Government touches nearly every part of our lives—but too often, it feels confusing, slow, or outdated. In this episode of The Government Fix, Amanda Renteria talks with former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs about what it really takes to build a government that just works. Tubbs shares how leading a city through bankruptcy, violence, and outdated technology shaped his vision for simpler, more human-centered systems. He walks through the creation of Stockton’s guaranteed income pilot, what the data revealed, and why trust and dignity matter as much as efficiency. Together, they explore the role of young people, the promise of AI, and the importance of updating the “unsexy” systems that keep government running. This conversation is a roadmap for anyone who believes better government is possible.
ABOUT THE GUEST:
Michael Tubbs rose from poverty in South Stockton to become a national leader in economic mobility and public innovation. Elected at 26 as Stockton’s first African-American mayor—and the youngest mayor of a major US city—he launched transformative initiatives including Stockton Scholars and the nation’s first mayor-led guaranteed income pilot. He now serves as Special Advisor to California Governor Gavin Newsom and founded both Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and End Poverty in California. Michael is currently running for California lieutenant governor.
LEARN MORE:
- https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/
- https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_tubbs_the_political_power_of_being_a_good_neighbor
ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT FIX:
The Government Fix is a podcast by Code for America, the country’s leading civic tech nonprofit for over 15 years. Hosted by CEO Amanda Renteria, we explore what it looks like when government works well for everyone.
Explore all episodes and learn more: codeforamerica.org/thegovernmentfix
Watch this episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@codeforamerica/podcasts
Transcript:
[00:00:00] Michael Tubbs: I remember the big joke when I became mayor was that the only thing I was older than was our legacy system, but only by a year. We were using technology from 1990 in 2016 in Stockton. We had our payroll department, wasn't a department. It was a woman with like-- It wasn't even a spreadsheet, it's something I've never seen before in my life. It was like a black screen with freaking green.
[00:00:26] Amanda Renteria: [laughs] Yes.
[00:00:29] Michael: I was like, "Wait, this is how we're getting paid?"
[Theme music fades in]
[00:00:32] Amanda: Although we might not realize it, we interact with government every single day. Maybe it's while brushing our teeth, dropping our kids off at school, or taking out the trash. We're almost always interacting with government systems. You hear a lot about how these systems fail, whether it's potholes making your work commute a little bumpier or long wait times at the unemployment office. There's plenty to complain about.
[Music plays]
[00:01:09] Amanda: Welcome to The Government Fix. I'm your host, Amanda Renteria. I've worked on Capitol Hill, in the classroom, on Wall Street, and now I'm the CEO of Code for America, an organization focused on using tech to improve public services and make government work well for everyone.
I know that a government that works for us can feel far away. It can be confusing, intimidating, and downright discouraging to find a way to just get by. But here at Code for America, we like to operate from a place of hope and informed optimism. We are looking to bridge the gap between the government we have and the government we need. We talk to the folks who are shaking things up from the inside and outside governments with big ideas and boots on the ground.
For our first episode, we're focusing on the government fix for a government that just works. How do we simplify? How do we update old systems? How do we incorporate new research and rapid developments in the realm of AI? Are the young folks on TikTok holding a golden nugget of wisdom coming to save us all? Today's guest is no stranger to these questions. Michael Tubbs was elected mayor of his native Stockton, California, at just 26 years old, making him one of the youngest mayors of a major American city.
For those who don't know, Stockton wasn't just any American city. Tubbs inherited a city with historically high rates of crime, poverty, and a newly declared citywide bankruptcy. He came in with a vision to remedy this. In 2019, Michael Tubbs launched SEED. That's the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. The concept was simple. Give residents who are living at or below the city's median income level a one-time $500 cash infusion. This is what some call universal basic income. No questions, no confusing paperwork, no strings attached.
After a year, researchers found that full-time employment actually increased among participants. Their physical and emotional health improved. The success of the program suggested that when you give people a little bit of a safety net, they don't just stay afloat or stop working. They thrive. SEED sparked a global conversation about universal basic income, and since then, Tubbs has gone on to work at the state level in California, serving as a special advisor to Governor Gavin Newsom on economic mobility.
