Blog

The Good—New Orleans is a very fun town.   The French Quarter, the Riverfront, the NFL Experience and the people could not have been better.    When Santa Clara hosts a Super Bowl, hopefully in 2016, they could learn a lot from the host committee in New Orleans. These folks do it up right.

The French Quarter was alive, Bourbon Street was full, alcohol flowed freely–but without the normal problems usually associated with gangs of people who over-indulge.  New Orleans hired 1,500 extra cops; there was no smell of vomit or urine–though occasionally there was a strong odor of Lysol.

The messes were cleaned up pronto.

A few were taken away, but without fanfare and with little resistance.  Cops on horses cleared pathways in the street.  People in New Orleans drink openly on the streets; and a good time appeared to be had by all.

The food was excellent, from Cafe DuMonde for beignets, to Cajun Food at Arnaud’s.  Though the best food we had was in LaFayette at a place called Prejeans.  It boasts the best gumbo in Louisiana and is about an hour outside Baton Rouge, we were served by a very friendly Lester, a 49er fan.   The best fried chicken was in the neighborhoods, a place called Willie Mae’s Scotch House.

Finally, the people were very accommodating. Southern hospitality is alive and well.  Most impressive was the care and good manners we observed, Southerners are quick with a please and a thank you.  Y’all is a familiar refrain to encompass individuals or groups.

In all—a spectacular week.

The Bad—There are a few reasons we live in California.  The destruction of Hurricane Katrina is still evident–even inside the Superdome.   There is also some places that allowed smoking in restaurants; one guy in Bilioxi lit up a pipe.  Such inconsiderate behavior is antithetical to the personal treatment one receives from southern hospitality.

There are also the drivers in the South.  At times, three lanes of highway are filled with 18-wheelers. Slow traffic maintains their position in the left lane and nobody has learned how to pass a big rig on the highway.   Many of these slow-folks are in monster trucks; environmental education hasn’t quite reached them yet.

Finally, there was the Super Bowl itself.  A horrible game by the San Francisco 49ers they still should have won.  Bad calls, bad judgment, bad execution, poor lighting; followed by a comeback that, if successful, would have put this team on a par with the Joe Montana led comebacks of yesteryear.  All for naught.

The Ravens are the World Champions.  Congratulations to them.

The Ugly—Good manners should never be confused with moral virtue.   The following will shock the conscience and illuminate the cultural, political and moral divide this nation still faces and is still evident in some parts of the deep South.

In Bilioxi, Mississippi we toured the last home of Jefferson Davis.  The home called Beauvoir (pronounced Bev-wah) which sits over-looking the Gulf Coast, is registered  national historic site, but it is neither a state nor federal park.  It is tended to by the Sons of the Confederate Veterans and was restored and rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina.

The preservation of the site, it’s rebuilding and the  history associated with Jefferson Davis is not at issue.  It is part of this nation and should be seen, toured and understood.   But this is where we part ways with the keepers of the property.

Jefferson Davis is the embodiment of a shameful past.  He was the Osama Bin Laden of his time;  a terrorist, a man who sought to keep people property and led a revolt against his own nation–for which he had previously taken an oath and served as Congressman, Senator and Secretary of War.

His actions cost the lives of millions and though defeated, he never acknowledged the immoral nature of his crimes.  Those who are tasked with the preservation of his history are proud and unbowed by his appalling legacy. Not only have they preserved his home; they have rebuilt a “Presidential Library” on the grounds.  This brand new building will open in a few weeks and rivals the architecture and grandeur of real Presidential Libraries.  It is an obvious attempt to elevate the stature of a person who was not  President and whose legacy is shameful blemish on our nation’s history.

The Confederacy never lawfully existed except in the minds of the rebellion.  The movie Lincoln makes this point abundantly clear.  To set-up a “Presidential” Library is a brazen attempt to honor an immoral traitor to the United States of America and his shameful legacy.

And the people who operate the property, the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, provide a different narrative of this man’s history.   There is not a single reference to his known crimes against humanity or the victims of his disdainful legacy exist at the site.  Adolph Hitler’s home, Eagles Nest in Bavaria, which is preserved for future generations has a memorial to the millions he is acknowledged to be responsible for killing. Yet at Beauvoir, such an acknowledgement is notably absent.

