“We’ve always done it this way” is the principal argument being offered for retaining Santa Clara’s system of electing police chiefs and requiring no qualifications beyond living in the city, graduating from high school and four years of law enforcement experience.
But we haven’t always done it this way. Further, the way we do it may be more a product of a confusing ballot measure than a considered judgment by Santa Clara residents.
The 1952 Santa Clara charter, which voters approved, called for a city manager-appointed police chief and a city council-appointed city clerk.
In fact, Santa Clarans voted not once, but twice for change. The first time was the 1950 vote to write a new city charter and establish a governing structure suited for a modern, progressive city. This meant a professional city manager, police chief and city clerk. (It also required all city council meetings to be held in public.)
There were people then complaining that change wasn’t needed. “Chief objections [to the draft charter] came from those who feel that Santa Clara is not large enough to support or require the services of a City Manager,” the Mercury News wrote on Dec. 11, 1950.
The change to an appointed police chief also drew opposition. It came from the elected police chief John J. O’Neill and his friends and supporters. O’Neill lost his job when the 1952 charter was approved. In 1952, O’Neill circulated a petition for the charter change and it went to a vote that year. [1952 mercury elected police chief charter change]
O’Neill’s argument was the same one being heard today: That an appointed police chief and city clerk would deprive voters of a “democratic privilege,” the Mercury News reported on Oct. 31, 1952.
Supporters of the new charter highlighted the corrupting influence of politics on an elected chief. “They argue that a police chief who is dependent upon voters’ whims must necessarily avoid offending any possible supporters — a situation which is likely to result in a do-nothing policy not in the best interest of the community as a whole,” the Mercury reported.
The Mercury continued by quoting Berkeley police chief J.D. Holstrom, also an official in the International Police Chief Association, who pointed out that, “in all of California less than six small cities elect a police chief. He adds: ‘I believe it reasonable to assume that if there was real merit in the method, far more cities would’ve adopted it.”
The Mercury article cited International City Managers Association statistics showing that only 3.6% of cities comparable to Santa Clara in population elected their police chiefs and only 26 elected their city clerks.
Santa Clara city manager John Base asked voters to give the new charter a chance. “I earnestly urge that you defer from making these… drastic changes in your new charter until its shortcomings can be demonstrated under a fair test of actual operation.”
Despite these arguments, voters nonetheless approved restoring these relics from the city’s 1872 charter. [1952 Mercury new charter appointed police chief]. Following the 1952 change, there were criticisms that voters” were unaware of the significance of the charter amendment adopted by them,” the Mercury News wrote on Jan. 30, 1953. [1953 Mercury editorial elected police chief]
“City Councilman Joseph J. Reibero said afterward he had heard many complaints from citizens that the amendment upon which they voted was worded so ambiguously that they were led to voting the wrong way on it,” the Mercury wrote.
*Special Note: Newspaper clippings came from the San José Library’s 1900-1985 Mercury News archive, made possible by a legacy gift in memory of Susan Renzel Carter. It’s available online with a San José library card.
