within the Police Department, such as on training and hiring, as well as reforms to accountability and oversight practices.

The Committee’s recommendations were primarily developed by the Promotion and Prevention, Alternatives to Policing, and Reform, Accountability and Oversight Subcommittees. The Administration assisted with information requests from these subcommittees, but did not staff them or participate in the development of their recommendations. As the Committee was considering a set of draft recommendations in early March, the City Manager’s Office and the Police Department indicated willingness to present feedback on these recommendations to the Committee at one of its meetings. The Steering Subcommittee clarified that a presentation from the City Manager’s Office and Police Department was not needed, but did request a written analysis of which of the draft recommendations may require an amendment to the Police Department’s Duty Manual. Staff provided the requested information.

In honor of the community leadership of this process, and in light of staff’s limited involvement in development and review of these recommendations, staff has not brought forward an analysis of the recommendations as part of this report. Instead, staff recommends that the City Council refer these recommendations to the City Manager and City Attorney for analysis of operational

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 2022
Subject: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

Page 4 ends

and implementation considerations, budget and workload impact, legal considerations, and other relevant considerations.

As part of its consideration of the Use of Force Assessment and 21 st Century Policing Reports at
the March 1, 2022, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to return to the Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee in fall of 2022 with a comprehensive review of all recommendations for reform and operational improvement being tracked by the Police Department (e.g., recommendations that come from audits, Independent Police Auditor yearly reports, Use of Force Report, 21st Century Policing Report, internal and independent after action reports for the 2020 protests, and similar sources). Bringing back a comprehensive review of these recommendations will facilitate development of a prioritized implementation plan that will guide this work in the future. Staff will bring back analysis of the Committee’s recommendations as part of this effort, so that they can be considered for implementation along with the other pending recommendations.

Recommendations 21, 22 and 23 in the Commission’s report pertain to the establishment of an Office of Independent Investigation, a Public Safety Oversight Commission, and an Office of the Inspector General, respectively. These recommendations concur with and are consistent with the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission, discussed in the next section.

Consequently, staff recommends that these recommendations travel with the Charter Review Commission recommendations, as described below.

Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

As part of its final report, the Charter Review Commission recommended the creation of a Police Commission, Independent Investigations Department, and an Office of the Inspector General.

These recommendations are described on page 61 of the report, as follows:

B. Convert the Independent Police Auditor’s 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;

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 2022
Subject: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

Page 5 ends

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 Commission in conducting reviews of patterns, practice, trends, systems, and policies at the Police Department.

Implementation of these recommendations would require a ballot measure(s) to amend the City Charter. As explained in the memorandum from the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor and Independent Police Auditor issued under item B.6 at the February 23, 2022 Rules and Open Government Committee meeting, the November 2024 election is the earliest these recommendations could practically be brought before the voters.

Staff recommends that these public safety recommendations be referred to the City Roadmap Prioritization Process on May 16, 2022. At its April 11, 2022, meeting, the City Council referred comparable recommendations from the Charter Review Commission to the City Roadmap process. Referring the public safety recommendations to the same venue would allow them to be considered alongside other potential ballot measures under consideration. As noted above, recommendations 21, 22 and 23 from the report of the Reimagining Commission concur with the Charter Review Commission public safety recommendations. Consequently, staff recommends that these recommendations be referred together with the Charter Review Commission recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The Administration thanks the members of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and the Charter Review Commission for their tireless service to our City. The City Manager’s Office and the Police Department look forward to continuing to partner with the community to advance this important work.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

Staff will return with an analysis of the recommendations contained in the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee report to a fall 2022 Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee meeting, along with a comprehensive review of all outstanding recommendations for reform and operational improvement being tracked by the Police Department.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 2022
Subject: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and Charter Review Commission Public Safety Recommendations

Page 6 ends

CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE

The recommendation in this memorandum has no effect on Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals.

COORDINATION

This memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Budget Office.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT

The recommendations under consideration as part of this item were generated by the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee and the Charter Review Commission.

CEQA

Not a Project, File No. PP17-008, General Procedure and Policy Making resulting in no changes to the physical environment.

LEE WILCOX ANGEL RIOS
Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager

For questions, please contact Lee Wilcox, Assistant City Manager, at [email protected] or (408) 674-1704.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee Roster Attachment B: Report of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee Attachment C: Final Report of the San Jose Charter Review Commission

1 Attachment A
Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee Roster

Voting Members

Appointing Organization Appointed Member
1 African American Community Services Agency Kiana Wood Munoz 2 Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice &
Empowerment
Cesar Bautista
3 Asian Law Alliance Gabriela Garzon Gupta
4 Behavioral Health Contractor’s Association (BHCA) Tarab Ansari 5 Bill Wilson Center Sparky Harlan
6 Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ Community Center Gabrielle Antolovich 7 Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet Jahmal Williams
8 Destination: Home Chad Bojorquez
9 HERO Tent Jesi Lynn Faust (Alternate: Kiana Simmons)
10 Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley Vernon Medicine Cloud 11 La Raza Roundtable Mica Estremera
12 Latinos United for a New America Mayra Pelagio
13 LEAD Filipino Gel Cortez
14 The LGBTQ Youth Space Diego Gonzalez
15 NAACP SJ/SV Pastor Kaloma Smith
16 National Compadres Network Hector Sanchez-Flores
17 Next Door Solutions for Domestic Violence Darcie Green 18 PACT Pastor Sammie Evans (Alternate: Iheoma Umez-
Eronini)
19 Parents Helping Parents Sandra Asher
20 Race Equity & Community Safety Committee Tomara Hall (Alternate: Marco Antonio Aguila) 21 Sacred Heart Community Service Poncho Guevara
22 Silicon Valley De-Bug Rosie Chavez
23 Silicon Valley De-Bug Laurie Valdez
24 Silicon Valley Faith Leaders Collaborative Rev George Oliver 25 SJ Neighborhoods Commission Jim Carter
26 SJ Neighborhoods Commission Jewel Buchanan
27 Somos Mayfair Rocio “Event” Soloreoi
28 Vietnamese American Roundtable Philip Nguyen
29 Cadillac/Winchester Representative Rita Birrueta
30 Santee/Phelan Representative Ma. Ines Ortega Barrera 31 Valley Palms/San José Apartments Representative Rosa Cordova

Non-Voting Members

Organization Representative
1 San Jose State University Human Rights Institute William Armaline 2 County of Santa Clara Office of LGBTQ Affairs Sera Fernando 3 County of Santa Clara Public Defenders Office David Epps 4 County of Santa Clara Probation Department Michael Simms 5 County of Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office Chris Arriola 6 County of Santa Clara Department of Family & Children’s Services
Michelle Findley
7 City of San Jose Police Department Anthony Mata
8 City of San Jose Independent Police Auditor Shivaun Nurre 9 City of San Jose Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department
Andrea Flores Shelton

REIMAGINING

PUBLIC SAFETY

COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022
Attachment B

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022
Recent data shows that Black
adults are 6.6 times more
likely and Latinx adults are

2.2 times more likely to be
given a local infraction by
SJPD than white adults.

From 2015-2020, San José
has had the highest number
of fatal encounters with
police in the Bay Area, 15 of
19 of whom were people of
color.

Nearly half of those killed by
police suﬀered from mental
illness or were experiencing
a mental health crisis.

No police have been
prosecuted for any of
these deaths.
/gid00052/gid00078/gid00084/gid00081/gid00066/gid00068/gid00027/gid00001/gid00046/gid00068/gid00081/gid00066/gid00084/gid00081/gid00088/gid00001/gid00047/gid00068/gid00086/gid00082/gid00001/gid00052/gid00068/gid00079/gid00083/gid00015/gid00001/gid00019/gid00013/gid00001/gid00019/gid00017/gid00019/gid00017 Dating back to the 1960s,
community movements
against police brutality and
misconduct have sought to
make police more accountable
for their conduct and reduce
disparities in the treatment of
Black and Brown San José
residents. These eﬀorts have
met with varying degrees of
success and resistance.
introduction
In May 2020, the conversation about
racial injustice erupted into the
streets as millions of people world-
wide reacted to the brutal killing of
George Floyd at the hands of
Minneapolis Police Oﬃcer Derek
Chauvin.

Thousands of San José residents
rose up in solidarity with the Black
Lives Matter Movement.

The calls for justice did not simply
decry the vicious act of one rogue
law enforcement oﬃcer, they cried
out for a reckoning with the chasm
between the living conditions,
economic security, and safety of
whites and blacks in this country.

They did not simply demand
accountability for another life
tragically lost, they cried out for a
recognition that deep /f_issures of
racialized inequities are perpetrated
and exacerbated by public
institutions, most prominently and
tragically by law enforcement.

They cried out in frustration over the
failures of traditional police reform.

They cried out for change.

They cried out for something new, a
re-imagining of how we keep our
communities safe.

Initially, the local protests were met
with a disorganized, inconsistent,
and heavy-handed response from
local law enforcement, further
diminishing trust in police and
illustrating how far we have to go.

In June of 2020, community leaders
echoed the voices in the streets and
asked the San José City Council to
initiate an eﬀort to imagine a diﬀerent
future.
/gid00100/gid00037/gid00068/gid00085/gid00068/gid00075/gid00078/gid00079/gid00001/gid00064/gid00001/gid00079/gid00081/gid00078/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00067/gid00072/gid00081/gid00068/gid00066/gid00083/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00082/gid00078/gid00084/gid00081/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001 /gid00064/gid00086/gid00064/gid00088/gid00001/gid00069/gid00081/gid00078/gid00076/gid00001/gid00079/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00086/gid00064/gid00081/gid00067/gid00001/gid00078/gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00081/gid00001 /gid00066/gid00078/gid00076/gid00076/gid00084/gid00077/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00014/gid00065/gid00064/gid00082/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00082/gid00078/gid00075/gid00084/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00082/gid00015/gid00001/gid00053/gid00071/gid00072/gid00082/gid00001 /gid00068/gid00191/gid00078/gid00081/gid00083/gid00001/gid00077/gid00068/gid00068/gid00067/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00066/gid00078/gid00081/gid00079/gid00078/gid00081/gid00064/gid00083/gid00068/gid00001/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001/gid00066/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083/gid00068/gid00081/gid00001 /gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00001/gid00085/gid00078/gid00072/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00067/gid00072/gid00085/gid00072/gid00067/gid00084/gid00064/gid00075/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00081/gid00064/gid00067/gid00072/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00064/gid00075/gid00075/gid00088/gid00001 /gid00075/gid00068/gid00069/gid00083/gid00001/gid00078/gid00084/gid00083/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00078/gid00084/gid00081/gid00001/gid00067/gid00068/gid00066/gid00072/gid00082/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00001/gid00076/gid00064/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00013/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00001 /gid00079/gid00064/gid00081/gid00083/gid00077/gid00068/gid00081/gid00082/gid00071/gid00072/gid00079/gid00001/gid00086/gid00072/gid00083/gid00071/gid00001/gid00067/gid00072/gid00085/gid00068/gid00081/gid00082/gid00068/gid00001/gid00066/gid00078/gid00076/gid00076/gid00084/gid00077/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00014/gid00001 /gid00065/gid00064/gid00082/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00078/gid00081/gid00070/gid00064/gid00077/gid00072/gid00089/gid00064/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00071/gid00064/gid00083/gid00001/gid00071/gid00064/gid00085/gid00068/gid00001/gid00075/gid00078/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001 /gid00082/gid00068/gid00081/gid00085/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00079/gid00081/gid00068/gid00082/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00001/gid00085/gid00078/gid00072/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001 /gid00083/gid00071/gid00078/gid00082/gid00068/gid00001/gid00066/gid00078/gid00076/gid00076/gid00084/gid00077/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00001/gid00076/gid00068/gid00076/gid00065/gid00068/gid00081/gid00082/gid00001/gid00071/gid00064/gid00081/gid00076/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001 /gid00065/gid00088/gid00001/gid00082/gid00088/gid00082/gid00083/gid00068/gid00076/gid00072/gid00066/gid00001/gid00081/gid00064/gid00066/gid00072/gid00082/gid00076/gid00015 /gid00110 -June 15, 2020, letter to the Mayor
Liccardo and City Council entitled,
/gid00053/gid00071/gid00072/gid00082/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00067/gid00070/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00039/gid00064/gid00072/gid00075/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00046/gid00068/gid00064/gid00082/gid00084/gid00081/gid00068/gid00001/gid00084/gid00079/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00083/gid00071/gid00072/gid00082/gid00001 /gid00046/gid00078/gid00076/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083
, signed by over 75 community-
based organizations.

This call to action was not a re/f_lexive
condemnation of law enforcement, but
rather an acknowledgment that our
society asks too much of police. The
public demands that someone
respond to societal challenges: mental
health, homelessness, domestic abuse,
poverty. Given that over $490 million
annually are directed toward the police
department, nearly half of the
City’s general fund, do we have the
courage to ask this question:
“Are there more eﬀective, eﬃcient,
and equitable strategies that can
be deployed to address emergent
crises and promote better social
conditions that can make our
community safer?”
After initial challenges with a City-
initiated Advisory Group in Spring of
2021, the City Council supported the
establishment of a community-led
Reimagining Public Safety Community
Advisory Committee (RiPS).
1 process summarynominating organizations

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 20222
Beginning in August 2021 RiPS began an exploration of
alternatives to police response in our community and
meaningful recommendations for reform.

RiPS members were designees of 28 community-based
organizations with deep relationships and expertise in diverse communities. The Re-imagining Process consisted of public learn- ing sessions featuring the lived experiences of individuals impacted by law enforcement, and presentations on the experiences of several constituencies such as Black, Latinx, Asian/Paci/f_ic Islander, LGBTQ+, youth, individuals with disabilities, the unhoused, mental health consumers, and survivors of gender-based violence. Once the City appointed additional representatives to serve on RiPS in October 2021, ad-hoc subcommittees were formed to develop recommendations and collect community input on those ideas.

To read more about the process, see page 14.

African American Community Service Agency
Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice &
Empowerment
Asian Law Alliance
Behavioral Health Contractors' Association
Bill Wilson Center
Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ Community Center
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet
Destination: Home
HERO Tent
Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
La Raza Roundtable
Latinos United for New America
LEAD Filipino
The LGBTQ Youth Space
NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley
National Compadres Network
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
People Acting in Community Together
Parents Helping Parents
Race Equity & Community Safety
Committee
Sacred Heart Community Service
Silicon Valley De-Bug (2)
Silicon Valley Faith Leaders Collaborative
SJ Neighborhoods Commission (2)
SOMOS Mayfair
Vietnamese American Roundtable
Neighborhood Representatives (3)
ADVISORY MEMBERS [non-voting]
San José State University Human Rights Institute
Oﬃce of LGBTQ Aﬀairs, County of Santa Clara
Public Defender Oﬃce, County of Santa Clara
Probation Department, County of Santa Clara
District Attorney's Oﬃce, County of Santa Clara
San Jose Police Department
Independent Police Auditor, City of San José
Dept. of Family & Children’s Services, City of San José Parks Recreation & Neighborhood Services, City of San José

MEMBERS
African American Community Service Agency
Asian Paci/f_ic American Leadership Insititute
Bill Wilson Center
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
HERO Tent
LEAD Filipino
LGBTQ Youth Space
NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley
San José Youth Commission
yc nominating organizations

YOUTH COUNCIL
One unique feature of the process
was the establishment of the RiPS
Youth Council, an autonomous
committee of youth representatives.

Designing this Council was an
acknowledgment of the dual
challenges of curating spaces where
youth voices are not overshadowed
by adult leaders, and the dispropor-
tionate impact of law enforcement
on young people in our community.

The RiPS Youth Council was formed
with youth designees from 8 commu-
nity- based organizations and a
representative from the City’s Youth
Commission. Their report was accept-
ed by the RiPS on March 30th, 2022
and is included as appendix 2 of this
report. [p16] youth council

people’s budget san josé
tinyurl.com/5dkwdp5j
The Reimagining Public Safety Community
Advisory Committee Report presents summary
recommendations in seven categories:

Alternative Safety Responses
Support for Impacted Families
Community Conditions
Civilian Oversight & Accountability
Police Conduct
Personnel Practices
Enforcement Priorities
To view links to the full recommendations,
visit: tinyurl.com/5dkwdp5j

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 3
Several RiPS member organi-
zations partnered with San
José State University’s Human
Rights Institute in the design
and dissemination of the
People’s Budget of San José
(PBSJ) Survey to gauge
community feedback on
public safety priorities and
relationships with law
enforcement which helped
inform RiPS proposals.

Over 1,500 people took the
survey. The PBSJ Report
presents data on:

1. Perspectives on San José
City Spending

2. Opinions about Policing and
Law Enforcement Policy,

3. Experiences of Policing

4. Perspectives on Alternatives
to Policing.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. In several areas, a clear majority of San José residents supported increased funding: Community safety resources (73%), Helping residents meet basic needs (67%), and
Public resources like parks, libraries & transportation (63%). The area with the most support for decreased funding was police (47%).

2. The vast majority of people think policing in San José has problems (77%), with a majority (52%) agreeing there are “serious problems” needing major reforms.

3. Residents’ experiences with police varied widely based on their demographic groups. Across a range of questions, sexual and gender minorities, younger people, African Ameri- can/Black, Native American, Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic respon- dents, and people with lower household incomes had generally more negative experiences with and attitudes towards policing compared to those who identify as men, heterosexual, older, White or Asian, or had higher household incomes.

4. Across demographic categories, respondents overwhelm- ingly support San José adopting alternatives to policing with between 72% - 82% supporting non-police approaches to managing mental health crises, traﬃc safety, school safety, and the needs of the city’s unhoused population.
p4
p6
p7
p8
p9
p10
p11

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 20224

RESPONSES

AL TERNATIVE
SAFETY

RECOMMENDATIONS
We ask too much of police. Police
oﬃcers are expected to respond to
scenarios stemming from the vast
array of societal challenges we face as
a community. Not every emergent
scenario requires an armed enforce-
ment response. Furthermore, police
are expected to interact equitably and
professionally with a diverse cross
section of community members
experiencing moments of crisis or
trauma. Law enforcement agencies
have long grappled with the need for
deeper training, partnerships, and
personnel structures to eﬀectively
respond to the diverse array of calls for
service they receive. Despite consider-
able investment in training and
oversight, inappropriate incidents still
occur.

RiPS is proposing that the City of
San José invest in and develop new
tools and systems to respond to
speci/f_ic circumstances to create
better outcomes for community
members and better utilize police
resources.

Expanding and developing mobile
community response teams for
individuals experiencing mental
health crises, addiction, homelessness
or domestic abuse may be more
eﬀective at linking individuals to the
services they need, may be more
equitable by ensuring that profession-
als deeply trained in working with
speci/f_ic populations are giving appro-
priate responses, and may be more
cost eﬃcient than sending law
enforcement personnel.

The City must also look for
more creative ways to make
our streets safer by design,
and utilize civilian personnel
and technology for traﬃc
enforcement and event
management. San José must
design policies to ensure
surveillance technology does
not impinge upon privacy
and civil rights and focus
enforcement on reckless
traﬃc behaviors, while
eliminating the need for
pretextual stops which
disproportionately impact
communities of color.

RiPS also proposes that the
City invest in eﬀorts to train
residents, community
organizations and
neighborhood groups on
how to address and de-
escalate crisis situations
themselves. We can invest in
community building
approaches to resolve more
emergency scenarios, make
connections to community
services, and alternative
safety responses.

By expanding the use of
Community Service Oﬃcers
to respond to lower levels of
calls for service, we can also
reduce reliance on law
enforcement to handle
non-violent, non-emergency
calls for service.

Mental Health
Response
[AS2] The City of San José will
invest in mobile response teams
that can respond to incidents
involving individuals experiencing
a mental health crisis. These teams
will consist of service providers
from community-based organiza-
tions rather than law enforcement
to de-escalate crisis situations and
provide connections to resources
and support. Locally, the County
of Santa Clara has resourced a
pilot program known as TRUST,
and the City should expand this
program capacity City-wide.
[AS1] The City Council should
develop a plan to collaborate in
the implementation of the nation-
al 988 behavioral crisis response
system for the purposes of identi-
fying and diverting 911 calls to
appropriate response systems.

Homelessness
Response
[PP5] The City of San José will
invest in mobile response teams
that can respond to calls for
assistance for the unhoused.

Multi-disciplinary teams of profes-
sionals can oﬀer solutions to
address their needs in a crisis,
from mental health, behavioral
health, medical attention, social
services, peer support, and more
as needed.
[PP5] The City of San José will
provide encampment mainte-
nance services, distribution of
basic necessities, and connection
to case management services and
problem-solving support, funded
by the City and Santa Clara
County.
1 2
3 4
Traﬃc Safety
[PP2] The City of San José will
invest in self-enforcing streets by
expanding the Department of
Transportation Traﬃc Safety role to
eﬀectively manage street safety,
with an equity lens, through street
design, traﬃc calming measures,
and increased community engage-
ment, thereby reducing speeding
and reckless driving, and the need
for enforcement in the /f_irst place.
[PP2] The City of San José will
develop a strategy to move traﬃc
and parking enforcement person-
nel and responsibilities into the
Department of Transportation
Traﬃc Safety Division to the extent
allowable by state law.
[PP2] The City of San José
will pass a resolution to
encourage state legislators to
give municipalities /f_lexibility in
developing alternative traﬃc
enforcement strategies.
[PP2] The City of San José will
transition community event
permitting and safety coordina-
tion to another City Department.
[PP2] The City of San José will focus
SJPD traﬃc enforcement eﬀorts on
extremely high risk violations, such
as reckless driving and extreme
speeding. SJPD will eliminate
pretextual traﬃc stops in San Jose,
ensuring that SJPD oﬃcers have
speci/f_ic, crime-related justi/f_ications
for stopping someone if their intent
is to investigate a crime.
[PP2] The City of San Jose will
develop with community
stakeholders a surveillance
ordinance to ensure privacy and
civil rights protections to guide
policy making for potential future
adoption of automated speed
enforcement measures.
5 6
7 8

RESPONSES

AL TERNATIVE
SAFETY

RECOMMENDATIONS
6a
6b
9 10

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 5
Gender-based
violence
[AS3] The City of San José will
develop alternative community-
based response programs for
gender-based violence that
provide an alternative to law
enforcement involvement.

Programs may involve community
teams designed to safely
intervene in incidents of domestic
violence, and survivor-led
restorative practices for low-level
gender-based violent crimes.

We Keep Us Safe
Campaign
[PP8] The City of San José will
develop a program to educate
and train the public, community
and neighborhood organizations
on how to de-escalate crisis
situations, support neighbors
in distress, utilize alternative
responses, and reduce reliance
on police response.

Community Service
Oﬃcer
[AS5] The City of San José will
expand the capacity of the
Community Service Oﬃcer (CSO)
program which responds to
lower-level calls for service, such
as non-criminal calls, nonviolent
crimes, and other investigations.

The City will analyze calls for
service to determine if CSOs can
respond to additional calls and
develop protocols for call
diversion to CSOs wherever
possible.
11 REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 20226

FAMILIES

SUPPORT

IMPACTED

RECOMMENDATIONS
A key component of promoting safer communities is addressing the underlying needs of those most impacted by trauma–in all of its forms–in order to stop the cycle of violence. In listening sessions and in RiPS meetings, community members shared their stories of how violence has touched their lives, their struggle to heal and make their communities safer. Mothers and partners of individuals who lost their lives at the hands of police have explained how that trauma continues to impact them.

For survivors of domestic violence, and those whose loved one has been incarcerated, the need for stability and healing is impaired without meaningful social supports. The barriers for individuals leaving incarceration to reintegrate into society are nearly insur- mountable if they are released into homelessness. RiPS members oﬀer recommendations to expand the pools of resources targeted at those who have been impacted by violence and carceral systems, starting with the development of a Trauma Relief Fund not connected to the criminal justice system.

Trauma Relief Fund
[PP12] The City of San José shall establish a
Trauma Relief Fund for wrap-around mental
health treatment and social support services
for survivors of violence, including victims of
police violence. The fund should be detached
from the criminal justice system and should be
developed with input from survivors of
violence.

Guaranteed Basic Income:

Survivors of Gender-Based
Violence
[PP1] The City of San José will establish a pilot
program to provide /f_inancial assistance to
survivors of domestic violence and other forms
of gender-based violence to support them on
their path to safety and self-suﬃciency.
12 13
14 15
FOR
Reparations Pilot:

System Impacted
Families
[PP7] The City of San José will
develop a program providing
reparations in the form of basic
income targeting women of color
who have been impacted by the
incarceration of a loved one.

Prevent Exits to
Homelessness
[PP 9] The City of San José and
other agencies will develop
housing and supportive services
to ensure individuals leaving jail
and prison are not released into
homelessness.

CONDITIONS

IMPROVE

COMMUNITY

RECOMMENDATIONS
The roots of racialized disparities in
community safety and stability can
be found in the core conditions
facing diﬀerent neighborhoods for
generations. The legacy of racialized
land use policies, poor infrastructure
investment, minimal social supports,
and weak renter protections have
created conditions ripe for a predatory
and unaﬀordable housing market. The
lack of comprehensive policies and
accountability systems for worker
protections and equitable taxation
have exacerbated economic disparities
that weaken economic stability for
households. The stress of high housing
costs and poor wages directly impacts
the safety of community members who
live in overcrowded conditions, and
have to work unsustainable hours to
the extent that cannot contribute to
the fabric of their neighborhoods.

The City has the opportunity, authority
and responsibility to take meaningful
action to address key issues of housing
aﬀordability and wages, while also
generating additional funding to invest
in correcting inequities to make our
communities safer. RiPS further recom-
mends that the City engage in a com-
munity visioning process to develop
approaches to safety and stability that
do not rely upon law enforcement.

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 7
Aﬀordable Housing
[PP3] The City of San José will advance policies and funding that stabilize renters, preserve and increase the supply of aﬀordable housing, such as rental subsidies and income supports, the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, Commercial Linkage fee program, and SB9 implementation.

Living Wage/Wage Theft
[PP10] The City of San Jose will increase the minimum wage in alignment with the levels of nearby municipalities and strengthen capacity for enforcement. [PP10] The City of San José will strengthen eﬀorts to /f_ight wage theft by revoking permits, contracts, licenses and other City agreements with businesses with unpaid wage theft judgements, including a Responsible Contracting Ordinance.

Resources
[PP4] The San José City Council will place on the ballot an initiative to modernize the business tax, by levying a tax on the income of large businesses in San José, rather than a calculation based on the number of employees. Proceeds from the tax would be used to support initiatives to make vulnerable communities safer.

Campaign Zero
[PP11] The City of San José will initiate a visioning process to identify strategies to ensure our communities are safer by addressing root causes of inequities, violence, and trauma, including benchmarks of success driven by community voices. 16 17
18 19
20 REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 20228

ACCOUNTABILITY

CIVILIAN

OVERSIGHT

RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of San José has an opportunity
to strengthen civilian oversight of
policing and transparency in disciplinary
processes.

Despite some concerns of additional
costs associated with several proposals
for civilian oversight, RiPS members
researched models of civilian oversight
and accountability and largely
concurred with recommendations made
by the Charter Review Commission for
an Independent Oﬃce of Investigation, a
Public Safety Oversight Commission and
an Oﬃce of Inspector General. Such
systems can place San José within the
mainstream of larger municipalities in
the United States.

Other key concerns involve the lack of
transparency in disciplinary policies
involving law enforcement. The current
system of binding arbitration presents
enormous challenges for City and SJPD
leadership to eﬀectively and expediently
address misconduct. In the absence of
such reform, more public transparency is
necessary such as full and immediate
implementation of state reforms meant
to shine a light on the history of
incidents, complaints, investigations and
disciplinary records of law enforcement.

Furthermore, RiPS echoes sentiments
shared in Pillar 1 of the 21st Century
Policing report calling for better mea-
surement, data collection, and access to
information on calls for service, uses of
force, and complaints. Overall, these
proposals are important steps to ensure
San José is a leader in achieving highest
standards for transparency and gives
community and civilian oversight the
tools for accountability.

ANDCOMMUNITY
24 24a
25 26
Civilian Oversight
[ACC10] The San José City Council will
place on the ballot an initiative to
establish an Independent Oﬃce of
Investigation external to the Police
Department charged with fully
investigating incidents of police
misconduct and police shootings.
[ACC10] The San José City Council will
place on the ballot an initiative to
establish a Public Safety Oversight
Commission to oversee policing
policies, practices, training, and
investigations of police misconduct.
[ACC10] The San José City Council will
place on the ballot an initiative to
establish an Oﬃce of Inspector General
to review policing systems, patterns,
practices, policies, and training.

Transparency
[ACC2] The City of San José will end
binding arbitration in the disciplinary
and termination process for police
oﬃcers.
[ACC2] As the City works to end
binding arbitration through negotia-
tion and state legislation, the City will
improve the disciplinary and termina-
tion process by making decisions by
an arbitrator free and open to the
public, improve the arbitrator selec-
tion process, limit the scope of the
arbitrator’s review, and allow the City
the right to appeal to a state court.
[ACC6] The City of San José will fully
implement SB 1421 and prioritize
release of disciplinary records of all
oﬃcers involved in critical use of force
incidents.
[ACC17] The City of San José will mod-
ernize information technology, data
collection and reporting practices. SJPD
will prioritize data management practic-
es and staﬃng infrastructure to ensure
ongoing public access to data on calls
for service, use of force incidents, and
misconduct complaints.
21 22
23 /gid00052/gid00068/gid00077/gid00082/gid00068/gid00001/gid00078/gid00069/gid00001/gid00049/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070 /gid00052/gid00064/gid00077/gid00001/gid00043/gid00078/gid00082é/gid00001/gid00049/gid00068/gid00078/gid00079/gid00075/gid00068/gid00008/gid00082/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00067/gid00070/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00052/gid00084/gid00081/gid00085/gid00068/gid00088/gid00001 /gid00049/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00001/gid00052/gid00064/gid00077/gid00001/gid00043/gid00078/gid00082/gid00169/gid00001/gid00071/gid00064/gid00082/gid00001/gid00082/gid00078/gid00076/gid00068/gid00001/gid00082/gid00068/gid00081/gid00072/gid00078/gid00084/gid00082/gid00001 /gid00079/gid00081/gid00078/gid00065/gid00075/gid00068/gid00076/gid00082/gid00013/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00080/gid00084/gid00072/gid00081/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00076/gid00064/gid00073/gid00078/gid00081/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00069/gid00078/gid00081/gid00076/gid00001/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001 /gid00082/gid00071/gid00072/gid00069/gid00083/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00082/gid00078/gid00076/gid00068/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00082/gid00078/gid00084/gid00081/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00078/gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00081/gid00001 /gid00064/gid00079/gid00079/gid00081/gid00078/gid00064/gid00066/gid00071/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00066/gid00081/gid00068/gid00064/gid00083/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00079/gid00084/gid00065/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00001/gid00082/gid00064/gid00069/gid00068/gid00083/gid00088/gid00015 /gid00049/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00071/gid00064/gid00082/gid00001/gid00082/gid00078/gid00076/gid00068/gid00001/gid00079/gid00081/gid00078/gid00065/gid00075/gid00068/gid00076/gid00082/gid00013/gid00001/gid00065/gid00084/gid00083/gid00001/gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00088/gid00001/gid00064/gid00081/gid00068/gid00001 /gid00083/gid00071/gid00068/gid00001/gid00066/gid00064/gid00084/gid00082/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00065/gid00088/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00067/gid00072/gid00085/gid00072/gid00067/gid00084/gid00064/gid00075/gid00001/gid00065/gid00064/gid00067/gid00001/gid00064/gid00066/gid00083/gid00078/gid00081/gid00082/gid00013/gid00001/gid00082/gid00078/gid00001 /gid00076/gid00064/gid00073/gid00078/gid00081/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00069/gid00078/gid00081/gid00076/gid00082/gid00001/gid00064/gid00081/gid00068/gid00001/gid00077/gid00078/gid00083/gid00001/gid00077/gid00068/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00082/gid00064/gid00081/gid00088/gid00015 /gid00037/gid00078/gid00077/gid00008/gid00083/gid00001/gid00074/gid00077/gid00078/gid00086/gid00015 /gid00049/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00072/gid00077/gid00001/gid00052/gid00064/gid00077/gid00001/gid00043/gid00078/gid00082/gid00169/gid00001/gid00072/gid00082/gid00001/gid00086/gid00078/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00086/gid00068/gid00075/gid00075/gid00001/gid00064/gid00077/gid00067/gid00001 /gid00067/gid00078/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001/gid00077/gid00078/gid00083/gid00001/gid00077/gid00068/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00081/gid00068/gid00069/gid00078/gid00081/gid00076/gid00015 77% of respondents to
the People’s Budget
Survey beleive
San José has problems
with policing, with a
majority believing
it’s bad enough to
require major reform.
/gid00022/gid00019/gid00006
/gid00019/gid00022/gid00006
/gid00024/gid00006
/gid00018/gid00023/gid00006
/gid00038/gid00087/gid00079/gid00068/gid00081/gid00072/gid00068/gid00077/gid00066/gid00068/gid00082/gid00001 /gid00086/gid00072/gid00083/gid00071/gid00001/gid00049/gid00078/gid00075/gid00072/gid00066/gid00068 /gid00052/gid00064/gid00077/gid00001/gid00043/gid00078/gid00082é/gid00001/gid00049/gid00068/gid00078/gid00079/gid00075/gid00068/gid00008/gid00082/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00067/gid00070/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00052/gid00084/gid00081/gid00085/gid00068/gid00088/gid00001 /gid00049/gid00078/gid00082/gid00072/gid00083/gid00072/gid00085/gid00068/gid00001 /gid00047/gid00068/gid00070/gid00064/gid00083/gid00072/gid00085/gid00068 /gid00046/gid00072/gid00087/gid00068/gid00067
/gid00019/gid00022/gid00006
/gid00020/gid00024/gid00006
/gid00019/gid00024/gid00006
/gid00020/gid00023/gid00006
RiPS committee members heard testimonies
of community members who have been
deeply impacted by police conduct,
including the tragic loss of civilian life at
the hands of police. The eﬀect on loved ones
of such trauma cannot be underestimated,
and therefore the committee placed great
scrutiny on the policies, practices, and
consequences placed on law enforcement
in drafting recommendations for
consideration.

Starting with proposals such as police
providing information on individual due
process rights before conducting a search,
and zero tolerance policies for white
supremacy and extremist activity on social
media could serve to establish trust with
communities that are wary of their
interactions with and the biases of law
enforcement. Developing trauma-informed
protocols and training can improve
outcomes in calls for service involving
survivors of domestic violence.

There are several recommendations on
the treatment of family members of an
individual involved in a critical incident and
the consequences on police involved such
incidents. The experience of community
members is that law enforcement has often
attempted to shape the public narrative
involving such incidents, seeking and
sharing limited and denigrating information
on individuals, edited footage, and
protecting and obfuscating the history and
conduct of police involved. These
recommendations along with several on
body worn camera footage are oﬀered to
ensure that fair and impartial treatment of
all parties is centered in even the most
tragic of circumstances. Furthermore, when
police fail to utilize body worn cameras, the
preponderance of guilt should be shifted to
them in critical incidents.

POLICE

CONDUCT

RECOMMENDATIONS

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 9
Search
[ACC9] The City of San José will
change its policy to require all SJPD
oﬃcers to provide their name, badge
number, and a card with instructions
for /f_iling a complaint to the civilian
oversight structure before conducting
a search.

