110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/17/2026
ITEM NO: 7
ADDENDUM
DATE: March 13, 2026
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Confirming Action Only Minutes and Modifying the Minute Format
REMARKS:
Attachment two contains public comment received before 3:00 p.m. on Friday, March 13, 2026.
Attachment received with the Staff Report:
1. Resolution 2001-104
Attachment received with this Addendum:
2. Public comment received before 3:00 p.m. on Friday, March 13, 2026.
As INTEGRITY is needed in recording minutes and to such accuracy of keeping time in a statements made by members of the public, that now is being seen as me ATTACHMENT 2
coming in as a “THING” under, a “member of the public” and not an individual with a name, as aren’t we all members of the public even if we are ALL THINGS? So which number am I, as a member of the public in which 13 people spoke up and are being recorded in this “SUBJECT: Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of March 3, 2026” [DATE: March 17, 2026]
Am I #2, #9 or #1 on this subject matter?
Do Minute Matter, I mean as does # 5 actually count as an agenda item when on March 3, 2026, the Mayor stated at the start of the meeting, that “Minute # 5” is now going to be heard after Consent Items, and at the time I was the only one that filled out a separate speaker card, after marking a speaker card on minutes #1,#4 . (Tried to prepare a 3 minute… um objection)
How was the Public informed that a 2 person, ‘Town Council Policy Committee’ held on February 24, 2026 that, and I quote: “Review and Provide Direction on the Current Practices for Meeting Minutes” to be brought to the attention of the public at the next Town Council meeting, and was not put on the agenda, but placed in the minutes as Item #5.
“1. Nimi Kumar (Item 4)
2. Member of the Public (Items 1 and 4)” [ALSO- spoke / Q. Item 5 about this ] NOTE
How was/ is it fair for the public at large to be able to speak or write in / on this Subject Matter /? agenda item ? when in fact it is posted under minutes? I have returned “email Notices” from Clerk(s)? to such fact at hand of trying to bring to the attention of a Council or Committee, and have questioned in such meeting at the time.
I mean this could read under “Verbal Communication”
1st speaker - Rich Stephens - said, “THANK YOU” to those 5 agencies & first responders, pointing out a drone while sirens and lights flashed … trying to make a small boy in this town feel special.. and making this town a reason … never mind, to much work to put this in writing… but a shout out to … Wonder Woman! The next following 6 people that spoke on ICE / BAD GOVERNMENT & Town Council refusal to hold an agenda item on this subject matter .. mute them out!
2. Eric Muller
3. Burr Nissen
4. SueAnn Lorig
5. Nigel Chandler
6. Kathy Mattingly
7. Ali Miano
8. Joe Enz … known as a friend to the creek people, and concern to the point of running for Mayor!
9. Member of the Public.. Gus Who as Captain Seuss .. & March Madness!? (Karen needs to Y up …)
10. Jeff Susuki - President Anti race .. Ice … um… mutant this out..
11. Jason J … actually gave Town Council members “Legal Notice” as elected officers concerning Bad Government/ ICE .. that you can be named personally and in your capacity under - “Title” … in a “Court of Law” …
Note: There was approximate 20 or so Ice protesters/ bad gov, some with signs sitting and supporting the 8 people that spoke for group. I believe I counted 22 (not sure), but they gathered prior out on the side as I mentioned to Rich Stephen on our way in to the meeting.
At the time, Agenda Item #5 was called for the public to speak, I was the only card called, as the Mayor is heard saying and I quote: “We have one speaker card from Gus Who.” I spoke to topic and Bad Government and being a protester - ICE tactics.. and being quoted as “Member of the Public” with “ Various Concerns” … A second speaker handed in a card, after I was called and spoke about concerns to transparency and “praying that you won’t” do this to the public.
The Town states “There would be no direct budgetary cost associated” with this subject matter under “Fiscal Impact,” but this is not a true statement as I have informed the Town of Lawsuits…
Conclusion- Members of the public have spoke, and even questioned such practices and … um .. abuse of power / and cover ups as such may be the case in this subject matter… enough said.
Respectfully Submitted
By a Thing … member of the public .. Gus Who or is that Gus WAT? All Rights Reserved
©®
Meant only for 3/17/26