The city’s voters spoke last month, in essence telling the City Council that it wasn’t doing enough to protect renters from unreasonable rent hikes and unjust evictions. When they did so with their approval of the Measure V charter amendment, they mandated that a panel be created whose members would oversee the new rent stabilization program, and gave the authority to appoint the panel’s five members to the council.
Now that 22 people have turned in their applications for seats on the Rental Housing Committee, there’s no shortage of curiosity about the backgrounds and interests of those who are seeking four-year terms on the committee — a panel that will wield significant power in the minefield of rental policy. But members of the public and press who want to learn about those seeking appointment are being stymied by the city for reasons that aren’t clear. What is clear is that city officials who have decided to withhold three of five pages of candidates’ applications from the public are tainting what should be an open public process and, as a result, undermining confidence in that process.
The application’s first three pages list the candidate’s name, address, contact information, occupation and employer. They include responses to questions about the applicant’s qualifications, criminal history, and his or her planned approach to carrying out the duties of the committee.
City Attorney Jannie Quinn cites a 1996 California court decision, Wilson v. Superior Court, to justify the city’s refusal to release those three pages, asserting that the ruling allows the city to keep the pages confidential because they contain “materials reflecting deliberative or decision-making processes by city officials.”
But this explanation ignores the fact that the only city officials required to engage in the “deliberative or decision-making processes” that will lead to the choice of committee members are City Council members — who are legally mandated to deliberate and make decisions in public, with a few clearly defined exceptions. Appointing people to a public body is not one of those exceptions. Where is the logic of declaring “confidential” the applications of members of the public applying to a public committee, to be appointed by publicly elected officials during a public process?
We believe the city’s refusal to release these applications in full is a violation of the California Public Records Act, a view supported by media law attorney Nikki Moore. “The entire application should be provided to (the public) with the minimal necessary redactions,” said Moore, an attorney with the California Newspaper Publishers Association. Moreover, she noted, “the applicants were on notice that this would be an open and public process, and that the documents would be available to the public.”
In an era when the public’s trust in government is so low, one might expect that public officials, both elected and not, would do everything possible to be transparent when not legally compelled to withhold information. This baffling maneuver by the city foolishly opens the door to public speculation that there are behind-the-scenes shenanigans in play as the City Council prepares to make critical choices on the makeup of what will be one of the most powerful public bodies in the city.
If the city continues on this course, the City Council, at its first meeting of the year, should direct the staff to release the full applications of the candidates — with information redacted if needed, but with justification provided. The council should also commit to putting the four-year appointments on hold for a period needed to give the public a chance to review the information before the council acts.
City commission objects to tree removal plan for Mountain View's new police headquartersMarch 19, 2026 2:58 pm