Critical Incidents
[ACC7] The City of San José will
change its policies following critical
incidents involving the treatment of
family members and public informa-
tion on those involved in such
incidents. Families will not be interro-
gated in the /f_irst 24 hours after an
incident. No public or private discus-
sions will be held with press or com-
munity about those involved, such as
sharing mugshots, previous history of
involvement in the criminal justice
system, or edited footage seeking to
shape the public narrative. The City
will release unedited body cam
footage to the public without
captions, audio commentary, or
copyrighted music.
[ACC7] The City of San José will release
the disciplinary records of all oﬃcers
involved in critical incidents.
[ACC5] The City of San José will
change its policy to place police
oﬃcers on leave without pay after a
/f_irst critical incident triggering an
investigation.
[ACC5] The City of San José will
change its policy to immediately
remove oﬃcers who have committed
multiple critical incidents.
[ACC5] The City of San José will
change its policy to initiate mandatory
drug testing of oﬃcers involved in
critical use of use force cases.
[ACC5] The City of San José will
change its policy to require oﬃcers to
carry their own personal excessive
force insurance.
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202210
Body Worn Camera Usage
[ACC14] The City of San José will adopt new
policies on the proper use of body worn
cameras to ensure they are fully capturing the
actions of all parties for the duration of calls
for service and investigative stops.
[ACC14] Policies will limit the recording of
crime victims or witnesses without consent,
and while on the grounds of elementary or
secondary schools.
[ACC14] Footage shall be retained for at least
6 months after date it was recorded and
should be accessible to those who were the
subject of the footage, the parent or legal
guardian of a subject if they are a minor,
family of a deceased subject, or law enforce-
ment oﬃcer, their superior oﬃcer, or the
designated counsel of any of the above.
[ACC14] Footage shall be retained for at least
10 years if it captures an interaction of a
critical incident, an interaction where a
complaint has been /f_iled, or at the request of
a subject, guardian of a minor subject, or
next of kin of a deceased subject, or any of
their legal representatives. For incidents
resulting in death, the footage would be
held in perpetuity.
[ACC14] Whenever doing so is necessary to
protect personal privacy, the right to a fair
trial, the identity of a con/f_idential source or
crime victim, or the life or physical safety of
any person appearing in video footage,
redaction technology may be used to
obscure the face and other personally
identifying characteristics of that person.

An unedited original version of the video
shall be retained.
[ACC14] Body camera footage may not be
withheld of a law enforcement oﬃcer under
investigation for their conduct in their oﬃcial
capacity.
[ACC14] No footage may employ facial
recognition technology.
[ACC15] The City of San José will change the
SJPD Body Worn Camera (BWC) policy to
reverse the criminal preponderance of guilt,
considering guilty until proven innocent any
oﬃcers found failing to properly turn on a BWC
resulting in a critical incident.

Gender-Based
Violence Response
[ACC24] The City of San José
will adopt new trauma-
informed practices and
training in response to
incidents of gender-based
violence to ensure accurate
documentation of incidents,
following through on viola-
tions of restraining orders,
preventing the arrest of
survivors, and revisiting
mandatory arrest policies.

Social Media Policy
[ACC16] The City of San José
will adopt a zero tolerance
policy of White Supremacy and
Extremism. Advocating for
such content whether in
department public forums or
reported personal capacity are
grounds for dismissal.

POLICE

CONDUCT
RECOMMENDATIONS34
35 34a
34b
34c
34d
34e
34f
36 37

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 11
San José must create an inclusive, equitable, and diverse workforce that can attract law enforcement personnel that better re/f_lect and respond to the needs and challenges facing San José residents.

According to the July 2019 United States Census population estimates, the ethnic breakdown for the City of San José is: 35% Asian, 32% Hispanic or Latino, 26% White, 3% African American, and 4% other. However, according to the SJPD 2021 Recruitment and Hiring Activity Annual Report, the department is over represented by White oﬃcers (39%) and under represented in AAPI (14.5%) and Hispanic/Latinx (23.7%) oﬃcers.

During listening sessions with the community, RIPS members were told that many residents feel that SJPD’s training in handling crisis intervention and interactions with the disability community is ineﬀective.

RiPS members surfaced several personnel related recommendations to encourage the development of a more diverse, well-trained, and community oriented police force.

PERSONNEL

RECOMMENDATIONS
Discriminatory Behavior
[ACC3] The City of San José will implement a
study of SJPD to address discriminatory
behavior in the department and make recom-
mendations on potential reorganization and
accountability.

Training
[ACC18] The City of San José will adopt
enhanced training to law enforcement provid-
ed by members of the community from
underserved communities, those impacted by
police violence, disability rights organizations,
and youth.
[ACC11] The City of San José will evaluate and
revamp CIT training for law enforcement to
ensure oﬃcers can recognize and practice
responses to individuals with multiple, over-
lapping disabilities, working with local and
national organizations. CIT training will be
required every 2 years. CIT will also include
trauma-informed training on domestic
violence and caregiver abuse response.
[ACC13] The City of San José will enhance
training oﬃcer quali/f_ications to ensure they
have no resident complaints against them,
and they are screened for conscious and
unconscious bias. Oﬃcers must receive
training on adult learning theory, history of
marginalized communities in San José, and
ableism. Training oﬃcers will be evaluated on
the performance of oﬃcers they have trained.

Hiring
[ACC8] The City of San José will require SJPD to
develop and publicly report a strategy and timeline
for their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals in hiring and retention of police oﬃcers and leadership to the
extent allowable by law.
[ACC22] The City of San José will concentrate recruit-
ment eﬀorts for police oﬃcer hiring in San Jose
neighborhoods to better represent the diversity of
the city.
[ACC23] The City of San José will prioritize the hiring of more police oﬃcer candidates from San José,
through preference points, incentive pay upon hiring,
and potentially additional monetary compensation
for housing. Candidates should have a letter of
support from a community group or organization.
[ACC20] The City of San José will involve quali/f_ied
residents of San José in the police oﬃcer hiring
process to assist with interviewing and evaluating
potential candidates to select those who exhibit the
character and qualities the residents want in a police
oﬃcer.

Community Engagement
[ACC19] The City of San José will prioritize communi-
ty engagement on the part of police oﬃcers by
establishing more engagement expectations, requir-
ing completion of 60 hours of community engage-
ment per year, providing community sensitivity
training developed in concert with community
members, and ensuring police oﬃcers serve a mini-
mum of 2 years per assignment to a patrol district.
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 46
45 REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202212

ENFORCEMENT

PRIORITIES

RECOMMENDATIONS
The role of police as /f_irst respond-
ers can be crucial determinant to
how the criminal justice system
disproportionately impacts key
populations in our community. If
police are the responders to
concerns involving people who
are unhoused, the cascading
consequences of citations, /f_ines,
or incarceration may only further
exacerbate their destitution and
create barriers to long-term
stability. Prioritization of drug
enforcement for those who need
treatment seldom resolves the
underlying challenges they face.

For youth and families, the nature
of police intervention may have
long term social consequences.

Criminalization of
Homelessness
[PP6] The City of San José will
end enforcement of laws,
citations, and /f_ines that target
people who are unhoused and
redirect resources to support
housing, safe parking locations,
and supportive services to them.

School Partnerships
[PP13] The City of San José will
end the School Resource Oﬃcer
programs with local schools. The
City should invest in restorative
justice programming and alter-
native unarmed safety / security
responses for schools.

Child Protective
Services
[PP14] The City of San José will
identify policies and practices
that minimize child separation in
investigations of alleged abuse
working with the County of
Santa Clara.

Harm Reduction in
Drug Enforcement
[PP15] The City of San José will
study the enforcement priorities
and expand harm reduction
strategies for individuals strug-
gling with addiction in partner-
ship with the County of Santa
Clara.

Police presence and involve-
ment in schools has been
demonstrated to contribute to
the school to prison pipeline.

The Child Protective Services
system has proven to dispropor-
tionately target low-income
families of color, resulting in
family separations that have
long term consequences. Each
of these populations require
speci/f_ic resources and interven-
tions that law enforcement are
not equipped to provide.

Therefore, RiPS members
recommend that the City revise
enforcement priorities and
partnerships with other institu-
tions such as the County of
Santa Clara and school districts
to devise new protocols and
resources available to better
address the needs of these
impacted constituencies.
47 50
48 49

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 13
The responsibility to make our communities safe falls
to all us, not only the police. We must work together
to improve the social conditions that leave too many
in a state of insecurity.

As the Reimagining Public Safety Community
Advisory Committee concludes our work, we believe
that the recommendations we present lay a solid
foundation to build a long term strategy to make our
communities safer. Taken together these recommen-
dations seek to balance the need for traditional
reform of policing, while identifying new systems for
responding to crisis situations where police may not
be necessary, and identifying strategies that can
address root causes of violence and instability.

Core to our process of developing recommendations
was to center the voices and perspectives of diverse
constituencies in San José, many of whom have been
disproportionately impacted by our current law
enforcement approaches. These testimonies spoke
to the urgency for reform, the desire for alternative
community centered interventions, and the need to
heal trauma from violence in all of its forms.

Several community-based proposals suggest
reforms to current day policing to make police more
accountable and transparent. However, we believe
the City Council should also take immediate and
concrete action to develop a community participato-
ry plan to signi/f_icantly move away from policing as
the primary tool for ensuring public safety over the
years to come. This plan should have benchmarks,
evaluation points, and report outs. This plan should
involve at the very least acceptance and implemen-
tation of these proposals but should also be inten-
tional about the strategic redirection of police
functions to targeted alternative safety responses
over time, while larger investments in improving
social conditions are made.

We look forward to working with the San José City
Council and City administration to develop a long
term roadmap for change.

REIMAGINING

PUBLIC SAFETY

COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022
conclusion

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202214
APPENDIX 1: reimagining process
The uprising inspired by the
murder of Mr. George Floyd
inspired In June of 2020, local
leaders called on the City of
San José to commit meaningful
resources to establish an Oﬃce
of Racial Equity and to direct
that oﬃce to establish a com-
munity “process to redirect
resources away from policing
toward other community
based solutions. ”
The Council agreed to create
the Oﬃce of Racial Equity and
charged the administration
with establishing a community
process on the “future of
policing, ” to recommend new
ways of addressing social
issues, and “a process to review
our use of force policies. ”
In the Spring of 2021, the City
Manager’s oﬃce launched a
Reimagining Community
Safety Advisory Group with a
large and diverse group of
stakeholders. Members were
told they were selected, in part,
because of their direct relation-
ships with grassroots constitu-
encies. Many of the partici-
pants expressed signi/f_icant
concerns with inadequate
representation of youth and
system impacted individuals,
along with frustration with
the pace, scope, and poor
facilitation of the process.

That process disbanded in
May 2021.

In addition the proposal
outlined the establishment
of a semi-autonomous
Youth Council designed to
take a parallel track for
making recommendations
for public safety alternatives
and reform.

This process proposal was
adopted by the City Council
in June 2021. Members were
appointed shortly thereaf-
ter.

A proposal was developed for a
community- led process, that included
community representatives from 28
community-based organizations with
additional neighborhood representation.

The purpose of the Reimagining Public
Safety Community Advisory Committee
(RiPS) was to identify, research, develop,
and advance:
• Alternatives to policing. Make
recommendations to the City Council
on identi/f_ication and resourcing of
community-based programs and
interventions and alternative City
service models that will signi/f_icantly
change, reduce, or eliminate the role
of law enforcement in addressing
social challenges. These may involve
both the creation of alternative
emergency response systems and
preventative approaches.
• Transformation of police policies
and practices. The Committee must
develop a detailed understanding of
current SJPD policies and institutional
context to inform policy recommenda-
tions moving forward. The body will
explore what police policies
• Increased police accountability and
transparency to the public. Make
recommendations to the City Council
on increased police accountability,
which may include, but are not limited
to, oversight and disciplinary practices,
and transparency to the public.
• Implementation strategies. Make
recommendations to the City Council
on implementation strategies for
alternatives to policing, applying
necessary policy reforms, and
increasing public accountability/
transparency in San José.

Implementation recommendations
may include, but are not limited to,
proposals for publicly tracking
implementation of recommendations
and identifying resource needs and
funding strategies.

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 15
Starting on August 4, 2022 RiPS began meeting every two weeks. The focus of our meetings have been hearing lived experience testimonies along with presentations, perspectives, and policy recommendations from key community constituencies and other leaders.

RiPS MEETING TOPICS/PRESENTERS:

RiPS members heard feedback and analysis from San Jose’ s Independent Police Auditor and City Attorney’ s Oﬃce.

History of Policing &
Reform
Individuals Experiencing
Mental Health Challenges
Individuals with
Disabilities
Survivors of Gender- Based
Violence
Individuals who are
Unhoused
The Black
Community
The Latino and
Chicano Experience
Asian American & Paci/f_ic
Islander Community

LGBTQIA
Community
Y outh Council
Traﬃc
Safety
Reimagining Public Safety
Processes: Lessons
People’s Budget
Survey Results
William Armaline, PhD
[San José State University Human Rights Institute]
Tarab Ansari
[Behavioral Health Contractor’ s Association]
Sandra Asher [Parents Helping Parents]
Leigh Ann Davis [The Arc]
Esther Peralez-Dieckmann & Darcie Green
[NextDoor Solutions to Domestic Violence]
Chad Bojorquez
[Destination Home]
Kiana Simmons [HERO Tent], Carmen Brammer
[Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet] & Lavere Foster
[African American Community Service Agency]
Laurie Valdez
[Silicon Valley DeBug & Justice for Josiah]
Angelica Cortez, PhD [LEAD Filipino], Richard Konda
[Asian Law Alliance], Anthony Nguyen [Pivotal], &
Mimi Nguyen [Vietnamese American Roundtable]
Gabrielle Antolovich [Billy DeFrank Center] &
Sera Fernando [County Oﬃce of LGBTQ Aﬀairs]
Youth Council Members: Paula Escobar, Alex Spielmann, Yusuf Labia, Lahari Desireddi, Ezra Feleke, Jaria Jaug, Gabriel Young, L John Ristow [San José Department of Transportation]
Shiloh Ballard [Silicon Valley Bicylce Coalition]
Christopher Logan, Omar Leal, Lizz Finney, Poncho Guevara & Derrick Sanderlin
[Sacred Heart Community Service]
Miranda Worthen, PhD & Soma De Bourbon, PhD
[San José State University Human Rights Institute]
After the City forwarded the nominations of additional neighborhood representatives in October of 2021, RiPS created four ad-hoc subcommittees, a Steering Committee, Youth Council, and three topical committees designed to develop policy recommendations. Each subcommittee held publicly- noticed meetings to receive feedback on their draft recommendations. • Alternative Safety Response: Public Forum on March 9, 2022 • Accountability & Reform: Public Forums on February 15, 2022 and February 28, 2022
• Promotion & Prevention: Public Forum on February 22, 2022 • Y outh Council: Public Forum on March 30, 2022
The RiPS Committee adopted the recommendations on April 20, 2022.

Sacred Heart Community Service provided coordination support for the RiPS process.

Anthony Lê provided coordination support for the Youth Council. reimagining process [continued]

LIVED EXPERIENCE

TESTIMONIES
Rosie Chavez
Jackie Germaine
Darcie Green
Corina Griswold
Elsa Lopez
Andrew Rodriguez
Kiana Simmons
Amanda Sommers
Marcelina Taguinod
Laurie Valdez
Sharon Watkins

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202216
APPENDIX 2: RiPS youth council report
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022
State Law
[YC1] The City of San José will fully implement SB 2 - Police De-certi/f_ication
[YC2] The City of San José will fully implement AB 490 - Banning knee-to-neck holds
[YC3] The City of San José will direct Oﬃce of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Relations to lobby for and sign support letters for AB 1947 (Ting) - Rede/f_ine Hate Incidents as Hate Crimes in Local Law Enforcement.
[YC4] The City of San José will direct Oﬃce of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Relations to lobby for and sign support letters for AB 988: Creation of Mental Health Response Act.

Federal Law
[YC5] The City of San José will direct Oﬃce of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Relations to lobby for and sign support letters for S2103: “Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act” which allows individuals to sue
federal law enforcement oﬃcers & agencies in civil court for violations of their civil and constitutional rights.

Community Accountability
[YC6] The City of San José will establish an independent Community Civilian Audit and Oversight group that
incorporates representatives/liaisons from community-
based organizations, including residents broadly re/f_lective of the city’s diversity to oversee critical incident investigations, to monitor and make recommendations on the SJPD budget. [YC6a] The City of San José will increase budget transpar- ency, by providing more detail and better descriptions of what is in the budget.
[YC7] The City of San José will establish an independent Youth Audit and Oversight group made up of residents
ages 15-25. These paid positions would review and make recommendations on police reports, investigations, and the SJPD budget.
[YC8] The City of San José will establish the Police Chief as an elected position. Certain prerequisites in experience can be set to ensure proper experience and quali/f_ications are met.

The elections will occur in alignment with Mayoral races.

Candidates can only take money from individuals and
businesses that do not have foreign in/f_luence. The position can be recalled via public petitions.

PoliceAccountability
The Reimagining Public Safety Community Advisory Committee Youth Council served as an autonomous body of San José residents ages 16-21.

The Youth Council developed proposals in four categories:

Police Accountability, Police Relations/Outreach, Police Force/Tactics, and Alternative Systems.

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 17
Y outh Outreach
[YC9] The City of San José will create/expand on safe spaces initiative inclusive of all youth while also speci/f_ically tailoring to the needs of the community it serves.
[YC10] The City of San José will abolish the Team Kids program and introduce a community-led Public Safety Workshop that teaches students what their rights are, what to do if detained by the police, the history of law enforcement and how it has been used, the criminal justice system, and how youth can get involved.
[YC11] The City of San José will remove School Resource Oﬃcers and SJPD from all San Jose Uni/f_ied School District campuses and events and develop a replacement program of unarmed private security for schools, along with student behavioral resources.
[YC12] The City of San José will create a Career Panel for middle school and high school classrooms/schools on various professions which can make a diﬀerence in their community, including, but not limited to, SJPD.

Outreach
[YC13] The City of San Jose will provide focus police training on humaniz- ing the community they see and interact with by framing their interactions in a community-oriented, non-harmful, non-persecuting manner with an intent on strengthening community bonds and helping individuals. [YC14] The City of San José will remove police from community events and provide unarmed private security to make events inclusive to everyone. [YC15] The City of San José will expand outreach, advertising, and recruit- ment to increase turnout to public meetings, so more community mem- bers are aware of important decision making.

LGBTQ+ Relations
[YC16] the City of San José will increase funding for creation and/or expansion of LGBTQ+ friendly spaces and resources.
[YC17] the City of San José will expand training of police oﬃcers on how to interact with members of the LGBTQ+ community with LGBTQ Youth Space, including face-to-face discussion with members of the LGBTQ+ community to provide personal accountability for oﬃcers. [YC17a] The City of San José will include a graded assessment in the understanding of LGBTQ+ history, biases, and gender identity (implemented during the screening and/or training process) [YC17b] The City of San José will employ LGBTQ+ supportive organizations to create curriculum.

BIPOC Relations
[YC18] Given the over-representation of white oﬃcers on the SJPD, the City of San José will recruit Black, Indigenous, and People of Color to the police force keeping diversity and ethnic clusters in mind.
[YC19] The City of San José will prioritize hiring and maintaining oﬃcers who are local to San José.
[YC20] The City of San José will develop a protocol to allocate and dispatch oﬃcers from certain areas, respond to calls from that area. [YC21] The City of San José will establish an Impacted Families Roundtable, to amplify voices of families impacted by carceral systems in SJPD policy decisions. Counseling support will be oﬀered during and shortly after Roundtable meetings.

Police Relations/ Outreachyouth council recommendations [p2]

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202218
Mental Health Response
[YC22] The City of San Jose will develop protocols to
have certi/f_ied mental health professionals deployed to mental health crisis response calls rather than SJPD.
[Support RiPS AS1/2]
[YC23] The City of San Jose will provide deescalation
training to Mental Health Rapid Response teams in
additional training and resources to police on how to
respond to diﬀerent types of mental health related
issues.

Response to the Unhoused
[YC24] The City of San Jose will provide alternative
responders to individuals who are unhoused to provide
necessary support such as housing and clinical services.

Human Traﬃcking
[YC25] The City of San José will increase focus on
human traﬃcking, including better training and
resources to identify indicators of human traﬃcking,
how to carefully approach the cases without putting
victims in danger, providing access to community
services to assist in the victims recovery journey, and dispatching appropriate professionals to help victims
open up about their experience.
[YC26] The City of San José will increase transparency in the use of funds that SJPD and Human Traﬃcking Task
Force is receiving to improve their activities regarding human traﬃcking.

Demilitarizing & Decreasing Police Brutality
[YC27] The City of San José will provide stress training on diﬀerent situations with an emphasis on non-lethal
tactics, alternatives to using weapons, and how to avoid physical brutality.
[YC28] The City of San José will require police to
intervene to stop oﬃcers from using excessive force
and reporting to a supervisor, and the use of /f_irst aid to provide medical attention to anyone in police custody
who is injured or complains of injury. (See police
department policies from Seattle, Cleveland, New York
City, Las Vegas, Baltimore)
[YC29] The City of San José will revise police use of force policies to ensure use of a minimum amount of force to
apprehend a subject, with speci/f_ic guidelines for the types of force and tools authorized for a given level of resistance, deescalation tactics, and use of less lethal weapons. Policies should ban use of force for talking
back or punishment for running away, choke-holds,
strangleholds, hog-tying and transporting people face
down, or use of prone restraints.

Police Force/Tactics
youth council recommendations [p3]

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 2022 19
Body Camera Policies
[YC30] The City of San José will redesign body cameras, and policies governing their usage. Cameras should have wider lenses, collect 360 degree footage, better quality, battery length and reliability of on/oﬀ control. Oﬃcers should not be permitted to turn cameras oﬀ until the end of shift.

Cameras should not be covered at any time.
[YC31] The City of San José will ensure body camera
footage is accessible to the public.

Hiring/Recruitment
[YC32] The City of San José will conduct mental health
screening tests to ensure that oﬃcer candidates are not coming in with any chronic mental illnesses that can aﬀect their work.
[YC33] The City of San José will require oﬃcers to take ethnic studies and cultural awareness courses with grade standards to assure they have the competent cultural
awareness skills to do their jobs. Training should cover the cultures of residents they will assist in the community to ensure community members feel more comfortable.
[YC34] The City of San José will establish associate or bachelor’s degree requirements to serve on the police
force.
[YC35] The City of San José will screen and monitor police oﬃcers to assure they have no record of supporting racist, homophobic, transphobic causes, or any record of violent behaviors toward gender minorities.

Police Force/Tactics
[continued]
youth council recommendations [p4]

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . SAN JOSÉ
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL : APRIL 202220
Mental Health Response
[YC36] The City of San José will expand the community
driven mobile crisis response team [RiPS AS2], call center access to 988 [RiPS AS1], and develop outreach strategies to communities that could bene/f_it, such as unhoused
residents.

Drug Enforcement/Harm Reduction
[YC37] The City of San José will study the enforcement
priorities and expand harm reduction strategies for
individuals struggling with addiction. [RiPS PP15].

Basic Needs
[YC38] The City of San José will reallocate police department funding to expand resources that protect undocumented
immigrants, school counselors equipped for mental health crises, after-school programs for K-12 aged youth, fair and aﬀordable housing for all, food pantries, library programs, mental health service centers, support for families and children - [RiPS PP14]
Alternative Systems
youth council recommendations [p5]
Final Report
of the
San José Charter
Review Commission
Friday, December 3rd, 2021
Attachment C

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 di
ﬀerent 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 bene
ﬁt 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 a
ﬀected 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.

Sincere
ly,

FREDERIC
K 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 bene ﬁt 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 bene
ﬁts 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 o
ﬃce 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 o
ﬃcial 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 O
ﬃce 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 O
ﬃce 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 O ﬃce 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 speci
ﬁc 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 speci ﬁc 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 a
ﬀordable 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 Sta
ﬀ 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 structurefound 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 forodd-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 inclusionat 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 bene
ﬁted 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 bene ﬁt 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 speci ﬁc agenda. Ad hoc
subcommittee members were allowed to submit “minority reports” stating their opposition to recommendations contained in a speci
ﬁc 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 toﬁnalize the topics for each ad hoc subcommittee. Ad hoc subcommittee 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 sta
ﬀ 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 di
ﬀerent 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 o ﬃcial Commission
email addresses for all communications.
● Ad hoc subcommittee email threads included ONLY those Commissioners assigned to that speci
ﬁc 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 E
ﬃcient 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 o
ﬃce 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:

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.

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% Paci
ﬁc 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 a
ﬀected 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 andﬁring of key department head positions such as the police chief, public works director, andﬁnance 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 e
ﬀective 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 di
ﬀerent 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 “E
ﬀective 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 o
ﬃce 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 bene
ﬁt, 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 identi
ﬁed 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 a
ﬀordable 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 Mayorand members of the Councilshall 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 inde
ﬁnite term. The Council shallﬁx 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 speci ﬁc 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 identi ﬁed 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 re ﬂective 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 o
ﬃcer 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 speci ﬁc sections of the Charter, but the work and recommendations of the Charter Review Commission shall not be limited to such speci
ﬁc 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 o
ﬃce, shall nominate a person toﬁll 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 re ﬂects 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. Speci ﬁcally,
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.

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 forodd-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 a
ﬀect 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-o
ﬀ 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 o
ﬃce 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 o
ﬃce 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 o ﬃcials
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 o ﬃce 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 “o
ﬀ-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 signi ﬁcant 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 o
ﬃce 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 separatelyﬁlled. 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-o
ﬀ 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. Each 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 o
ﬃce 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-o
ﬀ 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 o
ﬃce 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 o
ﬃce 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). The most recent data shows that representation of women – women of color in particular – increased in the Bay Area cities where RCV was adopted. Data from the early 20th century also showed that representation of people of color increased in New York City and several Ohio cities where proportional RCV was used.

Additionally, one of the obstacles of running for San José city-wide o ﬃce is the pure cost, in
money and in time. The primary system means that candidates have to be ready to run in two separate elections, each taking months of commitment and campaign expenditures that can easily exceed $100,000 for each election. This type of commitment is very unrealistic for those who have family and job commitments but represent the more common experiences of the residents of San José.

Data also establishes that RCV improves on the civility of elections and promotes issue-oriented campaigns because candidates will work to become the second or third choice for voters. Improving the civility and promoting more issue- oriented campaigns 39 provides more incentives for women and people of color to participate as candidates by allowing campaigns to focus on policy ideas rather than attacking people.

Lastly, turnout during primary elections is always lower than turnout during general elections. However, primary voters are the ones who cut the ﬁeld to the top-two contenders, and in many cases elect local representatives outright. RCV will consolidate primary and general elections into one run in November, allowing more voters to participate in our local elections.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
As stated above, current and historical data shows that representation of women and people of color increases under RCV systems.

Opponents have argued that RCV is confusing, and a new system that requires participants to understand the new mechanics of voting would have a negative impact on older and/or limited English pro
ﬁciency speakers. However, a study from 2015 showed that at least 80% of voters in RCV jurisdictions rated RCV as easy to understand, regardless of age, race, education, or income-level. The only exception to this were 18-to-29-year-old voters. In this group, 79% rated RCV as easy to understand. This was reinforced in 2020 where a study of 1000 2020 RCV Democratic voters showed that: (1) 80% had no di ﬃculty ranking
candidates; (2) though older voters were more concerned about voting incorrectly, they were more likely to vote correctly than younger voters, and (3) only 12% under-voted, and available data suggests that this was intentional rather than by mistake.

Additionally, transitioning to new systems will always require investments in education and outreach to minimize any of the challenges in switching to a new system. The ultimate question should be whether the change is worth the transition.

This change is feasible. It has been done in cities around the United States and the Bay Area, including Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, San Francisco, and most recently Albany.

This change must be a Charter revision. The process de
ﬁning the primary/general election
system is currently outlined in the Charter under Section 1600 and must be amended to allow for RCV to occur.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
First, opponents to RCV believe that it increases the chance that a non-monotonic winner may result. Example: 2009 Burlington, Vermont mayoral race and 2010 Oakland California 40 mayoral race. In these races, the candidate who ultimately won did not receive the most votes in the initial rounds of ballot allocation. Opponents argue that this is not a desirable result because voters in the initial rounds of counting preferred other candidates. However, each voter only voted once, and the
ﬁnal result is still an expression of the will of the
voters. The ultimate winner received the most votes. Having a lower rank among voter preferences does not indicate that any other candidate was entitled to the seat.

Second, opponents to RCV also argue that the system promotes collusion among candidates. Example: This was one criticism of candidates Mark Leno and Jane Kim in the 2018 San Francisco Mayoral race. Leno and Kim issued ads urging their supporters to vote for each other in an e
ﬀort to keep Ed Lee from winning. Leno and Kim gave this speciﬁc statement about why they were supporting each other while running against each other:
“We’re telling all of our supporters to vote for both of us,” Sup. Kim told an assembled crowd Thursday. “Mark and I are opponents, as everyone knows, but we also agree that negative attacks don’t serve us in an election cycle, and certainly don’t educate our voters.” Finding commonality among competitors is not collusion, and this aspect of RCV is a reason to adopt it rather than reject it.

Third, opponents argue that RCV is not a true majority system. It is true that the ultimate winner in RCV elections does not necessarily have to receive a majority ofall votes cast. The ultimate winner in an RCV election receives the majority of continuing ballots. However, our current system is not a true majority system either. Example: In AD-25, Alex Lee came in second in the primary with 15.4% of the vote, which practically guaranteed that he would win the seat in November.

Proposed Charter Language
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-o
ﬀ Municipal Election, which shall be
held on the same date the State of California holds its Statewide General 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. Each member’s term shall commence on the
ﬁrst day of January next following, and end on the
41 last day of December in the fourth calendar year succeeding, the date of the member’s election. A regularly scheduled Primary Election shall be held on the same date that the State of California holds its Direct Primary Election. A Run-o
ﬀ Municipal Election shall be held on the same date the State of California holds its Statewide General Election.”
(d) RUN-OFF QUALIFICATION. The two candidates who poll the greatest number of votes for o ﬃce in the Primary Municipal Election shall be the only candidates whose names shall appear on the ballot as candidates for such o
ﬃce at the following Run-oﬀ Municipal Election.

RANKED CHOICE VOTING. Elections for all elected city oﬃces, including but not limited to Mayor and Councilmember, shall be conducted using ranked choice voting, known sometimes as "instant runo
ﬀ voting."
(1) Deﬁnitions.
(a) “Ranked choice voting” shall mean 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 runo
ﬀs until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

Ranked choice voting is also known as “instant runoﬀ voting.” (b) “Majority of votes” shall mean more thanﬁfty percent (50%) of the votes cast on continuing ballots.
(c) “Continuing ballot” shall mean a ballot that counts towards a continuing candidate.
(d) “Continuing candidate” shall mean a candidate that has not been eliminated.
(e) “Choice” means an indication on a ballot of a voter’s assigned ranking of candidates (i.e., ﬁrst choice, second choice, third choice, etc.) for any single o ﬃce according to the voter’s preference.
(f) “Vote” means a ballot choice that is counted toward the election of a candidate. During each round of counting, each continuing ballot contains one vote. Allﬁrst choices are votes and lower ranked choices are potential runoﬀ votes that may, in accordance with the requirements of this section, become votes and subsequently credited for a continuing candidate. 42 (g) “Round of counting” or “round” means a step in the counting process during which votes for all continuing candidates are tabulated for the purpose of determining whether a candidate has achieved a majority of the votes cast for a particular o ﬃce,
and, absent a majority, which candidate or candidates must be eliminated.
(h) “Next ranked” means the highest ranked choice for a continuing candidate.
(2) General Provisions. Ranked choice voting elections for the o ﬃces of
Mayor and City Council member shall be conducted according to the procedures in this section. The City shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with ranked choice voting. The use of ranked choice voting shall commence with the 2024 Regular Municipal Election.
(3) Ballot. The ranked choice voting ballot shall allow voters to rank as many choices as there are candidates. The ballot shall not interfere with a voter's ability to rank a write-in candidate.
(4) Tabulation. The ballots shall be counted in rounds. (a) In the
ﬁrst round, every ballot shall count as a vote towards the ﬁrst-choice candidate.
(b) After every round, if any candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared the winner.
(c) If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate receiving the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated.
(d) Every ballot counting towards that candidate shall be advanced to the next-ranked continuing candidate. All the continuing ballots for all continuing candidates shall be counted again in a new round.
(5) Ties. In the event that two or more candidates tie for the smallest number of votes, the candidate to eliminate shall be chosen by lot. 43 (6) Elimination of more than one candidate. During the elimination stage of any round, in the event that any candidate has more votes than the combined vote total of all candidates with fewer votes, all the candidates with fewer votes shall be eliminated simultaneously, and those ballots advanced to the next ranked continuing candidate. (7) Skipped rankings. In the
ﬁrst or any round, in the event that any ballot
reaches a ranking with no candidate indicated, that ballot shall immediately be advanced to the next ranking.
(8) Undervotes, Overvotes, and Exhausted Ballots. After each round, any ballot that is not continuing is an undervote, overvote, or exhausted ballot, as follows: Any ballot that has no candidates indicated at any ranking shall be declared an "undervote." In the event that any ballot reaches a ranking with more than one candidate indicated, that ballot shall immediately be declared an "overvote." In the event that any ballot cannot be advanced because no further continuing candidates are ranked on that ballot, that ballot shall immediately be declared "exhausted". Any ballot that has been declared an undervote, overvote, or exhausted shall remain so and shall not count towards any candidate in that round or in subsequent rounds.
(9) Reports. The following reports shall be produced for public review. (a) The "summary report" for a contest shall mean a report that lists the candidate vote totals in each round, and the
cumulative numbers of undervotes, overvotes, and exhausted ballots in each round.
(b) The "ballot image report" for a contest shall mean a report that lists, for each ballot, the candidate or candidates indicated at each ranking, the precinct of the ballot, and whether the ballot was cast by a vote-by-mail ballot. In the report, the ballots shall be listed in an order that does not permit the order in which they were cast in each precinct to be reconstructed.
(c) The "comprehensive report" for a contest shall mean a report that lists the vote totals in the summary report by precinct. The report shall list, for each round, the number of ballots cast in each precinct that:
44 i) were tallied as votes for each candidate in that round, ii) have been declared undervotes,
iii) have been declared overvotes, cumulatively for all previous rounds and inclusive of the reported round of
tabulation, and
iv) have been declared exhausted cumulatively for all
previous rounds and inclusive of the reported round of
tabulation.
(d) Mode and manner of release. Preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot image report shall be made
available as soon as possible after the commencement of the canvass of votes cast. The summary report, ballot image report, comprehensive report, and preliminary versions of the summary report and ballot image report shall be made
available to the public during the canvass via the Internet and by other means. The ballot image report and preliminary versions of the ballot image report shall be made available in a plain text electronic format. In any case, preliminary versions of these reports shall be made available to the public prior to the commencement of the manual tally.
(10) Continuing the tally to two candidates. If a winner is declared when there are three or more continuing candidates (including the winner), and if the vote tabulating system allows for it, additional rounds of tallying shall occur until there are only two candidates left. (a) A preliminary version of the comprehensive report shall be made available to the public prior to the selection of precincts for the public one percent manual tally, as provided by state law.
(b) After each round of the manual tally, the next choice votes shall be assigned based on the candidate totals in the
summary round-by-round report for the entire contest.
(11) Changes to Procedures. For the purposes of this subsection:
"voting equipment" shall mean all ballots and/or voting devices, vote tabulating systems and/or similar or related systems to be used in the conduct of the City's election, including but not limited to paper ballot systems, optical scan systems, and touchscreen systems. 45 (a) Number of rankings. In the event that the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate a number of rankings on the ballot equal to the number of candidates, the City Clerk may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to the maximum number allowed by the equipment. This limit shall never the less than three.
(b) Voting Equipment. If the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate all of the procedures in subsections (5)-(10) above, the City Clerk may make changes to those procedures provided that ranked choice voting shall still be used and the smallest feasible number of changes made until such time as the voting equipment can accommodate those procedures in their entirety.
(c) State Guidelines. If the State of California adopts guidelines for the conduct of ranked choice voting elections and the voting equipment used to conduct the City's election can
accommodate the State's guidelines, the City Clerk shall have the option of adopting those guidelines, in whole or in part, in lieu of the ranked choice voting procedures in this section. (12) Exception from Using Ranked Choice Voting. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the City shall use ranked choice voting once the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters is able to conduct the election on behalf of the City in accordance with the requirements and procedures of this section, including any changes to such procedures made pursuant to subsection (11).
(13) Election Procedures if Ranked Choice Voting is Not Used:
(a) In the event that the City is unable to use ranked choice voting, the City shall hold Municipal Primary Elections for the nomination of o
ﬃcers and for such other purposes as the
Council may prescribe, which shall be held on the same date the State of California holds its Statewide Primary Election. Any candidate receiving a majority of the vote cast for all candidates for that o
ﬃce at the Municipal Primary Election
shall be declared elected.
46 (b) If at any Municipal Primary Election there is any oﬃce to which no person was elected, then the two candidates for such oﬃce receiving the highest number of votes for such oﬃce shall be the candidates, and the only candidates, for such oﬃce whose names shall be printed upon ballots to be issued at the Regular Municipal Election; provided that, in any event, all persons receiving a number of votes equal to the highest number of votes received by any candidate shall also be candidates at such second election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast for all candidates for that o
ﬃce at the
Regular Municipal Election shall be declared elected.
(g) MAJORITY OF VOTES. No person shall be declared elected to the oﬃce of the Mayor or Council member at any municipal election unless the person receives a majority of the votes cast for such o
ﬃce as deﬁned by Section
1600(d)(1)b.

