San Jose council rejects "pay-for-performance" plan to withhold 5% of council pay pending goals

San Jose — The City Council on June 10 voted to reject a proposal that would have withheld 5% of the mayor’s and councilmembers’ pay and returned it only if the council met measurable annual performance targets. The substitute motion to reject the ordinance passed 7–4; Vice Mayor Pam Foley, Councilmembers Mulcahy and Casey, and Mayor Matt Mahan voted against the rejection.

The proposal, brought forward by Mayor Matt Mahan and coauthored in part by Vice Mayor Foley, would have used the authority in City Charter section 407(d) to enact an ordinance tying a small share of elected officials’ compensation to achievement of citywide performance metrics and to direct the city manager to return with a more detailed grading rubric within 90 days.

Supporters said the change would strengthen accountability and align elected leaders with performance expectations already applied to city senior staff. "By tying a portion of our salaries, 5%, to the achievement of publicly adopted performance metrics, we would be making a bold statement that we should be held to the same standard we expect of others in city leadership," Mayor Mahan said during his presentation of the idea.

Opponents raised concerns about unintended consequences: who sets the goals, whether the system would punish councilmembers who represent distinct district interests, and the risk — highlighted during public comment — that using quantitative metrics to judge complex social outcomes could distort public programs (public speakers and some councilmembers cited "Campbell’s Law," a social‑science caution about metric‑driven decision making). Councilmembers Dwan, Ortiz, Salas and others warned the measure could discourage dissenting votes and encourage "quick wins" that looked good on paper but did not reflect long‑term public interest.

Several councilmembers also debated legal and practical questions raised by using charter authority rather than a ballot measure; the mayor said the city attorney had identified a path that avoids a charter election. The council discussed whether metrics should focus on program outputs (for example, number of interim housing placements or academy classes for police recruits) rather than community outcomes such as crime rates, which council members said could be influenced by many factors outside city control.

After extended public comment and council debate the council adopted the substitute motion rejecting the pay‑for‑performance proposal. The motion passed 7–4; the meeting transcript records Foley, Mulcahy, Casey and Mahan in opposition to that outcome.

The council did not adopt a rival performance‑based pay proposal at the meeting, but several members said they wanted to continue improving the city's performance management systems, dashboards and public scorecards without tying pay to the measures.

Looking ahead the mayor said he would continue to press for increased public performance reporting and for the city manager to present clearer program‑level targets in the coming budget cycle, but council members opposed to pay‑for‑performance said they preferred to preserve existing accountability mechanisms such as elections, audits and public reporting.

Ending: With the vote the council left intact the existing compensation regime and directed no immediate ordinance change. Members who supported the idea said they intended to pursue greater public performance reporting and program‑level targets through other channels.