Written Communications (Updated 2-22-2023) — Cupertino City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 2 of 5)

Agreement or their application to specific situations shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties agree to work in good faith to amend this Agreement to carry out its intent.

25. SURVIVAL
All provisions which by their nature must continue after the Agreement expires or is terminated, including the Indemnification, Ownership of Materials/ Work Product, Records, Governing Law, and Attorney Fees, shall survive the Agreement and remain in full force and effect.

26. NOTICES
All notices, requests and approvals must be sent in writing to the persons below, which will be considered effective on the date of personal delivery or the date confirmed by a reputable overnight delivery service, on the fifth calendar day after deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, or the next business day following electronic submission:

To City of Cupertino
Office of the City Manager
10300 Torre Ave.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Attention: Kristina Alfaro
Email: KristinaA@cupertino. org
To Contractor:

Boucher Law
2081 Center Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Attention: Christopher Boucher
Email: christopher@boucher. law

27. EXECUTION
The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor has full right, power, and authority to enter into and carry out all actions contemplated by this Agreement and that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement, which constitutes a legally binding obligation of Contractor. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each one of which is deemed an original and all of which, taken together, constitute a single binding instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF CUPERTINO CONTRACTOR
A Municipal Corporation
By By
Name Name
Title Title
Date Date
Christopher Boucher
Christopher Boucher
Apr 24, 2022
Kristina Alfaro
Director of Administrative Services
Apr 25, 2022
Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Boucher Law

Page 9 of 9 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CHRISTOPHER D. JENSEN
Cupertino City Attorney
ATTEST:

KIRSTEN SQUARCIA
City Clerk
Date
Christopher D. Jensen
Apr 25, 2022

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Scope of Work: The Consultant agrees to perform certain services necessary for the completion of the search. The scope of work presented represents a partial Finance Manager and Public Information Officer recruitment that includes the following services:
a) Recruitment Planning
b) Active Recruitment
c) Candidate Screening and Reporting
Phase I
Meeting with the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and other key stakeholders to develop a clear understanding of the Agency’s current and future needs. Boucher Law, PC will utilize this meeting to collect information regarding the characteristics of an ideal candidate, priorities and anticipated challenges for the position, aspects of the Agency’ s culture, and potential outreach/ recruitment sources.

Developing a customized recruitment flyer to solicit candidates for the vacant position.

Developing and placing advertisements in relevant magazines, journals, professional organizations, and websites to attract candidates on a local, regional, statewide targeted basis.

Identifying and conducting targeted outreach to qualified candidates as may be appropriate.

Receiving and reviewing applicant resumes to screen applicants for minimum qualifications and desirable qualifications.

Phase II
Conducting phone interviews with qualified candidates to further assess their experience, knowledge, and skills in line with the ideal candidate profile.

Preparing a customized Client Report with information regarding the recruitment process and results, recommendations regarding

EXHIBIT B
Exhibit B
Schedule of Performance
Services to be performed: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

EXHIBIT C
Exhibit C
Compensation
Compensation: The professional fee for a Finance Manager and Public Information Officer recruitments is not to exceed $40,000. The net flat fee amount per recruitment is $13,950, not including reimbursable expenses as noted under reimbursable expenses.

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
In addition to the above, all reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost and there is no mark-up. Reimbursable expenses include all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by our firm to render said professional services, including, but not limited to, recruitment ads, professional graphic design, messenger and other delivery fees, postage, photocopying, lodging, meals, parking, mileage, and toll. Mileage will be reimbursed at an amount allowable by the IRS. In-house printing will be charged at $0.15 per page for black and white copies and $0.50 per page for color copies. Travel expenses for candidates are not included but may be authorized by the Agency to be incurred as part of our firm’s billing.

Expense reimbursements will be billed to the Agency on a monthly basis. The estimated expenses for job postings and other ancillary recruitment costs are estimated to be $ 3,500.

Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts 1 Form Updated Jan. 2022
Consultant shall procure prior to commencement of Services and maintain for the duration of the contract, at its own cost and expense, the following insurance policies and coverage with companies doing business in California and acceptable to City.

INSURANCE POLICIES AND MINIMUMS REQUIRED

1. Commercial General Liability ( CGL) for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury liability for premises operations, products and completed operations, contractual liability, and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $ 2,000,000 per occurrence ( ISO Form CG 00 01). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location ( ISO Form CG 25 03 or 25 04) or it shall be twice the required occurrence limit. a. It shall be a requirement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (i) the minimum coverage/ limits specified in this agreement; or (ii) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater. b. Additional Insured coverage under Consultant' s policy shall be " primary and non -contributory," will not seek contribution from City’ s insurance/ self-insurance, and shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (04/13).
c. The limits of insurance required may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance, provided each policy complies with the requirements set forth in this Contract. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary basis for the benefit of City before the City’ s own insurance or self - insurance shall be called upon to protect City as a named insured.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO CA 00 01 covering any auto (including owned, hired, and non- owned autos) with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employer’ s Liability Insurance of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or disease.

Not required. Consultant has provided written verification of noemployees.

4. Professional Liability for professional acts, errors and omissions, as appropriate to Consultant’ s profession, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. If written on a claims made form:
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date of the Contract. b. Insurance must be maintained for at least five (5) years after completion of theServices. c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims- made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Contract Effective Date, the Consultant must purchase extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of theServices.

EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts 2 Form Updated Jan. 2022

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The aforementioned insurance shall be endorsed and have all the following conditions and provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insureds”) are to be covered as additional insureds on Consultant’ s CGL and automobile liability policies. General Liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’ s insurance ( at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (11/ 85) or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms, iflater editions are used).

Primary Coverage
Coverage afforded to City/Additional Insureds shall be primary insurance. Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultant’ s insurance and shall not contribute to it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy shall state that coverage shall not be canceled or allowed to expire, except with written notice to City 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non- payment of premiums.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant waives any right to subrogation against City/Additional Insureds for recovery of damages to the extent said losses are covered by the insurance policies required herein. Specifically, the Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City for all work performed by Consultant, its employees, agents and subconsultants. This provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At City’ s option, either:
the insurer must reduce or eliminate the deductible or self -insured retentions as respects the City/Additional Insureds; or Consultant must show proof of ability to pay losses and costs related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. The policy shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self -insured retention may be satisfied by either the insured or the City.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurers must be licensed to do business in California with an A.M. Best Rating of A -VII, or better.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant must furnish acceptable insurance certificates and mandatory endorsements ( or copies of the policies effecting the coverage required by this Contract), and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements prior to commencement of the Contract. City retains the right to demand verification of compliance at any time during the Contract term.

Subconsultants
Consultant shall require and verify that all subconsultants maintain insurance that meet the requirements of this Contract, including naming the City as an additional insured on subconsultant’ s insurance policies.

Higher Insurance Limits
IfConsultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City shall be entitled to coverage for the higher insurance limits maintained by Consultant.

Adequacy of Coverage
City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements/ coverage based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer or other special circumstances, with not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
1988- 2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 ( 2014/ 01)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

CANCELLATION

DATE ( MM/ DD/YYYY)

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
POLICY LOCJECTPROGEN' L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

OCCURCLAIMS- MADE

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
PREMISES ( Ea occurrence)$

DAMAGE TO RENTED
EACH OCCURRENCE $
MED EXP ( Any one person) $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRODUCTS - COMP/ OP AGG $

RETENTIONDED

CLAIMS- MADE
OCCUR
AGGREGATE $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES ( ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER

POLICY EFF(

MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP(

MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
PERSTATUTE OTHER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT

ANY PROPRIETOR/ PARTNER/ EXECUTIVE
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
Mandatory in NH)
OFFICER/ MEMBER EXCLUDED?

