Virtual public comment restored to all San Jose meetings

Following San Jose’s recent decision to return online public comment to City Council meetings, city officials have opted to restore such access for its various commissions and committees as well.

Tuesday’s unanimous council vote means that San Jose’s 15 commissions — which play a hand in shaping policy, approving permits and adjudicating appeals to city decisions — must now provide online access for residents who wish to participate remotely. The change is part of a broader package of reform measures intended to streamline commission operations, including the appointment process for commissioners.

“Moving to hybrid meetings for all bodies is consistent with our commitment to transparency and inclusion,” City Clerk Toni Taber told San José Spotlight.

San Jose reintroduced remote access for council meetings in June to comply with a state mandate, but, at the time, left it to individual commissions to decide whether to opt in to the hybrid format. The June decision and this week’s extension of the policy come two years after the city discontinued virtual participation due to a series of incidents in which online commenters disrupted meetings with racial slurs and hate speech.

The update has generated enthusiasm from residents, who said the online option will ease access to commission meetings for groups that face barriers to appearing in person, such as low-income workers, parents and those with disabilities.

“Allowing them to call in from home or from work comfortably over Zoom gives a lot more options to members of the public to be involved in the decision-making process and discussion of things that are important to them,” Jordan Moldow, chair of the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, told San José Spotlight.

As a follow on measure, Moldow and other residents are asking for the city to allow commissioners to participate in meetings remotely as well.

Ahead of the vote, councilmembers received a flood of letters from mobile home residents who urged them to approve the remote access expansion.

Daniel Finn, a housing commissioner who represents mobile home residents, said the end of remote access in 2024 hit this community especially hard, given its aging demographics and high prevalence of mobility challenges.

“So they are left on the outs. They have no input,” Finn told San José Spotlight. “They can write in questions, but a lot of those questions just don’t really get answered.”

The issue of public participation has been a flashpoint in an ongoing battle over a policy proposal that could lead to steep rent increases across San Jose’s mobile home parks, which offer some of the last affordable housing in the city.

Tuesday’s decision will lead to a number of other reforms for San Jose’s commissions, each of which plays a distinct role in city governance, such as advising city departments and signing off on land use decisions.

Among the changes, the new reforms will provide more flexibility in how staff reviews commissioner candidates, helping to cut down on a labor intensive process that has contributed to protracted vacancies on some bodies, such as the Planning Commission. Another change eliminates the defunct Council Appointment Advisory Commission and transfers its authority to fill certain commission vacancies to the mayor.

The reforms will also do away with a requirement mandating background checks for those applying to serve on advisory bodies, such as the Climate Advisory Commission, the Library and Education Commission and the Measure T Oversight Committee. The requirement will remain in place for policy-making and quasi-judicial bodies.

The change is intended to cut out barriers to participate on commissions that do not make decisions with a direct financial impact, Taber said in a memo outlining the policy.

Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, said without such checks, the burden will now be placed on staff to speak up when conflicts of interest arise.

“Protecting public trust isn’t as simple as removing a requirement,” Hurt told San José Spotlight. “It requires scaffolding other accountability measures in its place: a clear public complaint and referral pathway, clearly articulated recusal policy, and consistent enforcement.”

Contact Keith Menconi at [email protected] or @KeithMenconi on X.