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

This recommendation was passed on October 18th, 2021 with 20 aye, 1 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
The San José Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices (formerly called Ethics Commission) is currently charged with monitoring compliance, investigating violation allegations, and making recommendations on ethics policies. As of November 2020, the City Charter highlights in detail three commissions: Planning Commission, Civil Service Commission, and Salary Setting Commission. Election integrity is crucial towards ensuring a fair election cycle for candidates, volunteers, and voters. This responsibility is one which should not be taken lightly. While details of the San José Board of Fair Campaign and 47 Political Practices are listed in the Municipal Code, it is currently omitted from the City Charter.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
Elevating the San José Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices from the Municipal Code to the City Charter is intended to signify the importance that the Board has in ensuring political candidates are following election rules.

It is feasible to elevate this Board to a standing Board under the Charter, as the Board for Fair Campaign and Political Practices already exists in the Municipal Code.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
There is no identi
ﬁable burden to elevating this Board to a Standing one under the Charter.

Proposed Charter Language
This amendment would occur in Article X of the City Charter.

Policy Recommendations
No policy recommendations in the area of Voting & Elections were approved by the Commission.
48 Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
Preface
This area of focus covers the following directives from Council:

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

These directives informed the research and deliberations of the Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion ad hoc subcommittee, as well as the recommendations they put forth for consideration by the full Commission. The ad hoc subcommittee provided the following summaries.

Charter Recommendations
Reform Boards and Commissions (Article X)
What is the recommendation?
A. Remove citizenship requirement for all applicable Boards and Commissions as permitted by Senate Bill 225 , which revised membership requirements to all 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 members of all Boards and Commissions.

This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 22 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
49 This recommendation seeks to improve accountability, representation, and inclusion under a racial equity lens within Boards and Commissions at the City of San José.

Additionally, this recommendation aligns with the City of San José’s newly created Oﬃce of Racial Equity in advancing systems change through a citywide racial equity framework that will examine and improve San José’s internal policies, programs, and practices to eradicate any structural and/or institutional racism in the City of San José. From the Oﬃce of Racial Equity’s website
“This includes a focus on enabling the organization, at all levels and in all departments, to identify ways to improve outcomes for Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and People of Color.” Lastly, this recommendation also aligns with our Commissioner Agreement of “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.”
According to data from the last three years gathered by the City Clerk’s O ﬃce, the
representation across Boards & Commissions is not representative of the population demographic of the City of San José. This data clearly indicates the racial disparities in representation (City of San José, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3) on City Boards and Commissions. The impacts of these disparities on BIPOC, low-income, undocumented, and those experiencing houselessness can be seen in the Planning Commission which, up until recently, did not have diverse representation for communities of color. The Planning Commission is a powerful commission whose decisions impact historically redlined communities, such as the Flea Market Redevelopment and Rezoning in the early 2000s (Resolution No. 73956, 71362), that is felt very vividly today by many vendors and their families.
“Today plans for the proposed urban village would shut out two-thirds of vendors because of the market’s reduced size. Without plans to protect or relocate the ﬂea
market, vendors who depend on it as a main source of income would be displaced and left without employment.” - San José Spotlight
What would this have looked like if there was more representation on Boards and Commission from our historically marginalized communities such as our immigrant and/or undocumented community members?
50 Why is this particular change being recommended?
Representation by those with the lived experience of hardships such as displacement or gentriﬁcation means that those individuals would be able to identify potential unintended or negative impacts of policy decisions that could otherwise go unnoticed or addressed by those without those same lived experiences. While we cannot undo the past, now is the time to prevent further community harm to our historically underrepresented communities.
“Equity is de
ﬁned as, just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Unlocking the promise of the nation by unleashing the promise in us all.” - The American Planning Association These changes will bene
ﬁt all of the people of San José, not right away or all at once but over time.

1. On membership requirements for Boards and Commissions. There are examples of these changes across the Country and the State of California. Recently the City of Santa Ana and Costa Mesa have updated their Board and Commission membership requirements as permitted by California Senate Bill 225, signed on October 12, 2019, which granted non-citizen residents, regardless of immigration statutes, access to service in appointment to civil o
ﬃce, including state and local boards and
commissions. From SB225:
“The California Legislature ﬁnds and declares all of the following:
(a) The State of California is the largest and most diverse state in the nation, with a total population of almost 40 million people, and a total immigrant population of about 10 million people from over 60 di
ﬀerent countries.
(b) California prides itself on its great racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, and acknowledges that diverse backgrounds bene
ﬁt the state through providing a
diversity of experiences and expertise, and this diversity is especially beneﬁcial in creating public policy that supports and protects all people.” - Senate Bill 225 Text

2. On process for Boards and Commissions:
a. On training and education. This one would be a one time curriculum development that could be watched via video. Content can be adapted from presentations given to the Charter Commission on May 3rd by the San José 51 Oﬃce of Racial Equity and Sept 9th presentation by the Santa Clara County Oﬃce of LGBTQ Aﬀairs part of the Division of Equity & Social Justice, for Rosenberg’s or Robert’s Rules of Order that one-time content can be developed by the City Attorney or City Clerk’s Oﬃce.
b. On Chair and Vice Chair selection. Most commissions, unless otherwise stipulated, democratically nominate and select a Chair and Vice Chair through a majority vote of members on said Boards, Commissions, and Committees. This is a procedural amendment with no
ﬁscal or staﬀ impact.
c. On incorporating an equity lens into decision-making. In partnership with a phased approach with appropriate departments such as but not limited to the O
ﬃce of Racial Equity. There are examples of this change from across the county. Following GARE, the American Planning Association which has 40,000 members from 90 countries released a Planning for Equity Guide in 2019 supporting these practices. The City of Baltimore practices incorporating a racial equity lens into their entire planning department.

3. On a stipend for Board Members and Commissioners. Currently, approximately 39 Board Members and Commissioners receive a stipend or reimbursement, which is roughly 11% of all Board Members and Commissioners:
● Appeals Hearing Board - $100/Per Mtg
● Planning Commission - $250/Mo
● Civil Service Commission - $450-250/Mo
● Federated City Employees' Retirement System - $250/Mo ○ Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee, Voluntary Employees Bene ﬁciary
Association Advisory Committee are reimbursed only.
● Police and Fire Retirement Plan Board - $250/Mo
Through a continued phased approach, some members of Boards and Commissions could be moved to reimbursement and eventually stipend as appropriately determined via budget considerations.

The burden of change weighs on EVERYONE, all participants, both those on the city sta ﬀ
and residents stepping into unfamiliar environments and roles to create sustainable and long lasting change for our City and Communities that improves social and racial equity, accountability, and inclusion. We are all human and deserving of life, joy, safety, shelter and sustenance. As a member of this community we are all responsible for the care that goes 52 into building community and meaningful connection now and for future generations. Some people are more privileged than others, so while the less privileged are overburdened with surviving unfair and inequitable systems, those that are privileged, like every person here that has made it “enough” to volunteer over 100 hours for free. It is our civic duty and responsibility to relieve every burden possible that is within our ability to do so.

What are the arguments against this proposal?

1. There is no budget available to support this work, it will cost taxpayers too much money.

Improving social and racial equity will require some equity to be invested into our community. This investment is also supported by the most recent Mayor’s Budget Message, on Spending Proposals Section A Equity and Racial Justice On items 1: Removing item (a) and (b) There is no
ﬁscal impact as it is a change in
membership requirement and does not impact staﬀ or resources.

On items 2-3: The City of San José already allocates time and budget to support the work of Boards, Commissions, and Committees, through a phased approach it is ﬁscally feasible to create these incremental changes over time in partnership with other City Departments

2. The City of San José does not have a diversity and/or racial equity problem.As the data gathered and collected by the City Clerk’s Oﬃce on Boards and Commission, there is clear evidence of lack of diversity and representation, and direct impact to BIPOC, low-income, undocumented, and those experiencing houselessness as a result.

3. There is not enough data available that can ensure equitable outcomes.While there is not as much data documenting long term impacts that ensure more equitable outcomes, there is plenty of data such as gathered and collected by the City Clerk’s O
ﬃce on Boards and Commission, that there is clear evidence of lack of diversity and representation, and direct impact to BIPOC, low-income, undocumented, and those experiencing houselessness as a result. Additionally, equitable data collection is not widely practiced at the City of San José yet.

However, the formation of the O
ﬃce of Racial Equity is a step towards better
practices. Our ﬁrst most signiﬁcant step that we can take is “Equitable Inclusion”’ through removing barriers to participation.

Proposed Charter Language
53 Replace “ARTICLE X SECTION 1000 Planning Commission” items (a) and (c) as follows:
(a) He or she must have been a citizen of the United States for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the four-year term or lesser period of time for which he or she is appointed, and he or she must be a citizen of the United States during his or her incumbency;A person shall not be eligible to take or hold oﬃce as a member of the Planning Commission unless the person is at least 18 years of age and has been a resident of the City of San José for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the four-year term or lesser period of time for which the person is appointed. Members of the Planning Commission must be residents of the City of San José during incumbency. (c) He or she must have been a resident of the City of San José for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the four-year term or lesser period of time for which he or she is appointed, and he or she must be a resident of the City of San José during his or her incumbency;
(d) He or she must have been a registered elector of the City of San José at th time of his or her appointment and thereafter to and including the date of commencement of the four-year term or lesser period of time for which he or she is appointed.

Amend “ARTICLE X SECTION 1001 Civil Service Commission” as follows:
(a) MEMBERSHIP. The Civil Service Commission shall consist of ﬁve (5) members
appointed by the Council for terms of four (4) years. Members must be qualiﬁed electors of the City at all times during their terms of oﬃceat least 18 years of age and be residents of the City at all times during their term of oﬃce; nNot more than four (4) shall be of the same sex; and one (1) shall be an attorney-at-law, licensed to practice law in the State of California, who shall have practiced law in said State for at least
ﬁve (5) years.

Amend “ARTICLE X 1001.1 Salary Setting Commission” as follows:
(a) MEMBERSHIP. The Salary Setting Commission shall consist of ﬁve (5) members appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Members must be qualiﬁed electors of the City at all times during their term of oﬃceat least 18 years of age and be residents of the City at all times during their term of oﬃce.

Create new section “ARTICLE X 1004 Guidelines for Boards and Commissions” as follows:
54 All Boards and Commissions shall follow these guidelines:
(a) Training and Education. All Board and Commission members are subject to training that address gender, racial and social equity, conﬂicts of interests, and code of ethics and related civic education as required such as the Brown Act, Rosenberg/Robert's Rules of Order, etc.
(b) Chair and Vice Chair Selection. All Board, Commission, and Committee(s) shall have a Chair and Vice Chair, democratically selected through a vote of the majority of members of said Board, Commission, or Committee. (c) Incorporate racial and social equity analysis to promote the use of an “equity lens” for decision-making. An equity lens is a tool used to improve planning, decision-making, and resource allocation leading to more racially equitable policies and programs. For any policy or project, decision makers could consider:
(i) Structural Equity: What historic advantages or disadvantages have aﬀected residents in the given community?
(ii) Procedural Equity: How are residents who have been historically excluded from planning processes being authentically included in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the proposed policy or project?
(iii) Distributional Equity: Does the distribution of civic resources and investment explicitly account for potential racially disparate outcomes?
(iv) Transgenerational Equity: Does the policy or project result in unfair burdens on future generations?
Amend “ARTICLE X SECTION 1003 Reimbursement for Expenses” as follows:

All Mmembers of boards, commissions and committees shall receive reimbursementa stipend, to the extent such is authorized by the Council for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties or functions of o ﬃceand does
not con ﬂict with rules and regulations for city employees that serve on a commission.
55 Add a Native Land Acknowledgement to the City Charter What is the recommendation?
Formally include a Native Land Acknowledgement of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in San José’s Charter.

This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 22 aye, 0 nay and 0 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
The secularization of the Bay Area has caused harm to Indigenous People including, but not limited to, taking and not returning land occupied by tribes, instating government policies that exterminated Native language, cultural practices and religious rights, and causing trauma to generations of Native People. Secularization of the Missions in 1834 was the process of converting mission-controlled lands from religious to secular possession. Under the terms of the 1834-1836 secularization of the California Franciscan Missions by Spain and Mexico, including Missions Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San José within the Bay Area, half of the mission-controlled lands were to go to the emancipated mission Indians, but that never happened. The loss of their Native land and lack of acknowledgement of this history continues to cause harm.

The atrocities leveled against Native People has resulted in mislabeling members with no member input. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, without any input from the tribe and without consultation, were mislabeled the Verona Band after a nearby railroad station.

Additionally, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was slated to receive land in 1914 and again in 1927 but, without a site visit or consultation with the tribe, they were removed from the list of tribes scheduled to receive land. This adversely a
ﬀected their ability to have homes,
community spaces for gatherings, religious ceremonies, and other important cultural events. The mislabeling and denial of land to them were, and are, very harmful to Muwekma Ohlone members. These events led to the start of the intentional extermination of their language, cultural practices and religious rights.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
A Native land acknowledgment will support the healing of generations of trauma and promote them in
ﬁnding their voice in the conversation of where and how theyﬁt into the diverse community of the Bay Area in general, and San Jose in particular. Land 56 acknowledgements are very important for the healing process. They recognize the existence of Native People, not only that they were here in some distant past, but rather they are alive and thriving. The Muwekma Ohlone people are stewards of their ancestral land, preserving their connections from past to future generations. This acknowledgement will also recognize and show appreciation for the contributions their ancestors have made to our shared history.

Including this in our Charter is of the utmost importance to our Native community. It is the ﬁrst step to healing the community by acknowledging its importance to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and other indigenous people. This is, to our knowledge, becoming a common practice in many places in California and the rest of the country.

We are not aware of any law prohibiting such an acknowledgement.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The Commission sees no arguments against this proposal at this time. There is no monetary impact to the community, and no contradiction to the fact that our land was previously occupied by Native People.

Proposed Charter Language
Include the following land acknowledgement as a preamble to the Charter.

Horše túuxi! (Hor-sheh troo-hee)
The City of San José would like to recognize that it is located on the ethnohistoric territory of the ancestral and unceded land of theThámien (thah-me-in) Ohlone (oh-loh-knee) -speaking tribal groups of the greater Santa Clara Valley,which includes the lands of theAlsons, Matalans, and thePaleños - whose tribal region was named after their powerful chiefCapitan Pala, and the two Mexican land grants located in the East Hills above San José - and who were intermarried with the direct ancestors of some of the lineages enrolled in the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, whom were missionized into Missions Santa Clara, San José, and San Francisco. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is the legal successor of all of the surviving Native American lineages, including theThámien Ohlone-speaking tribes, who comprised the historic sovereign and previously federally recognized Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues 57 to be of great spiritual and historic importance to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and other familial descendants of the Verona Band.

We recognize that every member of the greater San José community has, and continues to beneﬁt from, the use and occupation of this land, since The City of San José’s establishment in 1777. Consistent with our values of community, inclusion, and diversity, we have a responsibility to acknowledge and make known through various enterprises The City of San José’s relationship to Native Peoples. As members of the San José community, it is vitally important that we not only acknowledge and commemorate the history of the land on which we live, work, and learn, but also, we recognize that the Muwekma Ohlone People are alive and ﬂourishing members of the San José and broader Bay Area communities today. Aho! Use Gender-Inclusive Language In The Charter And City Documents What is the recommendation?
Update gendered language in the Charter and oﬃcial City documents (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, and City policies) to be gender inclusive or gender neutral.

This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 22 aye, 0 nays and 0 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Violence and discrimination born of intolerance and marginalization continue to take lives and create barriers to equity and opportunity for LGBTQ+ people and their families.

Language is also gendered and plays a central role in human cognition and behavior as one of the most common mechanisms by which gender is constructed and reinforced. Some languages do not mark gender distinctions systematically, some use pronouns to distinguish between male and female, and some go even further, extending the gender distinction to inanimate nouns through a system of grammatical gender. Gendered language is essential as it frames the understanding of equality.

Language is a re
ﬂection of the attitudes and norms within a society. It also shapes our worldview and, over time, people’s attitudes as to what is “normal” and acceptable. The way language is used not only reﬂects social structures and biases. However, it may also 58 reinforce preconceptions and inequalities related to gendered roles in everyday life and the work environment.

Appearances of Gendered
Language in Charter
4 His
79 His or Her
48 He or She
9 Him or Her
140 Total
Exclusive
terms
Inclusive/neutral terms
Chairman
Chairmanship
Chair (or Chairperson)
Chairpersonship
Businessman Businessperson
Policeman Police oﬃcer
Cleaning lady Cleaner
Spokesman Spokesperson
Fireman Fireﬁghter
Statesman Political leader/Head of
State/Diplomat/Political ﬁgure
Handyman Technician/Repairer
Cameraman Videographer
Removal man Mover
Waiter/Waitress Server
Why is this particular change being recommended?
This proposed amendment seeks to promote and improve accountability, representation, and inclusion under a racial equity lens at the City of San José by using gender inclusive language in oﬃcial City documents.

There are local examples of this change. Santa Clara County has started the process of using inclusive language in all of their documents through a recent policy change.

This recommendation must be a Charter revision to both address issues with current Charter language, as well as support language inclusivity to re ﬂect on all of San José City’s
documents.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The Commission sees no arguments against this proposal at this time.

Proposed Charter Language
Amend “ARTICLE XVII SECTION 1704 De
ﬁnitions of the Charter” as follows:
(h) The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. (i) Gender. The gender neutral pronoun includes the feminine, masculine, and non-binary genders.
(ii) Pronoun Singularity. “They/them” shall indicate a singular individual, unless the context indicates the contrary. In most cases, the singular number includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. (iii) Gender. Whenever a personal pronoun is used in the neutral gender, it shall be deemed to include the feminine and masculine also. “They/them”, shall indicate a singular individual, unless the context indicates the contrary. (iv) Update pronouns when appropriate and also includes the updating of 60 future documents, applying only to o ﬃcial documents like ordinances, resolutions, and City policies by making changes such as the following:

Gendered subject (he, she, etc.), object (him, her, etc.) and possessive (his, hers, etc.) pronouns shall be replaced by a gender-neutral description of the pronoun referent’s title of oﬃce, employment or descriptor.

Do not make gender visible when it is not relevant for documents and communications.

Update gendered language to be gender inclusive or gender neutral.

Create a Police Commission, an Independent Investigation Department, and an Oﬃce of the Inspector General
What is the recommendation?
This recommendation consists of three primary elements, the details of which follow:

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’s O
ﬃce 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 Commission in conducting reviews of patterns, practice, trends, systems, and policies at the Police Department.
61 This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 20 aye, 1 nay and 1 absent votes.

A. Police Commission.

1. Review, with expertise and assistance from an Inspector General’s O ﬃce, and through
the use of its access authority:
a. Training;
b. Patterns or Practice;
c. Use of Force, stops/detentions, other practices;
d. Policies and procedures;
e. Supervision and management;
f. Hire and Fire Chief Of Police alongside City Council and Mayor as described below; Appraise Chief of Police; Hire/
ﬁre/appraise the Inspector General (IG) and the
Independent Investigations Department Head (IID)
g. Recommend SJPD Budgeting to City Council

2. Conduct regular (e.g. monthly) public hearings on Department policies, rules, practices, customs, and General Orders. The Commission shall determine which Police Department policies, rules, practices, customs, or General Orders shall be the subject of the hearing.

The Commission shall be authorized to convene subcommittees to study speci ﬁc topics or
policies and shall ensure broad community participation in those subcommittees.

3. It shall have an investigative/monitoring function: It shall have the same level of access to San José records as the Inspector General (discussed below) and authority to issue subpoenas to compel the production of books, papers and documents and take testimony on any matter pending before it except that the Commission shall not have any authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigating any City employee, including an Agency employee, who is not a police o
ﬃcer. If any person subpoenaed fails or refuses to appear or to produce required documents or to testify, the majority of the members of the Commission may
ﬁnd him in contempt, and shall have power to take proceedings on that behalf provided by the general law of the State.

4. Propose changes at its discretion or upon direction, by adoption of a resolution, of the City Council, including modiﬁcations to the Department’s proposed changes, to any policy, procedure, custom, or General Order of the Department which governs use of force, use of force review boards, pro
ﬁling/discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics identiﬁed by federal, state, or local law, other constitutional issues (e.g., stops, detentions, 62 searches) or First Amendment assemblies, or which contains elements expressly listed in federal court orders or federal court settlements which pertain to the Department and are such federal court orders and settlements remain in e
ﬀect. All such proposed changes and
modiﬁcations shall be submitted by the Commission Chair or designee to the City Council for review, approval or rejection. If the City Council does not approve, modify and approve, or reject the Commission’s proposed changes or modi
ﬁcations within one hundred and
twenty (120) days of the Commission’s vote on the proposed changes, then the Commission’s proposed changes or modi
ﬁcations will become ﬁnal.

5. Approve or reject the Department’s proposed changes to all policies, procedures, customs, and General Orders of the Department which govern the topics/issues identi ﬁed
above.

If the Commission does not approve or reject the Department’s proposed changes within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the Department’s submission of the proposed changes to the Commission, the Department’s proposed changes will become ﬁnal. If the
Commission rejects the Department’s proposed changes, notice of the Commission’s rejection, together with the Department’s proposed changes, shall be submitted by the Commission Chair or designee to the City Council for review.

The City Council shall consider the Commission’s decision within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the Commission’s vote on the Department’s proposed changes, and may approve or reject the decision. If the Council does not approve or reject the Commission’s decision, the Commission’s decision will become
ﬁnal.

6. Review and comment on, at its discretion, other policies, procedures, customs, and General Orders of the Department. All such comments shall be submitted to the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police shall provide a written response to the Commission upon the Commission’s request.

7. Review the City of San José’s proposed budget to determine whether budgetary allocations for the Department are aligned with the Department’s policies, procedures, and customs. The Commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on the Department budget per budget cycle and shall forward to the City Council any recommendations for change.

8. Require the Chief of Police, or designee, to attend Commission meetings and require the Chief of Police to submit an annual report to the Commission regarding such matters as the Commission shall require, including. but not limited to a description of Department 63 expenditures on community priorities as identiﬁed by the Commission. The Chief of Police, or designee, shall also respond to requests made by the Commission, through the Chairperson, by a majority vote of those present. The Chief of Police, or designee, shall provide to the Commission Chair an estimate of the time required to respond to the Commission’s requests.

9. Report at least once a year to the Mayor, the City Council, and to the public to the extent permissible by law, the information contained in the Chiefs report in addition to such other matters as are relevant to the functions and duties of the Commission.

10. The Police Commission has the role of recommending candidates to the City Council for the hiring of a police chief. Hiring the police chief shall involve interviews with community panels and selecting
ﬁnalists to send to the City. A representative from the Police Commission shall be on the community panel, as the Commission is expected to engage with the public during the selection process. Individual Councilmembers may add candidate names for a vote so long as the community panel has had an opportunity to weigh in on the candidate. Further, the Commission has the role of appraising the police chief’s performance in the form of regular performance evaluations. The police chief reports to the Police Commission. City Council may hire a police chief by a vote of their choice, majority or supermajority.

The City Council may
ﬁre the police chief without cause by a 2/3 vote, and with cause by a majority vote. The Commission mayﬁre the police chief by a majority vote for cause, and what counts as cause shall be deﬁned by ordinance. The Commission may notﬁre the police chief without cause. The City Council may block theﬁring of the police chief by the Commission with a 2/3 vote, within 15 days of the Commission’s vote, or it becomes law.

Commission shall appoint an acting chief who already works for the SJPD during the 15 days and until a new chief is hired through the hiring process.

The City Manager no longer has the role of hiring, appraising, and ﬁring the police chief.

11. Composition of Police Commission and How They Are Selected and Removed:

Each councilmember, and the mayor, shall select one applicant for a four-year term, for a maximum of 2 terms if the applicant so desires once selected by a councilperson. Half of the initial applicant pool shall serve a two-year term so that at any given time only half the commission needs to be replaced. Former or current law enforcement, and those a ﬃliated
with law enforcement or police unions shall not be eligible to serve on the Commission.

Disclosures shall be made regarding any immediate family members who are or have 64 served as law enforcement, and immediate family members who are or were aﬃliated with a police union. Additionally, no city staﬀ is eligible for this Commission. Each commissioner may create any number of subcommittees of which members of the public will be eligible to be appointed to by the commissioner who is a subcommittee lead.

Commissioners may be removed for cause, as deﬁned by ordinance, by the City Council by a majority vote. Commissioners may not be removed for political reasons, and the elements of “cause” shall exclude politics to the extent it can.

12. Oversee and review the investigations department (discussed below) and the Oﬃce of the Inspector General (discussed below). This includes hiring and termination (with cause) of the IID and OIG agency heads. Selection shall involve interview panels with community members and organizations.

B. Create an o
ﬃce of the Inspector General, with subpoena authority and full unfettered and unredacted access to the documents contained by any city department or employee relating to SJPD. This includes full access to anything and everything that the police department’s Internal A
ﬀairs has, as well as all bodyworn camera footage,
recordings, transcripts, data, police reports, use of force reports, stop data, police communications, disciplinary histories, force reviews, training, etc. All documents shall be unredacted to the extent permitted by current State and Federal laws.

The IG shall have the existing powers of the IPA, but with additional access and authority.

Its IPA authorities should also include a role in whether a case should be sustained and in the disciplinary decisions (currently, it only provides input into whether a case should be more thoroughly investigated).

The IG shall also have access to IID (see below) materials. The IG will report directly to the police commission, outside the police department's chain of command. The o ﬃce can
initiate an investigation into any area. The IG is authorized to compel any SJPD employee, including the Police Chief, to submit to an IG investigation. An IG investigation can only be stopped by a majority vote of the commissioners in a public session. The IG shall have the authority to access all of SJPD’s facilities, as well as its documents, audio, and video evidence.

The Commission would direct the IG’s reviews and receive reports and recommendations from the IG. The Commission would utilize these reports and recommendations, as well as its own access, to craft policy changes and review the performance of police management. 65 The Inspector General shall review patterns of practice, use of force, and other department wide practices, rather than individual cases.

C. Convert the IPA Oﬃce to an Independent Investigations Department (IID), with subpoena power. The IID reports directly to and can be hired/ﬁred/appraised by the Commission. Rather than audit Internal Aﬀairs’ investigations of complaints as the IPA currently does, IID would conduct the investigations itself. The Commission, through a subcommittee on discipline, would play a limited role in adjudicating disagreements between the Chief and IID as to whether to sustain an allegation and as to the level of discipline issued in a particular case. The Commission would also have access to all IID cases (both directly and through the O
ﬃce of Inspector General). IID shall issue annual
reports. IID shall have suﬃcient staﬃng based on a formula relating to caseloads/number of complaints. The IID shall have full unfettered and unredacted access to the documents contained by any city department or employee relating to SJPD. This includes full access to anything and everything that the police department’s Internal A ﬀairs has, as well as all
body-worn camera footage, recordings, transcripts, data, police reports, use of force reports, stop data, police communications, disciplinary histories, force reviews, training, etc. All documents shall be unredacted to the extent permitted by current State and Federal laws.

D. Independent counsel.The IID, the IG, and the Police Commission shall have their own attorneys (in addition to other sta
ﬃng), not just the City Attorney because the City Attorney also represents the police department, and the City as a whole, and only describes what the law is and whether a proposed action is legal or not. One or two City Attorneys shall physically work at the oﬃce of Inspector General and no longer do other work for other departments.

E. Policy Recommendation:All investigators in the SJPD Internal Aﬀairs shall have at least 10 years of experience as a police oﬃcer or an investigator. Lessor experienced oﬃcers shall no longer investigate complaints against oﬃcers, because they then have to work as oﬃcers in the street with those whom they have investigated. This is problematic for substantiating a complaint and then having to work with the o ﬃcers they have substantiated the complaint against.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
There is a history of policing practices, which has resulted in excessive and unnecessary force towards residents of San José ultimately causing our citizens to distrust the police. 66 This distrust has caused concerns regarding police hiring, training, accountability, mental health awareness, and lack of basic care for the people they are sworn to protect.

San José lacks a robust police oversight structure that, in turn, lacks credibility and legitimacy among impacted communities. The oversight structure does not promote community empowerment and engagement and does not promote prevention of systemic issues or accountability of police management. It is largely reactive, focused on individual o
ﬃcer accountability, not fully independent, and depends upon the IPA Oﬃce itself to aﬃrmatively engage community input.

Speciﬁcally, San Jose does not have a police inspector general with broad access to records, nor an oversight commission made up of community members interested in participating in police oversight. The cities and/or counties that have one or both of these entities include San Francisco (both), Oakland (both), Davis (commission), San Diego (commission), Orange County (IG) and Los Angeles (both), BART (both), among many others in California and the United States.

San Jose only has an outdated Independent Police Auditor model, which audits records from the San Jose police department’s internal a
ﬀairs, and our Independent Police Auditor
has no authority to independently investigate complaints. Nor does the IPA have authority to review issues in the police department outside of speci ﬁc complaintsﬁled by members
of the community. For example, the IPA cannot review patterns or trends relating to stops, responses to certain types of crimes, o
ﬃcer discipline, etc. (Measure G provided some
limited additional access related to use of force, but those records are redacted and IPA requests must be accompanied by justi
ﬁcation – such limits are without precedent in other
jurisdictions).

Citizen groups in San Jose are interested in seeing stronger community safety oversight and would like to participate in that oversight process by being on a Commission, or one of its subcommittees, that reviews police conduct, policies, practices, training, and other aspects they deem important to modern community safety. Excluding the public in decision-making about the largest department in the City, and about the department that exercises force and control over residents, is inconsistent with procedural justice, democratic norms, and good governance. San Jose is a local outlier, di
ﬀerent from all our neighboring big cities,
and many small ones, in this regard, as other large cities involve the community in policy making and decisions over who leads the police department. 67 Finally, boards and commissions proliferate in San Jose, including boards and commissions with actual authority. For example, San Jose has a library commission, but not a police commission.

Policing is an exception to this widely used mechanism for public engagement and input.

When the City has allowed public participation, it has fumbled in its approach, e.g., when the
ﬁrst iteration of the Reimagining Public Safety committee collapsed because members of the committee felt disempowered and censored by the City’s attempts to control the process and thus control the potential
ﬁnal recommendations.

The public should have formal input into policing in light of the current state of distrust and the enormous power that police have. This power has manifested in signi ﬁcant uses of
force, including causing serious injury, during the protests following the murder of George Floyd, but there have also been documented disparities in stops and treatment during stops in the last 5-10 years and at least one federal jury ﬁnding of an unjustiﬁed
oﬃcer-involved shooting. The IPA routinely makes policy recommendations in light of deﬁciencies that the oﬃce identiﬁes, and it is critical that a body oversees adoption and implementation of such changes. A supplementary IG could also utilize its access to monitor improved policies and practices.

Our BIPOC, low-income, and immigrant communities have been severely impacted by over policing and excessive use of force. Police o
ﬃcers’ lack of understanding and
approachability has caused these communities, who are already underserved, to believe that police are more prone to causing the problem than solving it. This leads to residents exhibiting fear and restlessness when interacting with the police, and this also leads to hesitancy when in situations that they should call the police. Moreover, this disconnect creates an environment where there are two entities (police and residents) who have distrust for one another, instead of acting as one whole community.

There are complaints of under policing in some neighborhoods, over policing in some neighborhoods, complaints of excessive use of force, racial pro ﬁling, diﬀerent use of force
depending on race, and no independent investigatory body of the policing in San José.

People complain that police do not come to respond to drug houses, abandoned cars, reports of theft, reports of trespassing, and other complaints. [The District Attorney does investigate alleged criminal behavior on the part of San José police o ﬃcers. This includes if
an oﬃcer is accused of murder, sexual assault, sex with a minor, theft, domestic violence, and other crimes. This is not considered to be independent, investigatory oversight of San José policing.] There are complaints of o
ﬃcers smiling and laughing with each other after
68 pulling residents over during traﬃc stops (appearing to be laughing at the person they have pulled over).

Injuries caused by the San José Police Department have cost over 26 million dollars in lawsuits since 2010. This money could have been used to fund our schools instead of being diverted to pay for police misconduct.

In prior recent years, there have been documented disparities (UTEP, 2017; City of San José, 2020: see Appendix 1, Section 3).

The lack of a permanent police commission also has a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. While other commissions exist, the exclusion of a police commission a
ﬀects BIPOC and other marginalized communities because of the disproportionate impact of policing on those communities.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
Expanded oversight will bene
ﬁt all San Joséans but will have a disproportionate beneﬁt for BIPOC community members and community members who belong to other marginalized communities, including those with disabilities, the unhoused, and the LGBTQ+ community.

This is because of the historical realities of policing a ﬀecting those communities most, and
the historical distrust between these communities and police.

1. Oversight can help hold the police department accountable for o ﬃcers’ actions.

2. Oversight bodies can help improve the quality of the department’s internal investigations of alleged misconduct. A commission can provide a community voice into that process and evaluate broader policies and systemic issues.

3. The community at large can be reassured that discipline is being imposed when appropriate, while also increasing the transparency of the disciplinary process.

Greater access than the IPA currently has is required.

4. When the oversight agency con
ﬁrms a complainant’s allegation(s), the complainants
may feel validated.

5. Similarly, when the oversight agency exonerates the oﬃcer, the oﬃcer may feel vindicated.

6. Oversight agencies can help improve community relations by fostering communication between the community and police agencies. This is particularly the case where a public body provides a regular venue and has a diverse representation of the communities most impacted by policing.

7. Oversight agencies can help reduce public concern about high pro ﬁle incidents.
69 8. Oversight agencies can help increase the public’s understanding of law enforcement policies and procedures, and why they are a particular way.

9. Oversight agencies can improve department policies and procedures. Policy recommendations based on data and review of records can prevent issues by identifying areas of concern and subsequently oﬀering options to improve policing.

IG-type access is essential.

10. Oversight agencies can assist a jurisdiction in liability management and reduce the likelihood of costly litigation by identifying problems and proposing corrective measures before a lawsuit isﬁled. Access to unredacted records and data (IG model) is essential.

11. Mediation has multiple beneﬁts to both citizens and police oﬃcers. If the oversight agency provides mediated solutions, it can help complainants feel satisﬁed through being able to express their concerns to the speciﬁc police oﬃcer in a neutral environment. Mediation can also help police oﬃcers better understand how their words, behaviors and attitudes can unknowingly aﬀect public perceptions.

12. By establishing a strong, modern oversight system that reﬂects best practices. Public oﬃcials are provided the opportunity to demonstrate their desire for increased police accountability and the need to eliminate misconduct.