Michael understands that interacting with government can feel overwhelming. Whether it's filing your taxes, applying for benefits, or navigating a complicated form, the process often leaves people wondering, "Did I even do this right?" He also knows what's possible when government is designed with empathy, clarity, and efficiency at the center. When it feels less like a maze and more like a public service. Let's talk about what it takes to believe in a government that just works.
[Music transition]
[00:04:17] Amanda: I'm excited to have this conversation because when I think of innovative folks thinking about government in a different kind of way, you really started out innovative and really taking the lived experience, being there, understanding. What people really needed on the front lines. I want to take you back to that. If you could remember what sparked the, "I got to do something about this. I got to fix government."
[00:04:43] Michael: It was being in government, particularly in Stockton. I ran for city council in Stockton. I just graduated from Stanford, had spent a summer at Google. I was used to iteration and move fast and break things and put it back together and problem-solving. Given the immense need in the city of Stockton, from the high poverty rates to we had just declared bankruptcy, staff capacity issues, et cetera, I just expected there would be an opportunity to make government work. Because it had to work. Because we had to do more than the government of Beverly Hills, for example, or the government of Palo Alto. We just can't do the regular government stuff.
Being from Stockton, there was such immense need, and folks were looking for leadership, and government had to deliver services. Government had to work. The fact that it wasn't working, we had just declared bankruptcy, we had the highest per capita motorway in the country. We had the lowest staff police force in the country, had very little staff capacity to do even the basics, just created a perfect storm, or an imperfect storm, if you will, of opportunity and need to figure, "How do we make this thing work to deliver for the folks who are counting on us?"
[00:05:52] Amanda: Listen, you're young, you're coming out. What was it that sparked you to say, "I'm going to now do it. I see it, and I'm now going to run. I'm going to put my hat in the ring, and I'm going to do this, and I think I can win." That moment when you're like, "No, this is real now. I'm going to put myself on the line."
[00:06:14] Michael: It was literally Halloween 2010. I was interning in the White House. I had spent my last years of high school as the Youth Advisory Commission Chair, so I was familiar with local government. Now I was at Intergovernmental Affairs for the White House, and then my cousin in Stockton ended up being a victim of a homicide. It was really that juxtaposition between being at the seat of power, literally at the White House, and then feeling very powerless. It wasn't enough to protect my family.
That made me think about, "Well, maybe my purpose isn't just to be successful for me. Maybe it's not just about me getting all the accolades and making a lot of money. Maybe I should probably go back to Stockton and see if this was the best government could do."
Then, the next year, the city declared bankruptcy. I remember going home for Christmas, and the mayor at the time had said she had an anti-crime strategy that she was going to reveal at the end of the year. It was the end of the year, a reporter just asked her like, "Hey, any update on the anti-crime strategy?" There was so much stuff going on, she had no idea what the reporter was referring to. It was this big announcement that was made eight months ago, that this strategy was coming.
I took that very personal and I realized that maybe part of the issue is that if the job of government leaders are to set priorities, their priorities are set by their proximity and the fact that the murders and the homicides were proximate. Those weren't the people at the country club, those weren't the people at the state of the city, those weren't the people even showed up to council meetings.
I said, "Look, I could just complain about it, or I could run," but I really ran, Amanda, not even with this intent that I had to win, it was more of, "I have to run." For me, it felt like there was something in the journey of running that was going to be important.
[00:07:59] Amanda: I'm curious now, you're still young, but as you think about that next generation and how they are living in their world, AI-enabled, you do AI work. Just in general, looking back on yourself and saying, what was it that you trusted, what was it that you knew? Or is it that you just don't think about and you just follow it? I'm curious what kind of advice you give.
[00:08:27] Michael: My advice is, A, for me, it's having to say strong values and moral foundation that helps shape the decisions I make and shape the world I want to live in. Number two, I just remember being younger and reading all these biographies of people who I literally looked up to and admired. What did it for me was they were all a little bit crazy at the time.