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED SCHEDULED

HIRED AUTOS

NON- OWNED

AUTOS AUTOS
AUTOS

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
BODILY INJURY ( Per person)
BODILY INJURY ( Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSD
ADDL
WVD
SUBR
N / A
Ea accident)
Per accident)
OTHER:

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER( S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement( s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

INSURED
PHONE(
A/C, No, Ext):

PRODUCER
ADDRESS:

E-MAIL
FAX(
A/C, No):

CONTACTNAME:

NAIC #
INSURER A :

INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

INSURER( S) AFFORDING COVERAGE

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
02/04/2022

BARNEY FONG
Shield One Insurance Services ( 510)962-2780 ( 510)372-0425 433 Estudillo Ave #103
[email protected], CA 94577
Phone: (510) 962-2780 Fax: (510) 372-0425
CHUBB (ACE PROP&CAS INS COMPANY) 20699

BOUCHER LAW PC
PROGRESSIVE (UNITED FINANCIAL CAS CO) 11770
EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE CO 31283(NCCI)
2081 CENTER STREET UNITED STATES LIABILITY INS COMPANY 25895 BERKELEY CA 94704
2022AX 000D95187444 01/ 01/ 2,000,
X
X X
1,000,000
5,000
4,000,000
X 4,000,000
01/ 01/ 2023
1,000,000
B X 04291124- 0 01/01/2022 07/01/2022
X
X X
EIG 4662047 01
X
C N 000X01/1,000,01/2022 01/01/2023
1,000,000
1,000, 000
D COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA CUP1567664 Occurrence01/ 11/2022 $01/11/2022 Each 1,000,000 General Aggregate $ 1,000,000
ATTORNEY AT LAW / VARIOUS LOCATIONS / 2019 HYUNDAI KONA ELECTRIC (LAST 4 OF VIN 9915) ADDITIONAL INSURED : The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers.

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRES AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7492E36B- 9646-4100-8519-E636890A69B9 2/ 4/ 2022

WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 Ed. 4-84)
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated.

The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) This endorsement, effective
Policy No.

Issued to Endorsement No.

Premium
By:

Carrier Code
Ed. 4-84)
Authorized Representative
Countersigned at on
at 12: 01 AM standard time, forms a part of
Of the
WC 04 03 06
1998 by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California. All rights reserved.

Schedule
Person or Organization Job Description

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT- CALIFORNIA We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. ( This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.)
You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule.

The additional premium for this endorsement shall be _____% of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration.

With respect to all employees subject to the
workers' compensation laws of the state of
California, any person or organization for whom
the Named Insured has agreed by written
contract to furnish this waiver.
2 This policy is subject to a minimum charge of $250 for the issuance of waivers of subrogation 01/01/2022
EIG 4662047 01

CHRISTOPHER BOUCHER
00920
EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INS. CO.

Consulting Services Agreement for Executive
Recruitment, Boucher Law
Final Audit Report 2022- 04-25
Created: 2022- 04-06
By: City of Cupertino ( webmaster@cupertino. org)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAhVOB- y6K2uBAOHVzFyvUgmi8DjQOMJGG Consulting Services Agreement for Executive Recruitment, Bou cher Law" History
Document created by City of Cupertino ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 06 - 4:09:52 PM GMT- IP address: 35.229. 54.2 Document emailed to Mariela Vargas ([email protected]) for approval 2022- 04- 06 - 4:11:57 PM GMT
Email viewed by Mariela Vargas ( marielar@cupertino. org) 2022- 04- 06 - 4:13:23 PM GMT- IP address: 104. 47.74.126 Document approved by Mariela Vargas ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2022- 04-06 - 4:13:53 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Document emailed to Araceli Alejandre ([email protected]) for approval 2022- 04- 06 - 4:13:58 PM GMT
Document approved by Araceli Alejandre ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2022- 04-06 - 5:39:47 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Document emailed to Christopher Boucher ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 06 - 5:39:53 PM GMT
Email viewed by Christopher Boucher ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 12 - 9:24:57 PM GMT- IP address: 174. 194. 145. 12 Email viewed by Christopher Boucher ( christopher@boucher. law) 2022- 04- 24 - 6:23:11 PM GMT- IP address: 74.125. 209. 32 New document URL requested by Christopher Boucher ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 24 - 6:23:19 PM GMT- IP address: 73.170. 44.63 Document e-signed by Christopher Boucher ( christopher@boucher. law) Signature Date: 2022- 04-24 - 6:32:50 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.170. 44.63 Document emailed to Christopher D. Jensen ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 24 - 6:32:55 PM GMT
Email viewed by Christopher D. Jensen ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 24 - 6:34:26 PM GMT- IP address: 172. 226. 6.102 Document e-signed by Christopher D. Jensen ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-24 - 8:18:56 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 216. 3.131. 238 Document emailed to Kristina Alfaro ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 24 - 8:19:01 PM GMT
Email viewed by Kristina Alfaro ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 24 - 11:13:31 PM GMT- IP address: 172. 226. 36.94 Document e-signed by Kristina Alfaro ( kristinaa@cupertino. org) Signature Date: 2022- 04-25 - 4:37:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Document emailed to Kirsten Squarcia ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 25 - 4:37:15 PM GMT
Email viewed by Kirsten Squarcia ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 25 - 5:35:39 PM GMT- IP address: 104. 28.85.204 Document e-signed by Kirsten Squarcia ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-25 - 5:35:52 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 104. 28.124. 181 Agreement completed.
2022- 04- 25 - 5:35:52 PM GMT
From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:53:01 AM
Attachments: CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Costs Estimates.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer"s Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
(Please disregard the previous email, I accidentally hit that “arrow” to send.) I appreciate the responses and the effort taken to provide responses in a timely manner and the effort made to make all responses available to all Councilmembers and the public.

I understand the need to shorten the questions.

But some of my questions were taken out of context and the nature of the questions were changed as a result. I'd like to request that all of my emails with my original questions to be entered as written communication for this meeting to provide the original context of the questions.

Please let me know if the staff doesn't have time to find those emails and need me to find them.

Please enter this email into the written communication too.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 6:45 PM
To: Department Heads <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers (Bcc’d on this email), Attached are the following supplemental items for the February 21 City Council meeting. They can also be accessed with the agenda and packet here. These items will also be posted for the public.

Regards, Kirsten
Staff Responses to Councilmember questions:

CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Cost Estimates
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions
CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions
CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer's Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions
Desk Item:

CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Item #5 Accounts Payable for the period ending November 13, 2022
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: What causes an accounts payable to be missed like this? (Chao) Staff response: This item was missed primarily due to this file not showing in the two network folders where the AP registers are stored.

Q2: What is being done to prevent this in the future? Who is doing it? (Chao) Staff response: This appears to be a onetime glitch as the file reappeared subsequent to submission with the same date as all the other files. Staff who prepare these reports will be more diligent in searching beyond these folders and rerunning reports from the financial system as necessary to ensure all reports are included.

Q3: The previous Council got these Accounts Payables to finally be submitted by month regularly. Will this continue? (Chao)
Staff response: Yes, this is requirement.

Q4: Has there been a check from 2018-present? How many are still missing? (Chao) Staff response: Staff has looked back only as far as the current fiscal year. None missing from this search.

Q5: How frequently are the Accounts Payables reconciled? (Chao) Staff response: On a weekly basis.

From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Please pull Consent Item 5 and 6
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:14:44 PM
Dear City Clerk,
Pursuant to City Council Resolution 23-021 I request that Items 5 and 6 be pulled from Consent.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
CC 02-21-23
Item #6
Commemorative
Bench Dedication
Policy
Written
Communications
1 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: What if the City needs to remove or relocate a bench with a memorial plaque due to any park improvement? Would the City have the right to move the bench and the plaque without the permission of the donor? (Chao)
Staff response: Yes, the City would be able to move the bench. The plaque donor is not receiving a fee interest in the park or the land. With that stated, the City would do its best to coordinate with the donor to situate the bench in a location that is acceptable to both parties.

Q2: The proposed policy states: "The maximum term for any single memorial bench is 20 years, after which time the bench will be removed, and the location shall be available for re-use." => The "bench" will be removed after 20 years, even if it is still in good condition? Or do you mean the "plaque" will be removed? (Chao)
Staff response: The bench and plaque will be removed after 20 years.

Q3: The proposed policy states: "The City will only accept bench donations that commemorate, memorialize, or recognize an individual or family by name ... No organizations or groups will be considered."
=> Why do we not consider a plaque to commemorate the contribution of an organization, for example? Is there any legal consideration? (Chao)
Staff response: The plaques are used to allow family members to commemorate or memorialize individual relatives. Any donations for organizations or groups will be considered under the City Donation Policy.

Q4: The proposed policy states: "The City will only accept bench donations that commemorate, memorialize, or recognize an individual or family by name who has a direct connection to the City of Cupertino."
=> What kind of "direct connection"? Would a person who moved into Cupertino for one month have a "direct connection"? Any other city has a more descriptive requirement on the qualification to get a memorial plaque? (Chao)
Staff response: The statement of “direct connection” was inserted to discourage an individual from commemorating individuals who are not associated with Cupertino. As an extreme example, we do not want to entertain requests for someone commemorating Vladimir Putin, or 2 other individuals who are part of a larger stage. This policy is focused on Cupertino and its residents.