Confederate flags, long the symbol of bigotry and hate–not unlike the Nazi Swastika–proudly adorn the property.  The graveyard of former confederate soldiers, some dying as late as the mid 20th century sport Confederate flags on their graves–not American Flags.

Quotes of honor to the Confederacy abound the property.   It is sadly sickening to believe people still want to glorify a man and the illusory nation he sought to lead.

Jefferson Davis is not a man to be honored.  He was spared the hangman’s noose and only served two years  in prison at Fort Monroe.  He lived to be 81 and died in 1889 in New Orleans,  on his way home to Beauvoir.  He is buried in Richmond, Virginia.  His last home was not associated with the war years, as his original property was rightfully seized by the Federal Government.

But nothing was so shocking to our conscience than to see Jefferson Davis memorialized as if he were an actual President of a separate country.  He was not.  The juxtaposition of the prevailing historical views and those of the Sons of the Confederacy are still at the root of many of the national arguments today.

To build monuments to a man who was traitor, a terrorist and responsible for the darkest period in our nation’s history in the 21st century is unconscionable.

But in Biloxi, Mississipi, there are still people who openly honor a man who brought millions to their graves and who sought to keep millions more shackled.   These people continue to champion a person whose philosophy was relegated to the trash-heap of history long ago.

It is a shameful memorial, an affront to his victims  and an ugly reminder of what still divides this nation.

Bill Walsh defined winning with class.  He was humble in victory and civil in defeat.  He never ran up the score on an opponent, except when making a necessary point.  Ronnie Lott never beat his chest, Jerry Rice didn’t dance in the end zone and the most animated Joe Montana ever got was lifting his arms in the air to signal a touchdown–though he  admittedly once, uncharacteristically but completely spontaneously, threw in a fist pump.

After a victory Walsh would laud the opponent, regardless of the score.   After a loss he was introspective, congratulating the other team and opining on how the 49ers needed to improve.

A lot has changed since those simpler times.  The current 49ers, whose legacy is still to be defined, are on the threshold of becoming world champions.  They are the best football team in the NFL.  They need to execute, but should win the game against the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday.  The best team usually wins.

From an organizational standpoint, Jed York has set the tone to return class to the storied franchise.  His emphasis is on the long distinguished legacy of the 49ers, including honoring his uncle Eddie DeBartolo, the 49ers hall of fame and especially the new stadium.  He has brought the true standard of success back to the team.  As a 33-year season ticket holder, that standard had never been ‘making the playoffs’.

It is and always has been a Super Bowl victory.  Anything less is a failed season.   That is the harsh reality.   Nothing less than a Super Bowl victory is required for a true 49er faithful.

Recognizing that one must go through tough times and lean years is disappointing.  But the journey is worth the effort.  A Super Bowl victory, like winning the World Series, erases a whole lot of bad years.

But what should never change is the class of an organization; coaches, players and fans–win or lose.   Class manifests itself in different ways.   Nobody would have ever heard Joe Montana or Jerry Rice proclaim they were the greatest ever.  They would never have to, their championships speak for themselves.  Those who know the game speak for them.  Ask John Madden who the greatest quarterback and receiver in the history of the game–he knows.

Note to Randy Moss: I met Jerry Rice, I watched him play–great as you are Mr. Moss, you are no Jerry Rice.

But if Randy wins a championship he will be the best ever for that year.  Nobody will argue the point.

As for the new 49er fans, learn the game. Quiet on offense, loud on defense.  Violence in the stands is idiotic.  Opposing fans should be welcomed, their team beaten on the field and their trip to city of San Francisco or Santa Clara be a highlight of their travels.

Niners fans separate themselves from the tawdry likes of the Raiders, Eagles and Cowboys devotees.   We win with class–and this is not our first trip to the show.  We respect the game.

Finally, this team does remind one of the 1980 team.  Young, talented, a great coach, and a young owner.  Their destiny will be defined on the field, but their legacy will be defined to the totality of their character.   Win on Sunday and they have taken the first step–but never forget that humility and civility are values they can pass on to the next generation of great players as the great Niners have done for them.

Then and only will they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice and the other great Niners who lived up to the standard insisted upon by the greatest Coach ever, Bill Walsh.

