Mayor reverses course on ballot proposal that would give him most power on council
Sam Liccardo suggests postponing the measure until 2022, as tough battle on issue seems likely
In an unexpected reversal, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wants to postpone a significant component of a 2020 ballot measure that would give him the highest powers in the city and similar clout as other “strong mayors” across the country.
The mayor’s change of heart comes less than a month after a divisive battle on the City Council to place the item on the November ballot, and following polling data from the firm FM3 that indicated the city would face a difficult fight to get it passed, despite a 62% approval rating for Liccardo.
In a memo released Monday, Liccardo has proposed moving ahead with a November ballot measure that would shift the city’s mayoral election cycle to presidential years but delay until November 2022 — his last year in office — the part of the measure that would give him much more control over the city and its employees.
The council will discuss the mayor’s new proposal at a virtual meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. today.
Under his new proposal, the city would establish a Charter Revision Commission — as it has in the past with other far-reaching changes offered for the city charter — to evaluate and submit recommendations on changes to the city’s government structure before placing it in the hands of voters.
Several organizations in recent weeks have taken a strong stance against the measure and urged the city to slow down the process, including the NAACP, League of Women Voters and the South Bay Labor Council.
Liccardo says their concerns are valid.
“In this perilous moment, moreover, we need to unite as a city, not fight with each other,” the mayor wrote in his memo. “We collectively face too many threats — COVID, a severe recession, looming risks of widespread evictions, growing homelessness, and deep concerns about racial injustice and policing — and we can’t have our local community distracted by a deeply divisive political campaign.”
The original plan, which was narrowly approved during a 22-hour city council meeting in a split 6-5 vote on July 1, would have awarded Liccardo an additional two years in office and allowed him to immediately oversee the city manager and share in the responsibility to monitor the performance of department heads and appoint new ones.
Under San Jose’s current council-manager setup, the mayor has the same power as other council members, aside from guiding the budget process. Liccardo says the city’s current government structure makes it difficult for residents to know who they should hold accountable, especially in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and recent discussions about racial justice and policing reforms.
Council members Raul Peralez, Maya Esparza, Sylvia Arenas, Magdalena Carrasco and Sergio Jimenez voted against the measure, calling it a “sham,” “charade” and “the definition of a backroom deal.”
The measure combined two years-long efforts by influential and opposing strongholds in the city. Local labor groups have long wanted to change mayoral elections to presidential years to increase voter participation while business organizations have supported giving the mayor of San Jose as much clout as the mayors of most large cities across the nation.
Liccardo and his supporters, including Vice Mayor Chappie Jones and the Silicon Valley Organization, saw the measure as a promising compromise between the two parties after an initiative from labor leaders to shift the mayoral election — dubbed the Fair Elections Initiative — failed to garner enough signatures to place it on the ballot. But others were skeptical of the lack of community engagement and the intentions behind tying the two issues.
Councilwoman Esparza, who was staunchly opposed to combining the two efforts and had advocated for an approach similar to the one the mayor is now endorsing, said Liccardo’s new proposal shows that he “stopped and listened” to the community and was committed to a “more open public process.”
“I think this is everything we’ve been asking for really,” Esparza said. “I’m pleased that we can move forward with possible changes to our charter, but do it in a public and thoughtful way where the community can be involved particularly during the time of COVID.”
Recent polling of the draft ballot measure indicated it was “confusing” to many voters, the mayor’s memo said, and they seemed to have “difficulty interpreting the 75-word ballot statement in a manner consistent with their stated support for the individual components of that measure.”
Although Liccardo still wants to see improvements to the city’s structure, he said, “something as important as changing our governmental structure requires public support approaching consensus, and we don’t have that.”
“Working together under the current flawed system is better than working against each other for a different system.”
As for shifting the mayoral election to presidential years, Liccardo said he is open to serving two additional years in office until the November 2024 election or holding a mayoral election in 2022 — when he terms out — for a new mayor that would serve a two or six-year term until the next presidential election.