Perhaps, the application form should include a space on the reason for a memorial plaque and the reason for choosing a location? (like the forms I saw in some of the cities I reviewed.) I see that the two earlier bench donations in 2015 and 2016 came with a story about the person to be memoralized and why the particular location chosen is meaningful to the person. This makes more sense to allow a public space to be utilized to remember someone.

The 2002 request for a bench plaque to be placed on an existing bench, on the other hand, had no description at all about the person being memoralized at all.

Staff response: Applications will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Q5: Whether the City has any other objective standards on where benches could be placed in a park? (Chao)
Staff response: Staff will work on placing benches where they will provide a positive experience for park patrons and where they will not impact with ongoing park operations.

Q6: Could the staff propose a reasonable policy to select permissible bench locations to allow public review process, since these benches will occupy public spaces? (Chao) Staff response: I think in most cases, the placement of benches will not be of concern. Should a new bench location have concerns to the public, or be contentious for any reason, staff would consider bringing the application to Parks and Rec commission for input.

Q7: What precedent does the City have for giving away city property to an individual? Is it good policy to give away city property when staff made an error? Who authorized staff to redo the donation policy when staff is allegedly very busy such that they cannot do the Work Plan and CIP items? Is this good strategic focus? (Moore)
Staff response: Prior to this proposed formal bench policy being prepared, requests for memorial plaques were reviewed on an individual basis and were brought to City Council for consideration. We did this with Ms. Francesco’s request in May 2022. At that time, City Council directed staff to prepare a formal bench policy. The bench policy being provided for Council consideration is in response to that direction.

In the case of Ms. Francesco, at that time she had requested to have a plaque installed on an existing City Bench, and staff brought this request to Council for approval in May of 2022.

Council made no determination on the request, but directed staff to prepare a bench policy and 3 to return with Ms. Francesco’s request for reconsideration. The item we are bringing to Council this Tuesday, continues Ms. Francesco’s previous request to have the plaque installed on an existing bench. Council has the option of rejecting this request and requiring Ms. Francesco to follow the updated policy, or they may grant the waiver an allow the installation of a plaque on an existing bench.

Q8: What is the relevance of Exhibit A? (Mohan)
Staff response: This allows for a formal resolution and acceptance of the City Council of the Bench Policy, as opposed to a less formal guideline document. Should any major changes be proposed for the policy, this would result in staff returning to City Council for approval of those modifications.

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 5:28:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council members,
I am requesting that you PULL Consent items:

ITEM 5 Accts Payable Nov. 13, 2022
ITEM 6 Commemorative Bench and fee waiver
I, as a member of the public, I requested that these items be pulled during the Feb. 7, 2023 CC meeting. These items were pulled prior to the rules changing and I am still interested in discussing these 2 items. I hope one of you can please request they be pulled. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 6:24:10 PM
I'd like to pull Item 5 and Item 6, as stated.

Thanks.

Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 5:28 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Mtg Consent Calendar - Please PULL ITEMS 5 and 6 Dear City Council members,
I am requesting that you PULL Consent items:

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:53:01 AM
Attachments: CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Costs Estimates.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer"s Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
(Please disregard the previous email, I accidentally hit that “arrow” to send.) I appreciate the responses and the effort taken to provide responses in a timely manner and the effort made to make all responses available to all Councilmembers and the public.

I understand the need to shorten the questions.

Please let me know if the staff doesn't have time to find those emails and need me to find them.

Please enter this email into the written communication too.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 6:45 PM
To: Department Heads <[email protected]>
1 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

The 2002 request for a bench plaque to be placed on an existing bench, on the other hand, had no description at all about the person being memoralized at all.

Staff response: Applications will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

In the case of Ms. Francesco, at that time she had requested to have a plaque installed on an existing City Bench, and staff brought this request to Council for approval in May of 2022.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-21 CC Agenda Item6 - Commemorative Bench and fee waiver Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:55:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this email as part of the Written Communication for this agenda item. I am resending because I’m not sure my comments from Feb. 7, 2023 will be included.

Dear City Council,
I don’t understand why this item is back when the city is so overworked. That said, I’m glad you are developing a policy to clearly specify the requirements and appreciate the work that went into comparing and researching various surrounding cities.

Public benches are paid for with public tax dollars. When a plaque is on a bench it is assumed that person paid for the bench. You are setting up a procedure which is a good start BUT then you are immediately making an exception! This is not right and not good business. Procedures work best if the rules are clear and consistently followed. Exceptions mean people can pull strings, know people, etc.

Please deny the fee waiver.

Regarding the Bench Dedication Policy:

1. LOCATION OF BENCH: The decision should involve/include the Parks and Rec department or the Parks to make sure it doesn’t get in the way of activities/uses of the area. a. If it’s Memorial Park, what happens to the bench when the park is re-designed?

2. VERIFICATION: The policy states that the dedication must be for someone who has a direct connection to the City of Cupertino but no where is there any verification of that. Who’s going to verify that?

3. APPLICATION FORM:
a. The form should state “The City will only accept bench donations that commemorate, memorialize, or recognize an individual or family by name who has a direct connection the City of Cupertino. No organizations or groups will be considered. b. The form should have a place to state how the person is connected to Cupertino.

Regarding the fee waiver: DENY IT. Please require them to pay the full fee.

When people see a bench with a plaque on it, it’s assumed that the donor paid for that bench. Do not allow a plaque to be placed on a bench that the donor did not pay for. Our existing benches were paid for with taxpayer dollars, not a donor. It is misleading. Allow the donor to pay the full fee for a new bench to honor their loved one.

I’m appalled that right off the bat you want to make an exception and waive the fee? What kind of policy is this if you can’t even follow it the very first time? Please stick to the rules. That’s why you have them. It also shows no favoritism. Consistent, equal enforcement of this policy will make it stronger! Waivers means the rules can be bent.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 02-21-23
Item #10
Civil Grand Jury
Report
Written
Communications
2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Item #10 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled, “A House Divided"
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Question: Will staff correct errors in the Grand Jury Report? Staff Response: The proposed, legally required response to the Grand Jury Report focuses on the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations, and not any specific incidents cited by the Grand Jury. Staff recommends that any broader investigation of the facts underlying the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations focus on the broader subject matter of the Report, and not on specific incidents.

From: Liang Chao
To: Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: February 21 City Council meeting - Staff Responses to Councilmember questions Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:53:01 AM
Attachments: CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment Funding Costs Estimates.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Responses to Councilmember Questions Attachment CIP Projects List.pdf
CC 02-21-23 Item #5 AP ending November 13, 2022_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #6 Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #10 Civil Grand Jury Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #11 Amendments to City Committees_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #12 December Monthly Treasurer"s Report_Responses to Councilmember Questions.pdf CC 02-21-23 Item #1 City Hall Renovation Amended Attachment B - City Council Timeline City Hall Project_Desk Item.pdf
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
(Please disregard the previous email, I accidentally hit that “arrow” to send.) I appreciate the responses and the effort taken to provide responses in a timely manner and the effort made to make all responses available to all Councilmembers and the public.

I understand the need to shorten the questions.

Please let me know if the staff doesn't have time to find those emails and need me to find them.

Please enter this email into the written communication too.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 6:45 PM
To: Department Heads <[email protected]>
2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Item #10 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled, “A House Divided"
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

From: Gauri Chawla
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Response to Civil Grand Jury Report
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:10:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
I support the response to the Civil Grand Jury report, but also call upon the Council to strengthen its language such that we take true accountability for the way we have treated staff and run the city. This means implementing much-needed changes to the Commissioners’ Handbook and also instituting a new Ethics Policy; one of the first actions of the Better Cupertino council was to delete the city’s code of ethics policy–later replacing it with weaker language to serve their own political interests.

Stronger language would be beneficial for rectifying past incidents such as when Mayor Darcy Paul excoriated Public Information Officer Brian Babcock on the dais, or when the Planning Commission similarly ridiculed former City Planner Eric Serrano.

Thank you,
Gauri Chawla
student email provided for educational purposes by Fremont Union HSD From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 23-2-21 CC, Agenda Item Grand Jury Report
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:58:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
I support the response to the Civil Grand Jury report. I, also, call upon the Council to strengthen its language such that we take true accountability for the way we have treated staff and run the city. This means implementing much-needed changes to the Commissioners’ Handbook and also instituting a new Ethics Policy.

Or when Mayor Darcy Paul verbally abused the Staff Representative of the Economic Development Committee in front of all the business representatives in attendance, and the residents (like me) who viewed the meeting. Our Staff Member was poised in the face of this verbal onslaught, but the fact that Staff can handle this abuse with outward calm, does not mean that abuse should continue. This kind of abuse demoralizes staff, and has resulted in the turnover of excellent staff to other cities. Noone should work in such conditions.