Oh by the way, humble in victory, civil in defeat should also be the standard for local politics.

The voters love term limits for their politicians.  But they are wrong.  The quaint notion that public service should be held only for utilitarian purposes, for a short period of time and that these limits create better government is misguided and fundamentally flawed.  The proof can be seen locally in the current mire that represents our public policy.

This is a changed opinion.  Once an advocate of this type of “reform”, the effects have been so devastating at every level of government that it should be relegated to the trash heap of history despite the noble intentions that brought such a policy about.  As a result of term limits, government has become more corrupt, less effective, and real democracy has been subverted.  Real decision making has been replaced by individuals and institutions the public neither sees nor understands.

In the legislature, county, and city it is the lobbyists and institutional staff who run the show.  If staff doesn’t like the policy of elected officials, they simply delay and ignore the direction of their leaders knowing they were employed before the elected officials got there and will be there long after the decision makers are gone.

The concept has forced elected officials to focus on short-term goals and projects knowing that long-term change is simply not possible.  And if they have chosen elected office as a career, their real worry is the next office.  Not unlike any other short-time employee who knows they will be leaving their current place of business.

The recent change allowing State Assembly members and Senators to serve 12 years in the same house is a good change.  It will allow elected officials to become familiar with the rules and processes, it will allow them to gain expertise in policy areas and it will require the ever powerful bureaucrats to deal with them.  But even 12 years is too short.

The Master Plan for Higher Education, for instance, took over 10 years to produce.   The legislators who provided the expertise for the effort had several years of experience before the process began.  The result was good policy.   But that is impossible today, there just isn’t enough time to gain the expertise before moving the agenda.

In addition, lobbyists–at all levels–become more essential.   Those who have been around the block, provide the necessary expertise in a policy area and have the institutional memory needed to move policy are very powerful.  It comes at a cost, as each lobbyist also has an interest in the outcome and competing lobbyists know how to delay and stop the process altogether.

Term limits came about as recognition that gerrymandering by the legislature virtually insured lifetime jobs of elected officials.   The recent reform that provided an independent commission to redraw lines without any recognition of party affiliation has solved that problem.

In essence, term limits in a free and fair election have always been an option for the voters.   We should return that power to them, especially in California.

Locally, we should repeal all term limits and put our elected officials back in charge of the bureaucrats who routinely shine them on and the lobbyists whose potentially conflicted expertise has become a necessary evil.

In short, term limits is a failed experiment proving not all ideas regarding government reform are good ideas.

The recent appointment of current Deputy Police Chief Larry Esquivel to “interim” San Jose Police Chief and the “indefinite” time extension given to name a new police chief is a stark admission of governmental failure for the City of San Jose.

To be named “interim” Chief of Police in this city is tantamount to being named “interim” coach of the lowly Kansas City Chiefs.   You are inheriting a losing organization with very limited prospects for future success and your “part-time” status makes it unrealistic that you have the tools to turn it around.  At least the Chiefs get a first round draft pick; the City of San Jose has no such prospects on the horizon.

The morale in the once highly-esteemed law enforcement organization is at an all-time low.  A city that once boasted itself as “the safest big city in the nation” is no longer in contention for an honorable mention.   The murder rate is up, violent crime is up, and property crimes are up–with the added indignity that if your house is burglarized; the police won’t even show-up to investigate.

In short, San Jose is an open city to crime with no leadership and no plan for the future.   The political posturing that blames our men and women in blue for a budget problem that is actually caused by hopelessly sycophantic city administrators and, ironically, cynical political leaders has brought San Jose to the lame and unmentioned reality that no qualified individual would want the be Police Chief.

Esquivel, nor any other in-house administrator, has applied for the job.  The lackluster “nationwide” talent search has produced no “star” and those known to have been interviewed are obviously not qualified or have rejected any offers that have come their way.  Meanwhile, our leaders continue to fiddle while San Jose burns–but I digress, we are not talking about the disintegration of the fire department.

Since January of 2011, San Jose has lost 139 sworn officers.   Thirty of those in the last 60 days, 65 since Measure B passed, and 50 officers are currently in background checks for other agencies.

