On Tuesday, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors in a 3-1-1 vote, opted to use identity politics when making Supervisor Federal Glover its 2024 chair and Ken Carlson its vice chair.
In what could be considered the great screw job of 2023 in Contra Costa County, the three men on the Board of Supervisors passed over two women in an effort to give an LGBTQ+ member of the board a chair position.
The appointment, which was apparently orchestrated by Supervisor John Gioia, with limited information provided in the staff reported, named Supervisor Federal Glover as next years Board chair, and Ken Carlson, as vice chair.
The moved left Supervisor Candace Andersen and Supervisor Diane Burgis feeling marginalized for being skipped over in the rotation as Gioia stated several times it was “historic” for Carlson, who is openly gay, to be the first LGBTQ+ chair for the county.
Ironically, Carlson was elected last November to replace Supervisor Karen Mitchoff who just served as chair of the board—thus “skipping” Andersen in the process while also admitting due to circumstances skipped over Burgis when she was a new member of the board several years ago.
During the debate, Gioia continued to make disingenuous commentary while justifying his politically motivated actions by using Carlson’s sexuality, not experience or accomplishments, as reason to appoint him vice chair all in the name of “history” and “representation” thus making it about identity politics.
Throughout the discussion, Gioia bullied Andersen and Burgis by shutting them down while they were speaking and then hijacking the conversation to repeat the same statements several times.
Essentially, the conversation led to “women” were being given the backseat while LGBTQ+ representation was more important. It appeared Gioia was making up the rules as he debated the issue and misrepresented history in chair and vice chair appointments.
RECAP (or watch the meeting)
Supervisor Andersen sharing her thoughts on the appointment process and providing context which Gioia was omitting.
Gioia opened the topic by explaining during his time on the board, while citing a 20-year chart, a practice of moving the vice chair into the chair position with the vice chair rotating among board members while the person who was most distant from the vice chair moves into the position. The other practice is they insert a newly elected person into the rotation—become the chair in the third or fourth year.
Supervisor Diane Burgis interjected stating because of the rotation, she would have been chair in her second year and the Board skipped her because it was the right thing to do—which Gioia cut her off while she was speaking.
“I did a calculation, I became chair in my 4th year in office, Supervisor Glover his 4th year in office, Mary Piepho her 3rd year in office, Susan Bonilla her 3rd year in office, Karen Mitchoff her 4th year in office, Candace Andersen her 4th year in office and Diane Burgis her 5th year in office,” stated Gioia.
Burgis interjected stated in the last decade, District 3 has only been chair just once.
“In the last 10-years since 2013, District 1 has been chair 3 times, District 2 at 2 times, District 3 at 1 time, District 4 at 3 times, and District 5 at 2 times,” stated Burgis.
At that point, Gioia attempted to move into public comments before the Board could have any other commentary nor make a motion of who to appoint. Andersen and Burgis did not agree. They believed the board should make the motion to allow the public to offer commentary on the appointments.
Burgis then made the motion to get back into the “rotation” which would make Supervisor Andersen the vice chair in 2024 and Supervisor Federal Glover the chair. Andersen offered a second.
“I think one of the hallmarks of the board is we have followed a rotation and one of respect and one as we act as chair and vice chair is we act with quorum and respect of one another,” stated Andersen who noted they allowed Mitchoff to defer and go ahead of Glover in her final year on the Board. “I think its important we not come up with a new system or someone might perceive as gamesmanship to alter that order.”
Gioia stated there were two practices that have gone on which would make Andersen the next vice chair, but they also had a practice of incorporating new board members—stating new board members come into the rotation which causes sitting board members to wait an extra year.
“Whatever we do, none of this is to be disrespectful to anybody, but balance to values. Bringing in a new person who was recently elected. And pointing the person who had it the most years ago,” said Gioia.
He again restated the issue was do they appoint Andersen who had it the longest ago or appoint a new supervisor in Carlson—if he was appointed, he would be chair in his 3rd year in office.
Burgis then questioned why Gioia did not advocate for her when she was newly elected if that was such an important to him.
Gioia said, “I don’t recall the discussion.”
Andersen said they did have the discussion and at the time, they believed as a board there is a “fire hose of information” and a learning curve which it makes most sense to have that person rotate to the end of the progression so by the time they reach the chair position they will have a much better understanding of the issues in Contra Costa County.
“Since I’ve been on this board the last 11-years and have never once suggested bringing in someone new, and I like Ken, you are wonderful and delighted you are on the board for us, but to sort of say to these women on the board we are going to push you back a little bit further on this board is a bit disingenuous in this current climate that we are in.”
Andersen continued.