It is with hope for the Staff that remains with Cupertino, that I support this response.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commissioner (self only)
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Item 10 Written Communications
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:12:43 PM
Attachments: 20220221 City Council House Divided.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please provide the attached file as Written Communications for Item 10 today.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Christopher Jensen; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-07 CC Item17 - Response to Grand Jury Report - A House Divided Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:15:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this email as part of the Written Communication for Agenda Item #17 Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “A House Divided”.

Dear City Attorney Jensen, City Manager Wu and City Council, Thank you for your Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report “A House Divided”. I particularly would like to point out and thank you for pointing out that specific instances may (your words) /are (my words) inaccurate. (See paragraphs below.)
People being accused should be given an opportunity to see the proof and be given an opportunity to counter the attack with proof of their own yet everything is anonymous.

Bottomline, you, as a City, must respond to their Findings/Recommendations regardless of the words in their report. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
STAFF REPORT Page 3, last paragraph
ATTACHMENT B – Draft Response to Grand Jury – House Divided

From: Peggy Griffin
To: Christopher Jensen; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-02-07 CC Item17 - Response to Grand Jury Report - A House Divided QUESTIONS Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:40:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this email as part of the Written Communication for Agenda Item #17.

Dear City Attorney Jensen, City Manager Wu and City Council, I have a few questions regarding your proposed Draft Response:

PAGE 3, Finding 3 – improving City’s financial risk profile, Response, last bullet Q1: Did the City present the 9th policy to the internal auditor Moss Adams, for review by January 31, 2023?
Paragraph after last bullet “…City is “in compliance with financial reporting requirements” Q2: How does the public know this?
The Treasurer’s Reports are no longer going to be presented to the Council.

They are sent by Council Memo that the public has no access to without doing a Public Records Request.

It is not clear when the report is written versus when it actually is sent to Council. It’s supposed to be monthly.

If Audit Committee is reviewing it, they only meet every other month so it is no longer a monthly review of this report. They’ll be reviewing 2 months at a time.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication for Agenda Item 17
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:08:38 PM
Attachments: Councilmember Moore GJ.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please add the attached for item 17.

Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, REPRESENTING MYSELF ONLY, RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE 2022 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT, “A HOUSE DIVIDED:

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF”
The City of Cupertino’s response letter to the Grand Jury Report “A House Divided” did not correct the findings error on page 8 of that report. The Grand Jury did not inform me of the allegation in the report for a response, which one would expect in a proper investigation. While I do appreciate the immense time that the citizen volunteers willingly donate to the Grand Jury, it’s very important that they, and the City Staff providing information, get it right.

Paragraph 1 on page 8 states that I “…questioned a subordinate of the City Manager about charges the staff member incurred on a City credit card. The staff member presented an explanation of the charges. Councilmember Moore did not accept the explanation and requested copies of the documentation to pursue her own investigation.” This is untrue.

What actually happened is that I had observed very high credit card charges on the Accounts Payable which City Council accepts by Resolution. Because credit card charges have had nothing associating the charges with what they are for, what Budget Items they relate to, just dollar amounts which reached $95,000 in one month alone, I asked about them. These charges would total $400,000 and more per year with no reporting to the public for what the City’s money was spent on or a formal audit of the charges. It should be noted that I had been concurrently serving on the Audit Committee, eventually chairing it.

I had seen the City’s Credit Card policy and had spoken to friends who have company and government issued cards and was told what they were required to document for their card use, and read the San Jose P Card report “Procurement Cards: Clarification on Policies and Additional Oversight Can Improve the P-Card Program” (provided by link here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=39070) for insight.

I brought the credit card concern up a number of times and finally with Interim City Manager Greg Larson in 2021. We had a discussion about the potential issues with lacking transparency and he asked me to request a single month to do a spot check on the receipts of, and limit the request to two card users, which I did. Later, I met again with Interim City Manager Larson, who gave me a folder which had an internal Memo written to him regarding the card uses and the supporting documentation for the charges, I never spoke to either employee the supporting documentation came from. Separately, an employee was found to have used their card for personal items and I was informed they had been let go. City Attorney Jensen has the folder I describe and can share what he deems is disclosable. The Interim City Manager had also asked me to do another spot check in the future.

Given that I was handed the information in hard copy, it is very possible no other Staff members knew I had it. I hope this corrects the record adequately.

Sincerely,
Kitty Moore, representing myself only
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: I Got Interviewed by the Civil Grand Jury!
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:12:45 PM
Please enter this into the written communication of the Feb. 7, 2923 meeting. ======
(First Draft)
I Got Interviewed by the Civil Grand Jury!
The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) serves as a watchdog group to investigate public agencies and elected officials based on anonymous complaints. They summarize their investigation in a report with recommendations. The public agencies are required to respond in 90 days on whether they accept the recommendation or not. In Cupertino’s response on the “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” was on the Dec. 20, 2022 Council Agenda, the City Attorney disagrees with two of the 6 recommendations and thinks another one is not applicable.

It’s important to understand how the CGJ conducts its investigations in order to assess the credibility of claims made in their reports. Are they based on actual evidence or merely opinions of the interviewees? Did they fairly present all the relevant information? Did they follow the due process normally followed by the court system? The Santa Clara County CGJ consists of 19 ordinary volunteer jurors who commit 25 hours a week at the pay of $20/day and serve for a one-year term. For the 2022 Civil Grand Jury can, among the 69 applicants, 75% is white, 12% is Asian, 1% for other categories. 60% are over the age of 65. 85% are over the age of 55. These jurors dedicate their free time to investigate and create reports, which takes considerable commitments.

Anyone can file an anonymous confidential complaint form to the CGJ. The CGJ decides which complaints to investigate. The investigations are conducted in strict privacy until the report is published.

The CGJ decides who they interview or what documents they read and which portions are included in the final report. They do not reveal their interviewee list, transcripts, document list or what they leave out of a report.

The interviewees are not asked to swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” (Thus, they are not “witnesses” as in a trial court.) The interviewees are not informed of the nature of the complaints or anything about the complaints. The interviewees have to sign a non-disclosure form to not reveal anything about the interview until a final report is made public or until authorized by the CGJ or the court to disclose. (The above portion is completely factual based on public data on the CGJ. The portion below is factual, but also includes some of my opinions on the process.) The 2022 CGJ received multiple complaints for Cupertino City Council. Likely the complainants were interviewed and they know exactly the subject and nature of the complaint. Therefore, one could make a coordinated effort to submit complaints to the CGJ so their “opinions” and “accusations” on Cupertino City Council become the content of a CGJ report. The accuser nor the CGJ has any obligation to provide evidence to prove their claims. The CGJ just makes a reasonable effort to investigate in privacy.

For the accused, they do not get informed of the accusations against them so they were not given a chance to provide evidence to the contrary even though the accusations might be completely false. This is against the Sixth Amendment “Rights to be Informed of the Charges” if this were a trial court jury.

For the accusers, they have a good idea of the nature and the subject of the complaints so they can share anything they choose, or frame their comments in a way, to reach their goal of indicting elected officials through CGJ. They also have complete anonymity to anything they say to CGJ.

Often, the accusers make their own assumptions or interpretations about an incident, which they might believe are true, but they might reveal their unintentional false assumptions or assumed interpretation after cross examination.

Since the investigations by the CGJ are conducted in complete secrecy without revealing the complaint, the interviewees nor the documents they use, the accused has no way to introduce additional interviewees or documents to provide full background of an accusation.

This is against the Fifth Amendment “Rights to Due Process” if this were a trial court.

Since there is cross examination as seen in the due process, a vague accusation from an interviewee without specifics on dates, the context and details of an incident would merely be an opinion or hearsay unless there is concrete evidence.

One might wonder which part of an accusation made in a CGJ and their basis is any of the following:
hearsay: “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate”
slander: “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation”
evidence: “objects, documents, official statements, etc. that are used to prove something is true or not true,”
opinion: “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”
selective facts: “The selective perception of facts that support prejudices and the blindness to facts that disprove them.”
With this understanding about the CGJ process, I would like you to read the CGJ report “A House Divided”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/A%20House%20Divided%20- %20Cupertino%20City%20Council%20and%20City%20Staff.pdf) carefully with a truthseeking mindset. =====
City Hall Renovation vs New City Hall
The CGR Report stated: “Although the 2015 City Council allocated funds for the renovation, the monies were subsequently redirected to expand the City Library.” The above statement is false. Here are the facts:

The 2015 Council never allocated nor approved any plan for renovation since they favored a brand new city hall.