San Jose had 46 murders in 2012 up from 39 in 2011 and a twenty year high.  The Violent Crimes Enforcement Team that used to have 18 officers and three sergeants has been disbanded.  They were responsible for over 1,000 gang arrests annually.  The Burglary Investigation Unit was disbanded and the rise in residential crime has soared.

This is all caused by the political posturing of those who have made the police department a scapegoat for the budget problems.  The solution imposed by the Mayor and majority of the City Council and, admittedly, ratified by the people of San Jose has needlessly caused a crisis when other cities and entities have worked with their employee populations in a respectful way to solve budget problems.

In the meantime, we still have a bloated San Jose bureaucracy that over-pays and over-employs top administrators, while leaving the city vulnerable to crime and failing to implement basic services for residents from libraries to park maintenance.

Decisions have consequences.   Winning a political battle at the expense of the residents who depend on accurate information and reasonable decision making from their leaders is a profile in cowardice, not courage.

When Measure B is ultimately tossed by the courts, the body politic who knowingly sought its passage will disingenuously blame everyone else on the planet for the result.  When many of them, especially on the City Council, are good enough lawyers to know better.

They will attempt to say they were following the advice of their legal counsel, when that advice was contrived for their own political purpose.  When that happens, it is important for the people of San Jose to recognize where the blame truly lies and hold those folks accountable.

In his book, The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver of FiveThiryEight.com fame, notes that political pundits have a very low success of accurate political predictions.  He proves some, like ex- FOX’s Dick Morris, are absolutely horrible predictors of politics–with random chance having better odds.  His study of panelists on the McLaughlin Group resulted in 39% of their predications being completely correct and 37% being completely false.

He found 7% of the predictions to be mostly true, 10% to be mostly false and 8% to be partly true and partly false.  Measured in statistical accuracy, 46% could be claimed as true, and 47% could be claimed as false–with an argument over the accuracy of the other 8%.

So, basically one could flip a coin on pundit predictions and have a slightly better chance of being correct than in choosing one of the “informed” opinions of the McLaughlin Group.  But the “noise” does make for great entertainment.

Silver’s method of prediction is much better and statistically more accurate.  He gathers information and objectively puts the information into a statistical model that produces predictive percentages, because nothing in life is a “sure thing”, some level of uncertainty is always present.   An example is the story of the mafia guy who paid off all the other jockey’s in a horse race so his longshot could win.   As the race began, his horse darted out of the gate and broke his leg.  So while one could argue that a “fixed” race is a sure thing, even that has some level of uncertainty.

And sometimes, as anyone who has gone to a casino knows, percentages don’t always work out.   But they will more times than not, which is the key to predictive models and profits at the casino.

So for entertainment purposes, here are some predictions for 2013 that have only coin flips chance based on Mr. Silverman’s model.  But, let’s throw in some percentages anyway, making these look qualitative and thereby giving the author an excuse if they do not come to pass.

• Measure B will be tossed out by the courts.  Statistically there is a high rate of probability of this occurring based on precedent.   95.7%

• The Sharks will win the Stanley Cup.  A week ago this had no probability at all. Now we give it a  33.3%, we know they are better than the Kings.

• At least one Santa Clara County Supervisor will not serve a full four years.  At least three are looking at a potential higher office, one may be looking at jail time.  80% chance this occurs.

• Crime will increase in the City of San Jose.  92.6% chance based on current trends.

• The A’s will announce relocation plans to San Jose, MLB will sanction the move.  A 3% chance of success or this prediction may be construed as wishful thinking.

• The NFL will announce Santa Clara as the place for the 2016 Super Bowl. This has a 73.9% chance and the windfall to the surrounding area will be enormous.

• The minimum wage in cities surrounding San Jose will go up.  83.3% chance either by local fiat or through state action.

• Gay marriage will be legal for everybody in California.  50% chance based on Supreme Court make up, but uncertainty–given previous decisions by Justices Roberts and Kennedy–make this a toss-up.  Should court base their decision on precedent, logic and reason this becomes 100% certain.

• The possibility that the Mayan Calendar was off by one year and that the end of the earth will be 2013?   .0000000000000000000000001%  But, hey, somebody is buying a bunker and 10,000 cans of creamed corn.