All of these potential beneﬁts help to support the goals ofcommunity-oriented policing, which seeks to utilize problem solving techniques to work in a cooperative eﬀort with the community to proactively address concerns.

This is the direction the entire nation is moving in, and most large cities on the West Coast have moved in. San Francisco, Oakland, Davis, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego County are all examples of oversight agencies this Commission has studied and has had the actual oversight agencies present during study sessions. San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles all have a Police Commission. San Jose is an outlier with an outdated oversight model. The Commission heard from 11 speakers on the topic of police oversight.

Police oversight currently sits in Section 809 of the Charter, so any change or additional oversight requires a Charter amendment. There are only two ways that San Jose may get its police commission: through a charter change, like San Francisco did, or through a Federal consent decree and continued monitoring, as Oakland and Los Angeles did. This Charter Review Commission prefers that a police commission is created through a charter change.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
70 One argument against this recommendation is that some people aﬃliated with the police union and otherwise may say that the San José Police Department should police itself and no one in the community should interfere in police policies and practices.

Some Commissioners also suggested that the lack of input from anyone representing law enforcement provides a weak foundation for this recommendation. Neither the current police chief or police o
ﬃcers, past police chiefs or retired police oﬃcers, nor police chiefs or police oﬃcers from other jurisdictions were consulted in the Commission’s discussion of this issue. This is in contrast to the discussion on a mayor-council form of government where a former mayor and city manager were included, along with perspectives from other cities.

The stated response to this was that this Commission was set up so that the City Council and Mayor would get the community’s input on City Charter changes, not to get input from City departments. Employees of the City already have a path for voicing their opinions to City Council through the heads of their departments. This Commission is not the place for City Council to get information from its own employees. Furthermore, the Chief of Police has been sitting on Reimagining meetings when these speci ﬁc recommendations were
discussed, but only listened and did not give feedback. This Commission would have addressed his opinions because we monitor and coordinate with people who sit on the Reimagining Public Safety board. Finally, two Commissioners in this ad hoc subcommittee are attorneys and believed that inviting the chief would be inviting collective bargaining discussions because, in order to get buy-in, we would discuss new policies that a ﬀect the
actual work of employees of the policies department, and this would trigger collective bargaining under section 3505 of the Meyers-Millias-Brown Act (link). Finally, in response to our asking the City Manager to speak on Monday, September 13, 2021, we got correspondence from Sandra Cranford of the City Manager’s o ﬃce rejecting the invitation
and asking us to operate independently: “It is critical the Commissions deliberations and recommendations be independent and sent directly to the Mayor and Council.” We understood this to mean that the Mayor and City Council want the views of the community, of non-City employees. In fact, the application for appointment to this commission asked “Do you work for the City of San Jose?” Which department?” Should Council decide to move this recommendation forward, it will need to go to collective bargaining which will provide an opportunity for law enforcement to provide their perspective.

Proposed Charter Language
71 The City Attorney shall review the City Charter and recommend the removal of all portions inconsistent with this recommendation (such as Section 809), and recommend language that is consistent with this recommendation if this recommendation is moved forward by the Council.

Establish Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments What is the recommendation?
A. Add a statement of values to the Charter that de
ﬁnes 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.

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

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
San José has a long history of failing to achieve equity, inclusion, and racial justice, particularly in regard to BIPOC constituencies and low-income people. This failing is evident in a host of areas of life: a
ﬀordable housing, transportation, health care, access to parks and green space, employment opportunities, law enforcement, assets and income, and many others. During recent decades, some serious eﬀorts have been made to address these issues, yet it is widely recognized that disparities exist on a major scale. The experience of the COVID pandemic further demonstrates the depth of, and consequences of, these inequities.
72 One reason for the persistence of inequities is the inability of City government to suﬃciently commit its resources and energies to their reduction. Part of this problem is a weakness in the existing City Charter. It states its opposition to discrimination but does not a
ﬃrm the objective of reducing inequity or provide standards or procedures to move towards that goal.

By de ﬁnition, the lack of equity for BIPOC and low-income people burdens those constituencies. Data demonstrating these inequities is widespread and essentially undisputed.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
The proposed language regarding equity standards has been revised to indicate that pure equality is not the city’s objective when equity requires a recognition of the eﬀects of past and present discrimination or unfair treatment.

Those who suﬀer from inequities, particularly BIPOC and low-income people, will beneﬁt.

Since the Charter language does not impose mandates, the city and the community retain the ﬂexibility to make changes and respond to unintended consequences.

The changes are certainly feasible. In fact, they have been speciﬁcally designed to employ the power of the City Charter in a realistic way. Note that the proposed language does not mandate the end of inequity, nor does it require speci
ﬁc conditions of life, such as the
Detroit Bill of Rights claim that every resident is entitled to aﬀordable housing. For the Charter to prescribe those outcomes would risk the adoption of Charter language that the city lacks the capacity to accomplish. Instead, the proposed language includes three reasonable sections. The
ﬁrst is a statement of values, a type of Charter provision already present in the existing document (SECTION 607 Code of Ethics). The second is equity standards. This section focuses on activities in which the city is already involved, such as economic development and housing code enforcement, and articulates that the city will endeavor to achieve similar outcomes for every resident. The third requires a process, not an outcome. It imposes the responsibility of assessing the impact on equity when the city adopts major policies and its annual budget. The decision to conduct an assessment can be made by a majority of the City Council or by the direct petition of residents, the number required being challenging but not insurmountable.

This recommendation does not need to be a Charter revision. The same goals might eventually be achieved through city council action or cultural change. But those other strategies have thus far proven inadequate. Waiting for them to generate substantially 73 better and faster results condemns those who suﬀer from inequities to another period of long, indeﬁnite delay. To demonstrate a full commitment to equity, we must employ every major mechanism that is available – including the City Charter What are the arguments against this proposal?
Some people may argue that equity, inclusion, and racial justice should not be city objectives or priorities. Often proponents of this view believe that people have to take personal responsibility for improving their condition regardless of the disproportionate challenges they must confront.

Proposed Charter Language
Add a new section to the Charter, “ARTICLE VI SECTION 610 Statement of Values” as follows:

To the extent permitted by law, the people of the City of San José a ﬃrm that the
decisions, policies, budgets, programs, and practices of the City of San José shall be guided by the principles of racial and social equity, inclusion, and racial and social justice. Section 611 De
ﬁnitions For the purposes of this Article, the following deﬁnitions shall apply:
(a) “Racial and social equity” shall mean the condition that would be achieved if one’s group identity – based on categorizations that have experienced discrimination including race, aspects of neurodiversity, and sexual orientation - no longer predicted, in a statistical sense, how one fared.
(b) “Inclusion” shall mean bringing traditionally excluded individuals and/or groups into processes, activities, and decision/policy making in a way that shares power. “Racial and social justice” shall mean the systematic and proactive fair treatment of, and allocation of resources for, people of all races and all group categorizations that have experienced discrimination resulting in equitable opportunities and outcomes for all.

Add a new section to the Charter, “ARTICLE VI SECTION 612 Equity Standards” as follows:

To advance the values in Section 610 and to the extent permitted by law, the City will endeavor to meet all of the following objectives for the residents of the City of San José. When endeavoring to meet these objectives, the City shall recognize that diverse communities may require diverse approaches and programs and that 74 factors such as unresponsive or exclusionary political systems, low wage employment or other economic factors, environmental or occupational health hazards, inadequate access to health services, discrimination or abuse, or other conditions of exclusion or hardship impose greater burdens on some residents than others, and, therefore, as necessary the City shall adopt policies and service levels di
ﬀerent from those speciﬁed in Section 612 (a) through (i) primarily to achieve equity across individuals and groups as a countermeasure to inequitable levels of burden.
(a) Safety: Every resident shall be as entitled to live free from harm or threat of harm from other persons, private institutions, or city agencies as every other resident.
(b) Environmental Health: Every resident is as entitled to live in an environment with clean air, soil, and water as every other resident. (c) Water and Sanitation: Every resident is as entitled to have access to clean water supplies for personal and domestic use and adequate sanitation services as every other resident.
(d) Parks and Recreation: Every resident shall be as entitled to access to parks, recreational opportunities, community centers, and urban green spaces as every other resident.
(e) Mobility and Transportation: Every resident is as entitled to well-maintained and lighted streets and roadways, signage, and other mechanisms to assure pedestrian and vehicle safety, and the opportunity for walking and biking as every other resident.
(f) Economic Development: Residents of every part of the city are as entitled to the bene
ﬁts of public economic development investments as residents of every other part of the city.
(g) Housing Standards: Every resident is as entitled to the protections provided by city enforcement of housing codes as every other resident. (h) Workforce Protection: Every person who is employed within the city is as entitled to protection against injury, discrimination, and wage theft as every other employee.
(i) Neighborhood Amenities: Residents of every neighborhood are as entitled to amenities provided by the city such as cultural presentations or library services as residents of every other neighborhood.

Nothing in this Section is intended to nor shall be construed to create a binding funding obligation for the City or cause of action against the City. 75 Add a new section to the Charter, “ARTICLE VI SECTION 613 Equity Assessment” as follows:
(a) An equity assessment shall be conducted 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. The determination as to whether a policy or program is “major” and will require an assessment shall be made by a majority vote of the City Council or by the submission of petitions with at least 2,500 signatures from residents of the city. The process for determining when a policy or program is major, including the process for the submission of petitions, will be established by the City Council. (b) The Assessment shall include the following elements:
i. Does the proposed change have any disproportionate impact on racial or ethnic minorities and/or people of low-income and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination?
ii. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the level of representation of racial or ethnic minorities and/or people of low-income and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination in city decision-making? iii. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the extent to which city o
ﬃcials and sta ﬀ are accountable to racial or ethnic minorities and/or low-income people and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination?
iv. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the access of ethnic or racial minorities and/or low-income people and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination to city decision-making? v. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the extent to which ethnic or racial minorities and/or low-income people and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination receive a fair share of city services and bene
ﬁts?
vi. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the safety and security of ethnic or racial minorities and/or low-income people and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination?
vii. Does the proposed change increase or decrease the ability of the city to meet signi
ﬁcant needs of ethnic or racial minorities and/or lowincome people and/or other group categorizations that have experienced discrimination? 76 (c) Equity Assessments shall be presented at a public hearing. Theﬁnal draft of the Assessment must be published a minimum of two weeks before the date of that hearing.
(d) For the purposes of this Section:
i. “Access” shall mean the ability to secure information about decision-making and participate in the decision-making process to the extent permitted or authorized by law.
ii. “Accountability” shall mean the ability to lawfully impose positive or negative consequences on decision-makers.
iii. “Preparation of Equity Assessments” must include outreach to, and communication with, constituencies likely to be a
ﬀected by the proposal being
assessed.
iv. “Representation” shall mean the ability to a
ﬀect who will be making
decisions that impact a constituency and what the outcome of a decision-making process will be.

Address Equity And Inclusion In City Programming and Budgeting What is the recommendation?
Guarantee San José residents are equitably included in the bene ﬁts of City services and
have the beneﬁt of equal access to City services by aligning Department Statements of Policy and City budgeting processes with the proposed Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments.

This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 20 aye, 1 nay and 0 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
In San José, disparities among its residents impact their economic and emotional lives. The 2021 Silicon Valley Poll, produced by Joint Ventures Silicon Valley (JVSV) studied this. Russell Hancock, JVSV President and Chief Executive O
ﬃcer states:
77 “The 2021 Silicon Valley poll—ourﬁrst—ﬁnds us in a darker mood. We’ve long been a high-stress region. Staggering housing prices, rising homelessness, a stark income divide and a host of sustainability challenges have had us on edge for some time.

But when you toss a highly infectious disease into the mix you get a smothering amount of anxiety: 60 percent of respondents say their lives have become more stressful since the pandemic set in; 52 percent feel more isolated and alone, and 66 percent are genuinely worried about the future.….Altogether, the impact on work and employment appear to have hit hardest among those who were already in precarious positions: renters, non-white respondents, low-income families, and service-sector workers who are struck hardest by high cost of living and housing.” In order to study if inequities exist within the City of San José Budget, the Commission Consultant was asked to study the questions: “How can a city measure equitable ﬁnancial
distribution of public services across the city? With these metrics in mind, how equitable is the distribution of public services across the City of San José's? And how do they compare to two other cities?”
The Consultant interviewed sta
ﬀ from the City of San José Oﬃce of Racial Equity (ORE) and reported the following:
“Since its creation in 2020, ORE has begun the process of collecting data on questions of equitable policies and distribution of resources. They are working with departments to collect equity data and assess existing policies. Currently, ORE is developing training for city departments to better collect and report on equity data.

While ORE is working towards building a shared understanding across departments, there is no set de
ﬁnition of what equity means within the City. ORE is in start-up mode and ramping up capacity to take on this work in the coming years. ORE is eager to learn from the Commission’s research and inquiries and has provided information, guidance, and resources to support the e
ﬀort.”
The Commission Consultant recommended the following process for evaluating how equitably the City’s
ﬁnancial resources are distributed:
“Based on the limitations around equity data for service areas, it is recommended that a geographic analysis be conducted based on community indicators (ie: race, income, language, education, etc.) and allocation of city funds (capital projects, such as new facilities, street improvements, park development, or resource allocations to police and
ﬁre stations, schools, parks, etc.). Through a geospatial analysis, we 78 would identify the districts that receive the most amount of funding (given budget allocation data that is available geographically) and cross reference theseﬁndings with the districts with a high density of people with speci ﬁc socioeconomic characteristics. This analysis would shed some initial light on whether certain funding allocation is evenly distributed across the city and how a district’s socioeconomic makeup correlates with the amount of funding received. This type of analysis would also provide insight into the distribution of certain funds across districts and how that distribution correlates to the population of San José.

Next steps would be to collect census data on these three indicators and map capital and operational
ﬁnancial data (for expenditures that are geographic by
nature, ie: physical projects, location of services and resources).” We recognize historical patterns of redlining, and what today appear to be overt and covert practices which disfavor the poor, persons of color who are often geographically segregated in certain neighborhoods, although home communities have been aggressively gentri
ﬁed and taken away over the years.

Residents of all ages who live in crowded homes due to the high cost of housing need equitable access to City parks, libraries and community centers, as do other residents. For poorer San Joséans, these City resources represent signi ﬁcant health, wellbeing and
educational opportunities and are vital to the lives of children, teens, adults and older adults. These individuals may have a greater need for City resources that are engaging, easily available and completely accessible to all persons regardless of physical or mental ability.

The Mayor, City Council and the City Manager need to promote equity and inclusion among all residents and further to determine if there are violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that occur and must be remedied. The data that documents the historical impact of City policies and practice on the most disadvantaged neighborhoods is long overdue and would provide the data that the community’s life experience already knows, and the eye can tell what is undeniable injustice.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee San Jose residents are equitably included in the bene
ﬁts 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 promote equity and inclusion among all residents 79 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 speci
ﬁc 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 speci ﬁc
adherence to Equity Assessment; Article VII City Manager would require speciﬁc adherence to Equity Standards.

The distribution of City of San José resources equitably among all residents, throughout all areas of San José is not required per the City Charter. Policies that guarantee residents of San José shall receive equal access to City Resources do not exist. The absence of this requirement in the Charter has and may continue to cause inequities. Thus the Charter does not prevent inequities by ensuring equity for ALL City residents. The goal of this recommendation is to create Equity and Inclusion.

This recommendation needs to be a Charter revision because the Charter gives the Mayor, City Manager certain duties and responsibilities with respect to the City ﬁnances. However,
equity is not addressed. This will require the Mayor, City Manager and City Council to address equity within the context of their existing responsibilities.

Research to determine if other cities have adopted similar charter amendments is necessary, but we believe this change is feasible per these conditions:
● It appears not to contradict existing Charter language or policies. ● It will require extra work on the part of the Mayor, City Council and the City Manager, however this work may be in conjunction with the work of the O ﬃce of
Equity and Inclusion.
● Legal research will be required to ensure there are no legal barriers to implementing this.

All residents of San José will bene
ﬁt from this change. Living in a city that respects and treats all of its residents equitably creates a safer and more prosperous community. This helps business and creates more opportunities for those in need. The consequences may be that those who have received unfair advantages may need to receive less City services.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
80 The status quo is the current process of budgeting and expenditures which does not have a formal way of addressing equity and inclusion. The current and recent Mayors, City Council Members and City Managers appear to collaborate well in their service, so equity and inclusion are considered and promoted in preparing the City’s budget and allocating resources. For this reason, some will argue that this good work occurs without the recommended City Charter language. However, continued improvement in this area of equity and inclusion is the very reason to add this language. The goal should be to maintain equity and to guarantee it will always be the way the City of San José conducts its business.

Proposed Charter Language
NOTE: The following amendments reference the proposed new ARTICLE VI sections in the preceding “Establish Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments“ recommendation, “SECTION 610 Statement of Values,” “SECTION 611 De
ﬁnitions,” “SECTION 612 Equity Standards,”
and “SECTION 613 Equity Assessment.”
Amend “ARTICLE IV THE COUNCIL, SECTION 411.1 Department Heads; Policy Objectives; Consent to Hire” as follows:

The Council shall adopt a written Statement of Policy for each City Department which is under the administration of the City Manager. Said Statement of Policy shall set forth the board goals, objectives and aspirations to be accomplished by that Department. The Statement of Policy shall adhere and follow speci ﬁc criteria as set
forth in [the CRC proposed] “ARTICLE VI SECTION 610 Statement of Values”.

Amend “ARTICLE V THE MAYOR, SECTION 502 The Mayor; Powers and Duties” as follows:

The Mayor shall have the following duties:
(d) If the Mayor recommends any increases in the City budget, the Mayor shall recommend the method of
ﬁnancing such expenditures and ensure
that both the methods forﬁnancing and the recommendations for increases adhere to [the CRC proposed] ARTICLE VI SECTIONS 610, 611, 612, and in particular 613 Equity Assessment. If the Mayor proposed the curtailment of any services, the Mayor shall provide speci
ﬁc recommendations and the
reasons for the proposal.If the Mayor, upon receiving an Equity Assessment, as set forth in ARTICLE VI SECTION 613 Equity Assessment, which results in portions of the budget that do not adhere to ARTICLE VI SECTIONS 610, 611, 612, and 613, shall recommend remedial action.
81 Amend “ARTICLE VII CITY MANAGER, SECTION 701 City Manager; Power and Duties” as follows:
(e) The City Manager shall prepare and submit the annual budget to the Council in accordance with the provisions in Section 1204.Each section of the budget will be evaluated in accordance with ARTICLE VI SECTION 613 Equity Assessment and adjusted to adhere with ARTICLE VI SECTION 612 Equity Standards. (f) The City Manager shall submit a complete report on the ﬁnances and
administrative activities of the City as of the end of the precedingﬁscal year….The annual report will address in detail to the provisions in ARTICLE VI SECTIONS 610, 611, 612, 613 .

Establish Regular Department-Level Audits
What is the recommendation?
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 accountability and
ﬁscal responsibility, as well as to identify theft, fraud, embezzlement, campaign ﬁnance violations, or other crimes. Constituent-facing departments shall get a department-wide performance audit at least every 6 years, while remaining departments shall get a department-wide performance audit at least every 12 years.

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

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
This recommendation is intended to remove political pressure from the decision-making process and to bring greater
ﬁnancial accountability for San José.

The City Auditor function as currently enshrined in the Charter has two shortcomings:

1. Auditing topics are entirely determined by the city council;

2. The lack of department-wide auditing.

The San José City Charter Section 805 prescribes the powers and duties of the City Auditor’s o
ﬃce. The Charter also grants the Auditor’s Oﬃce access and authority to examine all records of a City department, oﬃce or agency. The performance audit function that the 82 Auditor’s Oﬃce conducts is an essential element to hold the City’s operations and services accountable, eﬃciency and eﬀectiveness.

Under the current process, the Auditor’s Oﬃce prepares an “Annual Audit Work Plan”. The methodology for determining the work plan contains multiple factors and the results are outlined in a “Risk Matrix.” The potential “audit subjects” on the “Annual Audit Work Plan” could be from sta
ﬀ, City Council or members of the public. The City Auditor submits the “Annual Audit Work Plan” to the Rules and Open Government Committee (i.e., The Rules Committee) for review and approval.

The Rules Committee makes the determination of the annual auditing tasks that the Auditor’s O
ﬃce will conduct in the nextﬁscal year. The Rules Committee can accept or partially accept the City Auditor’s recommendation, or choose to completely ignore the City Auditor’s recommendation.

The current determination process of “audit subjects” could potentially result in some departments or budget units to be consistently left out of audits and never get audited.

Additionally, the Auditor’s O
ﬃce has primarily focused on speci ﬁc areas of a city
department and conducts in-depth auditing on that area. While smaller scale auditing is important, department-wide performance auditing is critical and essential to track key performance goals for the city’s services, and currently the department-wide performance auditing were barely conducted. The absence of such auditing on a regular basis could result in the misuse of city resources, lack of accountability and even corruption.

Larger-scale departmental audits are necessary to ensure taxpayer resources are being spent in a
ﬁscally responsible manner to ensure the highest quality of service to our community.

Increased accountability of all city services beneﬁts every San José resident by ensuring ﬁscal responsibility and maximum quality of service, especially for underserved communities who rely heavily on city services, resources and support.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
We believe this change is feasible and necessary to ensure and increase accountability. San José has an audit function in place already. This simply adds a larger scope to the current audit process to ensure a higher quality of oversight and accountability for taxpayers. 83 Every San José resident beneﬁts from this change by providing an increased level of accountability and oversight for our communities. This recommendation would ensure that no part of any City department goes unaudited for more than a 12-year period. It helps detect fraud, embezzlement, and any other crimes as well as it identi ﬁes potential ways to
decrease spending and increase eﬃciency. This improvesﬁnancial accountability in the City of San José.

This recommendation needs to be a Charter revision in order to ensure this is an unbiased approach that will not be inﬂuenced by elected oﬃcials or impacted department staﬀ, it must be a Charter revision.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
This change may require increasing the budget and capability of the Auditor’s O ﬃce.

Workload and budget for the Auditor’s oﬃce are likely to increase.

This change may take away resources from areas where auditing is more important.

Proposed Charter Language
Add a new section to the Charter “ARTICLE VI SECTION 805.3 Department-Wide Performance Audit” as follows:

A department-wide performance audit must be conducted to all city departments, to assess key performance against its mission, goals and objectives in order to ensure accountability and
ﬁscal responsibility.

The constituent-facing departments shall get a department-wide performance audit at least every 6 years, while the remaining department shall get a department-wide performance audit at least every 12 years.

The auditor report shall be presented at public meetings, with trackable correction action items and follow ups.

Policy Recommendations
Create A Climate Action Commission
What is the recommendation?
84 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.

1. MEMBERSHIP:
a. Ten (10) District Representatives (1 per district) and 1 Citywide appointed by Council and the Mayor,
b. Up to two (2) individuals nominated by and representing the interests of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, the original stewards of the land (county residency requirement only),
c. Up to Three (3) individuals representing
ﬁelds of Science, Ecology, Biology,
Food Systems, or from Community Based Non-pro ﬁts (county residency requirement only),
d. One (1) Attorney-at-Law (county residency requirement only).

Similar to the Housing and Community Development Commission collaboration with the City Sta
ﬀ of the Housing Department, the CAC may be supported by, or receive reports from any of the following departments/other commissions but not limited to the Youth Commission, Senior Citizens Commission, Environment Service Department, Climate Smart Program, Department of Transportation, as necessary to ensure informed decisions on policy or program recommendations to Council. Current employees of the City of San José are not eligible to serve on this Commission, as they already have a path for giving input to the City of San José and we do not want an echo chamber, but rather fresh ideas ﬂowing to
City Council and the Mayor.

Before making a policy or program recommendation, the CAC should conduct public hearings on their recommendations to solicit community feedback.

CAC shall develop a work plan that aligns with the Chicago Climate Charter, signed by Mayor Sam Liccardo in 2017, and prioritizes the following directives:

1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a percentage equal to or exceeding their home nation’s commitment

2. Track, measure, and report the data

3. Empower cities through collective action

4. Engage all communities, especially nontraditional voices, in policy formation 85 5. Integrate climate risks into infrastructure and emergency planning

6. Support policies and actions that incorporate the cost of carbon and support those most aﬀected

7. Partner broadly for robust solutions
This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 16 aye, 5 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Climate change is expected to impact people of all ages, for generations, but underserved communities
ﬁrst and most. Climate change poses immediate and long-term threats to the City’s economy, public health sustainability, security, and quality of life, especially those of low-income with the least resources. The potential adverse eﬀects of global warming include a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of businesses and residences, especially those living in the Alviso Community in District 1. As such, the Commission has heard that residents have been asking for greater inclusion in the creation of climate change mitigation strategies on a city level.

Furthermore,
“The largest impact of climate change is that it could wipe o ﬀ up to 18% of GDP oﬀ
the worldwide economy by 2050 if global temperatures rise by 3.2°C, the Swiss Re Institute warns.” (World Economic Forum, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3) “Climate change is going to amplify the already existing divide between those who have resources and those who do not, Eliot Levine, Director of the Environment Technical Support Unit at Mercy Corps.” (Global Citizen, 2020: see Appendix 1, Section 3).
“Boulder climate action could save millions of lives each year by 2040” - Reuters San Joseans, especially BIPOC, low-income, immigrants, and those experiencing houselessness will be impacted by climate change as follows:

1. According to U.S. Census Data, approximately 88,152 (8.7%) San José residents are considered to be living in poverty.
86 2. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, which tracks whether households have heating and cooling, shows that just over 47% of the Bay Area’s 1.7 million households had air conditioning in 2019, the last year of published data.

3. In the second half of the 2010s, the share of Bay Area households with air conditioning increased more than 10 percentage points, from 36% in 2015 to 47% in 2019.

4. “Higher temperatures will increase annual electricity demand for homes, driven mainly by the increased use of air conditioning units,” a statewide climate change assessment report said.

5. The e
ﬀects of climate change can be expected to shave 11 percent to 14 percent oﬀ global economic output by 2050 compared with growth levels without climate change, according to a report from Swiss Re, one of the world’s largest providers of insurance to other insurance companies. That amounts to as much as $23 trillion in reduced annual global economic output worldwide as a result of climate change.

6. “There is no doubt that global demand for space cooling and the energy needed to provide it will continue to grow for decades to come,” according to a 2018 report by the International Energy Agency, a global consortium of countries that advocates for clean energy and energy security. “If left unchecked, energy demand from air conditioners will more than triple (globally) by 2050.” Examples of climate change impacts on San José residents include:

1. 2017 Coyote Creek Floods “...heavy rain caused a deluge that put hundreds of San José households underwater, displaced 14,000 people in three neighborhoods and left behind $100 million in damages” - San José Spotlight

2. “Red-
ﬂag warning called or much of Bay Area as dry-lightening threat approached.” - San José Mercury News, 09/09/21

3. “As climate change makes heatwaves increasingly common, poor neighborhoods in the Bay Area and across the country are experiencing hotter ...” - San José Mercury News, 07/09/21

4. “2nd heat wave heading to Bay Area could bring record-high temps” - ABC 7 News, 06/22/21

5. “Here's why the Bay Area has yet to see terrible air quality thisﬁre season...” - San Francisco Chronicle 09/16/21

6. Hazardous Air: San José Closes Parks; ‘We Have Smoke Coming At Us From Virtually All Directions’” - CBS SF Bay Area

7. “Wild ﬁres made California air quality among worst in the world ...” - San José Mercury News, 03/17/21
87 Impacts of extreme and unpredictable weather events have already been felt locally and with increasing occurrence. The City of San José́’s programs only address subjects like electriﬁcation and future building standards, buying potentially cleaner energy for increased fees, and locating electric cars for purchase, for example. There is a gap to address the current and very immediate impacts of the climate crisis, especially ﬁscally for
the least resourced communities.

In 2017, Mayor Sam Liccardo signed the Chicago Climate Charter (see Appendix 1, Section 3) alongside mayors of 40 major U.S. cities. In doing so, Mayor Liccardo, prioritized the following directives:

1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a percentage equal to or exceeding their home nation’s commitment

2. Track, measure, and report the data

3. Empower cities through collective action

4. Engage all communities, especially nontraditional voices, in policy formation

5. Integrate climate risks into infrastructure and emergency planning

6. Support policies and actions that incorporate the cost of carbon and support those most a
ﬀected

7. Partner broadly for robust solutions for climate resiliency The Commission has heard that residents are asking for greater inclusion in the creation of climate change mitigation strategies on a city level.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
The Commission believes the City of San José should collaborate more with its very intelligent and climate conscious and caring residents to take coordinated actions to prepare city services and residents for the ongoing impacts from climate change. Residents of all ages, but especially our youth, deserve to have an organized, City-supported platform to independently study, create, and recommend policy and programs to the City Manager and to the Council that address the impacts of global warming and climate change.

This recommendation will bene
ﬁt the people of San José́ for generations to come, as there are no shortages of climate impact headlines in the news at the moment, including the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report and the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26).
88 An example of the dire urgency for this commission to study climate mitigation is that in June of this year (2021), an extreme heat event in Western Canada actually cooked to death over 1 billion clams, mussels, and other marine animals that lived on a beach. An FLIR thermal imaging camera found surface temperatures topping 125 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than reported by weather stations. Lytton, British Columbia, broke Canada's all-time record reported by weather stations on June 30 when the temperature topped 121 degrees. The town was all but destroyed in a deadly wild ﬁre. As a result, there were 719
deaths reported to the province's coroners between June 25 and July 1, 2021. The average temperature in Lytton, B.C. is 38.2 degrees Fahrenheit and it gets 37.8 inches of rain per year. San José’s average temperature is 68.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and we get about 17 inches of rain per year. We are much hotter and dryer than Lytton. We must prepare residents for summers that reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit, or hotter, drought, and continuous seasonal wild
ﬁre smoke. Mass cooling centers will be needed soon.

City Staﬀ time from associated Departments, such as but not limited to Oﬃces of the City Clerk, City Attorney, Environmental Services Department, etc. would need to be allocated for support, reporting, and implementation should Council accept any of the policy or program recommendations from the CAC. The San José O
ﬃce of Emergency Management
might be the department that should staﬀ this commission. It is feasible to create a Climate Action Commission since the City already supports over 29 boards and commissions that have various powers and duties to study, create, and recommend policy and/or programs to Mayor and Council. The CAC would follow a similar form and structure.

Other examples of commissions similar to the Climate Action Commission include:
● The City and County of Honolulu has voter-approved Charter language that created a Climate Change Commission which sits in their City Charter. ● Citizen-oriented climate change commissions are now operating in many cities across the state of California, the country, and the world, such as Vermont, Virginia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley, Chico, Solano Beach, Petaluma and San Anselmo. Many nations in Europe have climate action commissions, particularly those who are part of the EU. ● Chicago Climate Charter. Its report contextualizes the North American Climate Summit in the broader arc of climate action, outlines the commitments made by signatories to the Chicago Climate Charter, and provides recommendations for cities seeking to accelerate their sustainability e
ﬀorts.
89 The creation of this commission would help coordinate a mutual government-resident response to climate disasters speciﬁcally. While City government may not be able to protect the numbers of people that may suddenly need protection, it can give an oﬃcial platform for residents to develop and create family and neighborhood response ahead of an impending crisis, with more expanded information about neighborhood-speci ﬁc climate
threats.

What are the arguments against this proposal?

1. Duplication and redundancy with San José's Clean Energy Community Advisory Commission.

Response: The San José’s Clean Energy Advisory Commission, does not address climate change. It provides feedback and input on the development of strategy and operating principles or models to inform the prioritization and development of energy programs, particularly electri
ﬁcation.

Furthermore, clean energy is a highly important and very technical subject that requires commissioners to have a particular interest in energy, so we think this commission is more useful as a stand-alone commission with its somewhat narrow focus.

2. Duplication and redundancy with Climate Smart Program.

Response: We have other problems that impact our local resilience like food insecurity, water insecurity, energy cost and availability (especially during heatwaves),
ﬁre, additional cooling centers needed, etc. We need a separate resident-led commission set up to address the broad and unanticipated threats that will result from global heating and regional climate change. For example, greater accountability in reporting fossil fuel use and in mitigating the eﬀects of climate change in San José is needed, among many other suggestions shared by residents.

The Climate Smart program sits at a policy level and reﬂects speciﬁc city programs. It has low public participation in its public facing programs. It does not take regular public input through hearing and testimony. The gold standard would be to solicit ideas from the residents of the City of San José, with their lived experience, professional education, intellectual resources, and powerful desire to not suﬀer in natural and man-made disasters. We think the lack of community engagement and empowerment to participate in
ﬁnding solutions and presenting those solutions to
90 City Council, City Manager, and the Mayor is what is causing the apathy in participating in the public facing Climate Smart programs.

This proposal works to support the Mayor’s Chicago Climate Charter goals, and resolve the problem with Climate Smart, and thus would support and enhance Climate Smart by providing it with public feedback and additional proposed solutions, as well as outreach.

3. Duplication and redundancy with other programs created by multiple Mayors, city Councilmembers and sta
ﬀ that have made San José a leader in addressing climate change and its impact on the people in San José.

Ordinances, policies and plans, such as the Green Building Ordinance; the Riparian Corridor Policy; Green Vision; Urban Forest Plan and Net Zero Green House Emissions by 2030 are indicative of actions the city has and will take in the future.

Concern was voiced that a commission looking into climate change is redundant and will take sta
ﬀ’s attention away from implementing ordinances, policies, and plans already in place.

Response: No City program speciﬁcally addresses climate change, global heating, severe drought, and extreme weather events, such as San Jose reaching temperatures of 125 degrees in the next few years. Having a Riparian corridor does not provide a million people with a way to cool down during extreme heat events. In fact, the rivers are a casualty of extreme weather events in the form of ﬂooding. The green building ordinance is lacking in requiring carbon sequestering materials to be used, such as hempcrete. It does not address the oﬀgassing from building products containing formaldehyde. The urban forest has shrunk almost 3 miles in the last several years and the city has not updated its tree inventory since 2014.

Being carbon neutral is not the same as having zero carbon emissions. There is no current plan for the City of San Jose to use zero fossil fuels by the next 8 years, which includes the incremental 1/8 reduction of total fossil fuel use starting in 2022. San Jose could start buying carbon credits this year so that it can be carbon neutral now, while it works towards actually reducing its fossil fuel usage.

While we should support the City’s green programs, they are not redundant with a Climate Action Commission because they do not speciﬁcally address the multifaceted 91 actions needed to keep residents safe or help mitigate the eﬀects of climate change.

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

This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 16 aye, 5 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Over the last few years, neighborhoods have rapidly changed before our eyes, with increases in home sales and evictions of dozens of families. Many of our neighbors have been displaced; we are seeing the destabilization of our once culturally rich communities; culture and heritage are being erased from spaces; and local, family-owned businesses have closed. The City’s “Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José Report (2020)” (City of San José, 2020: see Appendix 1, Section 3) provides data on the urgent need to create preventative measures to sta
ﬀ displacement and its impact on communities of
color.

According to a staﬀ memorandum:
“A 2016 report from Urban Habitat found a signiﬁcant regional out-migration of Black and Latinx households to outlying areas of the Bay Area or to neighboring counties like San Joaquin and Stanislaus. Further, a 2018 study from the California Housing Partnership and the Urban Displacement Project found that rising housing costs have led to large increases in Black and Latinx households living in high poverty, segregated areas. Between 2000 and 2015, the study found a 15% increase in the number of Black households and 100% increase in the number of Latinx households living in segregated and high poverty neighborhoods in the Bay Area.” Furthermore, locally:
92 “According to UDP research, 43% of all census tracts in San José are either at-risk of or are experiencing ongoing displacement. While all City Council districts are experiencing some level of displacement, Council Districts 3 and 5 have the highest number of census tracts with either ongoing displacement or being at-risk of displacement. Latinx households are overrepresented in these areas. In San José, 47% of all Latinx households and 45% of all Black households live in areas categorized as experiencing ongoing displacement or at-risk of displacement.” Why is this particular change being recommended?
This recommendation seeks to promote and improve accountability, representation, and inclusion under a racial equity lens within the housing department and anti- displacement e
ﬀorts at the City of San José by promoting and supporting a Community to Purchase Act (COPA), which promotes the prevention of tenant displacement, and creates preservation of community-owned a
ﬀordable housing to build a more just and equitable city.