[00:08:54] Amanda: [laughs]
[00:08:55] Michael: They were all a little bit crazy, and then number two, looking back, everything seemed inevitable, but in the moment, every choice, the opposites seemed like it would be more true. That's always stuck with me, the fact that history is made on the margins and the fact that, like Nelson Mandela said, "It always looks impossible until it's done."
I tell people all the time that, if you're actually going to change something and make a dent, it won't look likely. It will look hard. It will look like it's not going to happen. In fact, for me, that's the indicator, "I should do this thing." Even if it doesn't work out, because there's a lesson there, or there's iteration there, or it gets you closer to whatever that next thing is. That's why I tell folks to embrace the chaos, embrace the uncertainty, and embrace the journey, because you actually have no control over the destination.
[00:09:51] Amanda: What's weird is I think when people think about government, they think it's this thing that's bureaucratic, slow, big, and impossible. In fact, there are these pockets, these moments, these times where not just the moment opens up, where it's a little chaotic and you've got to figure out your way, but people themselves can come in and open it up. I think that's the part that, when I'm also talking to young people, I'm like, "No, get into government, figure it out." You can actually disrupt things from the inside. When you do that, you actually then have the resources of government to shape and move, and that's super powerful. As we think about this new generation, what are they bringing? Because I know you work with a lot of young folks. What are they bringing to the discussion today?
[00:10:41] Michael: I think they bring a fluency [chuckles] with the tools. The tools are things that are already integrated into their everyday life. When I think of myself dating myself-- I just created a TikTok a couple months ago. The people who are helping me understand how to use it, why it's different than Instagram, how things go viral, et cetera, are 23, 24, 25-year-olds. They just get it. They didn't go to school for TikTok. They didn't go to these trainings. They're TikTok fluent. They're AI fluent. They just have an understanding of technology and don't have a fear of it.
I also think that they just bring the beauty of our beginner's mindset. They haven't been so jaded with what hasn't worked. They haven't been so jaded with the time we did the ERP transition 20 years ago, and it was disastrous. They're like, "What are you talking about?" It's just like, "Let's just do it." If we don't get it right this time, let's get it right the next time. I just love that beginner's mindset and that levity.
[00:11:38] Amanda: One of the things that I have appreciated, and you've always been on the front lines of communicating your ideas and your thoughts, these folks who are young are doing it all the time in real time as the world is changing around them in different forms, like you mentioned, in TikTok, in short form, in long form, in just real-time talk.
[00:11:57] Michael: They're also so intuitive. Good or bad, they don't wait for talking points. They don't wait for the polls. They're really very comfortable pulling out their phone and saying, "Hey, this just happened. This is what I feel." I think that level of authenticity is what folks are craving. I think what we have to do is find a way to balance the authenticity with making sure things are factually accurate. As we know, emotions drive decision-making, not facts. The fact that these folks have figured out how to be emotional, how to be honest, how to be off-the-cuff, how to just say what they think is really powerful.
[00:12:35] Amanda: There's the part where you can explore and you can test. Now I'm interested in the seriousness of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration project that you did, where you gave 125 residents $500 a month. Big first question there is, how did you actually fund that? Because you could talk about it, we could do a TikTok about it, but at the end of the day, you got to get it funded, and it has to be funded in order for it to work. Let's start there.
[00:13:05] Michael: What was fascinating is that it was very serendipitous. Me and my team were talking about it would be cool to do something like that one day, but given the fiscal realities of Stockton, I didn't even have money to fund it. In the next week, I was in San Francisco at a Tech for Government conversation. [chuckles] My good friend, Natalie Foster, was there, and she asked me what I was up to. I said, "Well, I'm in Stockton. What are you up to?" She said, "Well, we're looking for cities to pilot a guaranteed income in. Are you familiar with the concept?"
I embellished it a little bit. I said, "I have a task force I'm looking at to a guaranteed income, and right now we're trying to find a funding source." She said, "Oh my gosh, well, we're looking to fund the city." We were lucky enough. We spent six months in deep conversation, meetings, et cetera. We were lucky enough to get $1 million from the Economic Security Project to fund the demonstration.