• Odds on winning the San Jose Mayor’s race in 2014 as of today; Sam Liccardo 25.4%, Dave Cortese 25.4% Michael Mulcahy 21.3%, Pierluigi Oliverio 7.9%, Madison Nguyen 4.3%, Pete Constant 1.3%  other 14.4%.  These percentages will change significantly over time; if a popular woman county law enforcement leader decided to run she would instantly become the prohibitive favorite.  But would Laurie Smith even consider the job?

Now, remember the key to becoming an expert in predicting the future is being able to recall only those predictions which actually occur and if 40% are correct could a call from the McLaughlin Group be far behind?

Daniel Fitzpatrick’s 1925 cartoon, which won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning, titled “The Laws of Moses and the Laws of Today.”

The Governor signed 876 new laws that went into existence on January 1st 2013.   But how many stupid, unenforceable, unconstitutional and simply misguided laws were taken off the books?

My conservative friends, both of them, like to pine on the size of the federal government, the amount of taxes they pay and the interference of government in their lives.  But when asked what specifically they don’t like, it is usually a state or local law or regulation that peaks their ire.  One doesn’t like that he can’t burn things in his fire place–that regulation was adopted by the Regional Air Quality Board.   Another believes parking is too expensive downtown.  Well, talk to your local Councilmember on that one.

The plethora of laws that exist in this country make everyone a criminal–or at least a habitual infraction violator.   Many laws are simply the result of a bad accident or incident that must be prevented in the future.

A few years ago, a child drowned at a water park.  Certainly, this was a tragedy.   But within days a law was proposed and ultimately adopted requiring children at water parks to wear life jackets.  It is a common sense response that children who can’t swim should wear life jackets.  But it should be left to common sense, not required.  Some children who can swim, don’t need them.

But if it saves one life?

Many local laws are simply unconstitutional from the start.  Measure B which was passed by voters is currently in the courts.  The much heralded pension measure that was pushed by a majority of the City Council and passed by voters is a violation of the U.S. and State Constitutions.  The measure violates the protection of contracts.

One legal opinion sought by the city allows that the Measure has an argument based on language by the City Charter.   Last I looked, the City Charter does not supersede the Constitution of the State of California or the Constitution of the United States.  But San Jose is paying a hefty sum to defend just that principle.

But Measure B is just one law that is on the books that violates Constitutional principles.  In Cupertino, the City Attorney opined the City could block public streets at certain times during the day.   Those barriers were removed once challenged in court.   Most ethics laws by local governments are unconstitutional, but will be enforced until some entity challenges them.

The San Jose Chamber of Commerce went to court over the City’s ethics laws and ultimately prevailed after they were fined for the local violations.  The City then had to amend their regulations to conform to the Constitution.

But many other laws stay on the books, unchallenged and enforced because the time and cost to challenge them for the average citizen is prohibitive.

A winning strategy for an enterprising and ambitious politician would be to identify stupid, unconstitutional and misguided laws and run on a platform to remove them.  Now that would be a candidate worth supporting.

Having dodged the end of the world on December 21st,  we now head off the fiscal cliff on January 1st due to Republican intransigence.   The icon of the Republican Party is no longer the elephant, it is a lemming.

Of course, some Republicans could do the right thing and join Democratic house members and avoid the calamity that will befall our economy.  But it doesn’t look like that will happen.   Gone are the days when Republicans will put country ahead of party.  Keeping their congressional jobs in their safe, gerrymandered districts is far more important than moving the country forward.

In their defense, Profiles in Courage was not about a bunch of political winners.   They do not fear a Democrat challenging them in their congressional district; they fear a Republican challenger in their primary.   The guardians of political cash are ideologues only too willing to take out their own.  Those who fail to adhere to the no-tax pledge will suffer the wrath of the right. Tax increases of any kind, for anyone, anywhere, regardless of circumstance are an anathema.  Country be damned.

Exacerbating this ridiculous rigid policy stance is an unwritten rule of the Republican Caucus that anything that passes the House must be done solely with Republican votes.   Democrats are not to be consulted.   The paralysis in the house is mind numbing.

The leader of this circus is Speaker of the House John Boehner, but he is clearly not in control of his members.   His latest plan to show “strength” in his negotiating position with the President by passing his own plan failed to get enough Republican votes to pass the House.

So taxes go up automatically for everyone, unemployment insurance ends for 2 million people, automatic spending cuts go into effect, and the uncertainty is sure to roil the financial markets.