Preservation strategies are needed in order to prevent further displacement, segregation, a negative quality of life, and generational poverty. Preservation strategies often struggle for funding sources and commitment from cities, which ultimately impacts BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) and low-income families. Preservation strategies are necessary to address long term a
ﬀordability and to complement our housing production
goals and no net loss ratios. Preservation strategies are key to ensure BIPOC families do not experience homelessness and a cycle of institutional violence. Protecting tenant rights, producing a
ﬀordable housing and investment should be seen as a long term priority as part of our vision to cement our cities commitment to ending displacement and materializing housing as a human right.

Additionally, this recommendation aligns with the City’s newly created Oﬃce of Racial Equity in advancing systems change through a citywide racial equity framework that will examine and improve San José’s internal policies, programs, and practices to eradicate any structural and/or institutional racism in the City of San José. From the Oﬃce of Racial Equity’s website:
“This includes a focus on enabling the organization, at all levels and in all departments, to identify ways to improve outcomes for Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and People of Color.”
This recommendation also aligns with the overall San José Anti-Displacement goals and strategies set for with community input, housing department direction, and City Council 93 Board approval. The 10 recommendations in this multi-year strategy are designed to complement each other and are listed below. The recommendations are prioritized by timing, from near-term to medium-term.

1. Support Equitable COVID-19 Recovery and Impact Mitigation Measures for Renters and Homeowners

2. Establish a Neighborhood Tenant Preference for A
ﬀordable Housing

3. Explore a Community Opportunity to Purchase Program/Ordinance (COPA)

4. Increase Equitable Representation of Historically Underrepresented Communities on City Commissions

5. Create a Role for Local Government in State Tenant Protections

6. Increase Housing Quality and Prevent Code Enforcement-related Displacement

7. Create a Preservation Report and Policy

8. Develop YIGBY Land Use - Yes in God's Backyard

9. Optimize Urban Villages for A
ﬀordable Housing Development and
Anti-Displacement

10. Establish New Sources of Funding for Aﬀordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Lastly, this recommendation also aligns with our Commissioner Agreement of “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.”
As COPA attempts to address historical and current discrimination based on home ownership and opportunities to build wealth, the aforementioned sta ﬀ memo highlights
the racial impacts of home ownership:
“In San José, Black households have a homeownership rate of 33%. The homeownership rate for Latinxs is 41%. In comparison, White households have the highest homeownership rate in the City at 66%.

Furthermore, COPA attempts to address the racial impact of the 2008 foreclosure on BIPOC Communities. From 2007 to 2010 East San José was named “Ground Zero” (Cassidy, 2008:
see Appendix 1, Section 3) of the foreclosure crisis and nationwide Black and Latinx communities were 2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience foreclosure than their White peers. Wealth building is connected to asset ownership, and value of assets owned by BIPOC communities is also impacted by racism. Housing displacement greatly impacts 94 Black and Latinx residents as it relates to aﬀordability, home stability and overcrowded homes, as well, which greatly impacted families during the covid pandemic and caused health harms. Unemployment and other economic barriers tied to housing leads to overrepresentation of Black and Latinx families in the homeless count.

Cities throughout the country, such as San Francisco and Washington D.C., have implemented COPA and TOPA in e
ﬀorts to support anti-displacement and build ownership
possibilities for tenants. San José can do the same. Displacement is happening now! The need to continue supporting and establishing a neighborhood tenant community own housing needs to be prioritized as a long term solution.

We can no longer wait, nor be scared of housing co-op’s or community land trusts, because we have seen these policies make changes in cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C.

This recommendation will bene
ﬁt communities that have historically been impacted by
redlining, housing segregation and historical disinvestment in communities that majorly have a
ﬀected Black, African American Descent, Indigenous, Latinx, and People of Color.

Co-op and community ownership models have already been discussed by city council as a method to address the impact of displacement. In the future this policy could be a Charter amendment as the city continues to work to implement this policy to combat anti-displacement and promote the prevention of tenant displacement.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The following frequently asked questions address some of the arguments against this proposal (COPA Working Group et al, see Appendix 1, Section 3).

Frequently Asked Questions - Landlords

1. Does COPA force me to sell my rental property before I want to sell it?No. COPA does not force an owner to sell before they are ready. When you choose to sell, COPA provides a process for existing tenants to remain in the property by purchasing it themselves, or assigning their purchase rights to a quali ﬁed organization. If
tenants/qualiﬁed organizations do not respond or waive their purchase rights, the owner can proceed to sell the property on the market.

2. Does COPA control the price owners can sell their property for?No. Owners receive fair market value for the sale of their property under COPA. The owner has the right to accept or reject the initial oﬀer they receive from tenants or qualiﬁed organization. If an owner rejects the initial oﬀer and subsequently receives an oﬀer, from another 95 buyer, they want to accept then tenants/qualiﬁed organizations have a certain amount of time to match the oﬀer and purchase the property.

3. Will COPA prevent me from transferring my property to my family?No. COPA exempts transfers even when money is o ﬀered between immediate family members including the spouse, domestic partners, parents and child siblings, grandparents and grandchild.

4. Can I market my rental property for sale before complying with COPA? No. COPA requires sellers of rental properties to give existing tenants and quali ﬁed organizations the exclusive opportunity to make an oﬀer before marketing it to other buyers.

5. Who would I have to notify that I intend to sell my rental property and how long would they have to respond? You would notify existing tenants and a list of quali ﬁed
organizations vetted by the city. You would alsoﬁle copies of the notices with the city. Tenants and qualiﬁed organizations would have time to submit a statement of interest.

6. If I accept the oﬀer from tenants or a qualiﬁed organization, what happens?You enter into contract. Your contract should include aﬁnancing contingency that complies with COPA timelines for securingﬁnancing, giving the tenant/qualiﬁed organization suﬃcient time to secure ﬁnancing and close the deal.

7. If I reject the initial oﬀer from tenants, or qualiﬁed organization, what happens?You're then free to solicit oﬀers on the market. If you receive an oﬀer you would like to accept or make an oﬀer that another buyer would like to accept, you would need to notify the tenants or qualiﬁed organizations (whoever submitted the initial oﬀer) and give them an opportunity to exercise their right ofﬁrst refusal to match the oﬀer.

Frequently Asked Questions - Tenants

1. If my landlord decides to sell the property, what are my options?You can decide to make theﬁrst oﬀer on the property. Choose a qualiﬁed organization to assign your rights to or waive your rights altogether by choosing not to respond.

2. What does the COPA process look like?
a. Landlord decides to sell their property,
b. Landlord noti ﬁes tenants and qualiﬁed organizations of intent to sell. c. If tenants are interested in purchasing or assigning their rights to a qualiﬁed organization, majority must submit a collective statement of interest to the owner.
96 d. If tenants do not submit a statement of interest qualiﬁed organizations may submit a statement of interest to the landlord and go through a similar process.
e. If no qualiﬁed organizations submit a statement of interest, then the landlord can proceed to sell on the open market.

3. If my only option is my only option to purchase the property?No. If you wish to stay in your home but do not wish to purchase orﬁnd that it isﬁnancially infeasible for you to purchase, you can choose to assign your COPA rights to a qualiﬁed organization who may be ready and willing to purchase. The city of San José will maintain a list of quali
ﬁed organizations Nonpro ﬁt Housing, Community Land Trust's and cooperatives that are committed to permanent aﬀordability, partnering with tenants and keeping you in your home.

4. If I choose to remain a renter and a qualiﬁed organization purchasers the building will I still have tenant protections? Yes. Tenants would continue to be able to live there, either as owners or as tenants with tenant protections, and the enforcement of tenants rights under existing local, state and federal laws. The policy is designed to not lead to any internal displacement as a result of COPA sales. As a tenant COPA ensures tenant protections post purchase, including Just Cause Eviction and rent control.

Frequently Asked Questions - Racial Equity

1. What are some of the racial equity policy goals of COPA?The most important racial equity goal of COPA is to reduce displacement which disproportionately impacts the Black and Latinx communities in San José. By opening up pathways to ownership for tenants COPA also represents an opportunity to reduce barriers to homeownership.

Historic barriers to homeownership, like redlining, have led to the racial wealth gap.

And this wealth gap is clear in home ownership numbers broken down by ethnicity.

COPA represents one part of a strategy to confront this racial wealth gap.

2. Given that many of San José's black and Latinx residents have already been displaced, how can we ensure that this policy still bene
ﬁts black and Latin X people with ties to San
José? While COPA is initially going to beneﬁt those who are already in a building to help them stay there would be opportunities with vacancies in COPA buildings to rehouse people displaced in the past. COPA is about preventing displacement of current residents and through the creation of permanently aﬀordable housing creating a more accessible and less exclusionary San José in the long run.

3. What are the impacts of COPA on intergenerational wealth building in communities of color? COPA exempts transfers even when money is oﬀered between immediate 97 family members including spouses domestic, parent and child partners, siblings, grandparent and grandchild, COPA also does not interfere with transfers of property to one's heirs upon the death of the owner. This applies to properties bought by tenants as a result of the COPA program as well.

4. How will this impact property owners for whom their rental property is one of their only assets? Property owners selling under COPA will still get fair market value when selling their property.

5. Why should property owners of color who have had to come up against systemic discrimination have to comply with a process for how they sell their property? The impacts of property owners from the COPA policy are minimal. Property owners can still sell to family and COPA does not interfere with estate. For those property owners who do participate. The COPA process adds time, but does not control the sales price. At the same time, the potential positive impacts of marginalized renters and for making San José a less exclusive place into the future our large. People of color bene
ﬁt disproportionately when displacement is reduced, and tenants have the opportunity to become homeowners.

Additionally, COPA already is under review by San José council oﬃces and staﬀ, with lobbying under way both for and against. Aspects of the program are not working well in San Francisco and Washington D.C. Since San José is gathering information and doing due diligence, some feel a recommendation to pursue COPA is premature.

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

The following de
ﬁnitions are proposed:

1. low-income Residents: De ﬁned by 60% AMI or some other widely acceptable measured in the future

2. A ﬀordable Housing: Somebody should pay no more than 30% of their income for a mortgage
98 3. House for Purchase: includes detached houses, condominiums, town houses, duplexes etc.

Council should explore the following policy to directly assist San José residents who otherwise are not able to purchase a home in San José because their salary will not qualify them to purchase available homes for sale. This policy shall not impact already existing or future land that provides rental housing. Policy elements could include:

1. At least every other year, the Mayor and City Council shall conduct a comprehensive study which identi
ﬁes opportunities that will assist San José residents to purchase a home. Examples of potential opportunities are City, County, State or Federal legislative acts, e
ﬀorts by the business or philanthropic sectors seeking to improve the quality of life in the city of San José by supporting the expansion of home ownership by low-income San José residents. This analysis shall be considered a major policy requiring an Equity Assessment.

2. Upon identifying opportunities per the study, the Mayor and City Council will delegate the responsibility to pursue, promote and participate in these opportunities for home purchase for its residents starting with low-income residents who have continuously resided in San José for a minimum of ten years.

3. On a regular basis the City of San José shall identify land not currently zoned for housing which is highly suitable to convert to land to be used for a ﬀordable housing
for purchase. This section shall not apply to land covered by Article XIX.

4. As the City of San José negotiates new business developments, community beneﬁt programs to assist low-income residents as deﬁned by the City Housing Department to achieve home ownership, shall be included.

Additional policies and programs to promote homeownership by low-income residents which are subsidy, incentive and educational based, including those that are voluntarily rather than regulatory based shall be explored.

Any policies adopted shall incorporate racial and social equity analysis to promote the use of an “equity lens” during its implementation. An equity lens is a tool used to improve planning, decision-making, and resource allocation leading to more racially equitable policies and programs. For any policy or project proposed, decision makers could consider:

1. Structural Equity: What historic advantages or disadvantages have a ﬀected residents in the given community?
99 2. Procedural Equity: How are residents who have been historically excluded from planning processes being authentically included in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the proposed policy or project?

3. Distributional Equity: Does the distribution of civic resources and investment explicitly account for potential racially disparate outcomes?

4. Transgenerational Equity: Does the policy or project result in unfair burdens on future generations?
This recommendation was passed on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 with 12 aye, 9 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
Today, all San José residents experience dramatic rising costs for home ownership. Within Santa Clara County, San José is the largest and fastest growing housing center, yet low-income residents do not
ﬁnd homes for purchase aﬀordable on their otherwise
adequate income. Today, San José is experiencing a housing crisis. The cost of mortgage or rental payments are out of reach for many low-income residents. Many individuals and families must live in crowded shared homes and apartments.

The City of San José has policies which protect the environment by preserving surrounding rural lands, preserve commercial property which may present future business and employment opportunities, and control the cost of City of San José growth. Many of these requirements are contained in Charter “Article XIX An Act to Limit Urban Sprawl and the Fiscal and Environmental E
ﬀects of Speciﬁed Development in Outlying Areas”. However, the Charter does not address the serious housing crisis faced by San José residents.

The key ﬁndings of a new report issued by Joint Venture Silicon Valley titled “2021 Silicon Valley Poll” (Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3) sought to identify how residents of Silicon Valley are feeling especially now as they are impacted by the pandemic in addition to pre-pandemic stressors:
● “56% of respondents say they are likely to leave the region in “the next few years.” This is a nine-point uptick from 2020 when the same question was posed by a pre-pandemic survey.”
● “The general cost of living (84%) and high housing costs (77%) are the top two reasons cited for wanting to move.”
100
● “76% of the respondents identify the cost of housing as the most serious problem in the Bay Area, followed by the cost of living, homelessness, the increasing frequency of wild
ﬁres and drought.”
● “40% of overall respondents feelﬁnancially insecure. Higher percentages of Hispanic or Latino/a and Black or African Americans self-identify as insecure.” The low-income sector of San José has been most severely impacted by the high increases in the cost of housing in Silicon Valley. This has led to severely crowded living conditions where more than one family must share a small house or apartment, and the numbers of unhoused individuals in our community illustrate injustice and hopelessness. Individuals identi
ﬁed as middle class face the burden of high rental costs and mortgages that are outside their income levels.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
This proposal seeks to start addressing the needs of those with the highest burden, the low-income population. The direct beneﬁciaries of this proposal are low-income residents deﬁned in the recommended Article XX as “60% AMI or some other widely acceptable measured in the future.” There is no identiﬁed burden from this change to the San José City Charter
The housing crisis in San José includes the burden faced by low-income working residents who most likely will never be able to buy a home in their city. This reality appears to be cemented into the local economy. This proposal contains proactive, results-oriented support toward the possibilities of home ownership for these residents which City of San José leaders can implement.

This is a policy recommendation that was initially presented to the Commission as a Charter recommendation. The Commission voted to not approve as a Charter recommendation.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
The policy recommendation includes several proposals, none of which is a new idea and only one of which is focused on home ownership. The county and The Housing Trust o ﬀer
help to ﬁrst-time homebuyers, the city helps nonproﬁts buy land for aﬀordable housing, 101
and preservation of industrial land is a complex ﬁnancial decision.

Strengthen Community Input to the Smart City Advisory and Innovation and Technology Advisory Boards
What is the recommendation?
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.

The Commission encourages Council to expand the size and breadth of membership on the Smart City Advisory Board and the Innovation and Technology Advisory Board.

Membership on the Smart City Advisory Board should consider expanding beyond its current 7 members. Similarly, the Innovation and Technology Advisory Board should expand beyond its current “5-8 members.” The exact number of appointed members should be determined by the city council after consultation with San José’s O ﬃce of Racial
Equity and community, academic experts, and industry stakeholders. Board membership should be focused on expanding the range of perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of the appointees.

New members might include representatives from the city’s di ﬀerent council districts,
neighborhood associations, academic experts, and/or representatives of nonpro ﬁt organizations and civic organizations with extensive experience working with San José’s diverse population and communities.

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

Why is this particular change being recommended?
As part of its “Smart City Vision” San José has created two advisory boards: the Smart City Advisory Board and the Innovation and Technology Advisory Board. The Smart City Advisory Board “aims to obtain expert input from industry thought-leaders experienced at creating and deploying innovative technology solutions to solve 21st problems.” The Innovation and Technology Advisory Board is designed to “tap the rich expertise of our community in shaping the strategic technology direction of the city.” 102
While technological advancement, including advancements in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Machine Learning, carry the promise of bringing innovation and e ﬃciency to city governance, they also stand to intersect with longstanding economic and social issues and challenges. For example, new software and internet-based technologies are likely to reshape the future of work. This includes both the type of work available to city residents but also where future work is done. What this means for the future job growth and opportunities, city tax revenues, economic opportunity, service delivery, individual privacy, and social and economic inequality are important considerations (Goldin & Katz, 2008; Walch, 2019: see Appendix 1, Section 3). Technological innovation, including Arti ﬁcial
Intelligence, is likely to aﬀect core city functions including policing and public safety, record keeping, and transportation, among others. Technological change is also likely to alter how residents interact with political leaders and their representatives in the democratic process (Rigano, ND).

Technological change synonymous with the Smart City Vision is likely to a ﬀect San José’s
diverse population in very diﬀerent and unpredictable ways. This is already recognized by city leaders. San José has already developed a digital inclusion and broadband strategy (See Appendix 1, Section 3). Yet currently, the Smart City and Innovation and Technology Advisory board members are almost universally drawn from technology industries. There is no requirement that the composition of board membership includes community representatives from the city’s di
ﬀerent council districts, neighborhood associations,
academics, representatives from social service providers or civic organizations who may bring di
ﬀerent (overlooked) perspectives regarding the beneﬁts and costs of technological change and what it means for San José city governance and community life.

Racial and ethnic minorities, residents with lower socioeconomic status, and traditionally underserved neighborhoods are less likely to experience the full beneﬁts of technological advancement. This has been seen most recently with the inequitable expansion of broadband technologies within urban spaces (Fishbane & Tomer, 2020: : see Appendix 1, Section 3). These same groups are more likely to experience negative consequences from technological change. This has been particularly true in the labor market (Autor, Dorn, and Hanson, 2015; Katz & Murphy, 1992: see Appendix 1, Section 3). Increasing both the number and diversity of perspectives on these advisory boards will strengthen community representation and elevate the concerns among people and groups who bene ﬁt the least
or who are harmed the most by technological change. It will improve the chances that new technologies are deployed by the city in a manner consistent with the goals and values of the entire community
103
In the regional area, the cities of San Ramon and Petaluma have Innovation and Technology Advisory committees that include members of the community who are independent of the technology industry. The City of Oakland has developed a Privacy Advisory Commission to provide advice on the city’s purchase of surveillance equipment and data storage.

All San José residents who are directly or indirectly a ﬀected by technological change would
beneﬁt from this change. Minimal costs would be imposed on the City Council; councilmembers would need to spend time researching and consulting on this issue.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
Issues surrounding technology and technological change can be technical and complex. As a result, some may argue that a signiﬁcant degree of expertise is needed to knowledgeably engage on technology-related issues. Discussion and policy recommendations should be reserved for people - representatives from the technology sector - with a deep familiarity of the industry and how new technologies are developed and deployed. 104

APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX ONE - Minority Report
The following Minority Report contains recommendations that were not approved by the Commission by majority vote, as well as dissenting opinions submitted by Commissioners.

This section has been included to provide a full picture of the diversity of opinions expressed by Commissioners during the Commission's deliberations.

Governance Structure
Charter Recommendations
Maintain a “Council-Manager” Government Structure
Submitted by Commissioner Lan Diep
The San José City Charter Review Commission was tasked – among other instructions – with studying our city’s current governance structure to suggest possible reforms to “[a]lign mayoral executive authority with residents’ and local business’ reasonable expectations for responsive and accountable democratic governance in a major U.S. city.” In response to this speci
ﬁc direction, the Commission demurred, ﬁnding this direction to be in direct conﬂict with a lesser, catch-all instruction to “[c]onsider additional measures and potential charter amendments, as needed, that will improve accountability, representation, and inclusion at San José City Hall.” Beginning with the belief that “moving to a ‘Mayor-Council’ government structure will not improve accountability, representation, or inclusion at San José City Hall”, the Commission rejected the imagined, maximalist version of a “strong mayor” without due consideration to numerous possible reforms that exist along the sliding scale between the Council-Manager and Mayor-Council forms of government.

Contrary to the majority’s interpretation, reforming San José’s governance structure does not present a binary choice between the status quo or a mayor-as-undemocratic-dictator.

There are many incremental reforms that could be adopted that might bene ﬁt San José
without undermining accountability, representation, or inclusion.

Two-thirds of America’s 25 largest cities have changed to a mayor-council form of government, preferring their mayor act as an executive rather than a board member. At the same time San José was exploring this matter, similar-sized cities such as Austin, Portland, and Sacramento are grappling or have recently grappled with the same 106
questions. Within California, Fresno, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco have transitioned to a “strong mayor” form of government. Surely the majority of this commission does not believe that these cities do not value accountability, representation or inclusion.

Future city councils or charter review commissions reviewing the 2021 Charter Review Commission’s recommendation to preserve status quo in San José’s governance structure should take it with a grain of salt, as this recommendation is based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the issue under consideration.

The majority argues that “[i]f mayoral power is expanded in San José, this increased power will impact and potentially limit the current powers of our Council Members who are voted to represent their districts in San José.” The majority is incorrect to frame the expansion of mayoral powers as a power struggle between the city council and the mayor, as any expansion of mayoral power would diminish the city manager’s authority, not the city council’s. In any amended governance structure, the city council would continue to legislate and represent their districts. The mayor should never be allowed to unilaterally pass legislation. Yet gradual expansion of the mayor’s authority wouldallow the mayor to have greater ability to exercise judgement and discretion over how the policies adopted by the city council are executed.

An expanded role for the mayor may take on many forms, depending on what San José residents have an appetite for. In other cities where the mayor has more authority than in San José, the mayor is not a member of the city council but retains a veto over legislation passed by the council. Some mayors can bring with them to o ﬃce a cabinet to help her
implement the vision voters citywide elected her to do. Other mayors can only hire andﬁre a few department heads. Future city councils and charter review commissions should explore the full range of possibilities and determine what will work best for San José, rather than dismiss any reforms out of hand on the false premise that the choice is binary; to either preserve the status quo or go all-in on a particular extreme.

At present, the San José City Council adopts policy by a majority vote of its members, including the mayor. This is a simple and straight-forward system, appropriate for small cities with part-time city councils. Yet for a large city like San José with full-time councilmembers, something more dynamic is desirable. A city manager is a professional compared to a part-time elected oﬃcial, but one can argue that a full-time elected oﬃcial is a professional as well. It seems odd, if not problematic that San José’s mayor is required to 107
win citywide (a task 10 times harder than winning a single council district) only to have equal say over policy matters as a councilmember.

Voters understandably expect the mayor to implement the platform he or she ran on, yet in San José the mayor’s vision must survive scrutiny of a majority of councilmembers, despite already being approved by a majority voters who elected the mayor. While the mayor should not legislate, he or she should have some authority independent of the city council to respond to the demands of city residents. This might be through the power to appoint or
ﬁre some or all department heads; the power to prioritize how city resources and staﬀ time will be used to implement policies adopted by the city council; or the power of executive order. Such powers exist to varying degrees in other cities and allow the mayor to respond nimbly to public concern.

Yet the majority of the Commission asserts expanding mayoral powers in any degree would disenfranchise voters, based on the wrong belief that a stronger mayor necessitates a weaker city council:
“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.”
If the majority were truly concerned with preventing disenfranchisement of voters, they would be more open to reforms in San José’s governance structure to allow a more specialized role for the mayor – as distinguished from a councilmember – to re ﬂect his
status as the only oﬃcial elected citywide and the only member of the council who could lay claim to some sort of mandate from voters. San José’s current governing system amounts to lawmaking by a majority of 11 votes between the Mayor and councilmembers.

This potentially undermines the desires of the electorate – as expressed through its selection of mayor – by subjecting the mayor’s vision to secondary approval by councilmembers representing the more narrow interests of their districts. Under this system, a politically savvy councilmember who builds a majority coalition on the council could become its de facto leader, eﬀectively neutralizing the mayor.

Further, the concern about disenfranchisement seems contradictory considering the recommendation this commission has made to move mayoral elections to align with the 108
presidential election cycle. Much emphasis was made of the fact that presidential election years enjoy higher turnout, meaning a more diverse electorate. The Commission believes the mayor should be elected along with the president so that the electorate who picks the mayor will re
ﬂect a more diverse cross-section of the city. But in simultaneously recommending that the mayoral election should be moved and that the city should preserve its present governing structure, the majority of the commission becomes at odds with itself. E
ﬀectively, the Commission asserts the importance of more people being represented through the election of a mayor while also arguing that that any increased authority for the mayor to serve this more diverse electorate is somehow an aﬀront to notions of representation or inclusion.

The recommendation from this commission regarding the city’s governance structure has not been made in due consideration of the various possibilities that exist for San José’s government to better serve its residents. It was a recommendation made on the false assumption that San José must choose between the status quo or some imagined extreme, when in truth we are free to craft a vision of government that best suits us in San José. The recommendation on governance structure also su
ﬀers from the mistaken belief that
increased authority for the mayor necessarily undermines the city council. In fact, any increased authority for the mayor would come at the expense of the unelected city manager. In light of this, future city councils and charter review commissions should feel free to reexamine this matter in more depth without feeling that this issue has already been extensively studied. It has not.

Expand Council to 14 Districts
Submitted by Commissioner Barbara Marshman
The proposal to expand the City Council was introduced late in the Commission’s work. It was based on the assumption that the smaller districts are, the better Councilmembers will represent their constituents and the more equitable City services and programs will be.

Opponents of the addition of four seats, expanding Council from 10 to 14, were not opposed to expanding the Council. The objection was that the number 14 was arbitrary.

More study is needed to conclude what is the best number to balance smaller districts with the need for a functional City Council.

The issues for opponents to this proposal included:
109

1. Most city councils with even 15 members make decisions mainly through committees, whose chairs gain more power. This may be a good thing. We don't know. We did not have time to reach community interest groups in those cities to understand how they feel about their systems and whether they believe they are the best way to run a government. For community groups that lobby the council for change, more members means a larger number to reach.

2. Most large-council cities in San José's population range have strong mayors. This commission has recommended giving more power to the Council. A large council with a weak mayor could be less decisive and e
ﬀective, making achieving majorities
let alone consensus more diﬃcult and time consuming.

3. The smaller per capita districts in small cities (e.g., Sunnyvale and Santa Clara) are not comparable to San José because their council members are part-time and do not have sta
ﬀ. A majority of the top 10 population cities have councils of 11 members or fewer. We'd like to know why more of them have not chosen to expand.

4. At 10 districts, San José always has had some Councilmembers who communicate well with residents and some who do not. It is a matter of choosing the right staﬀ and prioritizing inclusion. A large Council with some members who do not engage their communities could be no more e
ﬀective than today's, yet more costly.

Some Commissioners suggested going directly to 12 council members within this decade because it would make it easier to draw representative districts - noting the diﬃculty of redistricting this year - but would be unlikely to negatively aﬀect the functioning of city government. It would be incremental change - but that is not always a bad thing. It would give time for the community to assess what the optimal size of the council would be.

That assessment was perceived by the majority as "justice denied." The minority perceived it as avoiding unintended consequences, which also can deny justice.

Grant Mayoral Emergency Powers
What is the recommendation?
110
Empower the Mayor (or Vice Mayor in his or her absences) instead of the City Manager as the person authorized to declare a local emergency. Said declaration would expire if not rati
ﬁed by Council within 72 hours.

This recommendation failed to pass on October 18th, 2021 with 6 aye, 15 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
San José Municipal Code Sec. 8.08.200 vests in the City Manager, or her or his designee, as Director of the O
ﬃce of Emergency Services emergency power to enact rules and regulation subject to later ratiﬁcation by the City Council. Over the years, the Director, because the Council was not in session, issued proclamations declaring the existence of a local emergency. During both instances the Mayor was available but did not have the power to declare the local emergency and implement the powers delineated in Sec.

8.08.250. For 7 days thereafter, the powers of the City Manager to wit: “to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property”, were not rati
ﬁed by the City Council. This proposal substitutes the Mayor (or Vice Mayor in his or her absences) for the CIty Manger as the person authorized to declare a local emergency. Furthermore, said declaration expires if it is not rati ﬁed by the City Council
within 72 hours.

The Mayor is the very visible leader of the City. During a crisis or emergency the public looks to the Mayor for leadership and resolutions. However, the City Manager is in complete control of emergency and crisis response, including the emergency response to the 2017
ﬂoods that failed to account for monolingual Vietnamese households and the overly aggressive reaction of SJPD to the George Floyd protests during the summer of 2020.

During the ﬂooding in 2017, in particular, many individuals and businesses were unaware of the imminentﬂooding. The disconnect and lack of timely information between the OES, the Mayor and other outside agencies contributed to the neighborhood impacts.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
The City Manager is tasked with oversight of every department and employee of the City of San José. This is a massive undertaking considering that our government is responsible for nearly 1.1 million residents, and such responsibility in our Council-Manager system creates the risk that the Manager becomes narrowly focused on eﬃcient internal operations rather than assessing and adjusting to the external needs of residents. Eﬃciency should be an 111
operational goal, but a heavy inward focus can mask our external needs. This is particularly true during times of crisis or emergency when the e ﬀectiveness of our response is determined by our preparation rather than reaction, especially in how we protect our monolingual or limited English pro
ﬁcient residents that do not have the same access to
information or our oﬃcials as English speakers do.

This recommendation beneﬁts the people of San José as well as the City Administration by ensuring that an oﬃcial who is directly accountable to the public may step in before and during an emergency to ensure that our response accounts for all communities in our City.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
One possible argument against this proposal is the fact that the Mayor, Vice Mayor and/or staﬀ could be required to obtain training commensurate with the training provided to the City Manager (or her/his designee) as Director/Head of Emergency Services. On-going training could be required by the Director/Head of the Emergency Services. There could also be the potential need for additional sta
ﬀ for the Mayor to have persons trained or
familiar with Emergency Services and assets available throughout the City.

A number of Commissioners also voiced concerns that this recommendation could allow for the political use of Mayoral emergency powers, and that “local emergency” is an overly broad criteria for emergency powers. Some proposed it should be restricted only to natural disasters.

Proposed Charter Language
Add a new item to “ARTICLE V SECTION 502 The Mayor; Powers and Duties” as follows:

1. Proclamation of local emergency. Whenever a local emergency, or the imminent threat thereof, occurs, in the city and results in, or threatens to result in, the death or injury of persons or the destruction of or damage to property to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the mayor, after consultation with the City Manager and appropriate sta
ﬀ, extraordinary measure to protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in writing the existence of a local emergency. In the absence or inability of the Mayor, such a local emergency may be declared by the following in line of succession: Vice-Mayor, City Manager.

A. During the existence of a local emergency the Mayor shall serve as the director of emergency services and head of the o
ﬃce of emergency services.

All powers and duties otherwise conferred upon the city manager or 112
department head related to a local emergency declaration shall be exercised subject to the direction and approval of the Mayor.

B. Whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by the Mayor, the city council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within 72 hours, or the proclamation shall have no further force or e
ﬀect.

C. The Mayor shall cause any proclamation issued pursuant to the authority of this Section, to be delivered to all news media within the city and shall utilize such other available means, including social media, and public postings on the City website.

D. The mayor shall have those powers enumerated in Municipal Code Section

8.08.250 (A-D).

E. Nothing herein shall expand the powers and duties of the Mayor beyond those set forth above. Said exercise of powers set forth above shall be deemed to not violate Charter Section 411 - Interference with Administrative Matters.

Amend “ARTICLE IV SECTION 411 The Council: Interference with Administrative Matters” to include an exception to the prohibition against interference with Administrative Matters, with suggested changes, as follows:

Except as provided in Section 502 I,Nneither the Council nor any of its members nor the Mayor shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his or her powers and duties, nor in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any City o
ﬃcers or employees whom the City Manager is empowered to appoint except as expressly provided in Section 411.1. However, the Council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the City Manager anything pertaining to the appointment and removal of such oﬃcers and employees.

Policy Recommendations
Explore Adding Council Districts
What is the recommendation?
Explore whether smaller districts might oﬀer more focus on communities of greater need.

This question should be studied before the next redistricting process begins, and early enough to schedule a public vote if a change is recommended. 113
The review should examine:
● Whether dividing the city into perhaps 12 districts would make it easier to group like communities.
● Whether community support for adding districts is strong enough to move forward. ● Whether other cities have found a correlation between increasing the number of districts and providing more e
ﬀective government.
● Whether cities with smaller council districts have more or less conﬂict over issues of equity such as locating aﬀordable housing.
● Whether there are other ways to improve representation or equity in delivering services without adding council districts. Today, some council o ﬃces are far better
than others at reaching out to constituents and responding to their concerns. Is there a way to institutionalize that ability without adding council seats? This recommendation failed to pass on October 18th, 2021 with 14 aye, 7 nay and 1 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
A 1978 initiative replaced San José’s at-large council elections with district elections. The 10 districts grouped communities of interest so that neighborhoods throughout the city and members of di
ﬀerent racial, ethnic and other interest groups had more access to, and inﬂuence on, City Hall. Each district originally held about 60,000 residents. Today, with city population exceeding one million, each district has more than 100,000 residents. At the same time, San José has experienced the national trend of increasing income disparities, amplifying concerns that policies and programs need to be in the interest of all parts of the city. Uneven patterns of development over the past decade are forcing the city’s redistricting committee to look at very di
ﬀerent district divisions to keep the population
evenly divided. This begs the question: Should the city look at increasing the number of council districts to more e
ﬀectively represent communities of interest?
The 10 council districts maintain a reasonable-size governing body that may be more e
ﬀective and nimble than a larger group to implement policies and programs.

But smaller districts might oﬀer more focus on communities of greater need. They could help make democracy more real and credible to communities that doubt their interests are taken as seriously as others’. In turn, more trust could make collaborative democracy work better.
114
Why is this particular change being recommended?
Residents would beneﬁt from easier access to their council members, particularly in under-served communities. Disadvantaged racial, cultural and interest groups could gain a stronger voice. Candidates mightﬁnd it less costly to run in a smaller district, opening the ﬁeld to more residents.

A redistricting commission is already at work and extensive research and population data from the 2020 census have been completed. It would be a waste of public time and expense to suggest a change in district numbers for this cycle. It is recommended that the question be studied before the next redistricting process begins, and early enough to schedule a public vote if a change is recommended.

This recommendation originally proposed expanding the Council from 10 to 14 districts.

After discussion, some Commissioners felt that, while the idea of adding more districts had merit, it would bene
ﬁt from further study in light of the Redistricting Commission’s work, and the Governance Structure Subcommittee revised the charter recommendation to a policy recommendation for Council to further study the issue. However, during ﬁnal voting,
a substitute motion was made for a charter recommendation to expand Council to 14 districts and was subsequently approved.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
An 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 in
ﬁnitely 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. 115
Voting and Elections
Charter Recommendations
There were no proposed Voting and Elections Charter recommendations not approved by the Commission.