“When I look at what the strides women make to have men on the board saying you know what, its really your turn, but we are not going to let you have your turn,” stated Andersen who then cited the policy that while in the 4-year term they have a turn at a leadership position. “I will be missing that if you skip over me and tell me that I do not get my turn as vice chair as my term as chair in the following term. In this 4-year term, I will not have that opportunity. I will be very concerned if we move in that direction.”
Burgis said she believed they would be continuing the rotation and that each District, whoever is representing them, that they have that benefit of having a chair. District 1 has a chair, District 4 had one last year and so it seemed no matter who is in that position, that District is being represented.
“The rotation is not only the person, but also the District,” stated Burgis. “I think honoring supervisor Glover who has been the vice chair for 3-years, we allowed that to keep going, allowing supervisor Mitchoff to serve in her last year on the board on the courtesy because we all work together, that is a good thing. But I do think for people to have certainty and understand this, we need to make sure we follow what we say we are going to do. So my expectation was that District 2 would be vice chair next year after Supervisor Glover and that would put them back into the rotation.”
Gioia objected.
“I don’t think any of the decisions is wrong or out of policy or practice,” stated Gioia who referred back to the history while calling it a “mischaracterization.
Burgis countered if that was the practice, it was never shared with her.
“I am a little offended that I was not advocated for,” stated Burgis noting she was skipped.
Gioia again referred to the chart.
Burgis then reiterated her motion to have Supervisor Glover become chair with Andersen being vice chair to get the Board back in its rotation–no vote was taken.
“I think the term to get back into rotation is an opinion and I respect it Diane, I think there is no wrong way either,” said Gioia.
Gioia then said the county had its first “gay supervisor and LGBTQ supervisor” while some that will say “its time for an LGBTQ member to be chair of our board.” He again stated to refer to the chart.
Burgis then pointed out in the last 20-years, Gioia had been chair 6-times, the most out of anybody—the most out of any of the Districts. She said District 1 has benefited.
“When someone is new, like I was, I felt like I was being a team player by not pushing for it and I didn’t know about this whole thing about this expectation of 3-4 years because no one brought it up,” stated Burgis. “I didn’t want to turn this into a fight, I thought we would just do a rotation.”
Andersen agreed stating they all had been working under the assumption that there was a rotation and they each take a turn.
“I joined a city council in 2003 where they had skipped over people as mayor saying people don’t like him or don’t think he is good enough. In the Town of Danville came to the conclusion that if someone was elected to office, absent of high crimes or misdemeanors, you were going to allow that person to serve as mayor of their community,” said Andersen which Danville has continued that unofficial tradition. ”On the Board of Supervisors, we each represent 200,000 people and are directly elected we each deserve a chance to serve and an opportunity in our right time to be chair. By skipping over someone, I think you do lose the opportunity for that district to have their voice heard.”
She stated District 4 was just represented and believed Carlson should rotate in at the appropriate time.
Gioia offered a substitute motion to move that Supervisor Glover become chair and Supervisor Carlson be vice chair—it was seconded by Carlson.
Burgis argued that within the rotation and within his four years, by 2026 Carlson would be chair which would fulfill Gioia’s points.
“I respectfully disagree its out of rotation and the bottom line is its up to three members of the Board,” said Gioia. “In this case, I do agree that an LGBTQ become chair of our board. We have never had one.”
Burgis again argued he will be in 2026 within the rotation.
“Appointing Ken gets him into the rotation just as it did Supervisor Piepho and Supervisor Bonilla,” stated Gioia. “Its not out of practice. I want to make that clear.”
Andersen shot back, “It’s out of District and that is the big difference and significant changes as Mark DeSaulnier was elected to the assembly. That is when Susan Bonilla came in.”
Gioia then shut down Andersen stating there was a motion on the table and suggested the go to public comments.
Carlson then offered comments.
“Little did I know I would be the topic when I came in this morning,” stated Carlson.
Gioia then interrupted Carlson stating he wanted to respect the rotation and was trying to have this discussion and respectfully disagreed with that its characterization that it breaks practice and again referred to look at the sheet and its every 3-4 years.
Burgis again countered, “then why didn’t I get that” noting Gioia often speaks on behalf of women and would have thought he would have spoken up on behalf of her if that was the case.
“Another woman got it instead of you Diane,” stated Gioia.
Andersen again explained to Gioia how it made sense at the time because Burgis was a new member of the Board at the time and had them go to the end of the rotation. She again said since being in office, they have had a rotation—never been equity.
“If I had any sense, we were going to do this free for all, I don’t think any of us would have supported Federal Glover being vice chair for 3-years or Karen jumping in, again, that was part of the comradery of this board and its now breaking the rotation,” stated Andersen. “You are essentially saying to Diane and myself you have to go behind the men on this board. I will say it because that is exactly what is happening.”
Gioia again attempted to defend his position before Andersen hot back that Burgis was newly elected and discussed the rotation while it was assumed Carlson would come in at the end of the rotation and work his way up to chair—since District 4 had just been chair.
