CC 01-19-2021 Item No. 17 Commissioner Handbook_Written CommunicationsCC 01-19-21
#17
Updated
Commissioner
Handbook
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 12:16 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment RE: Dark Skies & Commissioner Handbook Updates
Attachments:Politicization of the Bureaucracy_Lewis.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to provide public comment on two issues (Agenda item 16 and 17) in the upcoming City Council meeting on
January 19, 2021.
In summary, I would like to express support for dark sky ordinances for positive benefits on both human and
environmental health. In addition, I would like to express concern over the lack of standardization within the
Commissioner appointment process and inter‐commission procedure within the proposed Commissioner Handbook
updates.
My full comments are below:
First, regarding Agenda item 16, the "Municipal Code Amendments to adopt lighting regulations to implement the Fiscal
Year
2019/20 City Council Work Program items related to Dark Sky. (Application No. MCA2019‐003; Applicant: City of
Cupertino; Location: City‐wide)", I want to voice support for the adoption of both these updates to the municipal code
with the goal of reducing impact on migratory bird species and human health impacts from increased lightning at night. I
hope that the adoption of these updates can be finished expeditiously, as it is my understanding that there have been
some delays and deliberation than initially anticipated and encourage the council.
Second, regarding Agenda item 17, approval of the updated Commissioner's Handbook, I am deeply concerned
regarding the lack of detail around the appointment process and inter‐commission behavior.
Derived from section 5 of the proposed Handbook*, the purpose of Commissioners is to act as advisors, as a means to
provide City Council with consolidated recommendations distilled from public input via Commission activities.
Ostensibly, this means that our commissions and commissioners are a means to provide greater access to the public's
opinion and state of affairs "on the ground" regarding specific issue‐areas.
However, the lack of a formal, documented process to govern in the appointment of commissioners and the behavior of
commission chairs and members is antithetical to the commission's purpose in City Council policy formation. The lack of
standardization on the appointment process and commissioner behavior within the Handbook, makes Commissioners
and Commissions poor tools to represent public opinion and our residents' lived realities.
Whether it is documented within the Handbook, or within another City document, there should be a formal procedure
for Commissioner appointment which encompasses similar best practices used in the private sector to attempt to
reduce biases in the selection process. For example, during Commissioner interviews, there should be standard
questions asked of every applicant. Any extraneous or discretionary questions asked by City Council members should
have a time‐limit, to ensure that one line of questioning does not dominate or unfairly disadvantage one applicant over
another. In addition, especially now given remote interview processes, City Council could opt for having audio‐only
2
interviews, as a candidates' appearance should have no relevance to their ability perform their duties as a
Commissioner.
Specific recommendations aside, in general, there should be much more regime and outlined procedure within these
bodies. For example, section 5 of the proposed handbook dictates that the chair "solicit opinions of the
commissioners...[but]...discourage overly dominant commissioners from
having disproportionate control over the discussion.". This statement is far to vague and suggestive for a government
document. It should either be dropped or replaced with instructions on commission behavior ‐ for example: rules
around a single medium for deliberations and solicitation of public input, quantitative measures on commissioner
contributions (so it is a subjective judgement of what is "disproportionate control"), and generally favoring less
subjective judgements in favor of objective measures and outcomes when possible.
Appointment processes are crucial tools in the function of government, while also being intrinsically vulnerable to
adverse selection and poor performance in terms of outcomes for the public good**. Having a fairer appointment
process also encourages more faith from the public that our city commissions are actually good conduits for submitting
input and informing policy development. Turnover in the BikePed commission shows an example where this is not the
case, and anecdotally, left some followers disenchanted and disengaged when new leadership did not reflect interest in
the very goals of the commission itself.
Thoughtful design of the commissioner appointment process helps ensure we have the most effective government, and
commissions that actually comprise of individuals which are representative cross‐sections of the public, and not just
echo‐chambers for city council members.
Thank you,
Sean
*"...primary purpose of the City’s commissions is to serve as advisory bodies to Council by weighing public input and rendering recommendations to the City Council"
**One such exploration of the pros and cons of government appointed positions is outlined in the attached paper "Politicization and Performance: The Case of the Federal
Emergency Agency" by DE Lewis (2010).
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Cupertino ForAll <cupertinoforall@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:30 PM
To:City Council
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:Community Comments on Commission Appointments.
Attachments:Cupertino Commissions (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please see attached thoughts from community members within our organization. We ask that you thoughtfully consider
our points moving forward in the next week as the council makes its commission decisions.
Best,
Cupertino for All
ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT:
Commissions for residents; not political factions
Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council:
Though today’s city council meeting does not concern commission appointments, we as residents and former residents
want to ensure that both the upcoming commissions interview process on Jan. 25/26 and the resulting selection choices
truly reflect the diversity and needs in our city. Cupertino’s own demographic diversity resolution states the following:
I. Commissions and Committees
A. To foster comprehensive representation within advisory commissions and committees, it would be
advantageous for new members to represent the community by such factors as culture, gender, age,
and location of residency within the city.
B. In the conduct of their business, commission and committee members shall pursue the benefit of a
variety of perspectives in making decisions.
C. Commissions and committees increase the city’s potential, effectiveness and creativity as an
organization by offering a wide range of approaches and perspectives to addressing issues and solving
problems.
In past years, this has not always seemed the case. Residents should be able to trust that selections are made based on
merit, unique expertise, and inclusion, rather than allegiance to any political faction. Preferences based on loyalty or
preferable relationships defeat the purpose of having an advisory committee, and instead only reinforce the political
dominance of a particular city council.
Currently, there is not a single young community member, nor renter on either the Housing or the Planning Commission,
despite the fact that both of these bodies dramatically affect the quality of life for both of these groups. 40% of our city is
made up of renters, yet there are likely only a handful of both youth and renters on all of the commissions combined.
We are facing an extraordinary time of crisis and change; Cupertino will be required to plan for almost 5,000 new homes
under state mandate, similar to the high housing demands that other cities have dealt with in the past. This means our city
will have to change more than it ever has in modern history. Diverse, inclusive commissions, with varying viewpoints, will
be integral to ensuring transformative change for the better of our community and will only be to the benefit of this city
council.
We additionally call for council to not reappoint Ray Wang, a chronic bully and harasser who took a plea deal (ie. accepted
a conviction for breaking the law) for cyberbullying a woman he disagreed with over a political issue. After changing his
name and moving to Cupertino, he was documented via Nextdoor.com trying to get community members fired from their
jobs for disagreeing on housing issues. This council should not endorse such plainly anti-democratic behavior. At a
minimum, all commissioners should be committed to democratic engagement. Mr. Wang has proven by deed and word
that he is not.
Sincerely,
Concerned members of the Cupertino community