Policy Recommendations
Additional Policy Recommendations for the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices
What is the recommendation?
1) Direct City Clerk’s Oﬃce (or appropriate entity onceﬁnalized) to revamp the City webpage pertaining to Council and Mayoral elections, including a spreadsheet or document highlighting independent expenditures supporting respective candidates, of which is to be maintained frequently. The
ﬁnished product is intended to
resemble sites currently maintained by the City of San Francisco and City of San Diego.
2) Implement a Small-Donor Matching Funds system, where the City of San José will match individual contributions for both Mayoral and City Council elections, at a ratio to be determined by the Council and approved by the voters in San José.1 3) Expand the charge for the Board for Fair Campaigns and Political Practices to study and assess recommendations that address historical disenfranchisement, including, but not limited to:
a) Creating a budget for and support outreach organizations like Somos Mayfair or Latina Coalition in all districts throughout the City; b) Set policy for voting centers and drop-o
ﬀ boxes in equal proportions and
distances in each district and throughout the City;
c) Set policy for reaching out to incarcerated teens in an eﬀort to educate and guide them in the personal power of their voice.
116
This recommendation failed to pass on November 1st, 2021 with 9 aye, 10 nay and 3 absent votes.

What problem(s) does this recommendation address?
1) On disclosure of independent expenditures.While a campaign can be won based on values and proposals, it also can unfortunately be clinched with eﬀectively used monetary resources. In recent years, Mayoral and City Council elections in San José have witnessed a gradual rise in total campaign spending through political organizations. Over $1.8 million was spent on the District 4 and District 6 San José City Council races in 2020 (Wipf, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3). While political organizations are currently required to disclose their independent expenditures on their 496 Forms, more can be done for the everyday San Joséan to ensure that the information is quickly accessible and easily transparent through an interface design ﬁt for a city located in Silicon Valley.
2) On a small donor matching program. In San José, there is currently a $700.00 contribution limit per person for a City Council candidate, and a $1,400 for Mayoral candidates (City of San José, 2009, see Appendix 1, Section 3). These rules are intended to prevent corruption and level the playing
ﬁeld, but they have lagged as a
result of political organizations turning to independent expenditures. This has contributed to an increasing tug-of-war between business and labor groups in the city (Wipf, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3). We must look into evening the playing ﬁeld by having contributions from individuals within the City matter more than they currently do. Nearly two-thirds of the American public believes “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns (Jones, 2018: see Appendix 1, Section 3). Much of the debate on increased disclosure centers on the Political Reform Act, which allows for payments expressly advocating support of or opposition to a candidate or ballot measure, known as “independent expenditures” (Federal Political Practices Commission, 2020:
see Appendix 1, Section 3). Recent Supreme Court rulings have squashed methods in limiting independent expenditures (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, 2010: see Appendix 1, Section 3).

A handful of attempts have been made to lessen the impact made on monetary inﬂuence from special interests. Three examples are listed below. 117
City of Seattle: Mails residents four $25 “Democracy vouchers” to Seattle residents, who then can assign it to any candidate participating in the program (Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission, 2019: see Appendix 1, Section 3). The program is funded through a property tax costing Seattle voters $3 million per year, roughly $8 per year for the average homeowner (Young, 2015: see Appendix 1, Section 3). Charged with administering the vouchers is the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission, who ultimately have three Full-Time employees managing the election infrastructure (Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission, 2019: see Appendix 1, Section 3).

New York City: Currently has a 6:1 match program for mayoral and city council races (i.e. for every dollar a candidate receives, New York matches it with six public dollars) (New York City Campaign Finance Board, 2021: see Appendix 1, Section 3).

City of Los Angeles: Currently has a dual-tiered match rate dependent on quali
ﬁcations met by candidates. 1:1 for general and primary for candidates that met the minimum criteria, and 2:1 for the primary. There is a 4:1 match for candidates in the general who meet additional criteria (Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, 2015: see Appendix 1, Section 3).
3) On historical disenfranchisement.While San José has one of the most aggressive voter participation programs in the state, there are still those who feel disenfranchised for many reasons. This proposal aims to suggest solutions for those who are left out of the election process, whether by design or by neglect.

Why is this particular change being recommended?
1) On disclosure of independent expenditures.Providing accessible disclosure of major independent expenditures on the main City of San José website should provide voters with additional information on which organizations align with respective candidates and help create a more user-friendly site for folks to scour through material.
2) On a small donor matching program. This proposal intends to decrease monetary in
ﬂuence from local political organizations/action committees and increase participation from San Joséans in campaign contributions. Each venture towards amending Campaign Finance rules in San José would not be theﬁrst of its kind, for 118
other cities in California - as well as others in the United States - have already led the charge. It is legally possible but would require some overhauling in structural mechanisms currently in place, or even those potentially lacking. Creating a system which elevates the weight and meaning of campaign contributions from San Joséans can help ensure that the voices of community members are elevated in as close to equal standing as e
ﬀorts by political organizations. It can also contribute to more voter engagement and participation in Council and Mayoral elections due to increased awareness.
3) On historical disenfranchisement. Expanding the charge of the Board for Fair Campaign and Political Practices to examine this issue and provide recommendations such as outreach strategies and expenditures, studying racism and bias in campaign literature, promoting voting among younger residents, and other ideas can help to better understand the issue and address it. The bene ﬁt of
strengthening and expanding the scope of the Board for Fair Campaigns and Political Practices reaches all people and businesses in San José by creating a resident agency that can focus on campaign
ﬁnance and historical
disenfranchisement, two issues that directly impact the quality of representation that residents have in our city.

What are the arguments against this proposal?
These policy recommendations were originally bundled with the Charter recommendation proposing to elevate the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices to the Charter.

After further discussion, while Commissioners strongly supported addressing historical disenfranchisement, there were concerns that there had not been adequate study to determine if the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices was the right body to lead this work, especially given the unique requirements of Board membership potentially being at odds with the experience necessary to address historical disenfranchisement. 119
Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion
Charter Recommendations
Create a Police Commission, an Independent Investigation Department, and an Oﬃce of the Inspector General
Subm
itted by Commissioner Frank Maitski
The Commission spent signiﬁcant time on the issue of police oversight including eight presentations, over three study sessions, from professionals with police oversight experience in San Jose and other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the perspective of law enforcement was not included in any of the Commission’s deliberations. Neither the current police chief or police oﬃcers, past police chiefs or retired police oﬃcers, nor police chiefs or police oﬃcers from other jurisdictions were consulted in the Commission’s discussion of this issue. This is in contrast to the discussion on a mayor-council form of government where a former mayor and city manager were included, along with perspectives from other cities. I believe this is a signiﬁcant ﬂaw in the process and does not provide an adequate foundation for any Charter amendments on this topic.

The invited speakers provided excellent information and a full menu of all known methods of police oversight. What did not occur was a discussion of the pros and cons of each method from the law enforcement perspective. Police oﬃcers put their lives on the line every day to protect all citizens of San Jose. They are also required to make split second decisions on the use of force. The perspective of the police chief and police o ﬃcers is vital
not only in developing an eﬀective police oversight system, but also in building trust between the community and the police.

One of the guest speakers, an Independent Police Auditor (IPA) from another city, stated that one of the most important things an IPA needs to do is establish trust with both the community and police. In any dispute, all parties need to be included in development of an e
ﬀective resolution. I am concerned that adoption of this proposal could be a step 120
backwards in addressing community/police relations simply because the police were not included in the process.

This proposal also gives signiﬁcant authority to a Commission, an unelected body, on how policing will be conducted in San Jose and by whom. It provides approval authority of department policies and procedures unless speciﬁcally rejected by the City Council. It also develops the candidate pool for police chief vacancies (but allows the Council to add candidates), and can
ﬁre the police chief with cause, unless speciﬁcally blocked by the Council with a super-majority vote. I believe this is signiﬁcant over reach for a process that did not include the perspective of law enforcement. I believe this authority should remain with the City Council as implemented by the City Manager.

Although I disagree with this proposal, I am not opposed to additional police oversight.

Through this process it became apparent that a signi
ﬁcant portion of the community has
lost trust with the police and expects substantial change from the City’s “reimagining police” e
ﬀort. It also appears the Independent Police Auditor lacks suﬃcient authority for eﬀective oversight.

The appropriate action by the Council on this topic is to receive it as information from the Charter Review Commission and include it in its “reimagining police” eﬀorts.

Establish A Climate Action Commission In The City Charter The original Charter recommendation proposing to establish a climate action commission in the Charter was not approved by the Commission.

A number of Commissioners felt that, while they were supportive of a CAC, adding to the Charter was unnecessary and, further, might hinder future changes to a CAC’s objectives by requiring a vote by residents to amend the Charter. This proposed Charter recommendation was instead approved as a policy recommendation.

Minority Opinion: The Climate Action Plan Should Be Added to the City Charter Submitted by Commissioner Magnolia Segol
We have been considering an amendment to the Charter for the City of San Jose to require the city leadership to adopt substantial measures intended to deal with the crisis of global heating. There is an alternative proposal to not amend the Charter but rather leave such 121
measures in the realm of policy, subject to the priorities of the political class. Doing so would be a grave mistake. Allow me to explain why I think this is the case.

For context, we can start with the 2021 Conference of the Parties recently concluded in Glasgow, Scotland. This would be the 26th such gathering of the COP. The annual COP is where the nations of the world gather to discuss their collective response to global climate change. You wouldn’t know that from just the event title. In the lead-up to COP-26, many world in
ﬂuencers went on record to say how this would be the most important COP ever, and admonished the participants to make genuine changes to global agreements intended to reduce global heating. Some of those voices suggesting that failing to make progress in 2021 would put the entirety of human civilization onto the path of runaway climate change for decades to come. In the end, COP-26 was an abject failure. Nothing of consequence emerged, and the world’s leaders returned to their own countries to crow about how they had protected the national interests.

COP-26 is only the most recent in a decades-long series of highly visible global diplomatic failures. It is now evident from observations that the political class has no appetite for dealing with global heating caused by the burning of fossil fuels. There are currently no viable, signi
ﬁcant solutions (or even the pretense of such) coming from the international community, nor from the US federal government, nor from the California state government. There are any number of “greening the economy” projects, or “carbon neutral” schemes, or other such hand-waving now in
ﬂight all over the world stage, but
these are almost entirely too late and too modest in their scope. We have no time left; the planetary system that has nurtured our endeavors for centuries hasﬁnally turned against us even while the window of opportunity to “ﬁght climate change” has closed, likely for whatever time humans remain on Earth. Now, we must learn to cope.

Cities have for thousands of years oﬀered citizens tools to cope with threats to existence. If nothing else, a city typically had defensive walls, shared granaries, water cisterns and wells, and were made up of many self-aware small, contained, resilient communities able to support each other during trying times. None of our modern cities have these things, or modern equivalents of them, to supply the demand during the trying times ahead, and our political and business elites have shown little interest in providing such in a substantive manner necessary to cope with the coming threats in the near future (such as the need for mass cooling centers that can keep society moving and schools running during week-long extreme heat events). Thus we drift into uncharted waters without a proper boat. If the City 122
does not have the historical, inherited, and evolved set of responses to organize people around collective survival, and the political class is seen running from the challenges, then we need to teach the city itself how to perform the supportive role that cities of old had always o
ﬀered.

And so, to our topic of the San Jose City Charter.

The initial suggestion to amend the Charter for the city of San Jose was a deliberate move to inject into the city’s DNA a set of concrete rules by which to cope with the looming, grinding, existential challenge that is global heating. We can guess at some of the challenges we will face, but many more (and likely, worse) will arrive without warning. The opportunity for harmful demagoguery is immense. Placing some general rules and modest ambitions into the Charter would somewhat insulate them from political meddling — that is, would position the needs of common people above the narrow needs of the elites in a way that the political process simply refuses to do — and would position the rules to be taken up by future standard-bearers as the crisis accelerates into unknown territory, in the process perhaps avoiding some future lethal societal implosion.

Of course, having a rule book is not a popular move when politicians would rather broker power and in
ﬂuence for their personal gain, but the days of playing with power are behind us. Or certainly need to be. Making a transition to shared resilience quickly, while the opportunity still exists, requires bold actions of a kind that people naturally distrust. People need to have an explanation, which explanation sadly falls to politicians. In substitution of that, the rationale presented here will have to do.

The planetary system is changing, and we are not positioned at all well to deal with that.

We have no time left to wrangle over how to prioritize the operations of the city around what is proposed to be a thousand con
ﬂicting goals. In fact we have one goal; survival. That was always the case, it remains true to this day. Simply put, we have forgotten this. We must quickly remember.

We must amend the Charter.

Promote Home Ownership Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of San José (Article XX)
The original Charter recommendation on promoting home ownership opportunities for low-income residents was not approved by the Commission. 123
Commissioners felt this was an important topic but not an appropriate issue at this time for a Charter revision. This proposed Charter recommendation was instead approved as a policy recommendation.

Policy Recommendations
There were no proposed Voting and Elections policy recommendations not approved by the Commission.

APPENDIX TWO - Research, Speakers &
References

1. Full Commission Meeting Speakers
February 8, 2021
● Camille Fontanilla, Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair, ● Poncho Guevara, Executive Director, Sacred Heart Community Service March 8, 2021
● John Marshall Collins (Past Charter Review Commissioner, 1985) ● Bob Brownstein (Past Charter Review Commissioner, 1985) March 22, 2021
● Kimberly Nelson, Professor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
April 5, 2021
● Norberto Duenas, Former City Manager
● Ron Gonzales, Former Mayor
April 19, 2021
● Terry Christensen, Professor Emeritus, San José State University ● Mary Currin-Percival, Professor Emeritus, San José State University 124
May 3, 2021
● Denzel McCampbell, Carol Weaver, Lamont Satchel, Detroit Charter Commission
● Stephanie Jayne & Sabrina Parra-Garcia, San José Oﬃce of Racial Equity May 17, 2021
● Aimee Faucett, Former Chief Of Staﬀ for City of San Diego Council Members and Mayor
August 23, 2021
● Brian Corr, Immediate Past President, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
● Aaron Zisser, former San José Independent Police Auditor ● Paul R. Parker III, Executive O ﬃcer, San Diego County Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB)
● Michael Gennaco, Principal of OIR Group, City of Davis Independent Police Auditor
October 25th, 2021
● Joséph Rois, City Auditor, City of San José
● Robyn Rose, Internal Audit Manager, County of Santa Clara ● Mark P. Smith, Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission, Oﬃce of the Inspector General
● Mica Estremera, Deputy Public Defender, Santa Clara County Oﬃce of the Public Defender; President of La Raza Lawyers local chapter ● Gloria Gomez , Muwekma Language Committee Member and Former Councilmember, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area ● Monica V. Arellano, Vice Chairwoman, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
● Dr. Lawrence Quill, Professor of Political Theory, San José State University ● Meredith Muller, science and math teacher and permaculturist ● Kathryn Mathewson, Landscape Architect and Owner, Secret Gardens September 9th, 2021
125
● Bonnie Sugiyama, Director, PRIDE Center & Gender Equity Center, San José State University
● Sera Fernando and Maribel Martinez, County of Santa Clara Oﬃce of LGBTQ Aﬀairs
● Robert Brownstein, former Budget Director for Mayor Susan Hammer ● Ellina Yin, San José Council Advisory Appointment Commission September 13th, 2021
● Michael Mastrandrea, Climate Scientist, Stanford University ● Cat Woodmansee, MS in Biology and Systems Ecologist, Chico State University
September 27th, 2021
● Matthew Gonser, Chief Resilience Oﬃcer & Executive Director, Oﬃce of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, City & County of Honolulu (spoke at October 25th, 2021 Full Commission meeting)
● Shivaun Nurre, San José Oﬃce of the Independent Police Auditor ● John Alden, Executive Director, City of Oakland, Community Police Review Agency
● Sergio Perez, Executive Director, County of Orange Oﬃce of Independent Review
● Russell Bloom, Independent Police Auditor, BART
● Erin Armstrong, Member, BART Police Citizen Review Board ● Corina Herrera-Loera, Public Information O ﬃcer, Santa Clara County Emergency Operations Center and Professor of Chicano/a Studies, San José State University
● Gerardo Loera, Director of Development and Communications, Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
October 25th, 2021
● Joséph Rois, City Auditor, City of San José
● Robyn Rose, Internal Audit Manager, County of Santa Clara ● Mark P. Smith, Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission, O ﬃce of
the Inspector General
● Mica Estremera, Deputy Public Defender, Santa Clara County Oﬃce of the Public Defender; President of La Raza Lawyers local chapter 126
● Gloria Gomez , Muwekma Language Committee Member and Former Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Council member
● Monica V. Arellano, Vice Chairwoman, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
● Dr. Lawrence Quill, Professor of Political Theory, San José State University ● Meredith Muller, science and math teacher and permaculturist ● Kathryn Mathewson, Landscape Architect and Owner of Secret Gardens November 3rd, 2021
● Sandy Perry, President, Aﬀordable Housing Network of Santa Clara ● Andrea Portillo, Community Organizing and Policy Manager, SOMOS Mayfair ● Jacky Rivera, Project Coordinator, South Bay Community Land Trust ● Michael Henshaw, Real Estate Professional
● Melanie Griswold, Real Estate Professional
November 6th, 2021
● Representatives of Reimagining Public Safety Committee

2. Governance Structure Speakers & References
Speakers
● No speakers presented at Governance Structure ad hoc subcommittee meetings.

References
Maintain a “Council-Manager” Government Structure and Allow Council Members to Make Nominations for City Manager Candidates

1. US Census (2010). City of San José Median Household Income by Census Tract, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23727/6366893723212 70000)

2. Charter Review Commission Meeting, 4/5/2021: https://youtu.be/fMrfZQYlv0I

3. Svara, James H. “E
ﬀective Mayoral Leadership in Council-Manager Cities:

Reassessing the Facilitative Model.” National Civic Review, vol. 92, no. 2, 2003, pp. 157–172., doi:10.1002/ncr.14.
127

4. Gould, Eric D., and Alexander Hijzen. Growing Apart, Losing Trust? The Impact of Inequality on Social Capital . International Monetary Fund ,23 Aug. 2016, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp161 76.pdf.

5. https://icma.org/sites/default/ ﬁles/Survey%20Resea rch%20Snapshot_MFOG.pdf

6. https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/02/co
uld-dallas-reform-its-government-without-going-fullstrong-mayor/

7. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-
31/strong-mayor-weak-mayor-no-mayor-in-terms-ofpolicy-it-may-not-matter-much

8. https://ctausanovitch.com/Municipal_Representatio n_140502.pdf

9. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/election/article246811372.html

10. https://www.nlc.org/resource/forms-of-municipalgovernment/

11. https://communityimpact.com/austin/centralaustin/government/2021/01/12/potenti al-strongmayor-system-in-austin-would-be-weakest-of-anybig-city-in-the-country-su pporters-say/

12. https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/10/05/sanJosé-makes-progress-on-mayors-am bitious-greenvision/

13. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/08/04/ifstrong-mayor-goes-to-sacramento-v oters-how-willit-impact-their-everyday-lives/

14. https://now.tufts.edu/articles/local-governmentsfavor-white-and-wealthy

15. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/69-Stan-L-Rev5

49.pdf

16. https://www.academia.edu/31986476/E
ﬀective_may
oral_leadership_in_council_manager_cities_Reass essing_the_facilitative_model Establish Future Charter Review Commissions

1. “Guide for Charter Commissions,” Sixth Edition; National Civic League:
https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/resources/guidecharter-commissions-2011/gui de-to-charter-commissions/

2. City Charter of Portland, Oregon: https://www.portland.gov/charter

3. City Charter of Columbus, Ohio:
https://library.municode.com/oh/columbus/codes/code_of _ordinances Emergency Powers of the Mayor

1. San José City Charter Sec. 5-2: Municipal Code Title 18, Part 2, Sec. 8.08.210; 8.08.250

2. New Executive Law 24, Ch. 18, Art. 2-B, Sect. 24

3. City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 8.27, et. Seq. 128

4. San Francisco Administrative Code Sec. 7.6

5. Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 10.02

6. City of Toppenish, Washington Code Sec. 2.95.010-050

7. City of Laurel Maryland, Laurel City Code Article, VIII, Sec. 2-176

3. Voting & Elections Subcommittee Speakers & References Speakers
● Dr. Terry Christensen, Political Science Professor Emeritus (San José State University) ● Dr. Mary Currin-Percival, Associate Professor of Political Science (San José State University)
References
Move San José Mayoral Elections from Gubernatorial to Presidential Election Years

1. Tolbert, Caroline J. and Daria Kuzentsova. “Editor’s Introduction: The Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

2. Kropf, Martha. “Using Campaign Communications to Analyze Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

3. Coll, Joséph A. “Demographic Disparities Using Ranked Choice Voting? Ranking Di
ﬃculty, Under-Voting, and the 2020 Democratic Primary.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

4. Juelich, Courtney L. and Joséph A. Coll. “Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

5. Terrell, Cynthia Richie et al. “Election Reform and Women’s Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S..” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

6. Santucci, Jack. “Variants of Ranked Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

7. Richie, Rob et al. “Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American 129
Presidential Primaries.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

8. Chessin, Steve. “Non-Monotonicity Explained.” June 17, 2009.

9. 2009 Burlington mayoral election. Wikipedia. Accessed July 13, 2021.

10. Donovan, Todd, and Kellen Gracey. “Self-Reported Understanding of Ranked-Choice Voting.” Social Science Quarterly, April 2019.

11. Lavin, Nancy. “Ranked Choice Voting: The New Norm Across the Bay Area.” National Civic Review, Volume 107, Number 4.

12. 2010 Oakland Mayoral Race Results. Alameda County Registrar.

13. John, Sarah and Caroline Tolbert. “Socioeconomic and Demographic Perspectives on Ranked Choice Voting in the Bay Area.” Ranked Choice Voting Civility Project Research Report 4, April 2015.

14. Drew Desilver, “Voter turnout always drops o
ﬀ for midterm elections, but why?”, July
2021:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnoutalways-drops-oﬀ-f or-midterm-elections-but-why/

15. Terry Christensen and Tom Hogen-Esch (2006), Local Politics: A Practical Guide to Governing at the Grassroots. Routledge.

16. Garrick Percival (2021). See memo submitted by Commissioner Garrick Percival on March 17, 2021.

17. Charter Review Commission meeting 5/17/2021:
https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=862242&GUID=0E C9026E-D91D-4439-951C-5657602D9E01&Options=&Search=

18. Zoltan Hajnal and Paul Lewis “Municipal Institutions and Voter Turnout in Local Elections,” Urban Aﬀairs Review (2003), 38, 5: 645- 668.

19. Melissa Marschall and John Lappie’s 2016 report “Mayoral Elections in California, 1995-2014” at https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/default/ﬁles/documents/FINAL_CA_LEAP_ REPORT_0310.pdf

20. Samuel L. Popkin. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Communication and Change in Presidential Campaigns. University of Chicago Press.

21. See again, Zoltan Hajnal and Paul Lewis “Municipal Institutions and Voter Turnout in Local Elections,” Urban Aﬀairs Review (2003), 38, 5: 645-668.

Implement Ranked Choice Voting

1. Tolbert, Caroline J. and Daria Kuzentsova. “Editor’s Introduction: The Promise and Peril of Ranked Choice Voting.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

2. Kropf, Martha. “Using Campaign Communications to Analyze Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections.”

3. Coll, Joséph A. “Demographic Disparities Using Ranked Choice Voting? Ranking 130
Diﬃculty, Under-Voting, and the Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021). https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/iss ue/view/251

4. 2020 Democratic Primary.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

5. Juelich, Courtney L. and Joséph A. Coll. “Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

6. Terrell, Cynthia Richie et al. “Election Reform and Women’s Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S..” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

7. Santucci, Jack. “Variants of Ranked Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

8. Richie, Rob et al. “Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries.” Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

9. Chessin, Steve. “Non-Monotonicity Explained.” June 17, 2009.

10. 2009 Burlington mayoral election. Wikipedia. Accessed July 13, 2021.

11. Donovan, Todd, and Kellen Gracey. “Self-Reported Understanding of Ranked-Choice Voting.” Social Science Quarterly, April 2019.

12. Lavin, Nancy. “Ranked Choice Voting: The New Norm Across the Bay Area.” National Civic Review, Volume 107, Number 4.

13. 2010 Oakland Mayoral Race Results. Alameda Country Registrar.

14. John, Sarah and Caroline Tolbert. “Socioeconomic and Demographic Perspectives on Ranked Choice Voting in the Bay Area.” Ranked Choice Voting Civility Project Research Report 4, April 2015.

15. Politics and Governance, Open Access Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021).

16. 2009 Burlington mayoral election. Wikipedia. Accessed July 13, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_ele ction

17. “Self-Reported Understanding of Ranked-Choice Voting.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332608727_Self -Reported_Understanding_of_Ranked-Choice_Voting

18. “Leno and Kim Endorse Each Other for Mayor.”
https://www.sfweekly.com/topstories/leno-and-kimendorse-each-other-for-mayor/

19. “Ranked Choice Voting: The New Norm Across the Bay Area.” https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncrarticle/ranked-choice-voting-the-new-norm- across-thebay-area/
131

20. 2010 Oakland Mayoral Race Results. Alameda County Registrar. https://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results2010-11- 02/rcvresults_2984.htm Elevate the Board of Fair Campaigns and Political Practices to the City Charter

1. Carly Wipf, Spending in Contested San José Council Races Hits $1.8 Million, S.J.

Spotlight (Oct. 27, 2020),
https://sanjosespotlight.com/spending-in-contested-san-jose-city-council-races-surp asses-1-million/

2. City of San José, Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/city-clerk/boards-commi ssions/boards-commissions-a-c/board-of-fair-campaign-political-practices

3. City of San José, City of San José: City Charter (Updated February 2021), https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13907/6375324497069 00000

4. City of San José, A Resolution of the Council Approving the Adjusted Contribution Limits in Accordance with San José Municipal Code Section 12.06.210C, Res. No. 77583, 2015 Sess. (2009),
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16717/6366822655520 70000

5. Carly Wipf, supra note 1.

6. Bradley Jones, Most Americans Want to Limit Campaign Spending, says Big Donors Having Greater Political In
ﬂuence, Pew Research Center (May 8, 2018),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit- campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-in ﬂuence/

7. See Federal Political Practices Commission, Chapter 11: Independent Expenditure Reporting (June 2020), https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS- Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_4/Manual_4_Ch_11_IE_Reporting.p df

8. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); see also Erwin Chemerinsky, Symposium: The Distinction between Contribution Limits and Expenditure Limits, SCOTUS Blog (Aug. 12, 2013),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/symposium-the-distinction-between-contribut ion-limits-and-expenditure-limits/

9. Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission, Democracy Voucher Program: Biennial Report 2019, SEEC (2019),
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/EthicsElections/DemocracyVouch er/2019_Biennial_Report(0).pd f
132

10. Bob Young, ‘Democracy Vouchers” Win in Seattle; First in Country, The Seattle Times (Nov. 3, 2015),
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/democracy-vouchers/

11. Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission, supra note 9.

12. New York City Campaign Finance Board, Campaign Finance Handbook: 2021 Election Cycle, NYCFF (Jan. 2021), h t t p : / / w w w . n y c c fb . i n fo / c a n d i d a t e - s e r v i c e s / h a n d b o o k /

13. Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, City of Los Angeles Matching Funds Program, LA City Ethics (Jan. 31, 2013),
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2013/gpnf20130131_1a.pdf

14. Jennifer A. Heerwig & Brian J. McCabe, Building a More Diverse Donor Coalition: An Analysis of the Seattle Democracy Voucher Program in the 2019 Election Cycle, Georgetown University (Dec. 16, 2020),
https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/r2skgxfnc230ukkb3dfqgm4576phzabd

15. City of San José, supra note 3.

16. City & County of San Francisco Ethics Commission, Disclosures, https://sfethics.org/disclosures

17. City of San Diego, Ethics Commission: Campaigns,
https://www.sandiego.gov/ethics/documents/candidate

18. Municode, San José Municipal Code, SanJoséCA.gov (Jul. 12, 2021), https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12

ETOPGOPR

3. Policing, Municipal Law, Accountability & Inclusion Speakers Speakers
● Gerardo Loera, Director of Development and Communications for the Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
● Corina Herrera-Loera, Public Information O
ﬃcer for the Santa Clara County
Emergency Operations Center. She is also a professor of Chicano/a Studies at San José State University and the Board President Elect for Alum Rock Union Elementary School District.
● Ellina Yin, San José Resident presented data on Boards and Commissions ● Robert Brownstein, San José Resident presented on Equity best practices ● Cat Woodmansee,
ﬁeld biologist, a computer scientist, and environmental activist ● Kerry Romanow, Environmental Services Department, Administrative Assistant, 133
City of San José
● Julie Benabente , Deputy Director, Climate Smart, Environmental Services Department
● Yael Kisel, Climate Smart Analytics Lead & Projects Coordinator City of San José | Environmental Services Department 134
● Lori Mitchell, Director of the San José Clean Energy Program. 8. Jessica Zenk is Acting Deputy Director for the City of San José Department of Transportation, working on planning, designing and building a more accessible and sustainable transportation for the City of San José.
● Regina Jackson, Oakland Police Commission Chair
● Brian Corr, Immediate Past President, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
● Paul R. Parker III, Executive O
ﬃcer, San Diego County Citizens’ Law Enforcement
Review Board (CLERB)
● Shivaun Nurre, San José Oﬃce of the Independent Police Auditor ● Russell Bloom, Independent Police Auditor, BART
● Erin Armstrong, Member, BART Police Citizen Review Board ● Andrea Portillo, Community Organizing and Policy Manager, SOMOS Mayfair ● Jacky Rivera, Project Coordinator, South Bay Community Land Trust References
Reform Boards and Commissions
On Diversity, Social and Racial Equity and Justice:

1. https://sanjosespotlight.com/how-diverse-are-san-joses-com missioners-diversity/

2. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-commission-criticizedfor-lack-of-diversity-now -led-by-latinx-leaders/

3. https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Resolutions/RES73956.PDF

4. https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Resolutions/RES71362.PDF

5. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-
ﬂea-market-vendors-d
emand-lawmakers-reject-development-plans/

6. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bi ll_id=201920200SB225

7. https://www.racialequityalliance.org/jurisdictions/san-jose-ca lifornia/

8. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-o ﬃces/city-council/members/mayor-s-oﬃce/mayor-s-budgetoﬃce 134
On Civic Education on Boards and Commissions

9. https://cmo.smcgov.org/civics-101-academy

10. https://urbanhabitat.org/leadership/replication
On Stipend Boards, Commissions at the City of San José

11. https://sanjose.granicus.com/boards/w/923860ac785826ef/b oards/2013 On Planning with an Equity Lens

12. https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/Equity#Deﬁning%20Equity

13. https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/pu blication/download_pdf/Planning-for-Equity-Policy-Guide-rev. pdf On expanding membership requirements to board and commission

14. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-06/shouldresidents-be-u-s-voters- to-serve-on-city-commissions-costamesa-council-narrowly-decides-no

15. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/sto ry/2021-03-17/santa-ana
Tools and Resources on Improving Equity

16. https://www.esri.com/en-us/racial-equity/local-government/o verview

17. https://medium.com/changelab-solutions/equitable-commu nity-engagement-34d2542f68fd

18. https://www.civicplus.com/news/promoting-citizen-engagem ent-and-equity-using-civicplus-solutions
Data and sources

19. City of San José, 2021.
https://sanjose.granicus.com/boards/w/923860ac785826ef/boards/2013 a. Current Stipend Commissions
i. $100/Per Mtg - Appeals Hearing Board
ii. $250/Mo - Planning Commission
iii. $450-250/Mo - Civil Service Commission
iv. $250/Mo - Federated City Employees' Retirement System v. $250/Mo - Police and Fire Retirement Plan Board
135
vi. (7 Appeals, 11 Planning, 5 Civil Service, 7 Federated, 9 Police & Fire = 39 seats)
b. *Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee, Voluntary Employees Beneﬁciary Association Advisory Committee are reimbursed only. c. $250 x 12 Months = $3,000 Yearly per Commissioner
d. $250 x 287 (326 - 39 Currently Stipend Commissioners) = e. $861,000/Annually + overhead related costs
f. Data provided by City Clerk’s O
ﬃce:
i. 276 Filled / 326 Total (50 Vacant)
Add a Native Land Acknowledgement to the Charter

1. Dylan Robinson, Kanonhsyonne Janice C. Hill, Armand Garnet Ru ﬀo, Selena Couture, Lisa Cooke Ravensbergen Canadian Rethinking the Practice and Performance of Indigenous Land Acknowledgement. Theatre Review, Volume 177, Winter 2019, pp. 20-30 (Article)

2. Baldy, C.R. Why we gather: traditional gathering in native Northwest California and the future of bio-cultural sovereignty. Ecol Process 2, 17 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2- 17

3. http://www.muwekma.org/

4. https://native-land.ca/resources/territory-acknowledgement/

5. https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/informational/landacknowledgement

6. https://www.sjsu.edu/diversity/land-acknowledgement/index.php

7. https://www.cca.edu/about/indigenous-land-acknowledgement/

8. https://sfsuais.sfsu.edu/content/land-acknowledgement

9. https://cejce.berkeley.edu/ohloneland

10. https://oakland.edu/diversity/land-acknowledgement-statement/

11. https://www.aclunc.org/campaign/aclu-northern-california-landacknowledgment

12. https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/21 92-1709-2-17 Use Gender-Inclusive Language in the Charter and City Documents

1. Sera Fernando, guest speaker for our 9/9 study session, shared the free online training Building a More Inclusive Workplace: LGBTQ module, the presentation slide deck (attached), and links below.

2. Building a More Inclusive Workplace LGBTQ Training. The approaches you learn in this online module for intervening when you hear biased and discriminatory language against LGBTQ people is applicable within your organization as well as 136
your day to day LGBTQ+ cultural competency. Instructions for taking the training below. You can also download the facilitator’s guide to support you in hosting a post-training dialogue:
https://go.kognito.com/rs/143-HCJ-270/images/InclusiveWorkplaceLGBTQ_Facilitator _Guide.pdf. To access the online training:
a. Go to www.kognitocampus.com
b. Register for a free account
c. Use “sccatwork” as the enrollment key when prompted

3. TSER - The Gender Unicorn https://transstudent.org/gender/

4. Williams Institute Report on Nonbinary LGBTQ Adults in the United States https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Nonbinary -LGBTQ-Adults-Jun-2021.pdf

5. County of Santa Clara Human Rights Commission - Report on Gender Inclusive Language http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=SplitVie w&MeetingID=13126&MediaPosition=&ID=105051&CssClass=

6. Santa Clara County LGBTQ Older Adults Survey http://www.santaclarasurvey.org/

7. Associated Press Stylebook https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7

8. American Psychological Association
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular -they

9. https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/singular-they
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular -they

10. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-of-the-year- 2019-they/they

11. NATO Gender-Inclusive Language Manual
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_
ﬂ2014/assets/pictures/images_mfu/
2021/5/pdf/210514-GIL-Manual_en.pdf

12. United Nations Gender Inclusive Language Guidelines https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml APPENDIX TWO - Public Process Overview
Create a Police Commission, an Independent Investigation Department, and an O
ﬃce of the Inspector General

1. Vitoroulis, Michael, Cameron McEllhiney, and Liana Perez. 2021. Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Report on the State of the Field and Eﬀective Oversight Practices.

Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services. Published 2021

2. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Washington. “Seattle: A Call for an Independent Oﬃce for Police Accountability.” American Civil Liberties Union of 137
Washington. Last modiﬁed June 11, 1999.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/seattle-call-independent-oﬃce-police-accountability.

3. Alpert, Geo ﬀrey P., Tyler Cawthray, Jeﬀ Rojek, and Frank Ferdik. “Citizen Oversight in the United States and Canada: Applying Outcome Measures and Evidence-Based Concepts.” In Civilian Oversight of Police: Advancing Accountability in Law Enforcement, edited by Tim Prenzler and Garth den Heyer, 179–204. Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press, 2016.

4. Anderson, Jessica. “ACLU Challenges FOP Lawsuit Attempting to Limit Civilian Review Board Access to Files.” The Baltimore Sun, July 14, 2016. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/ bs-md-ci-fop-civilian-review-board-suit-20160714-story.html.