Then we got another $1 million from a philanthropist named Carol Tolan to extend the program from 18 months to 24 months during COVID. Then we got a bunch of money from foundations to pay for the evaluation and research, another $1.5 up to $2 million. What's fascinating to me is that we got so much pushback and backlash, but since then we have like 90 or 80 governments piloting some form of guaranteed income in this country, and 90% of them are government-funded, almost $300 million of public dollars.
To the point of your question, to get off the ground to start to test, we had to use philanthropy. I would tell people because we got some critiques about that. I said, "Look, if we prove this is a great idea, it should be publicly funded." I'm comfortable with testing ideas with philanthropy so we can see what works, and then we can use public dollars to scale it. Which is actually what's happening, so I'm really proud of that.
[00:14:55] Amanda: Yes, I think that's what is pretty amazing about this country as I've looked at Code for America's model, but just around the world, one of the incredible things about the United States is that you do have this social sector, and if done right, can be your risk capital for government. You can show what's possible. I know at Code for America, we talk a lot about showing what's possible through philanthropy in the way governments deliver services.
Sometimes it really works, and sometimes you test something out and you're this is a good product, but not for government. When you think about how to make institutions better, what a remarkable muscle we have in this country that you can use philanthropy. Philanthropy is excited to share that talent or those ideas that they have, and they recognize that government is scale, but how do you get it to move in ways and really shape in ways that can make it not just better, but really innovative. This is one of those big examples of doing that. What did you learn out of this project?
[00:16:01] Michael: Before that, let me go back to what you said, because I want to underline and double-click. What's interesting in our experience--
[00:16:06] Amanda: That's so new agey of you.
[00:16:08] Michael: [chuckles] What was interesting in our experience in Stockton was that philanthropy wanted to pay for the research and the data, but they didn't want to pay for the cash at the time. They were acting like government, like, "We won't pay for the cash transfers. We're the individuals." One of my critiques of philanthropy has been, "Look, you guys, you guys are the risk capital. You guys are the innovation capital. You are the folks that are able to let us try, and if you're acting like government, we're stuck. If you're scared to fund this stuff, we're really in trouble."
Now that they've come around, but literally, no foundation would fund the cash payments for the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. Everyone wanted to fund the research. In fact, at one point, we had more money for evaluation than for the payments to people. This is part of the issue. Anyway, what did we learn? We learned, number one, people can go to guaranteedincomeworks.com because now we just released results from 25 pilots. What we've learned in the Stockton pilot was that money wasn't enough to stop people from working, which was so much of the trope and so much of the narrative. You can't give people money, they're not going to work.
In fact, we found the opposite, that the folks who received the guaranteed income were able to work more because they transitioned from part-time to full-time work because they could afford to take time off to apply for full-time jobs. They could afford to get their car fixed to go to work. They could afford childcare. They could afford getting their uniform dry cleaned. They could actually afford the cost associated with going to work. The second thing we found was that the guaranteed income was helpful in terms of stress levels, cortisol levels and anxiety levels.
On the qualitative side, folks kept saying they felt they can breathe, so much so that LA County, which now has the largest guaranteed income program in the country, led by Supervisor Holly Mitchell, named their program LA County Breathe because they read the report in Stockton and was like, "Oh my gosh, people said they could breathe. That's such a big deal." That it had comparable results to clinical trials or Prozac in terms of impacts on depression and anxiety.
The third thing we found is that smoothed out income volatility. It's funny because one out of two Americans can afford one $500 emergency, so it's like a fringe group of people. It's like the majority of the country. For folks who aren't in that majority, they were shocked to realize that folks' incomes are so volatile month to month and that maybe one month food is the issue, but maybe the next month lights are the issue, and the next month housing's the issue, and then life happens, and then something else, a kid gets sick.
That there's no government official, there's no government program, and there's no government leader that's smart enough to think of all the ways every single person in their community are going to need money. Cash allows for flexibility, which is something I didn't appreciate, and that cash isn't necessarily-- Especially a small amount like $500, can't be a replacement for the existing safety net. It's about being mindful about the ways in which people use cash.
