Release date here Page 0 of 51
h
A HOUSE DIVIDED:
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
December 19, 2022
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 6 INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 15 REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................. 47 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 50
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
General Law City A city whose government structure and powers are defined by the general law of the state. This
is in contrast with a charter city whose
government structure and powers are defined
by a city charter.
California Public Records Act The California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.)
allows the public to request access to
government records, unless such records are
exempt by law from disclosure.
Councilmanic Interference Councilmanic Interference refers to a councilmember’s attempts to thwart the
principles of the council -manager form of
government management.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
SUMMARY
The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) received multiple complaints concerning the behavior of the City of Cupertino (City) councilmembers toward City staff. The essence of these complaints focused on an adversarial relationship existing between the Cupertino City Council (City Council) on the one hand and City management and staff on the other.
Complainants alleged: (1) councilmembers interfered in the day-to-day operations of the City; (2) councilmembers routinely berated and beli ttled presentations made by City staff during City Council meetings; and (3) certain councilmembers gave direct work assignments to City employees, thwarting the requirements of the Council-Manager form of government.
Throughout its investigation, the Ci vil Grand Jury learned of the existence of distrust and fear among City staff of councilmembers. Generally, each side took issue with the other, laying blame back and forth over multiple c omplaints. The Civil Grand Jury was provided with repeated examples of councilmembers behaving inappropriately toward the City Manager and staff including, but not limited to, routine disrespect and the inclination to doubt the accuracy of the City staff’s work. The Civil Grand Jury found that the behavior by certain councilmembers towards City staff directly violated the City’s ordinances relating to the c ouncil-manager form of government under which the City operates.
Furthermore, high turnover in key management and leadership positions within City government has caused the City to lose employees with significant capabilities and experience and, in some cases, leave key positions unfilled. These issues adversely impact the City’s ability to best serve the community and effectively operate the City. Additionally, the City’s designated Internal Auditor, Moss Adams LLP, identified numerous areas where the City had critical deficiencies, including that the City has weak or nonexistent internal financial controls and inadequacies in existing operating policies and procedures. Many of these deficiencies have existed for several years and pose potentially serious future operating and financial risks to the City as it pursues significant growth projects. The City Council’s Audit Committee has implemented a work plan designed to address identified areas of fiscal risk and weak or absent internal controls, but there is no evidence in City Council meeting minutes that the plan has been vetted by the City Council.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
BACKGROUND
Governance
The City is a general law city whose form of government is governed by California Government Code sections 36501 to 36525. General law cities, while complying with state mandates, may adopt ordinances that provide specific requirements related to the operation of the city. To this end, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (“Cupertino Municipal Code”) includes the following provisions:
(1) Chapter 2.48 – Departmental Organization
(2) Chapter 2.17 – City Council/City Staff Relationships The City has chosen to operate under the Council-Manager form of government, which separates the operational responsibilities assigned to the City Manager from the governance and oversight responsibilities assigned to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Cupertino Municipal Code chapters
2.17 and 2.48 explicitly establish the roles of the City Manager, certain key staff, and the councilmembers.
Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.17.010, councilmembers (including the mayor) are prohibited from attempting to influence City staff’s administrative responsibilities. :
Under the Council/Manager form of government neither the City Council, nor individual Council members, can give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager. The City Manager takes his or her orders and instructions from the City Council only when given at a duly held meeting of the City Council. No individual council member can give any orders or instructions to the City Manager. [Emphasis added]
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.17.032 expressly states that “ Individual Council members shall not attempt to influence staff decisions, recommendations, workloads, and schedules, and department priorities without prior knowledge and approval of the City Council.” As Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.17.020 provides, the intent and purpose of this requirement are to ensure that control and direction of the City are maintained by the City Council as a whole as opposed to individual councilmembers ; and to protect City staff from “undue influence” from individual councilmembers so that C ity staff can execute priorities given by management and the City Council as oppose d to individual councilmembers. Further, the City Council – as opposed to individual City councilmembers – retains “the full power to accept, reject, amend, or otherwise guide and direct staff actions, decisions, recommendations, workloads and schedules, department priorities, and the conduct of city business” through the City Manager. (Section 2.17.031)
Councilmanic Interference
Councilmembers engaging in the type of conduct outlined above are committing “councilmanic interference.” Councilmanic interfer ence is a violation of the Council -Manager form of government, as established by Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.28.50:
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
The City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the City only through the City Manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager.
