The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have started off the year with both newly seated members and its first established code of conduct promising residents integrity, collegiality and respect.
With 10 established principles to follow, most focus on how supervisors speak and work with one another to assure collaboration and efficacy. Supervisor Jackie Speier sponsored the item as the board did not previously have a code of conduct.
“This is our promise to our constituents to act responsibly, respect each other and respect all county staff in addition to members of the public,” Speier said.
Supervisor Ray Mueller said he was concerned about part of a code that seeks board members to remain “as concise as possible” when presenting and considering agenda items. Wanting as much flexibility to ask as many questions as necessary, he asked the detail to be removed.
Speier clarified the intent was “not intended in any way to stifle appropriate and needed inquiry into matters,” but the board agreed to remove the detail.
The ordinance is “more than just a formality,” Board President David Canepa said, who cosponsored the item.
“As elected officials, we have a profound responsibility to uphold the trust of those we serve, the residents of our great county,” Canepa said. “With every decision we make, every word we speak and every action we take, we represent not just ourselves but the values, hopes and expectations of our community.”
The board also approved dedicating $1.5 million to the March 4 special election in which county voters will be asked if the governing body should have the authority to remove an elected sheriff from office. The money will go toward precise printing and mailing of outreach materials and ballots.
Mueller and Speier also addressed the fires in Los Angeles County and agreed now is the time to learn and improve the county’s own preparedness.
(2) comments
If this code of conduct is like others I’ve seen (no, I haven’t bothered to search for the code so maybe I'm wrong), I’m betting the verbiage is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, or the one being blamed for “bad” conduct, and it basically comes down to a matter of semantics. What’s “collegial” or “respectful” to one may not be “collegial” or “respectful” to another. IMO, another way in attempting to rein in and/or control free speech. But I have an open mind so let’s see how this charade turns out. I’m betting it’ll cause more problems than solve them because you know someone is going to inevitably complain and attempt to censure others.
Terence - this is what happened with the code of conduct in Belmont. Even minor facial expressions, rolling of the eyes or raising eyebrows are prohibited. One ends up with a bunch of stoic supervisors afraid to contradict one another. Just like the CCP Politburo. Presentations by residents expecting council feedback need to be preapproved by the mayor. That stifles effectively any controversy that she is not approving of. So much for democratic principles, tin horn dictators are now running the mad house.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.