Then we also learned that-- My biggest learning besides the data was that so much of our government, so much of our policy isn't based off rigorous data, isn't based off rigorous analysis, isn't based off best practice, is based off narrative and fables, is based off vibes, is based off stories people misunderstood from Bible study when they were kids. [chuckles] It's really not rooted in anything real, and that gave me so much courage because starting off, it was very scary because literally everybody was like, Democrats and Republicans, "You can't do that. No, it's not going to work. No, it's not going to work."
Then after we cracked and pushed, it was like, "Oh, the status quo is not really built on anything sturdy." If you push and crack and question a little bit, it can move, and it's like, "Oh, yes." Now it's like a no-brainer. Now we're figuring out how much money to give to people, to who, and how come it doesn't help with kids' brain development? Now the pendulum has swung so much where it's not even a radical idea when just eight years ago it was a ridiculous notion to most people.
[00:20:12] Amanda: One of my questions that I've been really thinking about when it comes to universal basic income is how important is it, or was it at the time when you did this, that the money was an infusion at a moment versus safety net, which is supposed to be there to hold you up?
[00:20:31] Michael: To be honest, we couldn't even grapple with those second-order questions because the first question was, can we just give people money? Whether it's one time, whether it's every month, whether it's a week. The big question we were trying to answer is, can we just give people money? I was agnostic as to what it was going to be used for. Because I was curious myself.
I mean, we try everything, but let's try trusting people with money and see what happens. Then since then, the discussion has evolved into, is it a safety net? Is it a one-time stimulus? Is there an amount of time? Should it just be a monthly thing? I'm actually shocked that we're able to ask that question now because there was so much vitriol towards even giving money. I even think the fact that that question is posed is like a real victory. Like, "Wow, folks, we've established that giving money is not bad."
[00:21:26] Amanda: Heck yes. It is really, as we're thinking about it, for folks who are trying new ideas in government, I think what you're posing here is it's not clear sometimes what the long run is going to be. You see a problem, you fix it. Part of the creativity in government, and why I'm so excited to talk to government leaders who try new things, is because where they thought it was going to start doesn't necessarily end up what ends up happening with it. Universal basic income might actually be part of the new safety net after all these changes are happening with policy right now today and they've evolved.
It's a real discussion about how do you do this. Not only the benefit itself, but the delivery of the benefit. Should it be at a city level versus a state level versus a federal government? I mean, all those questions. We are living at a time when those are all up in the air. To have these examples of people doing government fixes in the moment really is going to be the foundation for what does this look like in the future. You couldn't have anticipated that at the time. One of the things you talk about is government being designed to say no rather than yes. What does government that says yes look like in your mind?
[00:22:46] Michael: I think a government that says yes is deeply committed not to being right, but to getting it right. I tell people all the time, I don't think people expect perfection, but they do expect progress. I get it. As a government, as a former mayor, former city council member, I understand you don't want to innovate on water delivery without rigorous testing because people drink fat.
There's some things that you need to be very clear about, but there's some things you can. What does policing look like in the 21st century? What does social workers and mental health professionals as part of our safety strategy, what does that look like? That's something that we should be rigorously trying because we know that policing in and of itself does not create the safety people deserve. What does simple things like constituent services look like? Why is it so difficult for a family to know all the programs the city offers for their five-year-old?
The work you guys have been doing, I'm such a big fan of that. I've been talking about it all the time. How do we just deliver the benefits we've already paid for? SNAP while we still have it. I'm obsessed with this idea of a common app. Why do I have to fill out five different forms to the same government? Just find a way to cross-list it and cross-check. The issue is not even tech, it's all legal and man-made and made up. We can actually solve those things. I think if we do that, you'll have people who will see government as a force of good. Government can actually help. Government's part of making things better versus just being in the way or sucking up all my time and not being efficient.
[00:24:24] Amanda: Yes. That's it. There's no reason why government can't do that. The vision is there. Then when you get on the backend, you realize, "Okay, we got to mix this department with that department." They're dealing with legacy systems. I suspect when you became mayor, one of the things you saw immediately was the backend systems and the tech system. It's not just that you're dealing with the politics and people are pushing you on a new idea. Then you get there and you're like, "Wait a second, this place, I understand why it can't move fast." What did you do with that?