The City Manager shall take his or her instructions from the City Council only when given at a duly held meeting of the City Council, and no individual councilperson shall give any instructions to the City Manager.
While councilmembers are prohibited from giving orders to subordinates of the City Manager, Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.17.034 expressly allows councilmember s to get information from City staff, which does not qualify as councilmanic interference:
Individual Council members as well as the City Council as a whole, have complete freedom of access to any information requested of staff (except information which is otherwise protected by law from disclosure) and will receive the full cooperation and candor of City staff in being provided with any requested information. Information sought by an individual council member may, at the discretion of t he City Manager, be automatically provided to the City Council as a whole. In exercising this discretion, the City Manager will consider whether the information is significant or new or otherwise not available to the Council or is of interest to the Council.
Further, Cupertino Municipal Code section 1.12.010 makes it unlawful for any person to violate a mandatory provision of the code, which can be a misdemeanor. Section 1.12.010 states:
It is unlawful for any person to perform any act that is prohibited, m ade or declared to be unlawful or an offense by the code, or to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. A violation of any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the code shall constitute a misdemeanor, except where the violation is specifically declared to be an infraction.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
METHODOLOGY
The investigation process undertaken by the Civil Grand Jury included interviews with councilmembers, past and present City officials, and the A udit Committee of the City Council.
Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury watched recordings of several City Council meetings; researched and reviewed the state statutes governing the structure and operation of general law cities; researched and reviewed relevant provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Codes that describe City operations and City Council structure and responsibilities; and engaged in research that produced numerous documents supporting the findings and recommendations in this report.
The investigation focused on four critically important areas: (1) councilmanic interference by councilmembers with City management and staff; (2) operational and fiscal risk management concerns; (3) behavior dysfunction leading to failures in governance; and (4) the lack of an Ethics and Code of Conduct Policy with enforcement provisions. As a result of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury developed several findings and recommendations to address the identified areas of dysfunction.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
INVESTIGATION
Councilmanic Interference and Mutual Distrust
The Civil Grand Jury learned that City staff are routinely criticized, ridiculed, and embarrasse d during public meetings, leading City staff not to trust councilmembers. A careful review of several recorded City Council meetings confirmed the existence of adversarial and dysfunctional behavior toward City staff exhibited by some City councilmembers. At the same time, it was also noted that some councilmembers have been concerned about the difficulty in obtaining accurate and timely information on City operations considered important in performing City Council governance and oversight responsibilities. The dysfunctional relationship between City management and some councilmembers has created an environment of distrust.
As described above, there is a difference between ordering or directing City staff – which qualifies as councilmanic behavior – and requesting information, which is expressly permitted by the Cupertino Municipal Code. The Civil Grand Jury heard multiple complaints and various examples of conduct that councilmembers viewed as permissible information requests, but City staff believed were councilmanic interference. Councilmembers do communicate directly with City staff seeking information. This is permissible; however, individual councilmembers cannot, in this context, influence staff decisions, workloads, schedules, or department priorities without prior knowledge and approval of the City Council because that kind of conduct qualifies as councilmanic interference. It is easy to see how a direct request for information from a councilmember might have the impact of influencing workloads, requiring staff to work overtime, or readjusting staff priorities, which is the concern of City staff. It is also possible that the councilmember might not know or appreciate the impact of the information request.