The 2015 Council approved the $70M Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new City Hall and the library expansion, but they never allocated any budget for it.

There is no “re-directing” of any fund since the 2015 Council or after did not pursue to allocate funds after they examined the financing options for $70M.

Perhaps, some members of the public misunderstood the approval of a plan as approval of the funding. And they likely did not follow subsequent Council meetings for financing options.

Here are the meeting dates
July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage.

August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design.

Council asked the staff to come back with financing options.

November 17, 2015 - Council directed the staff to come back with a creative solution to keep the cost lower than $40M
December 10, 2015 - The staff report concludes "Because we were not successful in our attempts to discover a project delivery process that could develop a $70 million estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40 million authorized by Council, we will not be bringing the project for further consideration unless so directed by City Council."
It appears that the CGJ was misled by some interviewees who did not understand the city operation and did not follow the city council meeting closely.

Unfortunately, the CGJ did not write to the city to seek any document to verify the claim either.
====
The CGJ stated “Certain staff regard the present City Council’s unwillingness to fund the renovation as confirmation that their health and safety concerns are not a priority.” The delay over the years (since 2015) was caused by financial concerns since the 2015 Civic Center Plan includes a brand new city hall with underground garage and the library expansion with a price tag of $70M. Cupertino will have to borrow most of the fund, while we are still paying off the previous loan for the existing Cupertino Library.

The 2019 Council decided to break up the projects and did the following:

Prioritize Library Expansion since the lack of programming space is an ongoing issue since Cupertino Library is the only library in the County system without its own programming room.

Purchased a building one block from the City Hall (named City Hall Annex), since it’s much cheaper to purchase existing building and renovate. And this builds up real estate assets for the City.

Rather than building a new city hall, the Council directed the staff to propose options to renovate the City Hall, which was on the 2021-22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

The Council was expecting options for renovation which we can approve by Spring 2022.

But the city staff somehow proposed a plan for a new city hall and three-story garage as one of the projects in the 2022-23 CIP, which will cost $70 million alone.

The Council then formed a subcommittee in 2022 to study the earthquake retrofit options for City Hall renovation. The subcommittee proposed to put the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) in the City Hall Annex, which reduces the cost of renovating the City Hall.

It appears that the CGJ was misled by some interviewees who did not understand the full scope of what the Council has done over the years.

If such sentiment came from the city staff, perhaps the City Manager should have communicated better with the staff to provide them complete background on Council decisions.

The CGJ interviewed only a few people who have provided inaccurate information based on their own perception. Unfortunately, the CGJ did not ask for verification of statements of facts and did not expand their interviewee list to provide them a fuller picture. ====
Monthly Treasurer’s Report
The CGJ Report stated “Despite the legal requirement to comply with Government Code section 41004, no City staff member was preparing and delivering a monthly treasurer’s report. When this issue was raised during an Audit Committee meeting, the rationale provided by City staff was that many of the surrounding cities do not comply with this requirement…. It took a few months for City staff to comply with the law.” This part of the report is accurate. But it neglected to mention that it was Councilmember Kitty Moore, serving also on the Audit Committee, who pointed out the legal requirement for the Monthly Treasurer’s Reports. And she had the support of the full Council to direct the staff to fix the issue.

Councilmember Kitty Moore would not be able to discover irregularities such as the overuse of credit cards, the ongoing payments without contracts, if the city staff is allowed to refuse to provide information. When an information request might require significant workload, the full Council should decide after hearing the rationale from their fellow Councilmember.

The CGJ Report: “Absence of the monthly treasurer’s report impaired the councilmembers’ ability to fully exercise fiscal oversight.”
It’s great that the CGJ recognizes the role of the City Council to provide oversight and the importance of the accessibility to fiscal information in order to provide the oversight, on behalf of the voters who elected us.
=====
Fiscal and Risk Management
The CGJ Report stated:
“The Civil Grand Jury learned of the existence of a 14-year embezzlement scheme by a former City staff member of almost $800,000 that purportedly occurred between 2000 and 2014. Further investigation revealed that after the discovery of the embezzlement scheme in 2014, no financial policy or procedural changes were developed and implemented by the City.”
The above statement “no financial policy or procedural changes were developed and implemented by the City” is not true. Likely, no changes were made before 2018. But after 2019, since I joined the Council, there have been quite a few improvements. One important change is to separate the approval flow so the person who writes the check is not the same person who approves a check.

Every year Moss Adams, the Internal Auditor, with the Audit Committee, would make recommendations on what procedures or policies to improve on. I also am anxious to see more changes of policies and procedures. However, it’s important to first assess the current process before blindly adopting changes.

In the July 21, 2023 staff report on the Fiscal Policy Inventory and Gap Analysis Final Report” (Item 31), the “Next Steps” section:
“Staff will develop an implementation plan to implement the report’s recommendations. The implementation plan and status reports will be available on the City’s website at cupertino.org/budget under Internal Audit.

In addition, if approved as part of the FY 2022-23 internal audit work plan, Moss Adams would review the City’s formalized P&Ps and report back to the Audit Committee and City Council on the status of the P&Ps.”
In Item 34 of the same July 21, 2023 meeting, the Council adopted “the FY 2022-23 Internal Audit Program”
Item,
The concern of CGJ seems to be led by some interviewees who do not trust the city staff in the Finance department and the Internal Audit team. It takes time to identify gaps and identify better policies and these are in fact operational issues that the City Council should put in the hands of the City Manager.
=======
Staff Turnover
The CGJ Report stated “The Civil Grand Jury learned of an abnormally high turnover rate among City staff, including key top staff positions. For example, half of the Planning Division and 60 percent of senior management staff have left the City since January 2022. …
Documents researched and reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury provided information that did not fully support these conclusions.“
It’s unclear what documents the CGJ had access to derive information from. I have requested for any data on staffing level or turn over numbers. I’m told that the city does not have such information. Thus, likely any information available is adecdocal or isolated instances.

In a City Council-City Manager form of government, the City Council relies on the City Manager to implement policies and also bring forward potential concerns to address. The Council does not and should not seek out disgruntled employees or rely on a few hearsay to paint a picture of the entire staff.

However, if any Councilmember hears of any concern at all, we should find out more about the concern and cause of the concern.

I would trust a City Manager, who is a professional in managing a large organization, to bring any such concern to the Council to have a discussion and find methods to improve it if staff retention is an issue. I trust that an experienced City Manager would bring the concern to the Council and propose options to address the concerns, rather than telling a third party to undermine the integrity of the organization they work for.

In my 4 years on the Council, no city employee has written to the Council to express any concern and no city manager has brought up such concern. Thus, I have never requested any information on staffing levels from the City Manager. This issue of staff turnover was only brought up before the election by people with political motives. Thus, I did not find it appropriate to request information on this issue. After the CGJ Report came out, I then asked for information. The City Manager wrote there is not data available to share. I trust that the City Manager will take appropriate steps to collect data and present solutions if the concern is substantiated.

I appreciate the CGJ for raising the concern. But as a City Councilmember, I trust the City Manager to inform the Council if she needs our support for any actions to support her staff. ====
Code of Ethics
Now finally coming to my interview with the CGJ. On December 1, 2022, I was interviewed virtually and only two of the 19 jurors were present, but the interview was recorded.

I was told that they cannot tell me the subjects of their investigation and I cannot tell anyone about the content of the interview until the report is published. I was not asked to provide any document or suggest any more witnesses to support my statements.

I was asked about some “enforcement method” for the 2018 Code of Ethics (CoE) and why it was taken out of the 2021 adopted Code of Ethics. I said I have no knowledge of anyone expressing any concern about the “enforcement method” at all. I did not know what “enforcement method” they were referring to.

After the interview, I looked in my documents and forwarded some evidence to them to substantiate these facts:

1. Cupertino did not have any adopted “Code of Ethics” prior to 2018.

2. The 2018-19 work program did not include any item related to “Code of Ethics”.

3. After deciding to not consolidate Library Commission and the Public Safety Commission, the 2018 Council directed the staff on July 31, 2018 to “Explore ways to improve Council/Commission communication”.

4. The agenda item on November 20, 2018 was titled “Overview of City Commissions and recommendations for improving their effectiveness and communications with the City Council", but somehow one of the 6 documents to be approved is titled “Code of Ethics and Conduct” (CoEC)

5. The staff report of November 20, 2018 Council Meeting clearly indicated the 15-page “Code of Ethics and Conduct” was newly added. There is no mention of any earlier public engagement or notification.