“I personally did not see a pattern and if we are locked into a pattern then we take away the flexibility to do other things such as recognize Karen (Mitchoff) when she stepped off the board after serving many years,” said Carlson. “I don’t understand Candace your time, when is your time. Is it strictly based on your District number and the rotation or is it based on we want to give everybody the opportunity to be in the chair seat at some point.”
Andersen shared they modified the rotation before being cut off by Carlson.
“How do you do that for the new person or the LGBTQ person or you make it all about gender,” stated Carlson.
After public comments
Supervisor Federal Glover said he didn’t remember having these types of conversations in selecting the vice chair and chair and called it “sad” they were having this conversation.
“This group has acted as a team for all the years that I have sat here and I want to remain that way. There is too much work to be done to allow this ceremonial position to get in the way of it,” said Glover.
Gioia then interjected today by appointing the co-directors of the racial equity and social justice and it was history to appoint as vice chair for the first time the first LGBTQ+ member of the board. He said it didn’t change the opportunity for Andersen to serve as chair and vice chair because he believed she would be re-elected but rather changes the timing
“There has been a lot of hate going around in all areas,” stated Gioia. “I think it is important and it is historic, and we should celebrate it… I think we should celebrate the history of the first gay member being an officer of this board.”
Andersen responded, “I do feel Diane and I are being marginalized by this vote because it really does skip over and provides and opportunity for a District to be represented and Diane has not. I respectfully disagree.”
Rather than vote no, Burgis said she would abstain in an effort to have the goal of having a “team”.
“I have made a lot of good points, I have been a team player,” said Burgis stating Gioia could have changed the rotation knowing this new person was coming along. “I am very disappointed my colleagues didn’t advocate for me to have that opportunity because I think if we are going to create those types of expectations then everybody should be treated that way. I do feel slighted because you didn’t take on this as something important in the past.”
Gioia questioned if Burgis was being critical of him because he voted for Andersen over her noting Andersen didn’t advocate for her either.
Andersen again reiterated the discussion at that time was around new members becoming chair too quickly so they can learn more and serve on all the committees—you don’t jump into the leadership role until you have the experience.
“I do find it disingenuous to say we have never had a rotation or discussed this,” stated Andersen noting changes in the past were due to circumstances of new members of the board.
“I do take it personally and let’s just move along,” stated Burgis.
“I think it’s very unfortunate for you to criticize based on gender because I voted for two women in their third year” said Gioia.
“Now you are advocated for the board to go over two women,” stated Burgis.
“Yup. You have changed,” stated Andersen.
Based on Federal Glover stated Carlson had displayed leadership in his committees he served on such as Mental Health and Wellness (editors note: Carlson has done little with other than defer to staff or other supervisors), it ignited another debate over committee assignments and who got what and who didn’t get what they requested—nothing Gioia placed a new supervisor in committees versus other supervisors wo made the request for mental health.
Andersen suggested that perhaps part of Gioia’s reasoning for skipping her was due to important committee assignments with upcoming items to be voted on in the next few years, if that was behind it.
“I would have been chair in two years where we would be making some very important appointments,” stated Andersen. “It’s a bit contrived John, I don’t appreciate the process you have orchestrated.
“Again, let me say this, I think we are making history appointing an LGBTQ member of our board as an officer and I would hope you would recognize that as well,” stated Gioia and called the characterizations inaccurate and again referred to the chart.
Andersen said again Gioia was wrong as its not been the case in the past 12-years.
“Calling it something else John, you can try and justify it but really its disingenuous to say anything other than skipping over Diane and me, and that is what it is,” said Andersen.
Gioia stated both Andersen and Burgis will be chair, just one year later.
Andersen responded she would have been chair one year earlier if she had not agreed to Karen Mitchoff.
The Board then voted on Gioia’s substitution motion to make Glover chair and Carlson vice chair which passed in a 3-1-1 vote with Andersen voting no and Burgis abstaining.
Previous Stories:
- Jan 9, 2023 – Board of Supervisors Set to Welcome Ken Carlson, Name Chair and More
- Nov 10, 2022 – Ken Carlson Earns Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Seat
3 comments
Goia is a tool, but Burgis is completely worthless.
Not sure why anyone knows, cares or considers someone sexual practice in a professional environment. I gues the alphabet mob maybe?
I am glad this site picked up on this meeting. Was hard to watch and Gioia is a sick human being. Contra Costa County voters should really begin watching who they elected into office. I hope people show up to the next meeting and call out Gioia for his behavior.
What a country have we become, where the criteria to be hired into any job is purely based on either race or sexual confusion. The country is obviously in a steep decline since several years, and these cultural shifts are the main reason.
Comments are closed.