Thus, there is a lot of gray area between information requests and information requests that have a more councilmanic spirit. As the Civil Grand Jury learned, some of the councilmembers’ requests have been voluminous or come on the heels of the councilmember s’ specific dissatisfaction with a staff report on a certain subject and, thus, appear punitive as opposed to a genuine information request. Some councilmembers, not getting the information they need, have resorted to submitting Public Records Act requests to the City Clerk to obtain specific information from City staff. T his is unusual because Public Records Act requests are commonly made by the public, not by councilmembers. It is easy to see how City staff view this practice as an aggressive tactic by the councilmembers. On the other hand, some City staff have resisted i ndividual councilmembers’ direct requests for detailed information or reports that they believe should have come through the City Manager and represent councilmanic interference. This is also frustrating for the councilmember who is charged with governing and must be informed to make important decisions about the direction of the City. Parsing out who is right or wrong in this landscape does not solve the core problem of distrust and resulting dysfunction.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
The Civil Grand Jury learned of a few instances of more blatant councilmanic conduct.
Councilmember Kitty Moore 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. Any irregularities or policy violations related to City credit use are squarely within the purview of the City Manager. Direct councilmember involvement violates the City Municipal Code prohibiting councilmembers from involving themselves in the day- to- day operations that are clearly the responsibility of the City Manager.
The Civil Grand Jury also learned through different sources that Mayor Darcy Paul directed a City staff member to assist with an event. The Mayor asserted that the City staff member had “volunteered” to help during a ribbon- cutting ceremony and therefore, such assistance did not amount to a directive as prohibited by City ordinance. The Mayor failed to recognize the powers at play--the inherent difference in stature --when a councilmember asks staff to attend functions outside their normal work responsibilities. On two separate occasions, Mayor Paul asked other City staff to work at events that were not part of official City business and occurred after working hours. For one such event, the Mayor made the request by personally calling the staff members.
Such requests by councilmembers should be made through the City Manager.
Another source of distrust between the City C ouncil and City staff involves renovations to City Hall. Further, City staff voiced concern that their workplace, City Hall, had not been renovated and seismically improved. Although the 2015 City Council allocated funds for the renovation, the monies were subsequently redirected to expand the City L ibrary. 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.
Trust between the City Council and the City Manager and staff is essential to the effective operation of the City. The C ivil Grand Jury investigation and interviews revealed that little trust exists between the City’s staff and councilmembers. In many instances the distrust is mutual. The combination of poor relationships and strained communication between these two groups has created several critical problem areas in the functioning of City government and the ability of the City Council to provide the leadership and meaningful oversight that is the core of good governance.
Failure to Produce Treasurer’s Report
Earlier this year, the Civil Grand Jury investigated the lack of financial reporting as mandated by state law. In a separate report entitled “ Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed, ” the Civil Grand Jury responded to a complaint that the City was in breach of its ordinance to produce monthly treasurer’s reports. During the investigation of the missing treasurer’s reports, the City Manager resigned unexpectedly in June of 2022.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.24.030 (“Monthly Reports”) states:
The Treasurer shall make monthly reports which conform to the requirements of [California] Government Code Section 41004. Said reports shall be delivered to the City Council, the City Manager and made available for review by such other persons who may so request.
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 A udit Committee meeting, the rationale provided by City staff was that many of the surrounding cities do not comply with this requirement. Absence of the monthly treasurer’s report impaired the councilmembers’ ability to fully exercise fiscal oversight.
It took a few months for City staff to comply with the law. The Civil Grand Jury investigation into this issue revealed that the City finance department is now producing the treasurer’s report required under California Government Code s ection 41004 and Cupertino M unicipal Code section
2.24.030. Nonetheless, the City staff’s disregard of this City ordinance in the past added to the perception of City Council that staff was not competently fulfilling their job responsibilities.
Fiscal and Risk Management Issues
Fiscal and financial risk management oversight is a key area of responsibility of every city council.
Good governance requires that city councils routinely review the financial operations of the city, identify areas of weakness and/or risk, and oversee effect ive policies and procedures for implementation by city managers. Addressing financial issues in a timely manner is an essential component of a city council’s exercise of its oversight responsibilities.
Operationally, the scheduled and repetitive use of i nternal audits is an effective tool for the discovery of financial management and internal control issues. Audits provide the best means of measuring consistent progress in mitigating weaknesses and identifying gaps through implementation of council-directed and -approved policies and procedures designed to address any identified issues.
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 sch eme in 2014, no financial policy or procedural changes were developed and implemented by the City.
The City contracts with Moss Adams LLP (Auditor) to serve as the City’s Internal Auditor.