[00:24:58] Michael: I remember the big joke when I became mayor was that the only thing I was older than was our legacy system, but only by a year. We were using technology from 1990 in 2016 in Stockton. Our payroll department wasn't a department. It was a woman with like-- It wasn't even a spreadsheet. It's something I've never seen before in my life. It was like a black screen with freaking green.
[00:25:26] Amanda: [laughs] Yes.
[00:25:28] Michael: I was like, "Wait, this is how we're getting paid? This is crazy. I need my paycheck." It was stuff like that. Our police chief, Eric Jones, he was very innovative. He figured out some workarounds. His stuff was state-of-the-art, but the rest of the city was moving so slow. Then this is where I learned the delta between any change and the necessary change isn't that big. If you're going to change it, just change it.
Then our city management time went through a transition to a 2010, 2012 legacy system. It took so much work and so much breaking and re-breaking and figuring out how to work. By the time it was done, that system was now outdated. [chuckles] I was like, "We should have just went for the ultimate because now we have to do the same thing again." It was just such a primer that those fundamentals matter, that the messiness matters, that the minutiae matters, that the work of the infrastructure, the bones, it matters.
Another example I remember is we were talking about guaranteeing income statewide and how do we do that. Part of the issue was like, "Okay, how do we disperse the money?" Luckily, we had to do some policy stuff or some backdoor stuff with the franchise tax board to get them able to deliver money. It was like, "Wow." Part of my vision for government is to do the sexy stuff, we have to do the unsexy stuff first. We have to make sure our systems, that we're ready for innovation. We're ready. We have the guardrails and the track and the road because I think what people get frustrated by is they want to plant the tree, but there's no dirt. It's just concrete.
Part of the work is, I think, and that's the work Code for America does so well, which is why you all have been so effective, is understanding like, "No, look, we understand technology exists, but it has to interact with-- Or the current system has to be ready for the change."
[00:27:29] Amanda: Yes. That's what we spend so much time really learning. In the tech sector that's moving so fast, there's this philosophy that you can have a product and it's perfect and it's amazing and it can be just like you order DoorDash or something on Amazon. You're like, "Right," but in government, you have to link to systems that are really old or you have to have the resources to be able to redo those systems.
If you're going to redo those systems, you also have to have the tech talent to figure out how to do it and how to do it in a way that is right for government. I don't know how many talks I've been on with tech folks. We're like, "Why is government so slow? We have such a great product. What's wrong with them?" I have really appreciated seeing the rise of young folks and tech people get into government to go, "Oh, I get it."
I see where to your question, which is I got to link into an old system, or where is the path for a brand new system? Because you might as well go there because you're going to have to do it again. To your point, when you make a little change, it's as big as making a big change [chuckles] because nothing-- It's just a bureaucracy.
[00:28:37] Michael: It's the same amount of effort. It's the same effort.
[00:28:41] Amanda: You have seen government now at the local level and you also saw it at state level. Your takeaways from that transition?
[00:28:50] Michael: Yes. California is so huge. It's a nation state. It's the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world for a reason, in that we spend so much time focused on the governor and lieutenant governor and the legislature, but not nearly enough time focused on the bureaucracy. The people and the systems and the folks who will be there regardless of who the governor is and who's not and how they need to be a part of the change and part of the push and part of, "Let's make this better."
I remember spending a lot of time with some folks at the tech level of our state government figuring out the common-- I was very serious about this common app thing. I was like, "What's the issue?" We did a little plug-in, I think, with you all on SNAP benefits to tell people what they qualified for. I was like, "Yes, that's great work and it's an improvement," but that took a lot. Why not just make it so we just auto-approve? Why can't we just auto-approve people? Just help me understand why. It wasn't anything, in my opinion, insurmountable. It was literally just legal. Never legal like the law, like legal-- It was just about people could opt in for their privacy. I'm sure folks would be less upset if you use the data that I gave to you to match it with this other data set for the same person I gave--
I realize that so much leadership is needed to get folks to just think differently, or to think about, "Okay, how do we, within the frameworks of data privacy and security and et cetera, how do we make it work?" Because again, it makes no sense to anyone that if I'm sending you information, why can't you share that information with the same organization in the-- Because I don't know I'm sending it to HSS. I know I'm sending it to the state. I don't know why I have to go through all these loops. I'm still fascinated by that. That's a problem I will continue to work on.