6. The Nov. 20, 2018 staff report stated “Commissions were very supportive of adopting a code of ethics and conduct.” But there is no record of any written comments from commissioners or commissions.

7. The 2018 CoEC broadly applied the standard normally used for quasi-judicial decisions (to comply with existing laws, such as project approvals) to legislative decisions (to make laws and policies). This is evidenced by the following two quotes from the 2018 CoEC.

Item 6 under Ethics: “decision makers … will base their decisions on the facts presented at the hearing and the law”, which is supposed to apply only for quasi-judicial decisions.”
Item 7 under Ethics: "Communication. ... City Officials will rely on the agenda materials and information received at the public meeting to support their decision."

8. The 2018 CoEC expanded the normal “Conflict of Interest” on financial interests to include one’s opinions or positions on policy issues. This is evidenced by this quote:

Item 8 under Ethics: "Conflict of Interest. ... Consistent with the law, decisionmakers will not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have (a) a material financial interest, (b) an organizational responsibility to or personal commitment to others that creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of one, or (c) a strong personal bias as to one party or position."
(This portion below includes my opinion on the quoted items above) According to Ethics Item 6 and Item 7, City Officials appear to have to ignore public comments received through emails or at any meeting with community members. City Officials cannot use their past experiences based on reading articles or information derived from their own research on the issues.

Ethics Item 8 goes beyond the state law on Conflict of Interest, which is limited to financial interest. According to such broad interpertation of Conflict of Interest, all members of the Bike and Pedestrian Commission would have to recuse themselves since they have a "strong person bias" towards some bike paths and actively advocate for it. Most Sustainability Commissioners have "personal commitment" to Clean Energy. Most Housing Commissioners have a "personal commitment" towards affordable housing. Most Parks and Recreation Commissioners have a "strong personal bias" towards all-inclusive playground to accommodate children of special needs.

Should these commissioners all recuse themselves on the issues they strongly care about in order to comply with the 2018 CoEC? As the Nov. 20, 2018 staff report stated: “any violation of the code of ethics and conduct are grounds for removal as a commissioner.” Is the 2018 CoEC quoted above what you think the City of Cupertino must adopt and enforce?
Is the process of adopting the 2018 CoEC the kind of “transparent” process you support? Now coming back to the CGJ report.

I have sent multiple emails to explain the improper process the 2018 Code of Ethics was adopted with links to evidence (as outlined earlier). The CGJ seems to have completely ignored the list of evidence.

I would think that the CGJ would agree that it’s inappropriate for a City Council to adopt a brand new Code of Ethics policy under an agenda titled “Overview of City Commissions and recommendations for improving their effectiveness and communications with the City Council” without a study session to take public input first.

Perhaps, they were misled by the interviewees and did not have time to find evidence to verify their claims.

The policy making process requires the public to engage in the normal “process” through oral or written comments at a Council Meeting or meetings with Councilmembers. Policies are never set in stone. When there are public concerns, we often bring back a policy to consider possible revisions to address the concerns.

However, if certain individuals or groups never expressed any concern during the “normal policymaking process” and only expressed certain never-before-mentioned “concerns” through either lawsuit, complaints to CGJ or campaign materials, it undermines our Democratic process. I encourage everyone to get engaged in the “normal policymaking process”, rather than making policies through lawsuits or political attacks.

I encourage the CGJ to ask the interviewees to show evidence that they have made good faith efforts to express their concerns with the City Council and the City Staff before taking on a complaint, especially during an election year.

I encourage the CGJ to find sufficient numbers of interviewees who both support and oppose a complaint in order to get the full picture of pretty complex situation.

One would not wish to see that the respected volunteer jurors of the CGJ were taken advantage of by certain well connected individuals for their political gains.

Liang Chao
Cupertino City Council
representing only myself
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication -Civil Grand Jury Report Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:17:51 PM
This is a slightly revised version of the one I sent on 2/7. =======
I Got Interviewed by the Civil Grand Jury!
The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) serves as a watchdog group to investigate public agencies and elected officials based on anonymous complaints. They summarize their investigation in a report with recommendations. The public agencies are required to respond in 90 days on whether they accept the recommendation or not. In Cupertino’s response on the “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” was on the Dec. 20, 2022 Council Agenda, the City Attorney disagrees with two of the 6 recommendations and thinks another one is not applicable.

Anyone can file an anonymous confidential complaint form to the CGJ. The CGJ decides which complaints to investigate. The investigations are conducted in strict privacy until the report is published.

The interviewees are not asked to swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” (Thus, they are not “witnesses” as in a trial court.) The interviewees are not informed of the nature of the complaints or anything about the complaints. The interviewees have to sign a non-disclosure form to not reveal anything about the interview until a final report is made public or until authorized by the CGJ or the court to disclose.
(The above portion is completely factual based on public data on the CGJ. The portion below is factual, but also includes some of my opinions on the process.) The 2022 CGJ received multiple complaints for Cupertino City Council. Likely the complainants were interviewed and they know exactly the subject and nature of the complaint. Therefore, one could make a coordinated effort to submit complaints to the CGJ so their “opinions” and “accusations” on Cupertino City Council become the content of a CGJ report. The accuser nor the CGJ has any obligation to provide evidence to prove their claims. The CGJ just makes a reasonable effort to investigate in privacy.

One might wonder which part of an accusation made in a CGJ and their basis is any of the following:
hearsay: “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate”
slander: “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation”
evidence: “objects, documents, official statements, etc. that are used to prove something is true or not true,”
opinion: “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”
selective facts: “The selective perception of facts that support prejudices and the blindness to facts that disprove them.”
With this understanding about the CGJ process, I would like you to read the CGJ report “A House Divided”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/A%20House%20Divided%20- %20Cupertino%20City%20Council%20and%20City%20Staff.pdf) carefully with a truthseeking mindset. =====
City Hall Renovation vs New City Hall
The CGJ Report stated: “Although the 2015 City Council allocated funds for the renovation, the monies were subsequently redirected to expand the City Library.” The above statement is false. Here are the facts:

The 2015 Council never allocated nor approved any plan for renovation since they favored a brand new city hall.

The 2015 Council approved the $70M Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new City Hall and the library expansion, but they never allocated any budget for it.

There is no “re-directing” of any fund since the 2015 Council or after did not pursue to allocate funds after they examined the financing options for $70M.

Perhaps, some members of the public misunderstood the approval of a plan as approval of the funding. And they likely did not follow subsequent Council meetings for financing options.

Here are the meeting dates
July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage.

August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design.

Council asked the staff to come back with financing options.

Unfortunately, the CGJ did not write to the city to seek any document to verify the claim either.
====
City Hall Renovation
The CGJ stated “Certain staff regard the present City Council’s unwillingness to fund the renovation as confirmation that their health and safety concerns are not a priority.”
The delay over the years (since 2015) was caused by financial concerns since the 2015 Civic Center Plan includes a brand new city hall with underground garage and the library expansion with a price tag of $70M. Cupertino will have to borrow most of the fund, while we are still paying off the previous loan for the existing Cupertino Library.

The 2019 Council decided to break up the projects and did the following:

Prioritize Library Expansion since the lack of programming space is an ongoing issue since Cupertino Library is the only library in the County system without its own programming room.

Purchased a building one block from the City Hall (named City Hall Annex), since it’s much cheaper to purchase existing building and renovate. And this builds up real estate assets for the City.

Rather than building a new city hall, the Council directed the staff to propose options to renovate the City Hall, which was on the 2021-22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

The Council was expecting options for renovation which we can approve by Spring 2022.

But the city staff somehow proposed a plan for a new city hall and three-story garage as one of the projects in the 2022-23 CIP, which will cost $70 million alone.

It appears that the CGJ was misled by some interviewees (“certain staff”) who did not understand the full
scope of what the Council has done over the years.

Likely such sentiment came from “certain staff”, but not most staff who do understand the full scope of what the Council has done over the years on the City Hall project.

If the City Manager is made aware of such sentiment by “certain staff”, I am sure that our capable City Manager would proactively communicate with the entire staff to provide them complete background on Council decisions regarding the City Hall project.

The CGJ Report: “Absence of the monthly treasurer’s report impaired the councilmembers’ ability to fully exercise fiscal oversight.” It’s great that the CGJ recognizes the role of the City Council to provide oversight and the importance of the accessibility to fiscal information in order to provide the oversight, on behalf of the voters who elected us.
=====
Fiscal and Risk Management
The CGJ Report stated:
“The Civil Grand Jury learned of the existence of a 14-year embezzlement scheme by a former City staff member of almost $800,000 that purportedly occurred between 2000 and 2014. Further investigation revealed that after the discovery of the embezzlement scheme in 2014, no financial policy or procedural changes were developed and implemented by the City.”
The above statement “no financial policy or procedural changes were developed and implemented by the City” is not true. Likely, no changes were made before 2018. But after 2019, since I joined the Council, there have been quite a few improvements. One important change is to separate the approval flow so the person who writes the check is not the same person who approves a check.