Leading up to December of 2020, the Auditor undertook a comprehens ive risk assessment evaluation of all departments and their respective functions across the entirety of the City’s organization. Although their audit report identified several areas of concern, including internal financial controls, the Civil Grand Jury learned that the City did not take any appreciable steps to
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
remedy these concerns. The City Council did, however, call for a more detailed audit of financial operations and risk. That led to another audit in Spring 2022, which resulted in a report entitled “City of Cupertino: Fiscal Policy Inventory and Gap Analysis,” dated May 5, 2022. That report was presented by the City staff to the Council on July 19, 2022. The audit report included in its findings a policy and procedure work plan covering areas of identified financial risk. Also included in the Auditor’s findings was a detailed “Summary of Recommendations” referencing high- risk areas that require immediate City Council attention and remediation. The following chart, prepared by the Auditor, sums up the deficiencies by area, including eight areas that the Auditor described as high risk:
Figure 1. Prioritized Policies and Procedures Work Plan The full report is attached as Appendix A.
In sum, two separate audit reports dated December 2020 and May 2022, both commissioned by the City, included sets of recommendations to strengthen operating policies, procedures, and
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
internal controls. The Civil Grand Jury learned that few, if any, of those recommendations hav e been implemented for reasons that remain unclear. Past and present key staff offered no clarity on how the City addressed or intends to address the well -developed Moss Adams internal audit recommendations.
The Civil Grand Jury learned that the City Council’s Audit Committee has been meeting and discussing the audit reports. The Civil Grand Jury investigated the functions and responsibilities assigned to the Audit Committee , which exists as a subcommittee of the City Council. These functions and responsibilities are identified on the City of Cupertino website as follows (also refer to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.88.100):
• To review the annual audit report and management letter • To recommend appointment of internal/external auditors • To review the monthly Treasurer’s Report
• To recommend a budget format
• To review City investment policies and internal controls of such policies • To review internal audit reports
• To review quarterly Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program reports Audit committee operating procedures require members, among other responsibilities, to assess the internal audit findings and recommendations and submit their analysis and recommendations to the City Council for discussion and action. The Auditors attend and participate in the City Council Audit Committee meeting, and their reports, findings, and recommendations are provided directly to the Audit Committee for discussion and development of recommended actions.
However, it remains unclear to the Civil Grand Jury whether the City is addressing the fiscal risks identified in the May 5, 2022, Auditor report. The Audit Committee meets regularly and the minutes reflect that there is a workplan. In May 2022, the status of the Audit C ommittee’s work was on the City Council agenda, but that meeting was later canceled. The Civil Grand Jury could find no evidence in the City Council minutes that the City Council had discussed the risk reduction work plan or had authorized the City Manager to proceed with its implementation. This is concerning because the financial control issues have long been known to the City and yet questions directed to councilmembers, Audit Committee members, and relevant City staff failed to provide assurance that the City Council has prioritized the efforts of the Audit Committee or evaluated and approved a work plan to address the audit deficiencies.
City Staff Turnover
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. The City has had four city managers from
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
June 2019 to the present. The most recent City Manager appointment took place on August 29, 2022. The high turnover in key management positions increases the risk of operational errors and oversights. It also reduces the level of institutional memory and process knowledge that facilitates the efficient and timely flow of work throughout the City’s several departments.
High turnover also brings in new employees , some of whom are unlikely to be familiar with the City’s specific operational policies and procedures and therefore require higher levels of training and closer supervision to become proficient in their work assignments. Several of the interviews undertaken by the Civil Grand Jury confirmed that high staff and m anagement turnover reduced the operating efficiency of City government. Further , the Civil Grand Jury learned that th is high turnover rate has negatively impacted the City’s reputation and in turn, has led to its inability to attract qualified people for some key staff and management positions. Interviewees cited turnover as a continuing operational problem.
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.
For example, the City of Cupertino salary structure for staff and management is competitive with equivalent positions in other nearby cities. And witnesses confirmed that much of the turnover was due to some councilmembers’ contentious behavior and direct interference in City operations and staff assignments.