Ironically, the rich will most likely lose more money in the stock market slide than they would have paid with a 2% tax hike.  The proverbial “cutting off ones nose to spite one’s face.”

But hey, happy new year.  The world did not end and, in the final analysis, we still have our health–care.

Does nobody understand math?  Those involved in the NHL lockout are myopic individuals who have already lost more money with the work stoppage than they will recover in a settlement.

Hockey is a $2.9 billion a year industry.  Assuming losing half a season has cost them half their revenue, around $1.45 billion.  Yet they are fighting over 4% of revenues.   Owners offered 50-50 split, reduced over 3 years.  The players 54-46 split, reduced over the next 3 years.   Simple math shows that the sides are fighting over $116 million a year based on current revenues.   That’s a total of $464 million over four years.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that losing $1.45 billion–in any split–is more expensive than accepting your labor adversaries’ offer.

While the NHL lockout allegedly hurts owners and players, the real victims are downtown businesses.  Small businesses that cater to fans and are dependent on the league don’t have the luxury of losing over a billion dollars on principle.

But who is really at fault?  It is intellectually lazy to say both sides are at fault.  Certainly, one side is holding up a good deal.   The problem is the public can’t tell which side is at fault because there is no transparency in the negotiations.  Unlike the fiscal cliff debate, where the Republican House is clearly holding up a deal; in hockey it is not clear–though reports seem to indicate it is the owners.

The difference in this debate is that regardless of which side “wins” this contest, they will both come out wealthy and they will both have lost more money than they could have made by settling–under any circumstances.

The average salary for a player is $2.4 million.   The minimum salary is $525,000 per year.  The average career is four years.  So the average hockey player is going to made around $10 million.  Even at the minimum they will make $2.1 million.

After taxes et al, still a good living and, invested wisely, not much need be done in retirement after four years.

But we can understand that a person who only has four years to make the majority of their labor income could be concerned about their potential chunk of revenue.

The owners have no such burden.  They can’t be hurt by any deal.

Owners are sitting pretty.  The Sharks are “valued” at $223 million.  Kevin Compton bought them for $147 million in 2002.  That is $86 million capital gain over 10 years, not a bad return on investment.  And the market value has been going up every year.  But most owners don’t buy sports teams for the profit.  There are plenty of other more lucrative business deals.  No, sports teams are bought for bragging rights. Compton wants a Stanley Cup; and we want him to succeed in that endeavor.  But he makes his “real” money as a venture capitalist.

While $223 million isn’t chump change to most people,   Compton could make far more money in other endeavors–as he would be the first to admit.  But owning a hockey team, or any sports franchise, is pretty cool.  You are always guaranteed good seats and you are doing your community a huge favor–and you are modestly increasing your wealth and taking a tax write-off at the same time.

But for small business that rely on fans coming to their establishments before, during and after a contest; the stakes could not be higher.   These businesses are not hobbies or philanthropic endeavors, few will retire comfortably after four years of labor, for them hockey really does matter.  And it is for them this lockout must end.

So make the deal and let’s play hockey.

Political speculation has become a tiresome disease in our culture.  The 2012 election is barely over and already people are opining on who will contend for the Presidency in 2016 or who will be the next Mayor in 2014.   Who will replace Supervisor George Shirakawa if he resigns?

Which brings us to the mind-numbing, mental gymnastics some local pundits are making regarding recent changes at the South Bay Labor Council.   Is Cindy Chavez running for Mayor?  Is she positioning herself for Supervisor?

The simple truth is Chavez made the decision to leave the South Bay Labor Council and head Working Partnerships months ago.   But due to her high profile status decided to wait until the November elections were over so as not to disrupt the political campaigns she was trying to help.

Sometimes people in public life do things for altruistic reasons, sometimes leaders make decisions for just the reason they state in public.

Heading two diverse and large organizations at the same time takes a tremendous amount of bandwidth.    Nobody works harder than Chavez, but she understands the benefit of separating the two organizations.  More importantly, the life and success of the two organizations are her paramount concern.

