A longtime resident recently commented, If it’s required by the state or legally binding, El Cerrito might follow it—and even then, only at the minimum level. But when it comes to internal policies, ethics, or transparency, it’s the Wild West. That observation isn’t hyperbole. It’s an accurate description of how governance now functions in El Cerrito—and why trust has eroded.
In El Cerrito, rules that carry external penalties—state mandates, CalPERS requirements, federal regulations—are acknowledged because ignoring them risks lawsuits or loss of funding. But internal discipline? Standards for behavior, performance, transparency, and accountability are applied inconsistently or not at all. This imbalance shows up repeatedly in decision-making, financial stewardship, and public engagement.
Most professional organizations adopt codes of conduct that go beyond legal compliance. These frameworks clarify conflicts of interest, define professional boundaries, and create predictable expectations for public servants. El Cerrito has no publicly available, comprehensive ethics or conduct policy governing staff behavior. As a result, misconduct is addressed subjectively, enforcement is discretionary, and accountability depends on who is involved rather than what is right.
Ethics and Employee Conduct: A Glaring Gap
The consequences are tangible. The city has faced—and continues to anticipate—employment-related legal disputes that taxpayers quietly fund. From retaliation claims to settlements tied to mismanagement, these costs stem from the absence of clear internal guardrails. The city has already set aside funds for upcoming legal action, yet the public receives little detail. What residents do see is the impact: hundreds of thousands of dollars diverted from core services to cover avoidable failures.
Selective Accuracy: The Library Tax Initiative
Trust erodes further when accuracy becomes optional. The City Attorney’s official summary of a proposed library tax initiative included seven statements later described as false and misleading—statements that could have materially influenced voters to sign petitions to place the measure on a future ballot.
That issue was formally raised in a June 10 pre-litigation demand letter from Attorney Jason Bezis, representing two El Cerrito voters and the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, addressed to City Attorney Sky Woodruff. Only after the challenge were revisions made. The problem wasn’t just the errors—it was that they were allowed to stand until legally challenged. That pattern reinforces a troubling message: correction happens only when forced.
Council members continue to talk about the library, as if they’re not involved however they are completely invested in it. They continue to discuss it during meetings as if it’s a foregone conclusion.
Pension Payments: Minimum Compliance, Maximum Exposure
El Cerrito regularly characterizes its pension payments as responsible stewardship. In reality, the city makes only the required minimum payments. Pension costs now exceed $15 million annually—roughly 30 percent of the operating budget—while the unfunded liability has grown beyond $80 million.
What is sometimes presented as progress toward reducing that liability is simply the baseline payment required to remain compliant. This is not strategy. It is the bare minimum—and it explains why the problem continues to grow.
Performance Standards: Absent or Arbitrary
When expectations are unclear, performance suffers. El Cerrito does not consistently evaluate employees against measurable objectives, nor are promotions and raises reliably tied to outcomes. Effort is rewarded, but results are optional. In some departments, chronic underperformance persists because no policy requires improvement.
Meanwhile, the city has spent public funds on consulting contracts and software tools—particularly in human resources and finance—that were later abandoned or never fully implemented. The issue is not experimentation; it is the absence of follow-through. There is no consistent process to assess value, measure outcomes, or hold anyone accountable when initiatives fail.
Transparency and Public Engagement: The Core Trust Failure
This is where the trust problem becomes undeniable.
El Cerrito technically complies with the Brown Act by posting meeting notices 72 hours in advance—but that is where transparency ends. Special meetings scheduled weeks in advance are noticed the day before the meeting. Council packets including PowerPoint slide decks for Tuesday meetings are released later, limiting meaningful public review. Other cities provide longer lead times as a matter of good governance. El Cerrito chooses not to.
During meetings, the City Council and City Manager do not engage the public in dialogue, despite no legal prohibition against doing so. Public questions are treated as interruptions rather than contributions. Legitimate public records requests are delayed or denied. Reports are frequently late, vague, or incomplete. Spending questions are dismissed as distractions.
This is not accidental. It is a pattern. When engagement is minimized and information is tightly controlled, residents reasonably conclude that transparency is conditional—offered only when convenient.
A clear example is Measure V, the real property transfer tax approved by voters with the understanding that it would support public services, including a senior center. After passage, the senior center was closed. There has been little public accounting for how the more than $3 million per year in revenue was redirected. What is clear is that the funds were absorbed into payroll and pension costs, with no meaningful public discussion.
The Cost of Doing Just Enough
When a city governs by minimum compliance, the costs compound. Taxpayer money is spent settling disputes that better policies could have prevented. Resources are wasted on studies and initiatives that go nowhere. Public confidence erodes—not because residents are unreasonable, but because they notice patterns.
Trust is not lost through one mistake. It is lost when leaders consistently choose the lowest bar, the shortest notice, the least explanation, and the narrowest interpretation of their obligations.
Cities that operate with discipline do more than comply with the law. They set expectations. They enforce standards. They treat transparency and accountability as values, not inconveniences.
El Cerrito can do better—but only if residents demand more than the bare minimum. Compliance is not leadership. And minimum effort is not responsible governance.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 