San Jose mayor proposes tying 5% of council pay to citywide performance; council raises equity and democracy concerns

San Jose Mayor (name not specified) proposed linking 5% of each city councilmember’s base salary to measurable progress on agreed citywide performance measures, prompting a lengthy council debate about equity, accountability and unintended consequences.

The mayor described the proposal as modeled on existing performance contracts for appointees and senior staff and said the city manager would return in the fall with a simple rubric for scoring: “the city manager has requested September…to look at best practices from other sectors and bring us a proposal for how that formula would work to keep it simple,” the mayor said.

Councilmember Ortiz asked how the system would operate in practice and whether pay adjustments would be applied individually: “Am I just gonna sit here while my colleagues vote to not give me a raise, or what?” Ortiz asked. The mayor responded that the metric would be applied “as a body,” because the council approves citywide budgets and policies collectively. City Attorney Nora clarified that, under the city charter, any pay mechanism must apply across the board: “under the charter, it’s all or none. So it applies to everybody.”

Vice Mayor Foley said a shared, councilwide rubric would avoid disadvantaging members who represent areas with different service levels and argued the proposal could amplify minority voices by elevating equity goals into the scorecards the council adopts collectively. “You absolutely shouldn't be held accountable for delivery of services in your area that are not necessarily the number of services that are being delivered in other parts of the district,” Foley said.

Several councilmembers voiced reservations. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Kondellas (who described a nonprofit background) warned that metrics can be shaped to produce favorable results and noted that East San Jose historically has received less city investment. Ortiz said the district’s residents judge his work differently because of historical underinvestment: “My constituents may be seeing, ‘wow. This guy is fighting...’ but to the whole, that may not be as valuable,” Ortiz said, arguing that the approach could “drown out voices” from communities that have been historically underserved.

Councilmember Cohen cautioned that pay‑for‑performance schemes can incentivize short‑term decision making and cited research that warns of corruption and perverse incentives. “This is one of the most ill advised policies that we've seen as a council,” Cohen said, adding that elected officials already face constant public accountability and that elections and community feedback are fundamental checks on behavior.

Supporters including Councilmember Casey and the mayor argued the proposal would strengthen focus and trust by aligning council priorities with measurable outcomes and by making the city’s scorecards and dashboards the basis for evaluation. “We already do it for our appointees. We do it for our senior staff,” the mayor said. Casey said the approach could re‑engage voters frustrated with local government by showing elected officials have “skin in the game.”

Several speakers stressed safeguards and iteration. The mayor said the city manager would propose a rubric informed by best practices and that the council could adjust or reverse any ordinance if unintended consequences emerged. Foley and others suggested including equity measures explicitly in the focus areas to protect minority communities’ interests.

No formal ordinance or vote was taken during the session. The mayor asked the city manager to return with a proposed scoring methodology in the fall and indicated the council would continue discussing the idea during the budget process.

The discussion concluded when the council moved to the fees-and-charges portion of the study session.