Sticking to local issues

As someone who has followed the political discourse in San Mateo County for two decades, I find the typical approach of not wading into waters over which you have no control the best. There are usually plenty of matters to take up our time and I wonder if those elected officials who conjure up “big” issues don’t have the clearest vision of what local public service truly is. Rather than simply throwing a voice into the void, there is actual work that can make a difference.

My definition of that typically is solving problems that you can solve using the resources available to you. Local elected officials are community ambassadors of sorts and use their knowledge of the government they oversee and their influence to right wrongs and ensure their citizens are taken care of. That’s key. Another key is oversight of the government’s finances and the curation of future planning — underlying all of that is being responsive and responsible to constituent needs throughout.

At times, constituent groups will approach elected officials to take up their cause and, based on the issue and pressure, that sometimes will rise to the level of being agendized for a council or board agenda. Other times, an elected official will take up a cause themselves and seek to make a grand statement. Sometimes that has something to do with their constituency, sometimes not.

Here are some examples. After the last presidential election, cities took it upon themselves to explore sanctuary city resolutions, welcoming city resolutions or even statements in support of civil rights. Many officials felt it important to make a statement that those here in this country illegally have their support. There was significant concern and tension in those communities, so doing so made sense. Some opposed, some supported, some didn’t care. I thought the most useful resolutions were from the city of San Mateo and the county of San Mateo, whose officials explored the current policies and how they intersect with current law and how any changes might affect the relationship with, and funding from, the federal government. For me, it was educational and interesting while serving a greater purpose of showing the community what the policies are currently. That was a good use of time.

Another example I was less sure about was Supervisor David Canepa’s concern about lethal autonomous weapons and his wish that the Board of Supervisors express that concern to federal officials and the United Nations. To me, it seems that there are other issues — specifically housing affordability, the overall rising cost of living, social service needs and transportation congestion — that merit more immediate attention. However, upon speaking to Canepa, I see he is passionate about the issue and believes it is important for local government to get ahead of the curve before these robots become commonplace. That makes sense, though it appears some more work is in order on the issue before it comes up again for public discussion at the board level. Everyone has their issues and passion, and I encourage Canepa to continue working on it to come up with more tangible and specific discussion items.

Still, during a board discussion on the item, it was brought up that other members of the board had previously focused on items that would not necessarily be considered part of the purview of the county. And that’s a fair point.

San Carlos Councilman Mark Olbert recently wrote an opinion piece we printed suggesting there is room for discussions of larger issues than the council typically does. Is there room for thinking outside of the box? Sure. After all, discussions on issues that affect us all might lead to local policy change or allay community concerns, but issues that do not or will not should not be entertained at the expense of other important issues. In talking to Olbert, he seemed to agree with most of that.

There is certainly much to discuss and solve here in San Mateo County, too much in fact, and I strongly encourage elected officials to keep a firm eye on the basic tenets of elected office which, to me, is responding to the needs of those who live in your jurisdiction, and ensuring that you are spending their money wisely while also responsibly planning for the future. In doing so, you can make a name for yourself as someone who is serious about the work that voters elected you to do. Once that’s nailed down, there can be some room for further exploration of larger issues as long as it actually pertains to the populace here.

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.