The concern of CGJ seems to be led by some interviewees who do not trust the city staff in the Finance department and the Internal Audit team. It takes time to identify gaps and identify better policies and these are in fact operational issues that the City Council should put in the hands of the City Manager.
=======
Staff Turnover
The CGJ Report stated “The Civil Grand Jury learned of an abnormally high turnover rate among City staff, including key top staff positions. For example, half of the Planning Division and 60 percent of senior management staff have left the City since January 2022. …
Documents researched and reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury provided information that did not fully support these conclusions.“
It’s unclear what documents the CGJ had access to derive information from. I have requested for any data on staffing level or turn over numbers. I’m told that the city does not have such information. Thus, likely any information available is anecdotal or isolated instances.

In a City Council-City Manager form of government, the City Council relies on the City Manager to implement policies and also bring forward potential concerns to address.

The Council does not and should not seek out disgruntled employees or rely on a few hearsay to paint a picture of the entire staff.

However, if any Councilmember hears of any concern at all, we should find out more about the concern and cause of the concern.

I would trust a City Manager, who is a professional in managing a large organization, to bring any such concern, like staff turn over, to the Council to have a discussion and find methods to improve it if staff retention is an issue. I trust that an experienced City Manager would bring the concern to the Council and propose options to address the concerns, rather than telling a third party to undermine the integrity of the organization they work for.

I trust that the City Manager will take appropriate steps to collect data and present solutions if the concern is substantiated.

After the interview, I looked in my documents and forwarded some evidence to them to substantiate these facts:

1. Cupertino did not have any adopted “Code of Ethics” prior to 2018.

2. The 2018-19 work program did not include any item related to “Code of Ethics”.

8. The 2018 CoEC expanded the normal “Conflict of Interest” on financial interests to include one’s opinions or positions on policy issues. This is evidenced by this quote:

The CGJ Reported stated:
“In a City Council vote on January 15, 2019, the City Council rescinded its Code of Ethics and Conduct that had just been voted on and passed the prior November. A year later, in January 2020, the City Council adopted a new Ethics Policy. … the year-long gap during which the City had no ethics policy is a concern.”
This claim of “a year long gap” of “no ethics policy” is false since there was no Ethics policy prior to November 20, 2018. The interviewees who gave the CGJ that impression likely never attended the Nov. 20, 2018 meeting; otherwise, they would have known, The CGJ was misled by those interviewees and they ignored my comments to them completely. They could have verified the existence of any prior Ethics policy from either the staff report of Nov. 20, 2018 or a documents search of Resolutions.

If the CGJ read the evidence I submitted, I would think that the CGJ would agree that it’s inappropriate for a City Council to adopt a brand new Code of Ethics policy under a misleading agenda titled “Overview of City Commissions and recommendations for improving their effectiveness and communications with the City Council” without a study session to take public input first.

Perhaps, they were misled by the other interviewees who were trying to lead them to their present conclusion, without providing any evidence.
===
Code on Ethics on the Web Site
The CGJ Report stated “Third, the Ethics Policy is not available to the public online. This lack of transparency is unusual for City government.”
After a policy is adopted by the City Council, posting on the website or posting to any city publication is an operational detail, which the City Council does not give direction on as a body.

Occasionally, a member of the public or a Councilmember might make a suggestion to staff on content for the website. It is up to the City Manager and her executive staff to decide whether to implement the suggested content for the website. This is common in a City Manager-City Council form of government.

There has been no suggestion nor request, at least to the City Council, on posting the Ethics policy on the website. I certainly think it’s a great idea to do so. I would have gladly forwarded such a suggestion to the City Manager.

It appears that some interviewees are ignorant of the city process in implementing a policy and never inquired the city on this issue. But they accused the City of their transparency.

The CGJ is misled by them apparently.
======
Healthy Policymaking Process
The policy making process requires the public to engage in the normal “process” through oral or written comments at a Council Meeting or meetings with Councilmembers. Policies are never set in stone. When there are public concerns, we often bring back a policy to consider possible revisions to address the concerns.

The implementation of a policy is also an ongoing process of improvement. The City Staff constantly respond to community inputs and adjust their implementation, from details of bike paths to website contents.

In fact, this perception of “dysfunction” or “distrust” illustrated in this CGJ Report might be caused specifically by these individuals whose aims are not on better policy through engagement with the City. These individuals resort to other media sources to express these “concerns”, which they never communicated through the “normal process.” Given that almost every claim stated in this CGJ Report is questionable or even false. One must wonder whether what’s “dysfunctional” is the fact that a group of individuals try to influence policy outside of the normal democratic process through other channels for political gains?
I encourage the CGJ to ask the interviewees to show evidence that they have made good faith efforts to express their concerns with the City Council and the City Staff before taking on a complaint, especially during an election year.

I encourage the CGJ to find sufficient numbers of interviewees who both support and oppose a complaint in order to get the full picture of a pretty complex situation.

One would not wish that the recommendations of the CGJ are based on false narratives, based on misunderstanding of the normal democratic process, and then adds to the dysfunction of our democratic system.

One would not wish to see that the respected volunteer jurors of the CGJ were taken advantage of by certain well connected individuals for their political gains.

Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication for Civil Grand Jury Report Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:57:46 PM
Attached are
2022-12-24 Where is SCC enforcement provision in Code of Ethics.pdf 2022-12-24 specifics on enforcement procedures.pdf
2022-12-06 Quasi-judicial decision - problem with 2018 Code of Ethics (1).pdf 2022-12-06 Commission Handbook subcommittee.pdf
2022-12-06 Quasi-judicial decision - problem with 2018 Code of Ethics.pdf 2022-12-01(4) problematic content of the 2018 Code of Ethics.pdf 2022-12-01(2) Background on commission communication.pdf 2022-12-01 Background on Nov 2018 Code of Edthics.pdf
the emails I have sent to the Civil Grand Jury after the interview with them.

The Civil Grand Jury chose to not include any of the facts I stated (that the city never had the Code of Ethics prior to Nov. 2018) or the concerns with the violation of the Brown Act (the agenda item was on improving communication with commissions) and the content of the Code of Ethics in their report (that the standard for quasi judicial decisions were applied to all policy decisions and that anyone with strong opinion on an item has a conflict of interest).

Thanks.

Liang
Liang Chao
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 5:33 PM
To: Karen Enzensperger <[email protected]> Cc: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>; David Mariani <[email protected]>; Britney Huelbig <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Liang Chao second email
Thanks a lot for responding on Christmas Eve.

I understand that the city manager and the city attorney will prepare a recommended response, specifically on the recommendations proposed in the report.

But as a policymaker and someone who always want to do my own homework on a subject the public is concerned about. That's why I'm asking a series of questions to understand the report in order to improve our policies.

Here is one more:

Q10: What's the enforcement provision or anti-interference provision in the Santa Clara County Code of Ethics so I could learn from the best practices of the County? I found this document with Board Policy Code of Ethical Conduct:
https://saecommon.sccgov.org/countypolicy/Board-Policy-3.32-Code-of-Ethical-Conduct.pdf But I didn't find them there and it is not very comprehensive.

Is there another document I should look at?
Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Karen Enzensperger <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>; David Mariani <[email protected]>; Britney Huelbig <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Liang Chao second email
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Ms. Chao,
We are in receipt of your email correspondence and have forwarded them to Ms. Huelbig. She will respond when she returns to the office. There was a letter that accompanied the report that was received by your City Clerk that explained how to communicate regarding the report, a copy is attached for your convenience.

For further reference anytime you have any questions please address them to Ms. Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected]. She will make sure that all necessary parties are contacted.

Thank you.

Karen Enzensperger (She/Her)
2022 Civil Grand Jury, Foreperson
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Office - 408-882-2721 / Cell – 831-207-9572
[email protected] / www.scscourt.org
From: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Karen Enzensperger <[email protected]>; David Mariani <[email protected]>; Britney Huelbig <[email protected]> Subject: Liang Chao second email
Importance: High
Britney,
FYI. Here is one more email from vice mayor Chao regarding House Divided.