5. Anderson, Justin, Larry Brubaker, Sean DeBlieck, Brooke Leary, and David Dean. Law Enforcement Oversight: Limited Independence, Authority & Access to Information Impede E
ﬀectiveness. Seattle: King County Auditor’s Oﬃce, 2015. https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/auditor/new-web-docs/2015/kcso-oleo-2015/ kc- so-oleo-2015.ashx?la=en.

6. Andi, Jennifer. “Berkeley’s Establishment of a Police Review Commission.” Accessed December 3, 2018.
https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Berkeley%E2%80%99s_Establishment_of_a _Police_Review_ Commission.

7. Atlanta Police Department. “APD.SOP.2300 Department Cooperation with the Atlanta Citizen Review Board (ACRB),” Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual.

Atlanta: Atlanta Police Department, 2020.
https://www.atlantapd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3677/637449527865570 000.

8. Attard, Barbara, and Kathryn Olson. Overview of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement in the United States. San Francisco: Accountability Associates, 2013. https://accountabilityassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/

9. Oversight-in-the-US-%E2%80%A6FINAL.pdf.

10. ———. Police Misconduct Complaint Investigations Manual. Sammamish, WA: Olson & Attard Publishing, 2016.

11. Austin City Council. “Resolution No. 20180322-047,” March 22, 2018. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=295615.

12. Austin Police Association. Agreement Between the City of Austin and the Austin Police Association. Austin, TX: City of Austin, 2018.
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=310410. 138

13. Bardach, Eugene, and Eric M. Patashnik. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Eﬀective Problem Solving. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: CQ Press/SAGE, 2016.

14. Bardach, Eugene. “Presidential Address—The Extrapolation Problem: How Can We Learn from the Experi- ence of Others?”

15. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23, no. 2 (2004), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20000.

16. Beral, Harold, and Marcus Sisk. “The Administration of Complaints by Civilians against the Police.” Harvard Law Review 77, no. 3 (1964), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339031.

17. Bobb, Merrick J. “Civilian Oversight of Police in the United States.” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 22, no. 1 (2003), 151–166. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=plr.

18. Bobb, Merrick J. First Semiannual Report by Special Counsel Merrick J. Bobb and Sta
ﬀ. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Sheriﬀ’s Department, 1993. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5498b74ce4b01fe317ef2575/t/54fc6a52e4b0 d7c1e1535adb/1425828434679/1st+Semiannual+Report.pdf

19. Bretschneider, Stuart, Frederick J. Marc-Aurele, Jr., and Jiannan Wu. “‘Best Practices’ Research: A Meth- odological Guide for the Perplexed.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15, no. 2 (2004), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui017.

20. Bureau of Governmental Research. “New Orleans Police Monitor Charter Amendment,November 8, 2016.” On the Ballot: A Report from the Bureau of Governmental Research. New Orleans: Bureau of Governmental Research, 2016. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3132055/
BGR-OrleansBallot-Nov-2016.pdf.

21. Buren, Brenda A. Evaluating Citizen Oversight of Police. Criminal Justice. New York:

LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC, 2007.

22. Byrne, David. “Evaluating Complex Social Interventions in a Complex World.” Evaluation 19, no. 3 (2013),

23. 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013495617.

24. Castro-Silva, Rodrigo A. “Report Back on the OIG Investigation and Improving Safety in the Juvenile Facilities.” Letter to Janice Hahn, Hilda L. Solis, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Sheila Kuehl, and Kathryn Barger, March 8, 2019.
https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Report%20Back%20on%20the%20OIG %20Investigation%20and%20Improving%20Safety%20in%20the%20Juvenile%20 Facilities.pdf?ver=2019-03-11-133849-507.
139

25. Cauvin, Henri E. “D.C. Settles Suit over Protest Arrests.” Washington Post, March 1, 2007.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2007/03/01/dc-settles-suit-over-prot est- arrests/8c53687f-4d75-48e3-87d8-000c2213731c/.

26. CCRB (Civilian Complaint Review Board). 2006 Annual Report. New York: Civilian Complaint Review Board, 2007.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/annual_bi-annual/2006 _ annual.pdf.

27. ———. “Board Meeting Schedule.” Accessed June 17, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/about/news/ previous-board-meetings-page.

28. ———. “Complaint Status Lookup.” Accessed June 24, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/apps/ccrb-status-lookup.

29. ———. Language Access Policy and Implementation Plan. New York: Civilian Complaint Review Board, 2015.

30. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/about_pdf/20151030_language-ac cess-plan.pdf.

31. ———. Semi-Annual Report 2018. New York: Civilian Complaint Review Board, 2018. https://www1.nyc.
gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/annual_bi-annual/20181221_Semi-Annua l%20Report.pdf.

32. Citizen Oversight Board. 2017 Annual Report. Denver, CO: Citizen Oversight Board, 2018. https://www.
denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/64/documents/2017%20Annual%20 Report.pdf.

33. City and County of Denver. “Citizen Oversight Board.” Accessed June 17, 2020. http://denver.granicus. com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=36.

34. City Council of the City of Chicago. Journal of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Chicago, Illinois: Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 5, 2016. Chicago:

City Council of the City of Chicago, 2016.
http://chicityclerk.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/document_uploads/journals- proceedings/2016/2016_10_05_VI_VII.pdf.

35. City of Chicago O
ﬃce of Inspector General. Report Concerning COPA’s Release of Investigative Reports while under Review by the Superintendent. Chicago: Oﬃce of Inspector General, 2018.
https://igchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Report-Concerning-COPAs-Relea se-of- Investigative-Reports-While-Under-Review.pdf.
140

36. City of Detroit. “Police Commissioners History.” Accessed December 3, 2018. https://detroitmi.gov/government/boards/board-police-commissioners/police-com missioners-history.

37. City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 172466. http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/1995/95-1000-S5_ORD_172466_03-28-1999.pdf.

38. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel. “Meeting Calendar.” Accessed June 17, 2020. http://archive.miamigov.com/cip/meetings.html.

39. City of Portland. “IPR Complaint Status Request Form.” Accessed June 24, 2020. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/irp/64452.

40. City of Seattle. Ordinance 125315. May 22, 2017.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPA/
Legislation/2017AccountabilityOrdinance_052217.pdf.

41. Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s O
ﬃce, Northern District of Illinois.

Investigation of the Chicago Police Department. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2017. https://www.justice.gov/opa/
ﬁle/925846/download.

42. Civil Rights Division. “Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and the City of Cincinnati, Ohio and the Cincinnati Police Department.” U.S. Department of Justice. Last modiﬁed April 12, 2002. https://www.justice.gov/crt/memorandum-agreement-between-united-states- department-justice-and-city-cincinnati-ohio-and.

43. ———. “Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and the District of Columbia and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.” U.S. Department of Justice. Last modi
ﬁed June 13, 2001.

44. https://www.justice.gov/crt/memorandum-agreement-united-states-department-jus tice- and-district-columbia-and-dc-metropolitan.

45. ———. An Interactive Guide to the Civil Rights Division’s Police Reforms.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2017.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/ﬁle/922456/download.

46. ———. Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, 2011.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd_report.pdf.

47. ———. The Civil Rights Division’s Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work:
1994–Present. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2017. https://www.justice.gov/crt/ﬁle/922421/download.

48. Civilian Review Board. “Civilian Review Board.” City of Ferguson. Accessed July 28, 2019. https://www.fergusoncity.com/544/Civilian-Review-Board. 141

49. Clarke, Stephen. “Arrested Oversight: A Comparative Analysis and Case Study of How Civilian Oversight of the Police Should Function and How It Fails.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 43, no. 1 (2009): 1–50. http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/jlsp/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/03/43-Clarke. pdf.

50. Communities United for Police Reform. Support the Community Safety Act. New York: ChangetheNYPD.org, 2013.
https://www.changethenypd.org/sites/default/
ﬁles/docs/Community%20Safety%20A
ct%20 BASICS%209-2-2013.pdf.

51. Comptroller General of the United States. Government Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Oﬃce, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693136.pdf.

52. COPS Oﬃce (Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services). Standards and Guidelines for Internal Aﬀairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice.

Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2009. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P164.

53. Council of the City of New York. Local Law No. 70., 2013. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/oignypd/local- law/Local-Law-70.pdf.

54. Czitrom, Daniel J. New York Exposed: The Gilded Age Police Scandal That Launched the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

55. De Angelis, Joseph, and Aaron Kupchik. “Citizen Oversight, Procedural Justice, and Oﬃcer Perceptions of the Complaint Investigation Process.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 30, no. 4 (2007), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710833929.

56. De Angelis, Joseph, Richard Rosenthal, and Brian Buchner. Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Assessing the Evidence. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Justice Programs, 2016. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.
net/nacole/pages/159/attachments/original/1476745119/NACOLE_AssessingtheEvid ence_Final. pdf?1476745119.

57. De Angelis, Joseph. “Assessing the Impact of Oversight and Procedural Justice on the Attitudes of Individu- als Who File Police Complaints.” Police Quarterly 12, no. 2 (2009), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109332425.

58. Democracy Lab. “Staggered Terms for Government Boards and Commissions.” Democracy Lab, 2016.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571542c12eeb81d49159f0ae/t/5804f53fd2b8 5773b25e
142
eb14/1476719937105/DL+-+Staggered+Terms+for+Boards+and+Commissions++-ver .9-.pdf.

59. Denver City Council. “19-0029 A Bill for an Ordinance Clarifying and Amending the Authority of the Oﬃce of the Independent Monitor.”
https://denver.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.
aspx?ID=3830608&GUID=D1A9F81B-C675-400B-A90A-E7FEF5255F3E.

60. Denver Sheri
ﬀ Department. Beyond Reform. Denver: Denver Sheriﬀ Department, 2018.
https://www.denvergov.org/
ﬁles/assets/public/sheriﬀ-department/documents/
sheriﬀ_2018beyondreformreport.pdf.

61. DOI (New York City Department of Investigation). An Investigation of NYPD’s New Force Reporting System. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2018. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/press-
releases/2018/feb/08Use_of_Force_Report_020618.pdf.

62. ———. Fourth Annual Report. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2018.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2018/Mar/15_NYPD_IG_Fourth_Annual _Report_w_ report%203.29.18.pdf.

63. ———. Ongoing Examination of Litigation Data Involving NYPD. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2018.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2018/April/21NYPDLitData_ Report_43018.pdf.

64. ———. Police Use of Force in New York City: Findings and Recommendations on NYPD’s Policies and Practices. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2015. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/ pdf/2015/2015-10-01-Pr_uofrpt.pdf.

65. ———. Second Annual Report. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2016.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2016/2016-04-01-Pr09_oignypdannual report.pdf.

66. ———. Using Data from Lawsuits and Legal Claims Involving NYPD to Improve Policing. New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2015. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2015/2015-04-20- Litigation-Data-Report.pdf.

67. Fachner, George, and Steven Carter. An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department. Wash- ington, DC: O
ﬃce of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 2015.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0753. 143

68. Fagan, Jeﬀrey, Amanda Geller, Garth Davies, and Valerie West. “Street Stops and Broken Windows Revisit- ed: The Demography and Logic of Proactive Policing in a Safe and Changing City.” In Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings, edited by Stephen Rice K. and Michael D. White, 59. New York: New York University Press, 2010.

69. Fagan, Je
ﬀrey, and Garth Davies. “Street Stops and Broken Windows: Terry, Race and Disorder in New York City.” Fordham Urban Law Review Journal XXVIII (2001), 458–504. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.257813.

70. Faull, Andrew. Monitoring the Performance of Police Oversight Agencies. APCOF (African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum) Policy Paper 8 (2013). http://apcof.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/No-8-
Monitoring-Performance-of-Police-Oversight-Agencies-Andrew-Faull.pdf.

71. Ferdik, Frank V., Je
ﬀ Rojek, and Geoﬀrey P. Alpert. “Citizen Oversight in the United States and Canada: An Overview.” Police Practice and Research 14, no. 2 (2013), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.767089.

72. Finn, Peter. Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Jus- tice, 2001.
https://www.ojp.gov/pd
ﬃles1/nij/184430.pdf.

73. Flamm, Michael W. “‘Law and Order’ at Large: The New York Civilian Review Board Referendum of 1966 and the Crisis of Liberalism.” The Historian 64, no. 3/4 (2002), 643–665. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24451025.

74. Francis, Kathryn A. Statutory Inspectors General in the Federal Government: A Primer. Washington, DC: Congres- sional Research Service, 2019. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45450/4.

75. Gennaco, Michael J, and Aaron B Zisser. Independent Review of the BART Police Oversight Structure. San Francisco: Oﬃce of Independent Review, 2017. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ d85a96_0b754d67d8ad418aab4fdadf70cc4391.pdf.

76. Gill, James. “Watchdogs’ Fight Each Other.” The Advocate, August 18, 2013.

77. Gill, Jeﬀ, and Kenneth J. Meier. “Ralph’s Pretty-Good Grocery versus Ralph’s Super Market: Separating Excellent Agencies from the Good Ones.” Public Administration Review 61, no. 1 (January 2001), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00002.

78. Goldman, Roger L. “Importance of State Law in Police Reform.” Saint Louis University Law Journal 60, no. 363 (2016), 363–390. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2817551.

79. Greenhouse, Steven. “Demonstration Turns Violent at Trade Talks in Miami.” The New York Times, November 21, 2003.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/us/demonstration-turns-violent-at-trade-talks -in- miami.html.
144

80. Hadden, Sally E. Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 2003.

81. Hagan, Patrick. “Types of Complaints Eligible for Police Mediation.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1507192.

82. Harris, Frank. “Holding Police Accountability Theory to Account.” Policing 6, no. 3 (2012), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pas003.

83. Hickman, Matthew J. “Citizen Complaints about Use of Force.” Law Enforcement Management and Adminis- trative Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Justice Programs, 2006. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf.

84. Hickman, Matthew J., and Jane E. Poore. “National Data on Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force: Data Quality Concerns and the Potential (Mis)Use of Statistical Evidence to Address Police Agency Con- duct.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 27, no. 5 (July 2016), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415594843.

85. Huntsman, Max. “Services and Programs O
ﬀered to Pregnant Prisoners and
Mothers.” Letter to Sheila Kuehl, Hilda L. Solis, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Janice Hahn, and Kathryn Barger, February 2, 2018.
https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/2-2-18%20OIG%20Report%20Back%20 on%20Preg- nant%20Prisoners.pdf?ver=2018-02-08-105510-75

86. Hutson, Susan, Ronal W. Serpas, and Arlinda Westbrook. Memorandum of Understanding between the NOPD and the IPM. New Orleans: Oﬃce of Inspector General, 2010. https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/MOU-Signed-11-10-10.pdf.

87. Hutson, Susan. “RE: OIPM # 2012-850; NOPD Retaliation Policy, Pattern and Practice.” Letter to Arlinda Westbrook, July 30, 2014.
https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Retaliation-Letter- FINAL-7-30-14.pdf.

88. In Re: Cincinnati Policing. Case No. C-1-99-317 (S.D. Ohio, April 12, 2002). https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/
police/department-references/collaborative-agreement/collaborative-agreement1/.

89. Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Los Angeles:

Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Depart- ment, 1991. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Report-of-the-Independent- Commission-on-the-LAPD-re-Rodney-King_Reduced.pdf.

90. Independent Police Review. “Data > Police Misconduct Complaints.” City of Portland, Oregon. Accessed April 22, 2019.
145
https://public.tableau.com/views/ComplaintReports/ComplaintsComplainants?:
embed=y&:display_count=yes&:toolbar=yes&:showVizHome=no.

91. IOLERO (Independent Oﬃce of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach). FY 2017–18 Annual Report. Santa Rosa, CA: Independent Oﬃce of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, 2018.
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147566902.

92. Jackson, Jonathan, Ben Bradford, Mike Hough, Andy Myhill, Paul Quinton, and Tom Tyler. “Why Do Peo- ple Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the In ﬂuence of Legal
Institutions.” British Journal of Crimi- nology 52, no. 6 (2012), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1994490.

93. Jerome, Richard. “Chapter 3. Credibility, Impartiality, and Independence in Citizen Oversight.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintr ón
Perino, 21–45. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006.

94. Jiao, Allan Y. Police Auditing: Standards and Applications. Second edition. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd., 2015.

95. Jones, Benjamin. “Chapter 5. Funding and Staﬃng.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 59–70. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006.

96. Jones, Jeﬀrey M. “In U.S., Conﬁdence in Police Lowest in 22 Years.” Gallup.com, June 19, 2015. https://news.gallup.com/poll/183704/conﬁdence-police-lowest-years.aspx.

97. Keenan, Kevin M., and Samuel Walker. “An Impediment to Police Accountability? An Analysis of Statutory Law Enforcement Oﬃcers’ Bills of Rights.” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 14, no. 2 (2005), 185.

98. Kelly, Kimbriell, Wesley Lowery, and Steven Rich. “Fired/Rehired: Police Chiefs Are Often Forced to Put Oﬃcers Fired for Misconduct Back on the Streets.” Washington Post, August 3, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/police-ﬁred-rehired/ .

99. Kerner, Otto, John V. Lindsay, Fred R. Harris, Edward W. Brooke, James C. Corman, William M. McCull- och, I. W. Abel, et al. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing O ﬃce, 1968.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdﬃles1/Digitization/8073NCJRS.pdf. 100. King, Kevin. “E ﬀectively Implementing Civilian Oversight Boards to Ensure Police Accountability and Strengthen Police-Community Relations.” Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal 12, no. 1 (2015), 91–120.
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=hasting s_race_ poverty_law_journal.
146
101. King, Ryan S., and Marc Mauer. “The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s.” Harm Reduction Journal 3, no. 1 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-3-6.
102. Kolts Commission. The Los Angeles County Sheri ﬀ’s Department: A Report by Special Counsel James G. Kolts & Staﬀ. Los Angeles:
103. Kolts Commission, 1992. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PN- CA-0001-0023.pdf.
104. Koper, Christopher K., Gretchen E. Moore, and Je ﬀrey A. Roth. Putting 100,000 Oﬃcers on the Street: A Survey-Based Assessment of the Federal COPS Program.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2003.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pd
ﬃles1/nij/grants/200521.pdf.
105. LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department). 2016 Biased Policing and Mediation Update—Annual Report. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Police Department, 2017. https://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Biased%20 Policing%20Rpt%20and%20Tables_%202016%20Year%20End.pdf. 106. ———. 2020 3rd Quarter Manual: Los Angeles Police Department. Los Angeles:

Los Angeles Police Department, 2020. http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_manual/. 107. LaRose, Greg. “New Orleans Voters Split Funding for Inspector General, Police Monitor.” The Times-Picayune. November 9, 2016.
https://www.nola.com/elections/2016/11/new_orleans_voters_split_polic.html. 108. Lasley, J. R. “The Impact of the Rodney King Incident on Citizen Attitudes toward Police.” Policing and Soci- ety 3, no. 4 (March 1994), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1994.9964673.
109. Law Enforcement Action Partnership. “Sir Robert Peel’s Policing Principles.” Accessed August 30, 2019.
https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-principles/. 110. Lee, Trymaine, Zachary Roth, and Jane Timm. “Obama to Announce $75 Million for Body Cameras.” MSNBC. Last modi
ﬁed December 1, 2014.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-announce-75-million-body-cameras. 111. Los Angeles County OIG (O ﬃce of the Inspector General). A Review of the Jail Violence Tracking and Report- ing Procedures of the Los Angeles County Sheriﬀ’s Department. Los Angeles: Oﬃce of the Inspector General, County of Los Angeles, 2017. https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/A%20Review%20of%20 the%20Jail%20Violence%20Tracking%20and%20Reporting%20Procedures%20of%20 the%20
Los%20Angeles%20County%20Sheri
ﬀs%20Department.pdf?ver=2018-10-26-142600-
987.
147
112. ———. Safe Release from Los Angeles County Jails: Mitrice Richardson and the Protection of Vulnerable Prisoners. Los Angeles: Oﬃce of the Inspector General, County of Los Angeles, 2018. https://oig.lacounty.gov/
Portals/OIG/Reports/Safe%20Release%20from%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Jai ls_wo_Memo. pdf?ver=2018-04-03-094110-673.
113. Los Angeles County OIG and Sheri
ﬀ of Los Angeles County. Memorandum of
Agreement to Share and Protect Conﬁdential LASD Information. Los Angeles: Oﬃce of the Inspector General, County of Los Angeles, 2015.
https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/MOA%20to%20Share%20and%20Prote ct%20Con
ﬁden- tial%20LASD%20Information.pdf?ver=2015-12-28-110506-000. 114. Los Angeles Police Commission OIG (O ﬃce of the Inspector General). Review of the Department’s Quarterly Discipline Report, Third Quarter 2009. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Police Commission, 2010.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b2dd23_3e5e76a02f641bc984d1901e18fee609.pdf. 115. Lowery, Wesley. They Can’t Kill Us All: Ferguson, Baltimore, and a New Era in America’s Racial Justice Movement. First edition. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2016.
116. Martin del Campo, Francisco, Joann Casado, Paulette Spencer, and Hal Strelnick. “The Development of the Bronx Community Research Review Board: A Pilot Feasibility Project for a Model of Community Consultation.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 7, no. 3 (2013), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2013.0037.
117. Mayor’s O
ﬃce. “Sheriﬀ Department Reform.” City of Denver. Accessed June 24, 2021.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/mayors-oﬃce/programs-initiativ es/sheriﬀ- department-reform.html.
118. Mazerolle, Lorraine Green, Elise Sargeant, Adrian Cherney, Sarah Bennett, Kristina Murphy, Emma An- trobus, and Peter Martin. Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Policing. SpringerBriefs in Criminology. New York: Springer, 2014. 119. McDevitt, Dean Jack, Amy Farrell, and W. Carsten Andresen. Enhancing Citizen Participation in the Review of Complaints and Use of Force in the Boston Police Department. Northeastern University Institute on Race and Justice, 2005. 120. Metropolitan Police Department. General Order 120.25 (Processing Citizen Complaints). Washington, DC: Metro- politan Police Department, 2017. https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_120_25.pdf.
148
121. Miami Herald. “Civilian Investigative Panel’s Epic Fail.” The Miami Herald.

September 28, 2014.
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article2288196.html. 122. Miller, Joel. Civilian Oversight of Policing: Lessons from the Literature. Report from the Global Meeting on Civilian Oversight of Police, 2001. https://www.vera.org/publications/civilian-oversight-of-policing- lessons-from-the-literature.
123. Milligan, Stacy Osnick, Lorie Fridell, and Bruce Taylor. Implementing an Agency-Level Performance Measurement System: A Guide for Law Enforcement Executives. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2006. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pd
ﬃles1/nij/grants/214439.pdf.
124. Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority. 1998 Annual Report. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority, 1998.
125. Mishra, Dina. “When the Interests of Municipalities and Their O ﬃcials Diverge:

Municipal Dual Represen- tation and Conﬂicts of Interest in Section 1983 Litigation.” Yale Law Journal 119, no. 1 (2009).
https://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/when-the-interests-of-634771081. 126. Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Michael S. Caudy. “Examining Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests.” Justice Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2015), 288–313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.761721.
127. Mohr, Beth A. The Use of Performance Measurement in Civilian Oversight. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexi- co, 2007.
128. Murphy, Kristina, Lyn Hinds, and Jenny Fleming. “Encouraging Public Cooperation and Support for Po- lice.” Policing and Society 18, no. 2 (2008), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460802008660.
129. Mustian, Jim, and Matt Sledge. “New Orleans Inspector General Moves to Fire Independent Police Moni- tor as They Wage Political Warfare.” The Advocate.

September 28, 2015. https://www.theadvocate.com/
new_orleans/news/politics/article_fe07f900-7eb0-59d7-8281-e1dec966c12b.html. 130. NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement). “Qualiﬁcation Standards for Oversight Agencies.” Accessed March 26, 2019. https://www.nacole.org/qualiﬁcation_standards_for_oversight_agencies. 131. NACOLE. “Recommended Training for Board and Commission Members.” Accessed March 26, 2019.
https://www.nacole.org/recommended_training_for_board_and_commission_memb ers.
149
132. NACOLE. Atlanta Citizen Review Board: Atlanta, GA. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0953. 133. NACOLE. Citizens’ Police Complaint O ﬃce: Indianapolis, IN. 134. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0956. 135. NACOLE. Civilian Investigative Panel: Miami, FL. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0958. 136. NACOLE. O ﬃce of the Independent Monitor: Denver, CO. 137. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0955. 138. NACOLE. O
ﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor: New Orleans, LA. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0959. 139. NACOLE. O ﬃce of the Inspector General: Los Angeles, CA. 140. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0957. 141. NACOLE. O
ﬃce of Police Complaints: Washington, D.C.
142. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0961. 143. NACOLE. Police Advisory Commission: Philadelphia, PA. 144. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community
Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0960. 145. NACOLE. Police Review and Advisory Board: Cambridge, MA. 146. NACOLE Case Studies in Civilian Oversight. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Community
Oriented Policing Services, 2021.
147. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0954. 148. National Research Council. Fairness and E ﬀectiveness in Policing: The Evidence.

Washington, DC: National Acad- emies Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.17226/10419. 150
149. New York City Council. Report of the Finance Division on the Fiscal 2019 Preliminary Budget and the Fiscal 2018 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report for the Board of Correction. New York: New York City Council, 2018. https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018/03/FY19-Board-of -Correction.pdf.
150. NJ Advance Media. “The Force Report.” NJ.com. Accessed June 21, 2021. https://force.nj.com/.
151. Norman, Jim. “Con
ﬁdence in Police Back at Historical Average.” Gallup.com, July 10, 2017.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/213869/con
ﬁdence-police-back-historical-average.aspx
.
152. Nunez and United States of America v. City of New York et al. Case No. 11-cv–5845-LTS-JCF (S.D. N.Y. July 1, 2015).
153. Ofer, Udi. “Getting It Right: Building E ﬀective Civilian Review Boards to Oversee Police.” Seton Hall Law
154. Review 46, no. 4 (2016), 1033–1062.
https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlr/vol46/iss4/2/.
155. O ﬃce of Citizen Complaints. 1999 Annual Report of the Oﬃce of Citizen Complaints. San Francisco: City and
156. County of San Francisco, 1999.
https://sfgov.org/dpa/ftp/uploadedﬁles/occ/OCC_1999.pdf. 157. O ﬃce of Citizen Complaints. Mediation Program Report to the San Francisco Police Commission. San Francis- co: Oﬃce of Citizen Complaints, 2009. 158. https://sfgov.org/dpa/ftp/uploaded ﬁles/occ/2008%20MEDIA- TION%20REPORT.pdf.
159. O ﬃce of City Auditor. Five Recommendations for Evaluating Seattle’s New Police Oversight System. Seattle:
160. O ﬃce of City Auditor, 2017.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CityAuditor/auditreports/ Police%20Oversight%20System%20Evaluation100617.pdf.
161. O ﬃce of Independent Review. “Oﬃce of Independent Review.” City of Fresno.

Accessed March 28, 2019.
https://www.fresno.gov/citymanager/oﬃce-of-independent-review/. 162. O ﬃce of Professional Accountability. Oﬃce of Professional Accountability Internal Operations and Training Manu- al. Seattle: Oﬃce of Professional Accountability, 2016. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/ Departments/OPA/manuals/2016_04_01_OPA_Manual_Court_Approved.pdf. 151
163. O ﬃce of the Controller. Oﬃce of Citizen Complaints (OCC): Weak Case Management and Organizational Issues Degrade OCC’s Performance. San Francisco:

City and County of San Francisco, 2007.
https://www.sfcontroller.org/ftp/uploaded
ﬁles/controller/reports/OCC_012407.pdf.
164. O ﬃce of the Independent Monitor of the Los Angeles Police Department. Final Report. Los Angeles: Oﬃce of the Independent Monitor, 2009. https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/appendix-d-abq-lapd_ﬁnal-report_06-11-20

09.pdf.
165. O ﬃce of the Police Monitor. Police Oversight Advisory Working Group Recommendations. Austin, TX: Oﬃce of the Police Monitor, 2018. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/ﬁles/Police_Monitor/OPM_ Working_Group_FNLReport_FINAL_WEB.pdf.
166. O ﬃce of the Police Ombudsman Commission. Oﬃce of the Police Ombudsman Commission 2017 Annual Report. Spokane, WA: Oﬃce of the Police Ombudsman Commission, 2018. https://static.spokanecity.org/
documents/bcc/commissions/ombudsman-commission/annual-report/opoc-annual- report-2017.pdf.
167. OIM (O
ﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor). 2013 Semiannual Report.

Denver, CO: Oﬃce of the Inde- pendent Monitor, 2013.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/ documents/2013SemiannualReport_OIM.pdf.
168. ———. 2016 Semiannual Report. Denver, CO: O
ﬃce of the Independent Monitor,
2016. https://www.denvergov.org/
content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2016SemiannualReport_OIM.pdf. 169. ———. 2017 Annual Report. Denver, CO: O ﬃce of the Independent Monitor, 2018. https://www.denvergov.org/
content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2017AnnualReport_OIM.pdf. 170. ———. 2018 Annual Report. Denver, CO: O ﬃce of the Independent Monitor, 2019. https://www.denvergov.org/
content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2018AnnualReport_OIM.pdf. 171. OIPA (O ﬃce of the Independent Police Auditor). 2017 IPA Year End Report. San Jose, CA: Oﬃce of the Independent Police Auditor, 2018. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10723/6366639439211 30000.
172. ———. “Audit Process.” City of San Jose. Accessed June 24, 2021. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-
152
government/appointees/independent-police-auditor/ﬁling-a-complaint/audit-proces s.
173. OIPM (O ﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor). 2016 Annual Report: Statistical Reviews of NOPD’s Use of Force. New Orleans: Oﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor, 2017.
https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/OIPM-2016-UOF-Stats-3-31-17-FIN AL.pdf.
174. ———. “Community Relations.” Accessed September 22, 2020. https://nolaipm.gov/category/community-relations.
175. ———. 2017 Annual Report: Community-Police Mediation Program. New Orleans: O
ﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor, 2018.
http://communitypolicemediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ 2017-Annual-Report-Mediation-FINAL.pdf.
176. ———. 2017 Annual Report: Year in Review. New Orleans: O ﬃce of the
Independent Police Monitor, 2018.
https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2017-Year-Review-20181209_clari ﬁed.pdf.
177. ———. New Orleans Community-Police Mediation Program: 2015 Annual Report.

New Orleans: Oﬃce of the In- dependent Police Monitor, 2016. https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2015-Mediation-Annual-Report.pd f.
178. ———. Review of the New Orleans Police Department’s Field Interview Policies, Practices, and Data. New Orleans: O
ﬃce of the Independent Police Monitor, 2013.
https://nolaipm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FINAL-STOP-AND-FRISK.pdf 179. Olson, Kathryn. Citizens Advisory/Review Board Spokane County Sheri ﬀ’s Oﬃce:

Oversight Review. Gig Harbor, WA: Change Integration Consulting, 2016. https://media.spokesman.com/documents/2016/05/Spokane_
Citizens_Advisory_Board_report_Kathryn_Olson_May_5_2016.pdf. 180. Onondaga County Legislature of the County of Onondaga. A Local Law Creating an Onondaga County Justice Center Oversight Committee. Onondaga County, NY:

Onondaga County Legislature, December 26, 2014.
http://www.ongov.net/jcoc/documents/2015LocalLawsDandEEstablishingJCOCandH RC.pdf.
181. OPC (O
ﬃce of Police Complaints). Implementation Update on the Reports and Recommendations of the Police Complaints Board from Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016.

Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Police Complaints, 2018.
https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/dc/sites/oﬃce%20of%20police%2 153
0complaints/
publication/attachments/Policy%20Rec%20Implementation%20Update_FINAL.pdf. 182. ———. Annual Report 2017. Washington, DC: O ﬃce of Police Complaints, 2017. https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/dc/sites/oﬃce%20of%20police%2 0complaints/ publication/attachments/OﬃceofPoliceComplaints_AR17.pdf. 183. ———. OPC Monitoring of the “Women’s March” January 21, 2017. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Police Com- plaints, 2017.
https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/dc/sites/oﬃce%20of%20police%2 0 complaints/publication/attachments/Women’s%20March%20Protest%20Monitoring %20Report. FINAL_.pdf.
184. ———. Report on Use of Force by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department 2018. Washington, DC: O
ﬃce of Police Complaints, 2019.
https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/dc/sites/oﬃce%20 of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachments/UOF%20Report%202018_Final _1.pdf.
185. Pace, Eric. “P.B.A. Asks Public to Oppose Board; Will O ﬀer Petitions to Put Review Issue on Ballot.” The New York Times, June 3, 1966.
http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1966/06/03/ 82445688.html?action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=ArticleEndCTA&r egion= ArchiveBody&pgtype=article.
186. Perez, Douglas W. Common Sense About Police Review. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.
187. Perez, Douglas W. Police Accountability: A Question of Balance. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1978.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pd
ﬃles1/Digitization/72469NCJRS.pdf.
188. Philadelphia Police Department. Directive 10.4 (Use of Force Review Board).

Philadelphia: Philadelphia Police Department, 2021.
https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D10.4-UseOfForceReviewBoard.pdf. 189. Phillips, Noelle. “Denver’s Police Watchdog No Longer Allowed to Investigate Chief Robert White after Mayor’s Oﬃce Reverses Past Practices.” The Denver Post, May 11, 2018. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/11/
denver-police-robert-white-michael-hancock-independent-monitor/. 190. Pitcher, Kris E., Andr
é Birotte Jr., and Django Sibley. “Developing Eﬀective
Interactions.” The Police Chief, May 2010.
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/developing-eﬀective-interactions/. 154
191. Police Assessment Resource Center. Review of National Police Oversight Models for the Eugene Police Commission. Los Angeles: Police Assessment Resource Center, 2005.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5498b74ce4b01fe317ef2575/t/54caf3abe4b0 4c8e2a
3b6691/1422586795583/Review+of+National+Police+Oversight+Models+%20Feb.+2 005%20.pdf.
192. Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board. Civilian Oversight Protocols. Eugene, OR: Police Auditor and Civil- ian Review Board, 2007.
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3253. 193. Police Complaints Board. OPC Monitoring of the Inauguration January 20, 2017.

Washington, DC: Police Complaints Board, 2017.
https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/
ﬁles/dc/sites/oﬃce%20of%20
police%20complaints/publication/attachments/Inaguration%20Protest%20Monitorin g%20Report%20 FINAL.pdf.
194. Portland Police Bureau. “Directive 0332.00 Administrative Investigations.” Accessed June 24, 2021. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/759431. 195. Prenzler, Tim, and Carol Ronken. “Models of Police Oversight: A Critique.” Policing and Society 11, no. 2 (2001), 151–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2001.9964860.
196. Prenzler, Tim, and Colleen Lewis. “Performance Indicators for Police Oversight Agencies.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 64, no. 2 (2005), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2005.00443.x.
197. Prenzler, Tim. “Civilian Oversight of Police: A Test of Capture Theory.” British Journal of Criminology 40, no. 4 (2000), 659–674.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.4.659.
198. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing O
ﬃce, 1967.
https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/ﬁles/xyckuh241/ﬁles/archives/ncjrs/42.pdf. 199. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Polic- ing. Washington, DC: Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_ﬁnalreport.pdf. 155
200. Quinn, Sue. “Chapter 10. Citizen Complaints and Mediation.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 127–146. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006.
201. Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Daniel S. Lawrence, Susan M. Hartnett, Jack McDevitt, and Chad Posick. “Measuring Procedural Justice and Legitimacy at the Local Level:

The Police–Community Interaction Survey.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 11, no. 3 (2015), 335–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9228-9. 202. Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Jon Maskaly, Daniel S. Lawrence, Justin H. Escamilla, Georgina Enciso, Thomas E. Christo
ﬀ, and Chad Posick. “The Police-Community
Interaction Survey: Measuring Police Performance in New Ways.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 40, no. 1 (2017), 112– 127. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-0119.
203. Rosenberg, Erika. Police Oversight in Rochester: An Examination of Outcomes and Other Models. Rochester, NY: Center for Governmental Research, September 2017. https://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/media/
pdf/cgr_-_rochester_civilian_review_board_review__2_-2.pdf. 204. Rosenthal, Richard A. “Perspectives of Directors of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Agencies.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 41, no. 4 (2018), 435–447.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2018-0018.
205. Sadler, Spencer J. Pennsylvania’s Coal and Iron Police. Images of America.

Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2009.
206. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Citizen Oversight Model. San Francisco: Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors, 2018. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/
ﬁles/docs/BART%20Citizen%20
Oversight%20Model%20-%20Amended%2007.12.18%20%282%29_1.pdf. 207. Schaible, Lonnie M., Joseph De Angelis, Brian Wolf, and Richard Rosenthal. “Denver’s Citizen/Police Com- plaint Mediation Program: Oﬃcer and Complainant Satisfaction.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 24, no. 5 (2013), 626–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412455327.
208. Schwartz, Joanna C. “Myths and Mechanics of Deterrence: The Role of Lawsuits in Law Enforcement Deci- sionmaking.” UCLA Law Review 57 (2010), 1023–1094. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1432106.
209. Schwartz, Joanna C. “What Police Learn from Lawsuits.” Cardozo Law Review 33 (2012), 841–894. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1640855. 210. Seattle Community Police Commission. Community Outreach Report. Seattle:

Seattle Community Police Commission, 2014.
156
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CommunityPoliceCommission/ Outreach%20Report%2001-24-14(0).pdf.
211. Seattle Community Police Commission. Community Police Commission Application. Seattle: Seattle Community Police Commission, 2018. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/
CommunityPoliceCommission/CPC_2018_Application.pdf.
212. Seattle Police Department. “5.002 (Responsibilities of Employees Concerning Alleged Policy Violations).” Seattle Police Department Manual. Last modi ﬁed July 15,
2018. https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/
title-5---employee-conduct/5002---responsibilities-of-employees-concerning-alleged- policy-violations.
213. Shane, Jon M. “Performance Management in Police Agencies: A Conceptual Framework.” Policing: An Inter- national Journal of Police Strategies & Management 33, no. 1 (2010), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511011020575. 214. ———. “Police Employee Disciplinary Matrix: An Emerging Concept.” Police Quarterly 15, no. 1 (2012), 62–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111433026. 215. Smiley, David. “Court Strikes Down Miami Watchdog Agency’s Power to Subpoena Cops.” The Miami Her- ald, June 22, 2017.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article15765524

9.html.
216. Stephens, Darrel W. “Police Discipline: A Case for Change.” New Perspectives in Policing June 2011. https://www.ojp.gov/pd
ﬃles1/nij/234052.pdf.
217. Stewart, Lauri K. “Chapter 11. Community Outreach and Public Education in Citizen Oversight.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 147–167. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006. 218. Stewart, Lauri K. “Chapter 12. What to Expect of Outreach: Di ﬀerent Strategies for Diﬀerent Stakeholders.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 169–187. Chicago: ABA Publish- ing, 2006. 219. Stewart, Lauri K. “Chapter 13. Nuts and Bolts: Using Tools of the Outreach Trade.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 189–221. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006.
220. Suchman, Edward Allen. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service & Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. 221. Sunshine, Jason, and Tom R. Tyler. “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Sup- port for Policing.” Law & Society Review 37, no. 3 (2003), 513–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002.
157
222. Taggart, Kendall, Mike Hayes, and Scott Pham. “Here are the Secret Records on Thousands of New York Po- lice Misconduct Cases.” BuzzFeed News. Last modiﬁed April 16, 2018. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/
article/kendalltaggart/nypd-police-misconduct-database. 223. Tal, Bruria. Civilian Oversight of Police in Philadelphia: The First 50 Years.

Philadelphia: Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission, 2003. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/civilian-oversight- police-philadelphia-
ﬁrst-50-years.
224. Tell, Nicole G. “Representing Police O ﬃcers and Municipalities: A Conﬂict of Interest for a Municipal Attor- ney in a 1983 Police Misconduct Suit.” Fordham Law Review 65, no. 6 (1997), 2825–2828. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ ﬂr/vol65/iss6/13/.
225. Terrill, Richard J. “Alternative Perceptions of Independence in Civilian Oversight.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 17, no. 2 (1990), 77–83. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/
alternative-perceptions-independence-civilian-oversight. 226. ———. “Police Accountability in Philadelphia.” American Journal of Police 7, no. 2 (1988), 79–99.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-accountability-philadelphia -retrospects-and- prospects.
227. Terwilliger, Tristy. IPA 2015 Annual Report. Tucson, AZ: City of Tucson Independent Police Auditor, 2016.
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/
ﬁles/oeop/IPA_2015_Annual_Report_0.pdf.
228. Trinkner, Rick, Tom R. Tyler, and Phillip Atiba Go ﬀ. “Justice from Within: The Relations Between a Proce- durally Just Organizational Climate and Police Organizational Eﬃciency, Endorsement of Democratic Policing, and Oﬃcer Well-Being.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 22, no. 2 (2016), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000085.
229. Tuch, Steven A., and Ronald Weitzer. “Trends: Racial Di ﬀerences in Attitudes
toward the Police.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 61, no. 4 (1997), 642–663. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749572.
230. Tyler, Tom R., and Je ﬀrey Fagan. “The Impact of Stop and Frisk Policies Upon Police Legitimacy.” Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches:

Discussion Papers from an Urban Institute Roundtable. Wash- ington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527872013-001. 231. Tyler, Tom R., Phillip Atiba Go ﬀ, and Robert J. MacCoun. “The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, 158
Legitimacy, and Eﬀective Law Enforcement.” Psychological Sci- ence in the Public Interest 16, no. 3 (2015), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615617791. 232. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Who Is Guarding the Guardians?: A Report on Police Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oﬃce, 1981. https://www.ojp.gov/pdﬃles1/Digitization/80601NCJRS.pdf. 233. Uchida, Craig D., and William R. King. “Police Employee Data: Elements and Validity.” Justice Research and Policy 4, no. 1–2 (2002), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.4.1.2002.11.
234. United States of America v. City of Albuquerque. Case 1:14-cv-01025-RB-SMV (D.

N.M., November 14, 2014).
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
ﬁles/crt/legacy/2014/12/19/apd_settlement_11
-14-14.pdf.
235. United States of America v. City of Cleveland. Case 1:15-cv-01046-SO, No. 7–1 (N.D. Ohio, June 12, 2015).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-city-cleveland-consent-d ecree.
236. United States of America v. City of Ferguson. Case 4:16-cv-000180-CDP (E.D. Mo., April 19, 2016).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-city-ferguson-consent-de cree.
237. United States of America v. City of Los Angeles, California, Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Department.

Case 2:00-cv-11769-GAF-RC (C.D. Calif., June 15, 2001). https://www.justice.gov/crt/united-states-district-court-central-district-california. 238. United States of America v. City of New Orleans. Case 2:12-cv-01924-SM-JCW (E.D. La., January 11, 2013).
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
ﬁles/crt/legacy/2013/01/11/nopd_agreement_1
-11-13.pdf.
239. United States of America v. City of Newark. Case 2:16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH (D.

N.J., April 29, 2016).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-city-newark-consent-dec ree.
240. United States of America v. City of Portland. Case 3:12-cv-02265-SI (D. Ore., December 17, 2012).
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
ﬁles/crt/legacy/2013/11/13/ppb_proposedsettl
e_12-17-12.pdf.
159
241. United States of America v. Police Department of Baltimore City, et al. Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB (D. Md., January 12, 2017).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-baltimore-police-depart ment- order-entering-consent-decree.
242. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 § (1994). https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/103-322.pdf. 243. Walker, Samuel, and Carol Archbold. The New World of Police Accountability.

Second edition. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014.
244. Walker, Samuel, and Leigh Herbst. Citizen and Police O ﬃcer Evaluations of the
Minneapolis Civilian Review Au- thority. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority, 1999.
245. ———. The Minneapolis CRA Quality Service Audit: A Two-Year Report, 1998–2000. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapo- lis Civilian Review Authority, 2001. 246. Walker, Samuel, and Vic W. Bumphus. “The E
ﬀectiveness of Civilian Review:

Observations on Recent Trends and New Issues Regarding the Civilian Review of the Police.” American Journal of Police XI, no. 4 (1992), 1–27. 247. Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold, and Leigh Herbst. Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Oﬃcers: A Guide for Police and Community Leaders. Washington, DC:

Oﬃce of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2002.
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0725. 248. Walker, Samuel. “Chapter 1. The History of Citizen Oversight.” In Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, edited by Justina Cintrón Perino, 1–10. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2006.
249. “Core Principles for an E ﬀective Police Auditor’s Oﬃce.” Report of the First National Police Auditors Conference, Omaha, NE, March 2003. https://samuelwalker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/coreprinciples.pdf. 250. ———. Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen Oversight. Houston: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001.
251. ———. The Discipline Matrix: An E ﬀective Police Accountability Tool? Conference report. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2004. 252. Wechter, Jason. Investigating Civilian Complaints Is Di ﬀerent: The Special Challenges of Investigating Civilian Com- plaints Against Police Oﬃcers. Omaha, NE:

Police Professionalism Initiative, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2004. 253. Weitzer, Ronald. “Incidents of Police Misconduct and Public Opinion.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30, no. 5 (2002), 397–408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00150-2.
160
254. Wilson, Steve, and Kevin Buckler. “The Debate over Police Reform: Examining Minority Support for Citizen Oversight and Resistance by Police Unions.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 35, no. 4 (2010), 184– 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9079-x.
255. WNYC. “Is Police Misconduct a Secret in Your State?” WNYC. Accessed June 24, 2021. https://project.wnyc.org/disciplinary-records/.
256. Wolf, Steven. “Ref: Claim of Whistleblower Violation.” Letter to Mayor of Miami and Miami City Commis- sion, October 15, 2009.
257. Wolfe, Scott E., and Alex R. Piquero. “Organizational Justice and Police Misconduct.” Criminal Justice and Be- havior 38, no. 4 (2011): 332–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397739.

Relevant Links
258. This is an article to the report Mark Smith mentioned the the Commission on 148 arrests (sometimes called "contempt of cop").
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lapd-resisting-arrest-20180827-story.ht ml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
259. L O S A N G E L E S P O L I C E C O M M I S S I O N REVIEW OF ARRESTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 148(A)(1) Conducted by the OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MARK P. SMITH Inspector General. https://a27e0481-a3d0-44b8-8142-1376cfbb6e32.
ﬁlesusr.com/ugd/b2dd23_4c3e1e1
c762845ae9bcb6375a88dd974.pdf
260. Jennifer Eberhardt. A study ﬁnds racial disparities in police oﬃcers’ use of language
https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/study- ﬁnds-racial-disparities-poli
ce-oﬃcers-use-language
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/police-respect-whites-blacks-traﬃc-stops-la nguage-analysis-ﬁnds
261. Some information on legal settlements following alleged police misconduct. a. Cities Spend Millions On Police Misconduct Every Year. Here’s Why It’s So Diﬃcult to Hold Departments Accountable. FiveThirtyEight Feb. 22, 2021 https://ﬁvethirtyeight.com/features/police-misconduct-costs-cities-millions-ev ery-year-but-thats-where-the-accountability-ends/
b. Police Settlements: How The Cost Of Misconduct Impacts Cities And Taxpayers. National Public Radio. Sept. 19, 2020
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914170214/police-settlements-how-the-cost -of-misconduct-impacts-cities-and-taxpayers
161
c. This interactive dashboard in Chicago re ﬂects settlements for police misconduct stopped in early 2017. Details include neighborhood, payment amount, type of interaction, type of weapon and type of misconduct. https://projects.chicagoreporter.com/settlements/search/cases d. Assembly Bill 603, currently pending in Sacramento would require municipalities, as de
ﬁned, to annually post on their internet websites
speciﬁed information relating to settlements and judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to
ﬁnance use of force settlement and judgment
payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220 AB603
e. In its most recent annual report, the IPA recommended that the Police Department open an administrative investigation when an o ﬃcer is named
as a defendant. (see pages 60-62)
“Law enforcement accountability is a system of checks and balances aimed at ensuring that police carry out their duties properly and are held responsible if they fail to do so. Such a system strives to uphold police integrity, deter misconduct, and enhance public conﬁdence in policing. Complaints lodged with the IPA or IA are not the only avenue for our community to voice their concerns about police conduct. Civil lawsuits in both state and federal courts also re ﬂect
allegations that oﬃcers engaged in misconduct. However, the Department currently does not have a system that initiates an administrative investigation when an SJPD oﬃcer is named in a lawsuit. We recommend that it does so in cases alleging misconduct by on-duty oﬃcers or alleging an oﬀ-duty oﬃcer engaged in misconduct under color of law. We recommend the Department explore best practices employed by other enforcement agencies in this regard. A civil suit does not result in any discipline of a police oﬃcer. Discipline can only be imposed by the Police Chief after an internal administrative investigation is complete.”
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75181/63760819 6115570000
262. Phoenix sues state over new law that undermines its long-sought police accountability o
ﬃce.
162
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2021/08/17/phoenix-sues-ariz ona-over-limiting-police-accountability-oﬃce/8172737002/ 263. Houston Has A New Deputy Inspector General For Police Accountability. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/in-depth/2021/08/17/406167/ho uston-has-a-new-deputy-inspector-general-for-police-reform-heres-what-she-does/ Activists call on San Diego Sheri
ﬀ's to do more to prevent excessive force instances
https://www.10news.com/news/team-10/activists-call-on-san-diego-sheriﬀs-to-do-m ore-to-prevent-excessive-force-instances
264. Transition to San Diego’s new police oversight commission underway after Measure B’s big win.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2020-11-30/transi tion-to-san-diegos-new-police-oversight-commission-underway-after-measure-bs-bi g-win
265. San Diego city attorney proposes outside counsel help revise draft of police commission ordinance - The San Diego Union-Tribune
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2021-07-19/san-di ego-city-attorney-proposes-outside-counsel-help-rework-police-commission-ordinan ce
Establish Equity Values, Equity Standards, and Equity Assessments

1. Terry Keheler. “Racial Equity Impact Assessment”. Race Forward, The Center for Racial Justice Innovation. (2009)
Address Equity and Inclusion in City Programming and Budgeting

1. Appendix XX. Equity

2. 2021 Silicon Valley Poll and 2021 Silicon Valley Index: https://jointventure.org/ Establish Regular Department-Level Audits

1. https://board.sccgov.org/management-audit-division/fy-2021-22- management-audit-risk-assessment

2. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/appointees/city- auditor/about-us/the-audit-process

3. Audit reveals how a San José code enforcement o
ﬃcer was allegedly able to extort
massage businesses for sex. The report found gaping holes in city code enforcement’s oversight procedures and division policies a. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/ex-supervisor-uses-public- 163
funds-for-gambling-apologizes-then-goes-gambling/2050970/ b. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/09/san-jose-auditor- ﬁnds- lacking-oversight-contributed-to-code-enforcement-oﬃcer-extorting- massage-businesses-for-sex/

4. Loose Oversight Leads to Questionable Credit Card Spending at SJ City Hall a. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/loose-oversight-leads-to- questionable-credit-card-spending-at-san-jose-city-hall/ Create a Climate Change Commission

1. Chicago Climate Charter signed by Mayor Sam Liccardo 2017:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20R eleases/2017/December/2017ChicagoClimateCharter.pdf

2. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Working Group I) a. The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate simulations. Note that there are two additional Working Groups who are in the process of drafting reports (“Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change”). All three reports make up the full Sixth Assessment Report.

3. Summary documents for The Physical Science Basis report a. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers The IPCC’s 42-page summary, which is less technical and geared towards policymakers.
b. Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers A 2-page bullet-point summary of the report headlines and main points. Published by the IPCC.
c. World Resources Institute’s “5 Big Findings from the IPCC’s 2021 Climate Report”
d. New York Time’s “A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us.”
e. NPR’s A Major Report Warns Climate Change Is Accelerating And Humans Must Cut Emissions Now
f. New York Times “Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns”

4. Bay Area impacts and projects, based on IPCC’s The Physical Science Basis report 164
a. Regional fact-sheet for North and Central America IPCC’s summary of regionalized anticipated impacts
b. ABC7 News: UN climate report puts focus on sea level rise threat to San Francisco Bay Recent news report from ABC discussing more local impacts on the SF Bay Area.
c. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Francisco Bay Area Region Report (2019) Not in response to the recent IPCC report, but a helpful resource focusing on Regional Climate Science, Social Systems and Built Environment, and Natural and Managed Resource Systems.

5. World Economic Forum. 2020. “This is how climate change could impact the global economy”:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/impact-climate-change-global-gdp/

6. Global Citizen. 2020. “Why Climate Change and Poverty Are Inextricably Linked” :
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/climate-change-is-connected-to-poverty/

7. Honolulu 2016 Charter Amendments, see #7, p.6:
https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/clk/clk_docs/2016_Charter_Amendments_B rochure-FINAL.pdf

8. League of Women Voters Pros/Cons Guide (direct link to proposal #7):
https://www.lwv-hawaii.com/procon2016.pdf#page=4

9. Honolulu Charter was amended to include Section 6-107. O ﬃce of Climate Change,
Sustainability and Resiliency and established the Climate Change Commission (direct link to charter section):
https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/cor/rch/Charter_2017_Ed_01.04.21_Clean_0

1.15.21.pdf#page=50

10. Additional Honolulu Commission details added in 2020:
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=9213"

11. San José Climate Impacts:
a. https://sanjosespotlight.com/three-years-later-coyote-creek- ﬂoodvictims-still- ﬁghting-for-justice/
b. https://www.kqed.org/news/11788730/nearly-two-years-after-coyotecreek- ﬂo ods-lawsuit-drags-on
c. https://www.kqed.org/news/11612712/the-san-jose- ﬂood-what-wentwrong-a nd-how-the-city-plans-to-ﬁx-it
d. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2020_California_lightning_wild ﬁres e. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/08/16/rare-augustthunderstorm-rolls -through-san-francisco-bay-area-lightning-strikessparks-widespread-wildﬁres /
165
f. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/30/heat-hits-poorneighborhoods-th e-hardest/
g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-changeeconomy.html Explore a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act

1. City of San José. 2019. Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José Report. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/54715/6371901974026 70000

2. PolicyLink AntiDisplacement Policy Network (ADPN), Our Displacement Problem in San José. 2019. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=50331

3. Cassidy, Mike. 2008. “ East San José neighborhood is ground zero for foreclosure crisis” The Mercury News:
ttps://www.mercurynews.com/2008/10/16/cassidy-east-san-jose-neighborhood-is-gr ound-zero-for-foreclosure-crisis/

4. COPA Working Group, SOMOS Mayfair, South Bay Land Trust, Sandy Perry

5. https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4635014&GUID=84 3B7A57-FFCE-411F-81C5-49D3378215A5&Options=&Search=

6. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-o ﬃces/housing/r
esource-library/housing-policy-plans-and-reports/citywide-anti-displacement -strategyt

7. https://allincities.org/toolkit/tenant-community-opportunity-to-purchase

8. https://ota.dc.gov/page/tenant-opportunity-purchase-act-topa

9. https://sfmohcd.org/community-opportunity-purchase-act-copa

10. https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/tenant-opportunity-purchase-assistance Promote Home Ownership Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of San José

1. Joint Ventures Silicon Valley. 2021. “2021 Silicon Valley Poll”. https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/sv-poll-2021-report.pdf Strengthen Community Input To The Smart City Advisory and Innovation and Technology Advisory Boards

1. Autor, D.H. Dorn, D, & Hanson, G.H. 2015. “Untangling Trade and Technology:

Evidence from Local Labor Markets.” The Economic Journal, 125: 621-646.

2. Goldin, C, and Katz, L. 2008. The Race Between Education and Technology. The Evolution of U.S. Educational Wage Di
ﬀerentials, 1890-2005. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
166

3. Lara Fishbane & Aide Tomer. 2020. “Neighborhood Broadband Data Makes it Clear:

We Need An Agenda to Fight Digital Poverty.” Brookings Institution.

4. Chrisopher Rigano (N.D.) “Using Arti ﬁcial Intelligence To Address Criminal Justice Needs.” National Institute of Justice.

5. Kathleen Walch. 2019. “The Growth of A.I. Adoption in Law Enforcement.” Forbes.com

6. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentso ﬃces/oﬃce-of-the-city- manager/civic-innovation/digitalinclusion-and-broadband-strategy

7. https://www.ojp.gov/pd ﬃles1/nij/252038.pdf

8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/07/26/thegrowth-of-ai-adoption-i n-law-enforcement/?sh=c459802435dd

9. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/theavenue/2020/02/05/neighborhood-broadband- data-makes-itclear-we-need-an-agenda-to-ﬁght-digital-poverty/ 167
APPENDIX THREE - Public Engagement Process
Goals and Objectives of the Public Engagement Process
The Charter Review Commission was interested in a deep and comprehensive approach to connect with diﬀerent communities throughout San José. The Commission worked with a consulting ﬁrm to develop a robust engagement plan. This plan was designed to educate San José residents about the City Charter and the Charter Review Commission’s review process, and to encourage participation in public hearings. Public hearings were the primary avenue for public input on the City Charter. Emails to the Charter Review Commission will also be welcome. The engagement e
ﬀorts for this project were driven by
the following objectives:

1. Understand community needs, preferences and concerns related to improving accountability, representation, and inclusion at City Hall

2. Educate the community on the role of the City Charter and the review process to elicit meaningful input from the public

3. Earn resident trust in the Commission’s process and commitment to listening and representing the community’s interests

4. Place special focus on reaching hard-to-reach, vulnerable and historically marginalized groups
Over the course of 4 public hearings from June - October 2021, community members had the opportunity to to learn about and engage with the following topics related to the City Charter review:

1. Results of the Commission’s study phase and gather issues the public thinks the Charter Commission can address

2. Potential recommendations regarding Timing of Elections

3. Potential recommendations regarding Governance & Balance of Power

4. Potential recommendations regarding improving Accountability, Representation and Inclusion at City Hall

5. (Optional) Feedback on draft Majority (and Minority) report(s) Public Engagement Strategy
After a robust analysis of San José’s racial, ethnic and linguistic populations, language-accessible engagement was focused on the following language communities:
168
Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese. Based on a geographic analysis, outreach was focused on speciﬁc populations in the following districts: Districts 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Easier-to-reach populations were reached through broad outreach aimed at communities with easy access to internet and digital devices to attend public hearings. Outreach for harder-to-reach populations included focused, deep engagement in partnership with Community-Based Organizations to access harder-to-reach populations that might have a number of barriers to accessing the public hearings.

To ensure community input adequately informed the Commission’s ﬁnal
recommendations, community-based organizations were selected and compensated to conduct culturally-appropriate outreach and engagement around Commission public hearings. These community partners were encouraged to utilize outreach tactics they felt would best engage their communities.

Public Meeting Schedule
Commission Meetings
January 11 August 23
January 25 September 6
February 8 September 9 - Study Session
March 8 September 13 - Study Session
March 22 September 20
April 5 September 27 - Study Session
April 19 October 4
May 3 October 18
May 17 October 25 - Study Session
May 31 November 1
June 14 November 3 - Study Session
169
July 12 November 15
July 23 November 18
July 26 November 29
August 9
Public Hearings
Monday, June 28, 6 p.m.

Thursday, July 29, 6 p.m
August 25 - CANCELLED
Saturday, September 25, 11 a.m.

Saturday, November 6, 11 a.m.

Public Outreach
Messaging and outreach materials for the Charter Review Commission (including translations in Spanish and Vietnamese) were made available in a Community Partner Promotional Toolkit. (See Appendix Four)
City Clerk Communications
The City Clerk’s oﬃce hosted the following channels for community education and input:
● Commission website with Commission documents, including agendas ● Commission Meetings and Public Hearings were conducted via Zoom (with live translation in Spanish and Vietnamese after DATE) and live streamed on the City’s website as well as on YouTube. Videos archived on both the website and YouTube. ● CRC agendas sent to the City Council, other Commissioners, and subscribers for their information and promotion.
● Social media via City Department and Council Member accounts as well as the main City of San José Facebook and NextDoor accounts
170
● Emails to stakeholder lists, city newsletters, council newsletters, etc.

Commissioner Outreach
Commissioners were encouraged to promote Commission meetings and public hearings to their networks. Public presentations were given by Commissioners at the request of the following groups:

Commissioner Presented To
George Sanchez
Huy Tran Ken Yeager's class at SJSU, the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee, podcasts about Charter
Review proposals for the Vietnamese American
Roundtable (with Vice Chair Johnson)
Garrick Percival
Barbara Marshman
Enrico Callender
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet, the San Jose Silicon
Valley NAACP
Thi Tran
Frank Maitski
Elly Matsumura District 3 monthly community meeting
Sammy Robledo Brieﬁng for District 1 Councilmember’s meeting, overview to the WONA association
Yong Zhao
María Fuentes
Magnolia Segol
Jose Posadas
Christina Johnson Podcast about a Charter Review proposal for the Vietnamese American Roundtable (with Commissioner Huy
Tran)
171
Linda Lezotte
Jeremy Barousse
Elizabeth Monley
Louis Barocio D5 United, Alum Rock Village Action Committee (ARVAC) Veronica Amador D5 United, Latinos United for a New America (LUNA) Sherry Segura
Lan Diep
Frederick Ferrer
Tobin Gilman
Community Partner Outreach
Community Partner Selection
Community-based organizations in San José were encouraged to express their interest in supporting the outreach and engagement process of the Commission via an online form. A ﬁnal group of community partners was selected given the following guidelines ● Has 5+ years experience working with at least one priority population (deﬁned above)
● Demonstrated ability to conduct culturally-appropriate outreach and engagement to at least one priority population
● Has the ability to reach at least 100’s of members of at least one priority population. ● Has 5+ years experience conducting outreach and engagement with at least one priority population
● Has availability and necessary sta
ﬀ capacity for this work from June - November
2021
● Brings an equity lens to this work either as demonstrated through an organizational equity framework and/or proven equitable outcomes
● Brings experience working with communities to overcome barriers to public participation including language, digital access, and/or disability 172
The ﬁnal list of community partners included:
● African American Community Services Agency (AACSA)
● Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment ● Asian Law Alliance
● Friends of Hue Foundation
● Latinos United for a New America
● LGBTQ Wellness, a program of Caminar
● Madre-A-Madre, a program of Healing Grove
● Plata Arroyo Neighborhood Association & Eastgate N.A.C. ● Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation (VIVO)
● YouthHype
Once selected, partners signed a Memorandum of Understanding, including scope of work and payment terms. From June through November, community partners consulted on development of plain language messaging about the Commission’s purpose, developed equity-centered outreach plans, conducted outreach to priority population(s) to raise awareness about the Charter Review Commission and upcoming hearings, and provided monthly reports about outreach conducted.

Summary of Community Partner Engagement Activities
Over the course ofﬁve months, community partners were able to collectively engage with 2,223 unique individuals within the City of San José.

Organization Total Engaged Audience Districts
African American
Community Services
Agency
280 Black College students
Black Leadership Roundtable
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet
AACSA Leadership Academy
AACSA’s membership base
Senior Citizens Neighborhoods
Assns
Family clients via Family Resource
Center
Our services Clients (food pantry,
homelessness prevention, re-entry)
D2, D3, D5, D6, D7
Amigos de Guadalupe
Center for Justice and
Empowerment
25 Immigrant community members
from East San José
D5
173
Asian Law Alliance 100 Wider AAPI community in San José; Chinese Monolingual Community;
East San José AAPI Community;
Ethnic Minoritized College students
seeking educational credit
All districts
Friends of Hue
Foundation
100 Vietnamese Community; Low &
extremely low-income, 70% Asian
and 20% Lantinx living mostly in
East San José & Downtown San
José.

D3, D4, D5, D7, D8
Latinos United for a New
America
613 Latinx community in San José, all
ages, elders to youth, mainly
low-income, working-class
immigrants who suﬀer from the
social inequity
D3, D5, D7, D8
LGBTQ Youth Space
(Caminar)
100 The LGBTQIA+ community in San
José; community members of all
ages—young adults, adults, older
adults
D3, D6, D7, D9
Madre-A-Madre
(Healing Grove)
420 Low-income Spanish-speaking
Latinx families
D3, D5, D7
Plata Arroyo
Neighborhood
Association & Eastgate
N.A.C.

No response Low income Spanish-speaking
Latinx families
D5
VIVO - Vietnamese
Voluntary Foundation
550 Vietnamese American Community
in San José
D7
YouthHype 35 San José Youth: YouthHype middle
school chapters; Black Student
Unions; NAACP Youth division;
High School ethnic studies; political
science & government classes;
Youth commissioners
All districts
TOTAL ENGAGED: 2,223
Community Partner Outreach Activities
The following is a list of the various outreach and information gathering activities Community Partners indicated engaging in during this time period. 174
Digital Communications:
● Social media posts
● Email, phone, text message responses & exchanges
● Total Instances of Outreach Made: >20
Gatherings:
● Hosting in-Person & online meetings & discussion: 142 ● Tabling at local events: 9
● Total Events Hosted: 151
Recruitment:
● Recruitment events to enlist community members for inputs: 59 ● Recruitment events to enlist attendants for public hearings: 9 ● Total Events Hosted: 68
Attending Public Hearings:
● Total Events Attended: 23
Meeting with Commissioners:
● 3 out of 9 Community Partner organizations were successful at meeting with a Commissioner to talk about the City Charter recommendation process. One of those two indicated that they were able to meet with a commissioner routinely.

Other Forms of Outreach:
● Radio talk shows at 8pm on AM station 1500
● Door to door outreach
Summary of Audience Demographics
The following charts represent a demographic analysis of the individuals each CBO engaged with during this time period. Out of 10 community partners, 9 provided data for the analysis.

Race / Ethnicity
175
*Note that the other Race/Ethnicity categories were Indian, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese.

Language Preferences (primary language spoken in the home) *Hindi and Japanese were also identiﬁed as languages spoken at home by one organization.

Age Groupings
176

Sexual Orientation
*Percentage of organizations that identiﬁed their main audience base during this time period as being a part of the LGBTQIA community.

Outreach Debriefs from Community Partners
Debriefs were conducted with Community Partners to capture any last thoughts and comments about this overall experience with the option to oﬀer recommendations for future Commissions. They were also asked to provide some insight on what forms of 177

engagement and topics were the most impactful for their primary audiences. Out of 10 community partners, 7 were able to participate in these debriefs.

Most impactful events:
● In-house Open Forums (embedded in already scheduled events) ● Public Tabling Events
Comments: The subject matter at hand deﬁnitely had an impact on turnout. Several Community Partners commented that hosting in-house open forums for questions oﬀered a more “casual” and accessible atmosphere for peers to engage in dialogue and gain insight on particular topics. They also stated that embedding Charter topics within their regular programming events ensured that there would be an audience for providings updates and soliciting opinions.

Topics of most interest:
● Police Oversight
● Governance Structure
Comments: There were some comments from Community Partners about the inaccessibility of some of the recommendation language concerning Governance Structure (see communication recommendations below).

Areas for improvement:
● Communications - Recommendations included:
○ More toolkits that could easily break down each recommendation as they are being considered. (some of the language for recommendations surrounding Governance Structure were not as accessible without the historical context of how these structures currently work.)
○ A list of all of the Commissioners with short bios and what districts they represent (plus what subcommittee they sit on)
○ Phone numbers listed for outreach coordinators to be able to reach more immediately.
○ Direct support with managing online engagement to stimulate more conversations. Either a social media strategist or coordinator. ● Information Sharing - Recommendations included:
178
○ Would recommend having monthly Community Partner gatherings or meetings to discuss outreach tactics and hear how other organizations are phrasing/talking about certain issues with their communities. ○ There is an acknowledgment that COVID severely impacted Community Partners ability to gather community in person but they discovered that using zoom in some cases actually boosted accessibility. In the future they would like to do a mix of both online and in person meetings. ● Commissioner Selection Process - Recommendations included:
○ More direct community engagement in the process of selecting commissioners.
○ Comments:
■ “It feels like the process for selecting Commissioners is contributing to historical political gatekeeping”....Would like to see more diverse representation from within each marginalized community. ■ Would like the work of the Commission to advocate for more democratization of governance including community workshops done in every corner of the City:
○ Example: The Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI)
■ Community identi
ﬁed deliverable and desirable assets
■ Promoted a sense of actual Investment and
empowerment in the community as directed by those
communities.

Public Comment Speakers
● Ellina Yin, Paul Soto, Tessa Woodmansee, Marie Arnold, Blair Beekman, Carol Watts, Jake Tonkel, Robert Brownstein, Je
ﬀrey Buchanan, Matt King, Adrian Gonzales, Justin
Lardinois, A caller with the phone number ending in 5140, Crystal, Shiloh Ballard, Elizabeth Kamya, Helen Kassa, Yeme Girma, Norman Kline, Alex Shoor, Walter Hudson, Gabriela Garzon Gupta, Roland, Robert Reese, Omar Torres, Peter Allen, Cynthia-In-The-Public, Sandy Perry, Call-In-User_1, Danny, A caller with the phone number ending in 5586, Juan E., Kevin Ma, Danny Garza, Reginald Swilley, Brett Bymaster, Walter Wilson, Martha Beatty, Juan Estrada, Bao Trieu, Mollie Mcleod, Scott Reese, Robert Aguirre, Dominic Torreano, Mary Helen Doherty, Alex Caraballo, Brian Wheatley, Brian O’Neill, Huascar Castro, Jethroe Moore, Krista, Chava Bustamante, Helen Chapman, Brenda Zendejas, Susan Price, Hiwad Haider, Mayra, 179
Sam Gordon, Mira Karthik, Lam Nguyen, Kiana Simmons, Roma Dawson, Brenda Dohmen, Sandra, Tony Romero, Rebecca Gallardo, Mariana Damian, Krista De La Torre, Steve Chessin, Maria Marcelo, Gabriel Manrique, Michele Mashburn, Zakiya Cooper, Tami Sell, Mayra Pelagio, Jessi Faust, A speaker named “Create a Review Board”, Lou Dimes, A speaker named “Police Accountability NOW”, Chelsea Allen, A speaker named “Black Outreach”, Esha, Terrence, Michael Hunter, Jason Spitzer, Nick Cortez, Jesilyn Faust, Luc Gnamien, Andrew Boone, Poncho Guevara, Nihar Agrawal, Crystal Calhoun, Sandra Asher, Rachel Kumar, Peter Ortiz, Gaby Lopez, Pamela Emmanuel, Mica Estremera, Lucky Jordan, Lavere Foster, Tina Najibi, A speaker named “Expand Police Oversight”, Rupini, Cher L, Tom Izu, Pat Richards, Jonathan Diaz, Tarab Ansari, Brian Schmidt, Anil Babbar, José Maldadona, Ana Melara Glenn, Call-In User_2, Liz Soehngen, Cory, Kim Guptill, Sameena Usman, José Rodruiguez, Megan Swift, Jaala Robinson, Jocelyne Cardona, Elizabeth AJ, Carmen B., Myisha Taylor, Kiana Munoz, Milan Balinton, Steph Hanson-Quintana, Sigrid Jacobsen, Victor Sin, Dave W., Tim Espinoza
180
APPENDIX FOUR - Supporting Documents
● Resolution 79722
● Commission Bylaws
● Charter Review Commission Work Plan
● Recommendation Memo Template
● Subcommittee Work Plan Template
● Subcommittee Meeting Agenda & Notes Template
● Subcommittee Topics and Assignments
● Primer of Historical Context Materials
● Summary of Community Partner Monthly Engagement Reports ● Promotional Toolkit
● San José Budget Research for Governance Structure Ad Hoc Subcommittee ● Policing Oversight Research for PMLAI Ad Hoc Subcommittee ● Climate Change Research for PMLAI Ad Hoc Subcommittee ● Powerpoint Visually Describing Police Oversight Reform Recommendations 181

San Jose City CouncilMay 10, 2022

San Jose City Council
May 10, 2022