[00:30:47] Amanda: It is interesting, just the framing of it. Right back in the day, you go to all the different buildings and in this remote young environment, they're like, "What do you mean? Why can't I just--? I see one government, why can't--?" We can, right? It's just going to take some time.
[00:31:02] Michael: It's going to take some time and real focus. No, we have to figure it out.
[00:31:06] Amanda: That's right. Intentional focus with leaders like you, people who are thinking about innovative ideas and bringing it together. As I say to folks, I know government looks scary right now, but I also believe it's being rewritten right now for what the future is going to look like. While I've always said, "It's a good time to be in government, come take a look, come be in it, come be part of writing that," we literally are seeing history in the making, not only in our political sphere, but undoubtedly that leads to what happens on implementation.
To be in states right now, even though it's scary and there's a lot moving at this moment, it's the people who are in there trying these innovative ideas saying, "Okay, we got to do it now differently." That kind of mindset, I appreciate. I appreciate getting the chance to talk to you. My last question is, if you had a magic wand to change one thing about how government works, not policy, but how it actually functions and serves people, what would you fix first?
[00:32:08] Michael: Well, that's actually the problem I'm working on. I realize that so much of city staff time is spent writing and looking up documents and going back two years. I forgot what the general plan says and how it relates to the Parks and Rec plan to apply for this grant and to write the staff report. I'm working on AI tools that will let city government workers do jobs that's not like going through bad data and records to try to create something, but allow the AI to be the institutional memory and with a really fine-tuned, trained LLM that can help draft and write and save staff incredible amounts of time so they can actually be out in community doing community work.
I just think that's like a little thing, but can have a huge impact. With all these government employees that are retiring anyway, so much institutional memory is leaving, and no one in the city knows how all the documents talk to each other, but there's technology that can. I'm so obsessed with the idea. It's called Civic AI. We're piloting with a couple cities now, but that's the problem I want to help solve in the next couple of years.
[00:33:11] Amanda: Well, I hear you because we're doing that kind of thing at the state level. I think people would be surprised to hear that they're like-- We worked in one state where there were boxes, and literally they had 10 full-time staff, half of them printing and putting the paper in boxes, half of them taking those papers out and scanning them so that there's a digital copy. I mean, we can do so much better than that.
[00:33:35] Michael: Also, no one's reading them. No one's reading them. No one knows what these documents say.
[00:33:40] Amanda: You don't have time to get to them. It's wonderful to be in partnership with you. Always, no doubt, us Central Valley kids are trying to figure this thing out, and I'm always lucky to have you as a partner in this space. Thanks so much for joining us, and look forward to the next time we cross paths.
[00:33:55] Michael: Yes, thanks so much for having me.
[Music transition]
[00:34:06] Amanda: After talking to Michael Tubbs, what really struck me is how important it is to meet people where they are. It's important to listen to the communities we serve and see what they actually need. Maybe that one-time cash payment is just the thing to get someone back on their feet. I also liked how Tubbs talked about the next generation. His quote, "They don't wait for the talking points, they don't wait for the polls," really landed with me. It's exciting to hear how young people have a lot of fresh ideas about how to solve our biggest problems in this country.
I also liked hearing Tubbs talk about unsexy systems. A government that just works means we've got to get the basics right. How does this work, and how do we fund it, and how is it going to really reach people? That's all for today on The Government Fix. Thanks for listening.
[Music plays]
[00:35:00] Amanda: This podcast is brought to you by Code for America, the country's leading civic tech nonprofit for over 15 years. We believe that government can work for the people, by the people, in the new digital age. We work with government at all levels across the country to make the delivery of public service better with technology. We partner with community organizations and governments to build digital tools, change policy, and improve programs. Our goal: a resilient government that works well for everyone. Learn more at codeforamerica.org.
[Theme music fades out]