She chose to take Working Partnerships because, at her core, she is more interested in promoting good public policy and is confident that the important political battles that lie ahead and are necessary for success will be in good hands with Ben Field.  While she understands the need to fight for her agenda, it is not her natural state of being.  She fights hard, but her real genius is in building the coalitions necessary for long term policy changes that improve the lives of working families.

As a wife and mother who has been working 24/7 for the benefit of working families, she has served her time on the Council and is our community’s most visible leader for a local progressive agenda.   She has built a strong team to carry on her legacy at the Labor Council.

A true leader builds organizations that are sustainable, that can last without the cult of personality and they empower new leaders to emerge.   Chavez has always embodied this leadership standard.   Ben Field, her successor, has been fully immersed in the organization.  He has never been conflict adverse, knows how to negotiate and has learned, from Chavez, how to be effective.

As she moves full-time to Working Partnerships, the progressive agenda will be expanded.   Free from the more political trappings of the Council, she can focus on the issues she cares about most.

As for those who are looking for a cold calculation to political office, they clearly do not know or understand Cindy Chavez.   For her, it is about working families; it is their welfare she seeks to improve.  And nobody knows more about the limitations of public office than Chavez.

This reality will never suffice for those who insist that all people in public life are only interested in the next open office.   But Chavez doesn’t seek to satisfy the cynics, she works to make her community a better place.

San Francisco's Ed Lee is a real Mayor.

It is high time San Jose joined the big leagues and moved to a strong Mayor form of government.  The recent response by the City Manager to a public suggestion by Pierluigi Oliverio regarding who should be the police chief is simply another example of the bush-league government system that regulates elected officials to second class status.

If this were New York, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, such a rebuke from the hired help would never have occurred.  Moreover, it is the duty and the right of elected officials to opine on weighty matters such as who should serve in our city.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Councilman Oliverio’s opinion on the matter, a stinging public reprimand from an appointed public employee regarding the opinion of an elected official is out of line.

Nobody voted for the City Manager and she is supposed to work for him—not the other way around.  If a Councilmember wants to give their opinion, they should not be chastised publically by a subordinate for giving it.  Moreover, it should be taken into consideration, not dismissed as interfering with the process.

But the larger issue is that San Jose suffers from its governance.  If Mayor Ed Lee or Mayor Jean Quan talk to officials in Sacramento, Washington or a business that wants to relocate; they can make the deal.  They have the authority.  Mayor Reed can opine but must, under the arcane City Manager form of government, defer to the unelected appointee who has the actual authority to make things happen.

In nearly every other large City in the nation, it is the Mayor and not the bureaucrats who run the public business.  This makes the leading and most powerful public official in those cities directly accountable to the people.  It also gives their cities a huge advantage because they can make decisions in real time.

The difference in clout is enormous.  When San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee calls Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig–do you think his calls are returned?  We know Mayor Reed’s calls are not.    Can anyone imagine the political fall-out if Selig failed to call back Michael Bloomberg or Rahm Emanuel?  Because of their influence, they could have a profound effect on those who regulate baseball.   They are not to be trifled with and real power can be exerted on behalf of those they represent.

The arguments against a strong Mayor are prejudicial and specious.  Some people don’t like this Mayor or that Mayor.  So what?  That’s who we elect, they are the face of the city, they get the credit or the blame for anything that happens anyway.  The majority of voters don’t even know the current City Manager’s name, let alone what she looks like, what her policy agenda is or how she implements it.

But when something goes wrong, everyone blames the Mayor and City Council.   When something happens constituents call Mayor Reed, not Deb Figone.  The Mayor shouldn’t have to put them on hold and plead with an unelected bureaucrat to get something done.  He should be able to authorize it on the spot.

Some say a City Manager is more “professional”.  Well that works in Morgan Hill.  But big cities need someone who can speak for them and provide the leadership and clout that causes Sacramento, Washington and especially businesses to take them seriously.

In the 1980′s Mayor Tom McEnery increased the clout of the Mayor’s Office, in what many considered a transitional phase to a strong Mayor form of government.  But it has been 30 years, it is past time to complete the transition and put the people’s representative fully in charge.

And as for Councilmember Oliverio, he should stand his ground and remind the current city manager that he is one of six people who determine her fate–and he should remind his colleagues that they were not elected to play a supporting role in the decisions of government and if they have an opinion, they should be able to share it with their constituents without censure from the hired help.