Editor,
The contentious discussions at City Council meetings, in this publication and on social media have become a distraction from the important work of governing our city. The debate over appointing a replacement for a short-term planning commissioner should be distilled to a simple question: What are the rules and the law?
This is not the first time — and it will not be the last — that the City Council faces political pressure. Last year, the council wisely adopted a revision of the rules governing the council and its commissions, including a Code of Conduct. Those rules carry the force of law. While improvements are needed, the framework is in place.
One significant flaw remains. The same political body that creates the rules governing its own conduct is also responsible for determining whether those rules have been violated and for adjudicating the outcome. This raises legitimate concerns about impartiality.
The city would be better served by an independent government body charged with reviewing and investigating potential rules violations. Concerns about fairness and accountability can be addressed through clear procedures, transparency requirements and due-process protections. In cases where the council and the independent body disagree, arbitration could provide a neutral means of resolving disputes.
It would involve costs. However, the council should consider costs of a city government consumed by recurring conflicts and controversies.
The solution is straightforward. With a majority vote, the City Council can establish an independent Ethics Commission and strengthen public confidence that rules will be applied fairly and consistently.
David Cohen
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(1) comment
Excellent letter, Mr. Cohen.
One positive outcome of the recent controversies surrounding the Seema-Amo Lee political alliance is that they have exposed a structural weakness in San Mateo's system of government.
There is an old saying: you become the company you keep.
Voters pay close attention to the political alliances candidates choose to cultivate.
Candidates such as Adam Loraine and Seema Patel, who are tied-to-the-hip with former Councilmember Amo "Envelope Gate" Lee, are turning off voters because their associations reflect poor judgment and a failed leadership style to public service.
Public trust is one of a city's most valuable assets. Once it is lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to regain.
Regardless of where someone stands on any particular appointment or issue, the public should have confidence that ethical concerns are reviewed through a process that is independent, transparent, and fair.
When the same elected body is responsible for writing the rules, interpreting the rules, and deciding whether those rules have been violated, it inevitably raises legitimate questions about impartiality.
An independent Ethics Commission would not exist to target individuals or advance political agendas. It would exist to protect the integrity of the process for everyone.
The recent controversies surrounding several local political figures should serve as a reminder that ethical conduct, accountability, and respect for the public are not optional—they are fundamental requirements of public service.
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.