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. The belief by City staff that their work is unappreciated and devalued by councilmembers perpetuates the open and public conflict between the City Council and City staff. Such behavior makes it highly likely that management turnover will continue.
Effective local government depends upon hiring and retaining qualified staff and management and electing councilmembers dedicated to functioning in a manner that best serves their constituents.
The City, according to several interview statements, has devel oped a reputation of having a difficult work environment, making recruiting of highly qualified applicants difficult.
Ethics Policy
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 Civil Grand Jury has many concerns about the new Ethics Policy.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
First, unlike the rescinded version, the current Ethics Policy is less comprehensive and ignores the subject of councilmanic interference found in the rescinded version. Thus, there are significantly fewer ethical requirements and standards for councilmembers.
Second, the current version of the Ethics Policy contains no enforcement provisions that would allow action(s) to be taken against councilmembers or City officials who violate behavioral or performance requirements. The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the City’s current Ethics Policy against those of comparable cities. No ticeably missing were enforcement provisions that enabled the public, councilmembers, and staff to report policy violations or other misconduct.
Enforcement provisions are needed to:
• Provide guidelines to address misconduct and inappropriate behavior • Implement appropriate disciplinary action when necessary, including warnings, sanctions, censure, and termination
• Define steps to take depending upon the nature of the violation, prior violations by the same individual, and other factors that could bear upon the seriousness of the violation In the absence of enforcement provisions, the City’s barebones Ethics Policy is ineffective in remediating problematic staff and councilmember actions and behaviors. Adopting a more comprehensive ethics policy is important to enable the City Council to execute its assigned responsibilities for effective governance, operational oversight, and risk mitigation.
Third, the Ethics Policy is not available to the public online. This lack of transparency is unusual for City government. Further, the lack of a publicly available Ethics Policy reduces the likelihood that councilmembers will be held accountable by the public for violations of the policy. The 2018 and 2020 versions of the City’s Ethics Policy are attached as Appendi x B and Appendix C, respectively.
Fourth, the year-long gap during which the City had no ethics policy is a concern.
Last, it seems that the rationale for creating a policy with generic ethics goals and no enforcement provisions was to avoid accountability. One councilmember interviewed expressed the opinion that the old policy did not provide enough flexibility. Another councilmember suggested that the old Ethics Policy was too restrictive. No City councilmembers could explain why the replacement Ethics Policy does not contain any enforcement provisions. The City Council’s decision to rescind a detailed Code of Ethics and Conduct with meaningful enforcement provisions, and to replace it with a barebones unenforceable policy that is not publicly available, and, in the meantime, to operate without any policy at all for 12 months, is very concerning to the Civil Grand Jury and evidences a lack of willingness on the part of the current City Council to hold itself accountable.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
CONCLUSION
Voters of the City of Cupertino elect five councilmembers. Councilmembers in turn hire the City Manager and the City Attorney. The public has the right to hold the governing body responsible for its leadership and guidance and to pursue policies that lead to sound governance. City voters do not elect City staff. If the environment created by the governing board is toxic, the City will not be able to hire and retain competent talent to serve the residents of Cupertino. The governing council must create a respectful environment for staff. The behavior of councilmembers may need to be reviewed and good government practices implemented to remediate the dysfunction that currently exists.
The absence of a comprehensive Ethics and Code of Conduct policy with enforcement provisions is a significant concern for the Civil Grand Jury. Ethics and Code of Conduct policies set baseline parameters of acceptable organizational operating practices and required behavior of staff, management and councilmembers. The absence of enforcement provisions in the new Ethics Policy provides the City and its residents no remedy for unacceptable actions or behavior.
The Civil Grand Jury is aware that this report will be published after the November 2022 elections and hopes that any newly elected councilmembers will take the opportunity to develop better working relationships with the City staff.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The City has a culture of distrust between the councilmembers and City staff that is creating dysfunction.