Shirley
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 3:37:32 PM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>; Civil Grand Jury <[email protected]> Subject: Specifics on enforcement procedures
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Again in case you could not answer my questions, please direct me to someone who can answer these questions so I could understand your report.

If you could not answer all of my questions, I would really appreciate it if some of the questions are answered.

After I read the report "The House Divides", I realized that I still don't know what enforcement provision you were referring to in the interview.

I guess I should have asked you then.

I realized that the specifics matter since you might have just being using a different term to refer to something.

I would especislly appreciate an answer on Q6 and Q7 to get some clarity on your main concerns.
-----
Q6: The report states "the subject of councilmanic interference found in the rescinded version". (Page 13)
Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethics and Confuct you are referring to? Q7: The report states "Noticeably missing were enforcement provisions that enabled the public, councilmembers, and staff to report policy violations or other misconduct." Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethica and Conduct you are referring to?
Q8: Do you know that the City of Cupertino didn’t have the Code of Ethics before Nov. 20, 2018?
Your statement "the year-long gap during which the City had no ethics policy is a concern" sounds like you somehow think the City of Cupertino has had the Code of Ethics all along.

I assume you are aware of. But perhaps you do not. But I though I specifically mentioned it in my interview.

The City of Cupertino never had a Code of Ethics until Nov. 20, 2018, as one of the last actions of the 2018 Council.

Your report refers to "the old policy" as if it has been in existence for a long time, when it has not.

Q9: Did you know that whether to put an item on the City web site and how is one of the implementation details that the Council normally does NOT get involved? The City Manager handles that. Of course, if there is any specific request from the public about what to put on the website, the Council might include it as a part of a motion for an item.

Otherwise, we don’t specifically give direction on website design.

I do occasionally provide feedback and suggestions to the staff when I see something is missing, hard to find or outdated. But my feedback is likely 80% ignored, since it’s the discretion of the City Manager on such matters.

Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
Dear Mr. Mariani and Ms. Modric,
Thank you for your service on the Civil Grand Jury, which requires considerable time commitment, which most people are unable or unwilling to take on.

I am reading your report "The House Divided" on Cupertino City Council and city staff.

I wonder if you could answer some questions or you could direct me to someone who can answer these questions?
Q1: Some of the claims made in the report are news to me, so I would like to know what documents were used in the investigation. I suppose all these documents are public records anyway. The report stated: "engaged in research that produced numerous documents supporting the findings and recommendations in this report".

Q2: According to the report, it seems no city staff was interviewed, and no member of the public was interviewed. Is that correct?
Perhaps, you could specify what "city officials" mean?
The report states "The investigation process undertaken by the Civil Grand Jury included interviews with councilmembers, past and present City officials, and the Audit Committee of the City Council."
Q3: Where do you get the data for this statement: "half of the Planning Division and 60 percent of senior management staff have left the City since January 2022"? As a Councilmember, I only get information through the City Manager. Thus, I am not privy to any information of interval city operations, such as the total number of staff members who have left Cupertino or the reasons in the Planning Department unless the city manager reveals such info to the Council. I only know antidoctally the departure of some admin-level staff, but I don’t have the full picture.

As I have shared with you, the staff members who left, that I know of, have gotten a position with a bigger title or a position in a bigger city. The city has no vacancy to offer any promotion as a counteroffer, according to the city manager, when I inquired. I'm happy for the career growth of those who left for bigger opportunities. I'm also happy that their departure created vacancies so we can offer promotions to other city staff so they don't have to leave for career growth.

I suppose I should get this data from the city manager. But the city manager has refused to provide data quoting staffing challenges per CMC.

Q4: What documents show the number of staff members who retired or take higher-paying job versus those who do not?
The report stated: "Some councilmembers indicated that the high turnover was more a function of individual retirements and people seeking better, higher-paying positions. Documents researched and reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury provided information that did not fully support these conclusions."
Q5: Could you be more specific on which behavior is considered "inserted themselves"? Specifics, especially on accusations, help a lot on what's considered inference and what's just trying to help with outreach, which I think is what the city council could do.

The report states "Interviews with current and former City managers confirmed that some City councilmembers inserted themselves in the process of recruiting and hiring for open positions within the City."
For example, I did make contact with Tina Kapoor, our current Economic Development manager before she applied to the city. As the city has an opening for a full-time Economic Development Manager for the first time, I am curious what such a role would do for the city. I reached out to Economic Development Managers in other cities through LinkedIn. I spoke to 3 ED managers from 3 different cities through zoom. And I mentioned in passing at the end that we have an opening and if they know anyone who might be interested, please pass the word.

Then, Tina Kapoor said she is interested and connected her to the city manager. Then, I have not involved with anything following that. I have not even talked to Tina Kapoor after she joined the city, except socially at some public events.

When the city has top admin positions open, I do mention that at conferences I attend.

What one person considers "interference", another person might consider "just trying to help", but there is a miscommunication on the intent of the comment. So, specifics about such exchange helps and akways important to get both sides of the story before making an accusation, especially from an anonymous source.

Thank you for helping to provide documents used in the investigation.

Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Liang,
Please find attached and review the admonishment you signed. I cannot give you advice or individually authorize you to speak as the Civil Grand Jury acts as a body.

Sincerely,
Shirley
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:53 AM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Now that the grand jury report is out, could I tell people I was interviewed and tell them what I sent to you?
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 7:35 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Vice-mayor Chao,
There are no court documents. This is a Civil Grand Jury interview. This is not a public proceeding, it is confidential. For more information about the Civil Grand Jury please go to the link below. My colleague will touch base with you regarding a lunch time interview, so you don’t have to take time off of work.
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/grand_jury.shtml Shirley Modric
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:10 AM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Please send me all the court documents regarding the matter before the grand jury anc documents made available to the jurors and the list of people have been called to testify.

And the names of the members of the jurors and judges and other personnel’s conducting this grand jury.

I suppose such information is public information. If any information is not publicly accessible, please indicate which ones and the reasons.

Thank you.

Liang
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 12:46 AM
To: Shirley Modric
Cc: David Mariani
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
I will be at work Thursday during the day between 2-5pm.

I will have to make arrangement to take time off.

What’s the subject of this civil grand jury?
Thanks.

Liang
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:14 PM
To: Liang Chao
Cc: David Mariani
Subject: FW: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Vice-Mayor Chao,
I am following up on the email below. The Civil Grand Jury would appreciate a response. We would like to interview you on Thursday, December 1st in the afternoon. Are you available between 2pm and 5pm for a one hour Teams meeting?
Regards,
Shirley Modric
From: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:52 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
Dear Vice-Mayor Chao,
I am writing to you as a member of the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. My colleagues and I would like to interview you via Teams on Tuesday, November 29. The interview should last no more than an hour. Please let me know what times you are available. Please be advised that this communication is confidential. Attached you will find an NDA which will need to be signed and returned before the interview.

Regards,
Shirley Modric (pronouns she/her)
2022 Civil Grand Jury | Foreperson pro tempore
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Office – 408-882-2721 | Cell – 408-736-4364
[email protected] | www.scscourt.org
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 3:37 PM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Specifics on enforcement procedures
Again in case you could not answer my questions, please direct me to someone who can answer these questions so I could understand your report.

If you could not answer all of my questions, I would really appreciate it if some of the questions are answered.

After I read the report "The House Divides", I realized that I still don't know what enforcement provision you were referring to in the interview.

I guess I should have asked you then.

I realized that the specifics matter since you might have just being using a different term to refer to something.

I would especially appreciate an answer on Q6 and Q7 to get some clarity on your main concerns.
-----
Q6: The report states "the subject of councilmanic interference found in the rescinded version". (Page 13)
Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethics and Confuct you are referring to? Q7: The report states "Noticeably missing were enforcement provisions that enabled the public, councilmembers, and staff to report policy violations or other misconduct." Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethica and Conduct you are referring to?
Q8: Do you know that the City of Cupertino didn’t have the Code of Ethics before Nov. 20, 2018?
Your statement "the year-long gap during which the City had no ethics policy is a concern" sounds like you somehow think the City of Cupertino has had the Code of Ethics all along.

I assume you are aware of. But perhaps you do not. But I though I specifically mentioned it in my interview.

The City of Cupertino never had a Code of Ethics until Nov. 20, 2018, as one of the last actions of the 2018 Council.

Your report refers to "the old policy" as if it has been in existence for a long time, when it has not.

Otherwise, we don’t specifically give direction on website design.

Liang
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Shirley Modric <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mariani <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew
Dear Mr. Mariani and Ms. Modric,
Thank you for your service on the Civil Grand Jury, which requires considerable time commitment, which most people are unable or unwilling to take on.