Recommendation 1
The City should develop or acquire a good governance training and development program for both existing and newly elected councilmembers and existing and new staff members to address: (i) their role, responsibilities, and the relevant laws that specify and/or limit their function; (ii) the division of responsibilities between councilmembers and staff as directed by the Cupertino Municipal Code; and (iii) the necessity of morale building to create a stronger, more effective, and respectful relationship between City staff and councilmembers. Recommendation 1 should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
Finding 2
The dysfunction prevalent between the City Council and City staff has negatively impacted City operations, including the continuing loss of skilled and experienced personnel. The City has a reputation of having a difficult work environment, making recruiting of highly qualified applicants difficult.
Recommendation 2
The City should hire a consultant to study staff morale and make recommendations to improve retention of employees and quality of the working environment. To the extent legally permissible, the study and recommendations should be published for public review. Recommendation 2 should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
Finding 3
The City has not taken sufficient steps to improve the City’s financial risk profile as recommended by its retained Internal Auditor.
Recommendation 3a
The City should implement the work plan identified in the May 2022 Fiscal Policy Inventory and Gap Analysis Report developed by the City’s internal audit firm, Moss Adams LLP, to address policy and procedural gaps and weaknesses. Recommendation 3a should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
Recommendation 3b
The City should employ the use of continuing annual internal audits to assess progress in the development and implementation of new or modified policies and procedures to comply with
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
internal audit risk reduction and mitigation recommendations. Recommendat ion 3b should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
Finding 4
A comprehensive Code of Ethics not only provides guidance and baseline standards for ethical behavior, it includes sanctions and consequences for deviations from the standard. The City’s Ethics Polic y is generic and lacks enforcement provisions and therefore fails to provide a framework to address ramifications for policy violations.
Recommendation 4a
The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission with guidance from experts in applied ethics, such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, to: (i) develop and implement a robust government ethics training program for all councilmembers; and (ii) evaluate a best practices enforceable Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy that governs all councilmembers and appointed officials for consideration by the City C ouncil. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
Recommendation 4b
The City should reinstate enforcement procedures to enable the City Council and the public to file complaints and testify at public hearings to help remediate ethics violations. This revision should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
Recommendation 4c
The City Council should engage a conflict resolution professional to help enhance mutual understanding and respect amongst all stakeholders. This recommendation should be implemented by January 31, 2023, and should be repeated at least once per year.
Recommendation 4d
The City should publish its current Ethics Policy on the City website by January 31, 2023.
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
The City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
APPENDIX A
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
APPENDIX B
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
APPENDIX C
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
REFERENCES
Bibliography:
California Government Code section 36501, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2021/code- gov/title-4/division-3/part-1/section-36501/#:~:text=%C2%A7%2036501%20(2021)- ,36501.,(b)%20A%20city%20clerk (accessed October 15, 2022).
California Government Code section 41004, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2019/code- gov/title-4/division-3/part-3/chapter-3/section-41004/#:~:text=%C2%A7%2041004%20(2019)- ,41004.,copy%20with%20the%20legislative%20body (accessed November 1, 2022).
City of Cupertino Municipal Code,
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-78624 (assessed October 30, 2022).
City of Cupertino Ethics Policy, adopted by Resolution No 2020-011 dated January 21, 2020.
City of Cupertino, City of Cupertino Careers Class Specifications, www.governmentjobs.com/careers/cupertino/classspecs (assessed Nov 3, 2022).
County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Show Me The Money: Financial Transparency Needed,” November 2022.
Hase, Grace, “Cupertino loses latest city manager in four years, and mayor wanted to ‘ hold off’ in disclosing it, ” Mercury News, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/02/cupertino-loses- latest-city-manager-in-four-years-and-mayor-wanted-to-hold-off-on-disclosing-it/ July 2, 2022, updated July 3, 2022 (accessed October 11, 2022).
League of California Cities, “Your Legal Powers and Obligations, ” https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/new-mayors-and-council-members-academy- session-materials/02-your-legal-powers-and-obligations.pdf (accessed October 13, 2022).
Marrkula Cent er for Applied Ethics, “Government Ethics, ” Santa Clara University, https://www.scu.edu/government-ethics/ (accessed November 1, 2022).
National League of Cities, “ City Councils,” https://nlc.org/city-councils (accessed November 1, 2022).
REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
This report was ADOPTED by the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this 19th day of December, 2022.
______________________________
Ms. Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson