Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 18, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

ORDINANCE NO. 2051

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC

DESIGN FOR CENTRAL PARK ENTRANCE,

ACCESSIBILITY & PARKING IMPROVEMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CHARTER SECTION 714.1

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Central Park (“Park”), located at 909 Keily Blvd. was dedicated as

11.85 acres of parkland (APN 290-26-029) on November 19, 1961(VERIFY DATE);

WHEREAS, the Park was prioritized for rehabilitation and funding for the Central Park Entrance, Accessibility and Parking Improvements Project #3133 (“Project”) was approved by Council in the City’s Biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP); WHEREAS, implementation of the Central Park Entrance, Accessibility and Parking Improvements Project will include renovation, expansion, relocation, new construction, and preservation of existing park amenities;
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Santa Clara passed Measure R in 2016, which added section 714.1 to the City Charter, which prohibits substantial building, construction, reconstruction, or development of parks and recreation facilities except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum;
WHEREAS, the Project improvements constitutes as substantial building, construction, reconstruction and/or development, and is subject to Measure R; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the Park Project improvements by ordinance in accordance with City Charter section 714.1. //

//
Ordinance/Central Park Entrance, Accessibility & Parking Improvements Project Rev: 09/2019

Page 2 of 3 ends

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 : That the City Council hereby approves the building,

construction, reconstruction and/or development in accordance with the Central Park Entrance, Accessibility, and Parking Improvements Schematic Design, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, and in accordance with City Charter section 714.1.

SECTION 2: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing before the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All fee schedules shall remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council. //

//
Ordinance/Central Park Entrance, Accessibility & Parking Improvements Project Rev: 09/2019

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall not be codified in the Santa Clara City Code.

SECTION 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its

final adoption; however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance with the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of “The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California.” PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 27th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS: Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Park, Watanabe and Mayor Gillmor

NOES: COUNCILORS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILORS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS: None

ATTEST: ___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Central Park Entrance, Accessibility and Parking Improvements Project Schematic Design

ORA PIMENTEL , M C

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1293 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2052 Amending Chapter 12.35 (“Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” to Modify the Process for Violation Appeals

BACKGROUND
At the October 4, 2022 Council meeting, proposed Ordinance No. 2052 was passed for the purpose of publication. Pursuant to City Charter Sections 808 and 812, a summary of proposed Ordinance No. 2052 was published to the Santa Clara Weekly on October 12, 2022, and copies were posted in three public places.

DISCUSSION
The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 12.35 of the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) to eliminate the requirement that appeals based on violations of Chapter 12.35 must be heard by the City Council. Instead, where an administrative citation is issued, the proposed ordinance amendment would require such violations to be heard by an administrative law officer in accordance with the City’s typical appeal procedures. In addition, the proposed amendment would clarify that the person receiving an administrative citation has the authority to request an appeal.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable foreseeable indirect change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this ordinance update.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
A summary of proposed Ordinance No. 2052 was published to the Santa Clara Weekly on October 12, 2022, and copies were posted in three public places and made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.

Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-1293 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2052 Amending Chapter 12.35 (“Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” to Modify the Process for Violation Appeals.

Reviewed by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 2052 Intro
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 1 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
ORDINANCE NO. 2052

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.35 (“TREES AND
SHRUBS”) OF TITLE 12 ( “STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND
PUBLIC PLACES ”) OF “THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA”

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Section 12.35.150 (“Appeals”) of Chapter 12.35 (“Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places ”) of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) stipulates that all appeals to a violation based on Chapter 12.35 shall be heard by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the language governing appeals in SCCC Section 12.35.150 is inconsistent with the standard rules set forth in Chapters 1. 05.070 (“ Prosecutorial disc retion for enforcement – Continuing violations – Range of penalties – Enforcement cost recovery”) and 1.10 (“Administrative Penalties – Citations”) of the SCCC; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have violations of Chapter 12.35 follow the rules set forth in Chapter 1.05.070 by which a violation may be enforced as a criminal, civil, or administrative action; and
WHEREAS, In the event a violation of Chapter 12.35 is enforced as an administrative action, the City desires appeals for such violations follow the typical appeal procedures set forth in SCCC Chapter 1.10.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
//
//
Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 2 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 1: That Section 12.35.140 (“Penalty for violation”) of Chapter 12.35 (entitled “Trees and Shrubs ”) of Title 12 (entitled “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) of the SCCC is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“12.35.140 Penalty for violation.
(a) Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any of the provisions of this chapter or any permit issued to it, the City may assess a monetary penalty in a sum not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(b) In the event that the violation results in any substantial injury, damage, or removal of a city tree or protected tree as determined by the City Manager, an additional penalty shall be assessed in the amount of the monetary value of the tree, which is determined based on location, species and tree size. The appropriate penalty shall apply separately to each tree affected by the improper action.
(c) In any civil action brought to seek such civil penalties, and/or to obtain injunctive relief for violation of any provision of this chap ter, in which the City prevails, th e court shall determine and impose reasonable expenses, including the costs of employee time and attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the investigation and prosecution of the action. (d) The remedies provided for in this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal.”
//
//
//
//
//
Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 3 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 2: That Section 12.35.150 (“Appeals”) of Chapter 12.35 (entitled “Trees and Shrubs”) of Title 12 (entitled “Streets, Sidewalks and Public P laces”) of the SCCC is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“12.35.150 Enforcement.

Pursuant to SCCC 1.05.070 , the C ity, in its prosecutorial discretion, may enforce violation(s) of the provisions of this Chapter as a criminal, civil, and/or administrative action.

Administrative citations issued under this Chapter shall follow the process set forth in SCCC 1.10.”
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Ordinance/Amendment to Chapter 12.35 Trees & Shrubs Page 4 of 3 Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 3: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing before the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall it affec t any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All fee schedules shall remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption; however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance wi th the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of “The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California.” PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 4th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS: Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Park, Watanabe and Mayor Gillmor

NOES: COUNCILORS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILORS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS: None
ATTEST: ___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference: None

ORA PIMENTEL , M C

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1087 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of July 2022

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Disbursements made by the Stadium Authority are based on invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they are in compliance with the goods or services provided.

The Bills and Claims listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. Budget control is set by the Stadium Authority Board through the budget adoption process.

DISCUSSION
On April 30, 2019, the Stadium Authority Board directed staff to stop payment of any Stadium Authority invoices for services unless there is substantial documentation of services rendered, which must also be in compliance with State law and City Code. Since April 30, 2019, staff received direction to pay Stadium Authority invoices related to SBL sales and services, insurance, and utilities.

In addition, at the March 23, 2021 Stadium Authority Board meeting, the Board approved staff recommendations to direct the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (Stadium Manager) to provide a procurement plan/schedule that demonstrates the ability to manage the Stadium with the proper standard of care and that addresses the highest priority projects while balancing the potential need for City resources. Subsequent to that direction, the Stadium Manager has submitted requests to the Board for approval; to be awarded purchase order(s) related to capital projects.

At the March 15, 2022 Stadium Authority Board meeting, the Executive Director was delegated authority to approve budget amendments that move funds from the Legal Contingency to Shared Expenses after the review of adequate documentations for costs based on Board direction.

Subsequent to that direction, Stadium Authority staff met with Stadium Manager on April 12, 2022 to review documentation for shared expenses. After follow-up meetings with the Stadium Manager, payments related to compensation that were reviewed and approved for monthly payment, totaling $5.1 million for the fiscal year.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1087 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Expenses paid in July 2022 include:
· Payments totaling $511,843.91 to the City of Santa Clara for the following:
o $50,305.74 for reimbursement of General and Administrative (G&A) City payroll costs (e.g.: Executive Director’s Office (City Manager’s Office), Counsel’s Office (City Attorney’s Office), and Treasurer’s Office (Finance Department)) o $413.45 for Special Liability Claims for Q4 ending 3/31/2022 o $1,124.72 for reimbursement of SCSA G&A Costs (Supplies/Equipment) o $460,000.00 for FY2022-23 Ground Lease Rent
· Payments totaling $740,396.45 to Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC for the following:
o $7,662.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Grounds o $31,302.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Guest Services
o $32,497.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Security o $143,482.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Engineering
o $208,053.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Compensation for Stadium Ops
o $81,710.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Insurance o $174,077.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - SBL Sales & Services o $1,393.45 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - StadCo Tenant Improvements o $8,333.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Lender Fees o $51,887.00 for August 2022 Stadium Manager Expenses - Other G&A · Payments to Hanson Bridgett LLP for Legal Services from March 2022 to June 2022 · Payment to Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP for April 2022 Legal Services · Payment totaling $877.50 to Keyser Marston Associates, Inc for June 2022 Fiscal and Economic Analysis
The Supreme Court of California in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, held that invoices specifying the amounts billed by a law firm to a client fall within the scope of attorney-client privilege while the matters are active. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, information that would compromise legal strategy, and would otherwise be privileged, is redacted consistent with the Public Records Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is a $1,422,186.90 fiscal impact to the Stadium Authority.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
22-1087 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the list of Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for July 2022.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. July 2022 SCSA Bills and Claims
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount 7/15/2022 Bank of America N/A June 2022 bank fees acct 0444 CapEx 1,484.21 7/15/2022 Bank of America N/A June 2022 bank fees acct 0425 Operating 230.42 7/15/2022 Bank of America N/A June 2022 bank fees acct 6280 Operating 56.93 1,771.56
7/7/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A B2212 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 50,305.74 7/15/2022 City of Santa Clara 93085 Special Liability Claims FY2021-22 Q4 Operating 413.45 7/22/2022 City of Santa Clara N/A Reimburse CSC for SCSA G&A Expenses (Supplies/Equipment) Operating 1,124.72 7/27/2022 City of Santa Clara 93180 FY2022-23 Ground Lease Rent Operating 460,000.00 511,843.91
7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Grounds Operating 7,662.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Guest Svcs Operating 31,302.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Security Operating 32,497.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Engineering Operating 143,482.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Compensation for Stad Ops Operating 208,053.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Insurance Operating 81,710.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - SBL Sales & Svcs Operating 174,077.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - StadCo Tenant Improvements Operating 1,393.45 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Lender Fees Operating 8,333.00 7/29/2022 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-23584 August 2022 Std Mgr - Other G&A Operating 51,887.00 740,396.45
7/15/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP 1316780 March 2022 Legal Services Operating 7/29/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP Various April 2022 Legal Services Operating 7/29/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP Various May 2022 Legal Services Operating 7/29/2022 Hanson Bridgett LLP Various June 2022 Legal Services Operating 7/15/2022 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP 1852401 April 2022 Legal Services Operating 7/29/2022 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc 0036985 June 2022 Fiscal & Economic Anaysis Operating 877.50 July 2022 Total 1,422,186.90$
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire Transfer
For the Month of July 2022

Page 1 of 1 ends

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1103 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO THE STADIUM AUTHORITY

SUBJECT
Adopt the Stadium Authority’s Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Positions as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
The California Political Reform Act requires all public officials, employees, and consultants who make or participate in the making of governmental decisions to disclose any economic interest that could be affected by those decisions. Under Government Code Section 87302 of the Political Reform Act, certain designated officials and employees of the City are required to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) because of the nature of their position with the public agency. These officials, staff members and consultants serve in positions that have been designated by the Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code as being required to file such statements.

Under the Political Reform Act, an individual consulting to a government agency is required to file a Form 700 when they assume office and annually thereafter if the consultant makes governmental decisions as defined in the FPPC regulations or when they serve in a staff capacity and participate in governmental decisions or performs the duties of an individual in the agency's conflict-of-interest code. Not every person that is subject to the Act has to file a Form 700, just statutory filers who are expressly listed in the Act and designated officials who the agency designate in the conflict of interest code, which includes new positions or consultants who meet the standard above.

DISCUSSION
The Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code is proposed to be amended to include an updated List of Designated Positions Required to File. Changes that occurred from the prior version of the Conflict of Interest are redlined in the Attachments. The list of Designated Positions have been updated to add new job classifications or titles.

All public officials, including “consultants,” are prohibited from making, participating in making, or influencing any government decision having a foreseeable, material financial effect on their economic interests. Individual officials of the Stadium Manager, as the Stadium Authority’s consultant, have been determined to meet the consultant designation and are required to file a Form 700 under the Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code. The Stadium Manager’s Chief Procurement Officer classification has been added to the Conflict of Interest Code.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-1103 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
The proposed resolution and appendices reflect the position which is being added to the list of designated positions. Upon Stadium Authority approval, the Stadium Authority Secretary will notify the affected employees as to their filing status.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution amending the Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Approved by: City Attorney’s Office

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution of the Stadium Authority and attached Conflict of Interest Code and Appendices (redline)

2. Santa Clara Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code with Appendices A and B (clean) City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

17169999.3

RESOLUTION NO. XX-X (STADIUM AUTHORITY)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS

AS REQUIRED BY THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND

REGULATIONS OF THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires certain public agency officials and employees to file economic disclosure forms ("Form 700") and abstain from making or participating in governmental decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest; WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires the Stadium Authority to adopt a local conflict of interest code that enumerates specific official and employee positions other than those specified in Government Code § 87200 which involve making or participating in making decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest , and to designate for each position the types of investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which are reportable based on the scope of the decision- making authority of the position;
WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority has adopted a Conflict of Interest Code in compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act;
WHEREAS, consistent with FPPC advice and the Political Reform Act, the determination regarding whether or not a consultant is a public official is made by the designated agency, or delegated employee or department that hires the consultant, in consultation with its legal counsel.

A consultant does not have authority to decide whether or not they are a public official; and WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority also hereby provides the Executive Director with the authority to add any new positions when required under the Po litical Reform Act.

WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority has reviewed and considered administratively

17169999.3

suggested changes to the listing of designated positions of Stadium Authority officials and employees, along with assigned disclosure categories, in the Conflict of Interest Code.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Santa Clara Stadium Authority's Conflict of Interest Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted and includes the following:
(a) The Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs . Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference and which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings.

Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs . Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A in which officials and employees are designated and Appendix B in which disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority, which is considered the agency within the purview of this code. The Conflict of Interest Code so adopted amends and replaces any Conflict of Interest Code previously in effect to con form to this newly adopted code.

(b) Designated officials, employees, and consultants shall file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk, who shall be and perform the duties of filing officer for the City of Santa Clara and its authorities.

2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, AT A REGULAR MEETING

17169999.3

THEREOF HELD ON THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: BOARD MEMBERS:

ATTEST: _______________________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

SECRETARY OF THE STADIUM AUTHORITY

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Santa Clara Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code with Appendices A and B - 1 -

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

SECTION 1: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - ADOPTED

The Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference and which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings. Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A in which officials and employees are designated and Appendix B in which disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority), which is considered the agency within the purview of this code. The Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority so adopted amends and replaces any Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority previously in effect to conform to this newly adopted code.

SECTION 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - STATEMENTS

Designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the Santa Clara City Clerk, who shall be and perform the duties of filing officer for the Stadium Authority.

SECTION 3: SAVINGS CLAUSE

Any change provided for in this conflict of interest code shall not affect or excuse any offense or act committed or done or omission or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or accruing under any other conflict of interest code; nor shall it affect any prose cution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered in connection with any other conflict of interest code.

Appendix A: On file in City Clerk’s Office
Appendix B: Attached

- 2 -

APPENDIX A

DESIGNATED POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE

Officials Who Manage Public Investments
Pursuant to Government Code section 87200, officials who manage public investments as defined by 2 California Code of Regulations § 18701(b) are also subject to the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act and are requi red to file full Statements of Economic Interests. It has been determined that the positions listed below manage public investments and will file a statement of economic interests pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. These positions are listed for informational purposes only:
• Board Members
• Executive Director
• Stadium Authority General Counsel
• Stadium Authority
• Stadium Authority Treasurer
• Stadium Authority Auditor
An individual holding one of the above-listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by Government Code Section 87200.

Designated Positions Disclosure Categories
Senior Management Analyst 1
Consultant/New Positions* 1, 5

*Consultants/New Positions are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code, subject to the following limitation: the Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant or new position, although a “designated person,” is hired to perform a range of duti es that are limited in scope and thus is not required to comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section.

Such determination shall include a description of the consultant's or new position's duties, and based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Director's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code. (Gov. Code Sec. 81008. )

In addition, Consultants include all natural persons who are independent contractor consultants or such members, officers or employees of companies who by contract with the Stadium - 3 -

Authority make decisions on behalf of the Stadium Authority that may foreseeably have a material effect on any of their financial interests as further specified in 2 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 18700.3. Consultant specifically includes , but is not limited to , such members, officers or employees of the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC who pursuant to a contract with the Santa Clara Stadium Authority have made or continue to make decisions on behalf of the Stadium Authority which may foreseeably have a material effect on any of their financial interests. This designation includes the following officers or employees of Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC:

Consultant Position Categories
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC President 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Executive Vice President and General Manager 1, 5
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Chief Financial Officer 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Chief Revenue Officer 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC General Counsel 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Director of Procurement 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC
Any other individual officer or employee
who is determined by the Executive
Director as satisfying the definition of
consultant in 2 Cal. Code of Regs.

Section 18700.3
1, 5

- 4 -

APPENDIX B

MASTER LIST OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

Category 1 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management.

Category 2 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management.

Category 3 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority.

Category 4 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management if the business entity or source of income is of the type which provides services, equipment, lease space, materials or supplies to the Stadium Authority.

Category 5 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, from, sources that filed a claim with or against the Stadium Authority during the previous two years, or have a claim pending with or against the Stadium Authority. - 1 -

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

SECTION 1: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - ADOPTED

SECTION 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - STATEMENTS

Designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the Santa Clara City Clerk, who shall be and perform the duties of filing officer for the Stadium Authority.

SECTION 3: SAVINGS CLAUSE

Any change provided for in this conflict of interest code shall not affect or excuse any offense or act committed or done or omission or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or accruing under any other conflict of interest code; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered in connection with any other conflict of interest code.

Appendix A: On file in City Clerk’s Office
Appendix B: Attached

- 2 -

APPENDIX A

DESIGNATED POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE

Officials Who Manage Public Investments
Pursuant to Government Code section 87200, officials who manage public investments as defined by 2 California Code of Regulations § 18701(b) are also subject to the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act and are required to file full Statement s of Economic Interests. It has been determined that the positions listed below manage public investments and will file a statement of economic interests pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. These positions are listed for informational purposes only:
• Board Members
• Executive Director
• Stadium Authority General Counsel
• Stadium Authority
• Stadium Authority Treasurer
• Stadium Authority Auditor
An individual holding one of the above-listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by Government Code Section 87200.

Designated Positions Disclosure Categories
Senior Management Analyst 1
Consultant/New Positions* 1, 5

*Consultants/New Positions are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code, subject to the following limitation: the Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant or new position, although a “designated person,” is hired to perform a range of duties that are limi ted in scope and thus is not required to comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section.

In addition, Consultants include all natural persons who are independent contractor consultants or such members, officers or employees of companies who by contract with the Stadium - 3 -

Section 18700.3
1, 5

- 4 -

APPENDIX B

MASTER LIST OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

Category 3 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1294 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Transmittal Report on Grand Jury Reports (For Information Only):

1. “If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped,” dated October 7, 2022

2. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” dated October 10, 2022

BACKGROUND
The following Civil Grand Jury Reports are being transmitted to the City Council:
· “If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped,” dated October 7, 2022 · “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” dated October 10, 2022 The law provides 90 days for the City to respond to each report’s findings and recommendations.

While staff will not be prepared to present on these reports at the October 18, 2022 meeting, discussions are underway to schedule special Council meetings in open session as soon as possible to have the City Council review, discuss and provide direction on the on the findings and recommendations in each of these reports.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Manager’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-1294 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Reviewed by: Steve Ngo, City Attorney
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Memorandum - Civil Grand Jury Reports

2. If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped

3. Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum
Date: October 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: Steve Ngo, Interim City Attorney
Subject: Civil Grand Jury Reports

Dear Mayor and Council:

For your diligent review and formal comment, I am transmitting to you copies of the following Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports received by the City Clerk:

• “If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped,” dated October 7, 2022 • “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” dated October 10, 2022

With respect to the preface in the report titled, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” under the section “Final Report v. Draft Report,” (Page 1 of 61) the statute cited, section 933.05(f), requires notice to the public agency of two working days to identify any inconsistencies or factual errors in the draft report. While well and good, it is not practical for a public agency, which takes action through a governing body, to notice a public meeting, afford time for the governing body and staff to review the report, identify and agree on any such inconsistencies or factual errors, and transmit the same to the Civil Grand Jury in two business days. Moreover, such a process would conflict with the same statute’s prohibition on public disclosure of the draft report before the report is published. I would not have advised a closed session meeting to consider the draft report.

The law provides 90 days for the City to respond to each report’s findings and recommendations. While staff will not be prepared to present on these reports at the October 18, 2022, meeting, plans are underway to schedule special meetings in open session as soon as possible to duly consider and take action on the findings and recommendations in each of these reports.

City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Re: Grand Jury Reports
October 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

Thank you,

Steve Ngo
_______________________
Steve Ngo
Interim City Attorney

Attachments: 1. “If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped,” dated October 7, 2022

2. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” dated October 10, 2022

Cc: Rajeev Batra, Interim City Manager

I/Council/Memoranda/2022-10-13 - Grand Jury Reports

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y

S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y

October 7, 2022

City of Santa Clara
c/o Mr. Hosam Haggag, City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Sent via email: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Haggag:

The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.

California Penal Code § 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code § 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 1b, 1c, 1e.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowen, 2023 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than January 5, 2023.

Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882- 2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

James Renalds
Foreperson, 2022 Civil Grand Jury

Enclosures
cc: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk, City of Santa Clara er
F

Release date here Page 0 of 23

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT,
YOU’RE BEING DUPED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
October 7, 2022

Page 1 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................2 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................6 INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21

Page 2 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Attorney General The chief law officer who represents a state in legal proceedings.

Ballot Card The printed ballot, usually on high-grade paper, consisting of the ballot questions and names of individuals running for elected office.

Ballot Measure Ballot measures are proposals, usually at a county or local level, to enact new laws or repeal existing laws, which are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Proposition

Ballot propositions are proposals, usually at the state level, to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments, which are
placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Question or Ballot
Label

Boards and Commissions

For purposes of this report, Ballot Question or Ballot
Label means the 75- word or less statement of a measure that precedes “Yes” or “No” on the ballot card.

Boards and Commissions are made up of residents who
volunteer their time and expertise to assist and advi se governing bodies in the chosen capacity.

Caselaw

Law or legal precedent established by the outcome of
court cases.

County Counsel or Office of
the County Counsel

The County Counsel is the chief legal advisor and
representative for the county, including the county board of supervisors and all county agencies and departments.

Elections Code

A collection of California laws related to public elections.

Page 3 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Governing Entity

A jurisdiction such as a city, county, school district, special district, or political subdivision.

Home Rule

The right of self -government that is granted by state
constitution or statute to give autonomy to a local
government. Home Rule implies that each level of
government has a separate realm of authority.

Public Opinion Pollsters

Registrar of Voters

Opinion polls are designed to represent the opinions o f a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals. A person who conducts polls is referred to as a pollster.

The department responsible for the operation,
administration, and direction of the elections department, with primary responsibility for the registration of voters, the holding of elections ,
and all matters pertaining to
elections.

Single Subject Rule

Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject
may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, the rule stands for the notion that where an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.

Term Limits

A specified number of terms (in years) that a person in office is allowed to serve.

Writ of Mandate

In California, writs of mandate are used by superior courts, courts of appeal , and the Supreme Court to command
lower bodies, including both courts and government
agencies, to do or not to do certain things.

Page 4 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

SUMMARY

It is not uncommon for the public to be confronted daily with news and information through multiple sources —tradi tional television programming, 24/7 cable news, satellite radio, social media, and phone alerts. In the context of elections, voters’ busy lives can be overwhelmed with many different voices. County and state voter information guides are required by law to be mailed to every registered voter, but voters today do not have a lot of time to read these resources. As a result, the ballot measure question printed on the ballot itself becomes a key factor in the outcome of an election.

There is an expectation in California law that ballot questions be drafted in a manner that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side.
1 But there are ways to work around it. Among the fifty or so jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that are eligible to put forth a ballot measure, the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) has seen ballot question language that is confusing, advocacy-oriented, or simply dishonest. Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.

Many voters cannot comprehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself.

What can be done about this? The Civil Grand Jury proposes an oversight person or body, one who has taken an oath to act with integrity, is well versed in the requirements of the law, and is empowered to review and to reject ballot question wording that is false, misleading, or partial to one side. Santa Clara County should have a climate whereby governing entities in Santa Clara County are discouraged from using dishonest or deceitful wording in a ballot question, especially when they know it will be reviewed and could be rejected. In so doing, due process will be strengthened. With clearer writing, ballot measure questions will be more transparent and straightforward, which will lead to a better perception of government by the voters. It is time to remove impediments to good governance.

1 California Elections Code section 10403 requires a ballot question to “conform to this code governing the wording of propositions submitted to the voters at a statewide election.” The California Elections Code contains Section 9051, which provides that in a statewide election the ballot title and summary of an initiative or referendum must be a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (Elec. C. §9051(c); see also, McDonough v. Superior Ct. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1172.)

Page 5 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

BACKGROUND

Ballot measures or ballot propositions are proposals to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or to repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments. They are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the voting public. The words “ballot measures ” are often used by county, city, and local governing entities, whereas at the state level, the California State Legislature uses the term “ballot propositions ” to refer to the same concept. The ballot measure question, which is the subject of this report, refers to the maximum 75-word text that precedes the “Yes” or “No” selection on the ballot card itself. Because most voters never read beyond what is printed on the ballot card, it is of critical importance that ballot measure questions be concise, a ccurate, and impartial.

Recently, two local newspaper articles highlighted the tactics that governing entities have used to manipulate voters:
• Borenstein, Daniel, Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters, Bay Area News Group, January 21, 2022.
• Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters on Local Tax Measure Costs, June 26, 2020, updated September 5, 2020.

As part of its charge, the Civil Grand Jury is responsible for identifying areas within local government that lack good governance or practices. This Civil Grand Jury identified as a problem the choice of wording used in local ballot measure questions. Specifically, the C ivil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result. In particular, it was noted that the wording of a ballot question from the June 2022 election, although representing a relatively simple issue, created confusion among the public. When voters found out what the text of the measure actually meant, they felt deceived by the wording of the ballot question. Deception in ballot questions is worth the attention of the Civil Grand Jury. This problem must be remediated to reinstate good governance in the election process.

Page 6 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

METHODOLOGY

The Civil Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
• Interviews with ten individuals who are well versed in the intricacies of the election process and experts in political science and local governments
• Three published Civil Grand Jury reports: 2021-22 Alameda County, 2021-22 Santa Cruz County, 2021 Santa Clara County
• Editorials from local and regional newspapers: Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle
• Close reviews of ballot measures, past and upcoming, from the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and the City and County of San Francisco • Legal research of court challenges involving ballot questions

INVESTIGATION

Throughout this report, the Civil Grand Jury wa s interested only in the process of ballot measure question drafting, not the substance of the underlying ballot measure itself. In its research and analysis, the Civil Grand Jury does not examine the merits of the measure, but rather whether the question as drafted is truthful, impartial, and fair . B allot questions must conform to statutory requirements and should provide voters with sufficient information and transparency to make informed decisions.

A straightforward ballot question can be summarized this way: A vote for “Yes” means yes and a vote for “No” means no. Unfortunately, it is common for ballot questions to be presented whereby a vote for “Yes” actually means no, and vice versa. This wording is arguably confusing. Inching farther away from confusing questions, the research performed by the Civil Grand Jury found ballot questions that are even worse—they are misleading.

Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure A

During the last election in June 2022, the question for Measure A put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) employed such a tactic:

Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11- 01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted?

The Water District had term limits already in place for board members to serve three four -year terms, or 12 years at most. Measure A sought to increase term limits to four four-year terms, or 16 years at most. However, the ballot question hid the fact that a term limit was already in place; it

Page 7 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

asked voters whether a term limit of four terms should be adopted, thereby couching the question as a measure to adopt term limits generally, which one political science expert described to the Civil Grand Jury as a concept widely favorable to the voting public. The ballot question did not reflect what the Water District wanted to do. The Water District wanted to extend term limits, but it wrote the ballot question without using the words “extend,” “change,” or “increase.” Instead, the Water District characterized the ballot measure as setting term limits, which is a mischaracterization of what Measure A was actually about.

Further, it is notable that in November 1998, the County of Santa Clara placed a substantially similar measure on the ballot using the same tactic. Measure E asked:

Shall the County of Santa Clara amend section 202 to limit the number of terms a member of the Board of Supervisors may serve to three terms, consisting of four years each?

Again, the ballot question failed to inform the reader that each member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors was already limited to two terms and that the ballot measure proposed to extend years served, not “limit” them. By not being transparent, this tactic of ballot question drafting is tantamount to a lie by omission; it borders on deceiving the public. From Measure E in 1998 to Measure A this year, 24 years later, the climate has not changed.

Regulations that Govern Ballot Questions

Sections 9100-9190 of the California Elections Code specifically address county- level elections.

Other sections of the Elections Code, while they do not specifically address county-level elections, have import and therefore apply as well. The County of Santa Clara has not enacted local ordinance code provisions regarding ballot question language.

Under the Elections Code, the wording of a ballot measure must state the ballot question, or what the Elections Code calls the “label,” in 75 words or less (Elec. C. §9051(b), §10403, §13247). The ballot question must state “the nature” of the measure (Elec. C. §13120). The official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). In other words, ballot measure questions shall not be false, misleading, or partial to one side.

Who is Responsible for Writing Ballot Questions?

Today, ballot questions are rarely written “from scratch.” Residing in the public domain are hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate questions spanning the universe of issues typically faced by government and public agencies. Putting a measure on the ba llot usually starts with selecting

Page 8 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

an existing template, preferably one that had been used successfully within a reasonable timeframe and geographic proximity to the one at hand. Tweaks are then made to the chosen template to fit the measure being proposed.

Governing entities are ultimately responsible for approving the final text of the ballot question, but the actual selection of words is often the calculated and carefully calibrated work product of hired election experts, consultants, and attorneys. These outside consultants often rely on public opinion pollsters to determine the type of proposal and wording to put before voters that would achieve the desired outcome. Often, this includes using “feel good” wording that is shown to resonate with voters: “reduce crime;” “funds spent locally;” “all money locally controlled;” and “with citizen oversight.” Results from public opinion polls often dictate the structure and selection of words used within the ballot question, which is then voted on and, if successful, adopted by the governing body such as a city council, a county board of supervisors, the board members of a school district, or any governing body of a government entity operating within the county. During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury learned that local measures on the ballot that governing entities choose wording likely to be most successful at the ballot box over clarity of language to the voter.

For purposes of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury focused on ballot questions relating to local ballot measures, not state propositions, because according to the California Elections Code, the state attorney general is responsible for providing ballot questions for state propositions. In contrast, there is no similar requirement that a certain officer provide the ballot question for local elections, so it is instead drafted by the proponent of the measure at the local level.

Advocacy and Tactical Wordplay Result in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

It has been widely observed today that the 75- word ballot questions are being used as advocacy pieces, at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In an aptly titled report published in June of last
year, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury advocated for “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.” The jury explained how and why the desire to achieve a certain outcome has tainted the process to produce ballot measure questions that are not accurate and impartial:

In general, we found ballot questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias” that is a natural outgrowth of the typical process through which questions are selected, drafted, and proposed. … In general, we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards.

----

Page 9 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

The jury in Alameda reviewed and provided an in- depth analysis of six ballot questions to reach their conclusion. In so doing, they exposed the “tricks of the trade”—wording chosen for the sole purpose of increasing the odds of success at the polls. Adopting the same methodology as the Alameda report, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed past and upcoming ballot measure questions from local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury observed the same tricks and tactics used by governing bodies to deceive voters:

(1) Using “feel-good" words to garner voter approval. Measure F, November 2020, said “all funds spent locally,” which is meaningless when one pauses to think about it. (2) Adding favorable language even where it plainly does not apply. Measure F, November 2020, said “independent audits, citizens’ oversight” where the underlying ordinance implementing the measure makes no mention whatsoever of audit and oversight requirements.
(3) Adding misleading words to lead voters astray. Measure S, November 2020, said “until ended by voters,” falsely implying that the measure itself provided for repeal or that voters would have an opportunity to repeal the tax when they did not; Measure L, November 2020, conveyed the same with “can be ended by voters.” Measure A, March 2017, said “[funds] cannot be taken away by the State,” falsely implying that the state may access local funds when it may not.
(4) Manipulating words to divert voters from what is actually at issue. Upcoming Measure N, November 2022, which seeks authorization of $572 million in school bonds costing approximately 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, states “no increase in tax rates.” (5) Omitting relevant information necessary for voters to make informed decisions. Measure AA, November 2016, and Measure H, November 2014, made no mention of the tax increase that would be required to fund the school bonds that were at issue. (6) Putting multiple issues on a single measure, ostensibly violating the single subject rule.

Measure H, November 2020, sought to increase card room tax and the number of card tables allowed in gambling facilities.

At the writing of this report, the following measures slated for the upcoming November 2022 election also rely on at least one of the tactics described:

E “all funds spent locally with no money taken by the State and spent elsewhere” - see (1) and (3) above.

G, H, J, L “until ended by voters” - see (3) above.

I “Shall the City Charter be amended to add the City's ethics and elections commission (Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices) to the Charter; remove requirements that members of the Planning, Civil Service, and Salary Setting Commissions be electors and/or citizens; remove gender-specific language; and require the City Council to adopt equity values, standards, and assessments in making certain decisions?” - see (6) above.

O “all money staying local” - see (1) above.

Page 10 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Along the same lines, it is worth noting that in June 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its report , “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” The question confronting the jury was whether the County of Santa Cruz was honoring the provisions in the ballot measure following its passage. The jury concluded that the ballot question behind the November 2018 Measure G was misleading after its investigation and research revealed no basis whatsoever for including the words “annual audits and independent citizens oversight” within the ballot question.

Arguably, these words were used for no purpose other than to elicit good feelings in the voter.

The Elephant in the Room: Big Money

Elections cost money—lots of money. In an article published June 30, 2002, updated June 22, 2022, CalMatters put it succinctly: “Ballot measures are big business.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that cost is a major factor in the decision to g et to the ballot. San Jose’s Mercury News reported that the Water District’s Measure A from the June 2022 election cost taxpayers $3.2 million.

Once the decision is made by the government entity to spend the money to go to ballot, a lot of pressure is put on the entity to do whatever it takes to secure a win. For this reason, proponents of ballot measures stay focused on the result, hiri ng high-priced election consultants, attorneys, and opinion pollsters to carefully frame the ballot question to achieve the desired outcome. Successful elections will reward those that are behind them. It does not take much imagination to understand how this practice has evolved to become “high stakes.” For example, a school district superintendent who has successfully secured funding through school bond measures may parlay these wins to rally support for a more prestigious role or a position at a larger public institution.

On the other hand, if a measure fails, individuals’ livelihoods are at stake because someone will likely have to take the blame for it —usually either someone on staff or the board proponents of the governing body. This is why proponents advocate so strongly, often—as exemplified above — sacrificing context, clarity, truthfulness, and transparency in ballot question wording in favor of pure advocacy. The Civil Grand Jury learned from those in the ballot question business that it is understood that the drafter will make sure the statement is “lawful,” but it is also understood that it will not necessarily provide full disclosure.

Eroding the Public’s Trust

Many voters in Santa Clara County felt that they were tricked by the Water District based on how Measure A was worded. The Civil Grand Jury compiled the following descriptors of Measure A from local news sources and through its interviews: “deceitful,” “deceptive ballot language,” “designed to confuse voters,” “dishonest,” “false,” “hiding the ball,” “lacks integrity,” “lie by omission,” “misleading,” “not ethical,” “not transparent,” “not clear,” “violates the norm,”

Page 11 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

“violates standards of good governance,” “board must be held accountable,” “board should resign,” “board violated its fiduciary duty,” “board violated the trust of the people,” “board wasting money,” “failure of character,” “failure to represent its constituents,” “fraudulent misappropriation of public funds,” “misled the public for political gain,” “self -serving hoodwinking of the electorate,” “self-serving dishonesty,” “unacceptable in a democracy.”

Public opinion made it clear that where a ballot question fails to provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, it does so at the expense of public trust. Forming distrust between government and its citizenry hurts. What the Water District did through Measure A has severe ramifications because it creates distrust between the government agency and the people the agency is supposed to serve and protect. Going forward, Santa Clara County residents will likely question the integrity and ethical behavior of the Water District. Once the bonds of trust have been weakened, citizens are less inclined to trust the actions and decisions of this agency and more inclined to ask, “If the Water District cannot be trusted to be truthful on the ballot, how can we know them to be truthful in other matters?”

With the passage of Measure A, many residents lost confidence in the Water District. It may take a long time to regain trust from the community. While the Civil Grand Jury appreciates the desire of a government entity to advocate for itself when putting ballot measures up for a public vote, ballot questions cannot be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Based on Civil Grand Jury research and reports, too many local measures fail to meet this standard in favor of advocacy and “proponent’s bias.”

Lack of Oversight Results in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

Despite the number of hands that touch a proposal from inception to ballot card, the Civil Grand Jury was surprised to discover that there is no filter or oversight by an appropriate official prior to the adoption of ballot question wording. At the state level, the “Attorney General gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title [e.g., the ballot question] and summary shall neither be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the p roposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)) . But the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over local measures and thus does not provide the ballot question. When it comes to local measures, the Civil Grand Jury learned that there is not a similar role performed by an official, like the Attorney General, that can provide the wording for ballot questions. Rather, when the ballot question is submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, their review is narrowly limited to enforcement of the 75 -word limit. Staff at the County Registrar of Voters manually count the number of words to ensure that the word cap has not been stretched. They do not monitor the content of the ballot question.

Page 12 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

At the local level, the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel performs legal services that are most analogous to the Attorney General’s role at the state level with respect to elections.

Further, County Counsel has expertise in election law and advises the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. The County Counsel does not, however, have authority over cities and political subdivisions within the boundaries of the county. Therefore, when a city, school district, or special district places a local measure on the ballot, they are permitted under curren t law to draft the language themselves. They have every incentive to adopt wording proposed by their polling consultants, who will give weight to “feel good” words over simplicity, transparency, and impartiality. Fundamentally, the government entity’s self-interest dictates the ballot question wording.

The Current Sole Remedy—I nitiating a Court Challenge—F alls Short

Under current legislation, there is no realistically expedient method to challenge problematic ballot questions. When a measure is to be placed on the ballot for an upcoming election, it is subject to a 10-day public examination period during which any voter in the jurisdiction may file a lawsuit to amend the language of the measure. California Elections Code section 9295 sets forth the procedure:

During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

There are several reasons why the 10-calendar-day public examination period to object in a formal court setting does not work well:

(1) The public tends not to hear about ballot measures until it is too late. This is due in part to a dearth of media coverage of local news, a result of the consolidation of local news outlets by media conglomerates. It is no secret that in today’s news environment, local news coverage has been reduced significantly. Furthermore, ten days is a very short window to react, let alone mount a court challenge to remediate.

Page 13 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

(2) Ten days is much too short a time to locate an attorney well versed in the laws and processes of elections to file a lawsuit in this specialized field. (3) Even if an attorney can be available within the 10 -day window, it is not within the means of the average person to afford the attorney fees necessary to pursue a remedy. (4) Voters challenging the wording in a ballot question face an uphill battle because the courts give deference and considerable latitude to the original author. Further, courts uphold the ballot measure question if it substantially complies with the requirement not to be “false, misleading, or partial to one side.” (See Bibliography, Amador and McDonough decisions.) (5) There is practically no recourse to fix non- conforming ballot questions after the 10- calendar day public examination period has passed. (See Bibliography, Denny decision.) (6) Even the single subject rule —a state constitutional doctrine—has been watered down by case law; hence it is no longer vigorously enforced. (See Bibliography, Amador and Harbor decisions.)
When confronted with challenges to ballot measures, the courts have stated:

• Relief under a writ of mandate may be granted "only upon clear and convincing evidence" that the challenged election material is "false or misleading or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions." (See Bibliography, McDonough decision.) • The test is not whether the ballot question could be more complete . (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.)
• The ballot title need not be the “most accurate,” “most comprehensive,” or “fairest” that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On- Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to change an accurate statement to reflect their interpretation of the common sense understanding of the language . (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to wordsmith the ballot question and change it just because they believe it could be better. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.) • The courts must give deference to the official who drafts the ballot question; “all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety” of the drafter’s actions. (See Bibliography, Becerra decision.)
Solutions

The Civil Grand Jury has learned that the sole legal remedy currently available to right a wrong when it comes to ballot measure questions is insurmountable for the average citizen. Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury notes that there could be two potential mechanisms to improve the current process.

Page 14 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

1. Task an appropriate official to review ballot measure questions

Current law requires that t he individual who drafts the ballot question do so in a way that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side. In order to meet this requirement, an objective, neutral third party is needed to speak on behalf of the voting public, ideally someone who is well versed in the law, has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law, and has taken an oath to act with integrity. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel perform this task. Further, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors should endorse the County Counsel to act in a role, like that of the Attorney General, to provide for ballot question wording for all local measures.

What this might look like: After the governing entity ratifies the concept behind the proposed measure, as is the practice today, the entity’s lawyer, whether a city attorney, school district attorney, or special district attorney, would draft a ballot question that is impartial, unbiased, and non-argumentative. The proposed ballot question would then be submitted to the County Counsel, who would be charged with overseeing the narrow task of ensuring that the wording of the question is not false, misleading, or biased in favor of one view. Most importantly, County Counsel would also be authorized to reject non- conforming or deficient wording and to compel revisions. Only when the ballot question at issue conforms to statutory requirements would County Counsel approve it for use.

2. Create an independent oversight commission to review ballot questions

It is not unusual for jurisdictions to convene independent advisory commissions to assist in county governance. The County of Santa Clara alone boasts over 75 boards and commissions, ranging from an Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs to a Youth Task Force.

For purposes of overseeing conformity of ballot measure questions, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County form a Good Governance in Ballots Commission (Good Governance Commission). Th is advisory commi ssion should act quickly to review and comment on ballot questions or provide recommendations to remediate questions that that are false, misleading, or partial to one side. The composition of the Good Governance Commission should, at a minimum, include an attorney member of the California S tate Bar, either to participate as a full member or act as an ex officio member without voting privileges. Because County Counsel is the attorney to most Santa Clara County advisory boards and commission s, it could therefore be tasked to help members of this commission navigate the intricacies of California’s statutory requirements.

Apart from the obvious benefits—non- partisanship and public representation—another advantage of having a single commission perform the task of reviewing ballot questions would be to maintain consistency across all governing entities. Regardless of whether a city, county, school district, or

Page 15 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

other jurisdiction puts forth the measure, the output from a neutral, uninterested third party would probably help eliminate the rhetoric and advocacy inherent in the current practice.

To be successful, the Good Governance Commission should ideally have the ability to review and to reject language that is biased and partial. The power of rejection is crucial because it would also likely have the effect of encouraging the gover ning entity to self-police. It must not be merely optional for governing entities to submit their ballot questions for review. If the commission were granted mere advisory powers, then it would have very limited impact; it is reasonable to surmise that most, if not all, governing entities would choose to decline to submit their ballot questions for consideration in the interest of the time required to add a layer of review.

Unfortunately, adoption of a Good Governance Commission that has the power to reject language would require passage of a state law that would enable the County of Santa Clara to have an express grant of power to impose a requirement on other entities. This is because “[t]he board of supervisors has no inherent powers; the counties are legal subdivisions of the state, and the county board of supervisors can exercise only those powers expressly granted it by Constitution or statutes and those necessarily implied therefrom” (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 228, 242). In general, absent other express authorization, one governmental entity cannot regulate another.

Put another way, charter cities operate under home rule, which means that they do not answer to the county the city is located in. For example, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction to compel the City of Gilroy, a charter city, to abide by a county ordinance. Absent some legislative authorization, the County of Santa Clara cannot impose a mandatory review process for ballot questions on other entities. For this reason, the Civil Grand Jury urges the County to pursue legislative solutions to facilitate a process by which the County Counsel would be required to review and approve local measure ballot questions before they are voted on.

Formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission

The Civil Grand Jury believes that having an independent oversight commi ssion with advisory powers will improve the local electoral process. It puts pressure on governing bodies, sending the message that their ballot questions are being monitored for clarity, truthfulness, fairness, and impartiality.

The Alameda Civil Grand Jury report provides detailed instructions around the formation, structure, and operation of an oversight committee. This can be found in Appendix B of their June 2021 report. Last, but not least, another possibility is to lean on an existing Santa Clara County advisory body, the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections, to create a subcommittee focused

Page 16 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

on ballot question integrity and good governance. Because time is of the essence when it comes to the elections process, the subcommittee must act within the short turnaround timeframe established by state statutes and county ordinances.

There do not appear to be any advocates for transparent and neutral language. Action must be taken. Having the Office of the County Counsel review and approve ballot questions to ensure conformity to statutory requirements would be a good start. Convening a citizen-led, independent oversight Good Governance Commission is another solution.

CONCLUSION

Civil Grand Juries are charged to help government develop practical solutions to improve government operations. Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical. There are insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from being curtailed. Not doing anything about this only adds to the distrust of government. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that elected officials be held accountable—ballot questions must be transparent and clear in order to enable today’s voters to make informed decisions. The Civil Grand Jury wants governing entities to know that the public is paying attention and will not tolerate questions that are anything less than truthful, impartial, and fair. Further, ballot measure questions need to be straightforward, understandable, transparent, and honest.

Page 17 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Finding 1

The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Recommendation 1a

The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b

Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c

Governing entities3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation s 1d and 1e are implemented.

Recommendation 1d

The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commi ssion as described in the “Solutions” section of this report.

The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024.

2 There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations.
3 Id.

Page 18 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Recommendation 1e

Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Recommendation 1f

The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.

4 Id.

Page 19 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

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 bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors 1 1a, 1b, 1d, 1f City of Campbell 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Cupertino 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Gilroy 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Los Altos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Altos Hills 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Gatos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Milpitas 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Monte Sereno 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Morgan Hill 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Mountain View 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Palo Alto 1 1b, 1c, 1e

Page 20 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of San Jose 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Santa Clara 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Saratoga 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City Sunnyvale 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Valley Transportation Authority 1 1b, 1c, 1e
El Camino Healthcare 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 1 1b, 1c, 1e San Jose Unified School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
East Side Union High School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Cupertino Union School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e

Page 21 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REFERENCES

Bibliography:

Alameda County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions,” June 2022.

Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County,_California, Measure A (June 2022); Measures F, G, H, L, and S (November 2020); Measure AA (November 2016); Measure H (November 2014); Measure E (November 1998) (accessed September 22, 2022).

Borenstein, Daniel, “Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters,” The Bay Area News Group, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/borenstein-tricks-california-local-officials- use-to-deceive-voters/ January 21, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

California Elections Code sections 303, 9051, 9100-9190, 9295, 13120, and 133247.

Christopher, Ben; Kamal, Sameea, “California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know,” https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-ballot-measures-2022/ June 30, 2022, updated July 1, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections, https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures (accessed August 2, 2022).

County of Santa Clara 2020-21 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Gavilan College Measure X Bond Program: Oversight Shortchanged.” June 2022.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, List of Boards and Commissions, https://stenttssaim2publicportal.blob.core.windows.net/bc- entcabodocs/MaddyReport.pdf (accessed August 24, 2022).

County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, Ballot Measures proposed for the upcoming November 2022 election, https://sccvote.sccgov.org/candidates-measures/november-8-2022- general-election-list-local-measures (accessed Aug 20, 2022).

Editorial, Mercury News and East Bay Times, “Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters On Local Tax Measure Costs,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/editorial-stop- deceiving-voters-on-local-tax-measure-costs/ June 26, 2020 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Kumar, Rishi, “Opinion: Why 4 Valley Water board members should resign,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/opinion-why-4-valley-water- board-members-should-resign/ May 11, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Page 22 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Rogers, Paul, “Self-Serving Dishonesty: Liccardo Blasts Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure To Extend Term Limits, Even After Polling Shows Voters Oppose,” Mercury News, March 30, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Santa Cruz County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” June 2022.

Caselaw:

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d. 208 (1978).

Becerra v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 967 (2017).

Denny v. Arntz, 55 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020).

Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987).

Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors, 69 Cal. App. 3d 228 (1977).

Home Gardens Sanitary Dist. v. City of Corona, 96 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2002).

Martinez v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 1245 (2006).

McDonough v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2012).

People v. Langdon, 54 Cal. App.3d 384 (1976).

Rodeo Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 71 Cal. App.4th 1443 (1999).

Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (2010).

Interviews:

The Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews with ten individuals between June 28, 2022, and August 22, 2022.

Page 23 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPEDIF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this 7th day of October, 2022.
______________________________
Mr. James Renalds
Foreperson
er
r
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 California Statutes Annotated - 2018
West's Annotated California Codes
Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Of Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Title 4. Grand Jury Proceedings (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 3. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury (Refs & Annos) Article 2. Investigation of County, City, and District Affairs (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05
§ 933.05. Responses to findings
Currentness
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall

WESTLAW
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Credits
(Added by
Stats.1996, c. 1170 (S.B.1457), § 1. Amended by Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), § 5.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2008 Main Volume
Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), in subds. (a) and (b), in the introductory paragraphs, substituted “(b)” for “(c)”; in subd. (b)(3), substituted “head” for “director”; in subd. (c), inserted “agency or” throughout; inserted subd. (e), relating to investigations and meetings with the grand jury; and, in subd. (f), substituted “presiding” for “supervising”.

CROSS REFERENCES
Grand jury defined, see
Penal Code § 888.

Words and phrases, “county”, see Penal Code § 691.

RESEARCH REFERENCES
Encyclopedias
Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 716, Recommendations and Reporting.

Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 717, Responses to Findings.

Treatises and Practice Aids
Witkin, California Criminal Law 4th Introduction to Criminal Procedure § 43, Reports.

West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 933.05, CA PENAL § 933.05 Current with all 2017 Reg.Sess. laws.
(C) 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

WESTl.AW
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y

S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y

October 10, 2022

City of Santa Clara
c/o Mr. Hosam Haggag, City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

Sent via email: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Haggag:

The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Unsportsmanlike Conduct:

Santa Clara City Council.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, and 7c.

Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882- 2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

James Renalds
Foreperson, 2022 Civil Grand Jury

Enclosures
cc: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk, City of Santa Clara

Page of 61

UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT :

Santa Clara City Council
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
October 10, 2022

Page 1 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
A Statement on Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council Adopted by the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on October 7, 2022

FINAL REPORT V. DRAFT REPORT

On October 7, 2022, several media outlets published articles about the Grand Jury’s draft report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.” Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(f), on October 5, 2022, a draft report was sent by the Civil Grand Jury to the Santa Clara City Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk. Section 933.05(f) prohibits the City from disclosing the draft report prior to the public release of the final report:

A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

The purpose of this period is for the affected public officials or agencies to identify and notify the Civil Grand Jury of any inconsistencies or factual errors, and for the Civil Grand Jury to review and respond accordingly.

The City had until 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 10, 2022, to respond to the Civil Grand Jury and raise concerns about inconsistencies or factual errors. The Civil Grand Jury received no response from the City. Thus, the final report is being released.

CONFLICTS

Members of the Civil Grand Jury are instructed to determine if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. Two jurors recused themselves from the subject matter of this report.

Page 2 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 7 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 14 INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 29 REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A: CITY AND 49ERS RELATIONSHIPS ......................................................... 35 APPENDIX B: HARVEY ROSE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 36 APPENDIX C: ADMONITION AND CENSURE POLICY .................................................. 41 APPENDIX D: THE BROWN ACT ......................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX E: COUNCILMEMBERS’ CALENDARS ......................................................... 46 APPENDIX F: LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT FORM 497s ......................................... 51

Page 3 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

The Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 549501, et seq.) governs meetings conducted by local legislative
bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils, and school boards.

City Councilmembers

 Anthony Becker (elected November 2020, term expires
2024)
 Raj Chahal (elected November 2018, term expires
2022)
 Lisa Gillmor (Mayor) (elected November 2018, term
expires 2022)
 Karen Hardy (elected November 2018, term expires
2022)
 Sudhanshu “Suds” Jain (elected November 2020, term
expires 2024)
 Kevin Park (elected November 2020, term expires
2024)
 Kathy Watanabe (elected November 2020, term expires
2024)
FIFA World Cup

The Federation Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA) World Cup, an international soccer competition.

ManCo

Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, an
affiliate of the Forty Niners Santa Clara Stadium
Company LLC; manages Stadium operations and books
non-NFL events.

Measure J

Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic
Progress Act, passed by the voters of the City of Santa Clara in June 2010. This measure altered the City of Santa Clara charter and created the Santa Clara Stadium
Authority.

Page 4 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Political Action Committee

A political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates, ballot initiatives, or measures. Most PACs represent business, labor, or ideological interests.

Performance Rent

The City’s portion of the revenue-share arrangement that is derived from non-NFL events held at the Stadium after expenses are accounted for.

Political Reform Act

Political Reform Act: The Political Reform Act of 1974
(Cal. Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) governs the disclosure of political campaign contributions, spending by
candidates, and ballot measure committees. It also sets ethics rules for state and local government officials that impose strict limits on decisions or votes that affect the official's financial interests. The Act also regulates
lobbyists’ financial disclosure and lobbying practices. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the state commission responsible for the impartial
administration of the Act.

StadCo Forty Niners Santa Clara Stadium Company LLC, an affiliate of the San Francisco 49ers NFL football team and the tenant of Levi’s Stadium.

Stadium Authority Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the managing entity created by Measure J to construct and own Levi’s Stadium while insulating the City of Santa Clara taxpayers from any financial liability deriving from Levi’s Stadium
construction, maintenance, and operation.

Page 5 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

SUMMARY

In 2010, the City of Santa Clara (City) voters approved Measure J to build a stadium on City- owned property and lease it to the San Francisco 49ers Football Company LLC (the 49ers) as tenants. Voters were told that the measure would generate new revenue for the City, create new jobs, provide taxpayer protections, and generate community funding. Measure J authorized the formation of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority) , which is a separate entity from the City governed by a Stadium Authority Board consisting of the Santa Clara City Council (City Council) and managed by an Executive Director – the City Manager. The City Attorney acts as the Stadium Authority General Counsel. The Stadium Authority is responsible for oversight of stadium operations.

The Stadium Authority entered into an agreement with the Forty Niners Santa Clara Stadium Company LLC (StadCo) for a long- term lease of Levi’s Stadium (Stadium). Additionally, the Stadium Authority contracted with the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LL C (ManCo), an affiliate of StadCo, to manage the Stadium and non-National Football League (NFL) events. The Stadium Authority pays ManCo for services related to S tadium operations. The complexities of these agreements and relationships have been the subject of extensive litigation, a prior Civil Grand Jury report, audit reports, public scrutiny, and numerous media articles.

The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) received numerous complaints regarding the governance ethics of some members of the City Council. The complaints allege that five of the seven councilmembers – referred to by the media as the “49er Five” – engage in unethical behavior, lack transparency in their governance, and govern as if the City Council owes a fiduciary duty to the 49ers as opposed to the City, which they were elected to lead.

The Civil Grand Jury’s investigation confirms that the actions and inaction of certain councilmembers are not consistent with the duties owed to the constituents they were elected to serve, causing severe dysfunction in City governance. The seven -member City Council is deeply divided. Three councilmembers – Anthony Becker, Suds Jain, a nd Kevin Park – were elected in 2020 with the campaign backing of Political Action Committees (PACs) affiliated with the 49ers.

Two other councilmembers – Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal – have aligned with the three, and these five councilmembers together constitute more than a majority of the City Council. The Civil Grand Jury found through the course of its investigation that the se five members can – and do – vote in a manner that is favorable to the 49ers . The Civil Grand Jury will refer to these councilmemb ers in this report as the City Council Voting Bloc.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that this City Council Voting Bloc frequently meets with registered 49ers lobbyists close in time to City Council meetings but does not reveal the substance of those meetings to the remainder of the City Council or the public, except to frequently repeat the

Page 6 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

lobbyists’ talking points. There is a serious question about whether their practice is in violation of state laws governing open meetings.

The City Council Voting Bloc is not holding ManCo accountable for its financial accounting deficiencies or its inability to hold non-NFL events that create revenue for the City . Neither does it require ManCo representatives or 49er s representatives to attend City Council meeting s to explain matters related to the Stadium and its management.

The City and Stadium Authority have recently settled litigation brought by the 49ers. T wo members of the City Council Voting Bloc who are up for re-election, and one who is challenging the current Mayor, received almost $750,000 in donations from 49ers PACs within days after the settlement was reached.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that s ome members of the City Council Voting Bloc have failed to follow City protocol regarding “operational tours” of the Stadium. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has opened a case into whether t wo councilmembers violated state law regulating gift limitations related to these operational tours. This conduct potentially violated City policy as well. Not surprisingly, there is no City-level inquiry into these actions because that would require a vote by the City Council, which is ruled by the City Council Voting Bloc whose conduct is at issue.

The former City Attorney and former City Manager raised many of these financial, safety, and ethical concerns to the City Council publicly at City Council meetings. Registered lobbyists with the 49ers informed members of the City Council Voting Bloc that they wanted the City Attorney and City Manager fired. The City Council Voting Bloc obliged, and both the City Manager and City Attorney were fired – leaving City management rudderless and without strong leadership.

Although the City has ethics rules designed to promote good governance, City Council e thics guidelines are routinely disregarded and are not enforced . The Civil Grand Jury has serious concerns that the current City Council Voting Bloc, which essentially dictates City action due to the majority they hold, is not acting in the best interest s of the City or acknowledging the ethical duties owed to their constituents.

Page 7 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

BACKGROUND

The City of Santa Clara

In its 170 years, the City has evolved from a farming community into a successful Silicon Valley city with a convention center, a university, its own utility and water company, and a wealth of high-tech companies, including three in the Fortune 500 as of the year of this report. It is a Charter City with a Council/Manager form of government, consisting of an appointed City Manager and City Attorney, an elected at-large Mayor, and six elected City councilmembers who represent six districts.

Measure J and Management of the Stadium

In 2010, voters approved Measure J to build a stadium on City-owned property and lease it to the 49ers as tenants. The purpose of the measure was to generate new revenue for the City, create new jobs, provide taxpayer protections, and generate community funding.

Measure J authorized the formation of the Stadium Authority as a joint-powers authority to oversee the design and construction of the S tadium, be its landlord, and oversee all business related to Stadium maintenance and operation. This entity was created to insulate the City from any financial burdens related to Stadium operations.

Per Measure J, the Stadium Authority entered into an agreement with StadCo to lease the Stadium for an initial term of 40 years with the option of four five -year extensions. In 2014, the Stadium was completed and the 49ers became the City’s tenant.

Following the passage of Measure J, the Stadium Authority contracted with 49ers affiliate ManCo to manage Stadium operations. This contract has an initial term of 25 years with a 15-year renewal option.

This report discusses StadCo, ManCo, and Stadium Authority relationships throughout. For the sake of clarity , here is a very brief summary of those entities. A more complete diagram of the relationships is shown in Appendix A.

49ers entities:
• StadCo – the tenant of Levi’s Stadium
• ManCo – the manager of Levi’s Stadium and scheduler of non-NFL events

Page 8 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

City of Santa Clara entities:
• Stadium Authority – entity of the City to keep Stadium finances separate from the Cit y finances and oversee ManCo

The 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report

During its 2015-2016 term, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, in response to a complaint regarding possible nonconformance to the requirements of Measure J, reported on insufficient oversight by the Stadium Authority and found that no compliance audit had been performed to assure City taxpayers that all transactions were in compliance with Mea sure J. During the 2015- 2016 Grand Jury investigation, the Stadium Authority board approved a Measure J compliance audit.

The 2017 Compliance Audit

In August of 2017, Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC completed a “ Comprehensive Audit of Stadium Authority Finances” to evaluate compliance with Measure J. According to the report, the audit proceeded with an “audit limitation,” as follows:

Audit Limitation: One of the objectives of this audit, review of non -NFL event revenues and expenses, could not be conducted as originally anticipated. Further, a number of other revenue and expense items could not be reviewed and reported on because the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company (ManCo), the company under contract with the Stadium Authority and the Stadium Management Company to manage the Stadium would not allow the audit team to review and report on their records for non-NFL events or parking revenue without signing a non- disclosure agreement that would have prohibited presentation of information from those records in a public document such as this audit report. We did not sign such an agreement and, after that request was made, we did not review or analyze any records maintained by ManCo or include their contents in this report.

The 137- page report details numerous findings and 37 recommendations to improve billing, invoicing, financial transparency, and other such processes so that the City could plan and expect income from these activities.

The Civil Grand Jury received current information on the 37 recommendations. In all, there are 15 instances where compliance has never been achieved or has deteriorated rather than improved. The most egregious items are:
• Existing plans, reports, and budget documents have not been provided by ManC o as required.

Page 9 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

• A one-year budget and five -year projection of shared Stadium expenses were required to be supplied on an annual basis to the Stadium Authority. ManCo has not provided these budgets with necessary details.
• Financial information is required on an ongoing basis to assess non-NFL event financial performance, including incentive payments to ManCo. This was partially completed as of 2017 and has since slipped into non-compliance.
• Reports and documentation to verify accuracy of the revenue calculated by ManCo to back up NFL tickets sold each fiscal year have not been provided.

A detailed list of audit recommendations with the 2017 status and current status is shown in Appendix B.

2020 City Council Election

In 2020, the 49ers created PACs that spent $2.9 million in support of four candidates for the City Council. Three of those candidates – Anthony Becker, Suds Jain, and Kevin Park – won seats on the City Council.

Two existing councilmembers, Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal, joined the three new councilmembers in creating a five-member majority City Council Voting Bloc that has been referred to in the media as the “49er Five” for their decisions favoring the 49ers.

Registered 49ers Lobbyists and Political Action Committees

California has adopted laws regarding lobbying activities ; they are commonly known as the Political Reform Act. (See Cal. Gov . Code § 81000, et seq.) Like a growing number of jurisdictions, the City has also adopted its own lobbying laws.

According to its website, the City “has won many accolades for its programs fostering ‘government at its best,’ which promote transparency and openness of government.” In 2016, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1949, “Regulation of Lobbying Activities.” Ordinance No. 1949(i) defines lobbying as “influencing or attempting to influence a legislative or administrative a ction of the City.” Under Ordinance No. 1949, a lobbyist is required to register with the City, renew annually, and pay an annual registration fee. Lobbyists are also required to report to the City semi-annually on their lobbying activity.

Ordinance No. 1949 also makes it unlawful for any lobbyist to deliver or cause to be delivered any gift to any City official, and for any City official to accept any gift from a lobbyist.

A list of current registered 49ers lobbyists appears on the City website.

Page 10 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

PACs are also considered to be lobbyists. Figure 1 lists PACs created by the 49ers on behalf of City Council Voting Bloc members Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal (running for reelection) and Anthony Becker (challenger to Mayor Lisa Gillmor) in the November 2022 General Election.

Figure 1. Excerpt from the City of Santa Clara Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings

The website is clickable and searchable. For instance, clicking on “Santa Clara Neighbors Supporting Raj Chahal…” shows a n $81,309.04 contribution on September 20, 2022, from a 49ers PAC. At the time of the writing of this report, 49ers PACs have contributed $1.7 million to support members of the City Council Voting Bloc in the upcoming election.

City Councilmembers’ Standards for Governance

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara Uni versity employs government ethics experts who specialize in ethical dilemmas and analysis. The City worked closely with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics in the past when it formulated its own Code of Ethics and Values. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics detailed the nature of these ethical duties in an article entitled “ Public Officials as Fiduciaries .” In descri bing the public official’s fiduciary relationship to the public, the article states:

The public delegates governing authority to public officials to exercise discretion over the public treasury and to create laws that will impact their lives. T he public official, once elected, appointed, or hired, is in a superior position to that of the individual citizen due to specialized governmental knowledge and the ability to advise, deliberate, and participate in the representative process. And finally, the public trusts that the public official will act in the public’s best interest.

Conce rned Cit izens O12riosing Christian Pellecchia for Cit)' Council District 3 2022, s12onsored b)' DeBarto lo Corf). & Affil iated Entities, inclu ding 49ers Football Co. LLC
Concerned Citize ns O12riosing Larry McColloch for Cit)' Council District 2 2022, s12onso red b)' DeBartolo Corf). & Aff iliated Entities, including 49ers Footba ll Co. LLC
Frustrated Santa Clarans O12riosing Gillmor for Ma)'or 2022,~12onsored b)' DeBarto lo Corri. & Affi liated Entiti es, including 49ers Footbal l Com12an)', LLC
John Edwa rds (Jed) York and Affiliated Entities, includ ing the San Francisco 49ers Santa Clara Neighbors Su1212orting Karen Hard)' for Cit)' Council District 3 2022, s12onsored b)' and maj or fu ndi ng from De Bartolo Corf). & Affil iated ent ities, including 49ers Football Co., LLC Santa Clara Neighbors Su1212orting Raj Chahal fo r Ci1Y. Counci l Distr ict 2 2022 s12onsored b)' and maj or funding fro m DeBarto lo Corf). & Aff iliated Entities, includ ing 49ers Football Co., LLC

Page 11 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

The article describes the public officials’ duties as care, loyalty, impartiality, accountability, and preserving the public’s trust in government. The article details those duties as follows:

The Duty of Care : The duty of care requires that the public official competently and faithfully execute the duties of the office. Under duty of care fall such obligations as the duty to manage assets competently and be good stewards of the public treasury, to use due diligence in the selection and supervision of staff, to follow the rules and to uphold the constitution and laws of the jurisdiction…

The Duty of Loyalty: Public fiduciaries have an absolute obligation to put the public’s interest before their own direct or indirect personal interests. The public fiduciary breaches this obligation when he or she benefits at the public expense…

Duty of Impartiality : Public officials have a duty to represent all of their constituents fairly. This means that the public fiduciary cannot favor those of his or her own party over other constituents, or let the fact that someone voted against him or her impact the ability to act fairly. They must overcome any inherent bias that they possess.

Duty of Accountability: Without a duty of accountability, the public’s ability to monitor the behavior of public fiduciaries would be severely limited. From the duty of accountability flow the duty of transparency and the concepts of disclosure, open meetings, and accessibility of public records…

Duty to Maintain Public Trust in Government : Without public trust, government doesn’t work. The public is willing to delegate authority and sacrifice some freedoms in exchange for an orderly and civilized society, but onl y if it believes that government is acting in the public’s best interest…

These principles are the underpinning of a host of federal, state, and local laws that govern the conduct of public officials. For instance, as discussed further below, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 54950-54963, referred to as the “Brown Act”) is intended to provide public access to meetings of California local government agencies. Its purpose is described in the Brown Act:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54950.) Likewise, the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) places limitations on lobbying activities and was passed by California voters in June of 1974 (Proposition 9) to battle the culture of corruption that was thought to be pervasive in government in the pre-Watergate years.

Page 12 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Further, the City has adopted its own ordinances and policies dictating the governance of the City and the conduct of its elected officials . For instance, as described above, the City has passed an ordinance on lobbying activities. Noteworthy to this report are the following additional C ity legislative or policy enactments.

Code of Ethics and Values

In 2000, the City, after working with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, adopted “Santa Clara’s Code of Ethics & Values” that was designed to “provide clear, positive statements of ethical behavior reflecting the core values of the community. The Code includes practical strategies for addressing ethical questions and a useful framework for decision- making and handling the day- to-day operations of the municipality.” According to the City’ s website, all elected officials are required to subscribe to the City’s Code, which includes among other things being ethical, professional, service-oriented, and communicative.

The City describes itself as a “national leader in incorporating community ethics and values into local government.” The City’s Ethics & Values Program has received national attention and has been used as a model for other cities. One standard the City has set addresses “Behavioral Standards for Council Members.” The document details positive and negative behaviors illustrative of the core value of ethics. Among the positive behaviors that are encouraged of councilmembers:

• Making careful decisions, advancing the best long- term interests of the City, after considering all available facts, City Staff recommendations, and public comment • Treating the public and City Staff, at all times, the way I treat highly regarded colleagues in businesses or professions

Among the negative behaviors that are discouraged of councilmembers:

• Paying more attention to friends’ and supporters’ projects • Giving special treatment to the companies that pay the most in taxes and to my largest campaign donors
• Making “back room” deals and decisions
• Criticizing or embarrassing the City Manager or other City Staff in public

Admonition and Censure Policy

In May of 2018, the City adopted Policy 47, “Admonition and Censure Policy.” This policy applies only to the councilmembers. It states that the City Council is to abide by federal, state, and local laws, including the Code of Ethics & Values. It notes that violations of such laws or policy

Page 13 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

“tend to injure the good name of the City and undermine the effectiveness of the City Council as a whole.”

Under this Policy, admonition and censure are self -policing processes that may be initiated only by the c ouncilmembers themselves. Further, since the process of initiating an admonition or censure requires a vote of the City Council , the policy is likely to be ineffecti ve if the need for admonition or censure applies to anyone on the City Council Voting Bloc.

Policy 47 is included in Appendix C
.

Page 14 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

METHODOLOGY

The Civil Grand Jury conducted more than ten interviews; reviewed City ordinances and policies; studied legal opinions and legal documents ; reviewed more than 700 emails ; watched videos of City Council meetings ; examined councilmembers’ public calendars; reviewed portions of the City’s charter and ordinance code, the City’s Ethics and Values Program, and the Council Policy Manual; reviewed public Stadium Authority financial documents ; reviewed multiple media articles; and consulted with legal experts. The Civil Grand Jury used these sources of information to develop facts, findings, and recommendations.

INVESTIGATION

The City Council Voting Bloc’s Serial Meetings with 49ers Lobbyists

One of the duties of accountability and transparency that the City Council owes to its constituents is codified in the open government law known as the Brown Act, which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of the local legisla tive bodies. California Government Code section 54950 et seq. governs the way in which local governmental bodies such as boards of supervisors, city councils, and school boards hold both public (open session) and non-public (closed session) meetings. The concept of open meetings serves as the foundation for good governance by protecting transparency in government affairs.

Under the Brown Act, a “meeting” is defined as a congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss , or deliberate upon any matter which is under the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. (Cal. Gov. Code § 54952.2(a).) The times and dates of all meetings must be posted, and an agenda must be prepared and published ahead of time to provide a brief general description of all matters to be discussed or considered at the meeting. (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54954, 54954.2(a).) Importantly, Section 54952.2(b)(1) prohibits a majority of members of a legislative body outside of a lawful meeting from directly or indirectly using a series of meetings to discuss, deliberate, or act on any item of business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. This concept is known as a “serial meeting,” which is described by a California Attorney General publication on the Brown Act as follows:

Typically, a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members...Once serial communications are found to exist, it must be determined whether the communications were used to develop a concurrence as to action to be taken.

Page 15 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Serial meetings typically occur in one of three ways:

1. Hub and spoke – These meetings occur when one person acts as the center and communicates with members of the legislative body.

2. Daisy chain – These meetings occur when councilmember A calls councilmember B to discuss an item of city business, and then councilmember B calls councilmember C to discuss the same thing. This type of meeting is also particularly likely to occur by e -mail due to the ease of forwarding emails.

3. Meetings in cyberspace – The internet provides numerous opportunities for local officials to post their thoughts and opinions about City issues. At this time, no court has specifically ruled on the intersection of comments posted on the i nternet and the Brown Act’s requirements.

For more detail, relevant portions of the California Attorney General's pamphlet “The Brown Act:

Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies (2003)” are excerpted in Appendix D.

The City Council holds meetings at least twice a month in both public (“open”) and non-public (“closed”) sessions. When the newly elected councilmembers joined the City Council in January 2021, they began scheduling regular closed -door meetings with registered 49ers lobbyists.

Notably, the meeting arrangements often occur in a “hub and spoke” fashion of serial meeting s with two groups meeting with the 49er s lobbyists—t he same three members in one meeting, the same two in the other, typically held back to back. These meetings occur with the members of City Council Voting Bloc and never include the remaining two members of the City Coun cil. These meetings are primarily scheduled the day before or the day of regular City Council meetings, with many held immediately prior to the City Council meetings.

Figure 2 illustrates the number of meetings with the 49ers that are in close in time to a City Council meeting and the increasing frequency of those meetings since 2020. The data below comes from the councilmembers’ calendars shown in Appendix E.

Councilmember
Park
Councilmember
Jain
Councilmember
Becker
Councilmember
Chahal
Councilmember
Hardy
Year
Met
with
the
49ers
Met with
the
Council
Met
with
the
49ers
Met with
the
Council
Met
with
the
49ers
Met with
the
Council
Met
with
the
49ers
Met with
the
Council
Met
with
the
49ers
Met with
the
Council
2022 50 67 24 20 26 26 19 19 17 22
2021 27 37 44 37 37 37 23 37 29 38
2020 0 5 0 5 0 5 8 40 11 42
Total 77 109 68 62 63 68 50 96 57 102
Figure 2. Comparison of City Councilmember Schedules

Page 16 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
The above meeting pattern and cadence create numerous concerns. First, the meeting arrangement between the City Council Voting Bloc and the 49ers lobbyists – in a serial fashion – raises serious concerns about potential violations of the Brown Act, which prohibits serial meetings where City business is conducted.

Second and relatedly, the close proximity just before the City Council meetings certainly suggests that the content of the meetings concerns the matters before the City Council. And this frequency and proximity of the meetings with lobbyists to City Council meetings does not happen with any other entity in the City. As to why this type of meeting cadence is needed, one of the councilmembers expressed that the need to meet with 49ers lobbyists was because they were the management company, which of course is not true and underscores at least one councilmember’s contorted view of the reporting relationships.

Third, the Civil Grand Jury learned from legal experts that this type of meeting pattern between the City Council Voting Bloc and 49ers lobbyists creates a risk that the councilmembers will divulge privileged information. The likelihood of inadvertent disclosure of privileged information is increased based on the frequency of these meetings.

Fourth, the Civil Grand Jury has transparency concerns with these meetings. According to the City’s website, “[i]n an effort to foster greater transparency” the City adopted Ordinance No. 1950 in 2016 requiring that councilmembers publish their calendars to the public. According to the ordinance, “The Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, City Clerk, Chief of Police and City Attorney shall publish their calendars to the City’s website on the tenth business day of each month and shall reflect the schedules of the previous month.” Ordinance No. 1950(c) provides that “[e]ach non-internal city-related appointment must include the following information: name(s), title(s), and affiliated organization(s) and a general statement of the issues discussed.”

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the public calendars of the councilmembers and observed that while the calendars of the City Council Voting Bloc include a “general statement of the issues discussed” as required by the Ordinance, the councilmembers’ descriptions of their meetings with the 49ers lobbyists are still vague and abbreviated, with only one- or two-word descriptors, most commonly “SCSA/49ers.” (SCSA stands for Santa Clara Stadium Authority.) Because of the large number and systematic nature of these closed-door meetings with lobbyists, the Civil Grand Jury is concerned about transparency and whether the 49ers lobbyists are dictating City/Stadium Authority policy to the detriment of the residents.

Appendix E shows the calendars of the five members of the City Council Voting Bloc from January to September of 2022. The meetings with 49ers lobbyists are highlighted.

Page 17 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Fifth, according to the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation, the content of those meetings is not shared with the minority members of the City Council and Stadium Authority. The Civil Grand Jury found no evidence that the minority councilmembers met with the registered 49ers lobbyists. The meetings between the 49ers lobbyists and the City Council Voting Bloc occur behind closed doors.

There are no known notes of the meetings and meeting minutes are not required, so there is no way to know what was discussed. When the Mayor tried to require minutes of these meetings, the City Council Voting Bloc voted against it.

ManCo

Stadium management and event booking for non-NFL events at the Stadium are run by ManCo, a 49ers affiliate. A complex revenue sharing agreement apportions income from non-NFL events.

The Stadium Authority relies on ManCo's accounting of the expenses and revenues to know if the non-NFL event is profitable.

If the non-NFL event is profitable, the City earns Performance Rent. The City has not earned Performance Rent in six years. To know if ManCo is properly accounting for the expenses and revenues, the Stadium Authority needs to be able to review sufficiently detailed financials. As discussed above, obtaining financials has proven problematic.

The Civil Grand Jury’s investigations revealed several concerns about the City/Stadium Authority’s ability to hold ManCo accountable for its responsibilities.

First, many issues surrounding the lack of proper financial accounting have not been resolved. For years, ManCo has not provided sufficient financial documentation (and in the early years no documentation at all), making it difficult to verify whether the funds received from ManCo were accurate in accounting for all the revenue due to the City. As discussed above, the Harvey Rose audit raised several areas of deficiency regarding ManCo, many of which remain unresolved.

In July 2020, the City Manager published an update on the City website informing residents about the lack of revenue generated by non-NFL events. At that time, 75 percent of non-NFL events lost money.

Figure 3 below, from the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Adopted Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Operating, Debt Service and Capital Budget dated March 23, 2021, provides details. For example, during the 2019 Rolling Stones concert, the City made only $872,000. The City was told that revenue was $11.4 million and expenses were $10.5 million. For the Pac-12 Championship, the City lost $2.6 million: revenue was $3.1 million and expenses were $5.7 million. There is no way to verify these numbers because ManCo has not been forthcoming with detailed documentation.

Page 18 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Figure 3. Revenue and Expenditure Summary for Levi’s Stadium

According to a 2021-2022 budget document prepared by the Stadium Authority, a forensic auditor had been retained to conduct an "expanded analysis of non-NFL events’ revenues and expenses." That forensic auditor was hired by the former City Manager. According to the document, the forensic audit was expected to be completed by the Fall of 2021. However, the audit was never completed, and the Civil Grand Jury learned that the effort was ceased after the City Manager was terminated.

To fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the pessimism of the City about the prospect of non-NFL events resulting in income to the City , the 2022- 2023 Stadium Authority budget specifies zero dollars for Performance Rent. See Figure 4 below.

In Millions$
FY2019/20 Ticketed Non-NFL Events
Revenue and Expenditure Summary
Ticketed Event Revenue Expense
Monster Jam $ 1.6 $ 2.0
Bay Area Wedding Fair 0.0 0 .0
USWNT vs South Africa 0.3 0 .1
ICC: Chivas vs Benfica 1.2 1 .5
Rolling Stones : No Filter Tour 11.4 10.5
High Schoo l Football Series 0.1 0 .1
Pac-12 Championship 3.1 5 .7
Redbox Bowl 4.6 5.2
Total Ticketed Non-NFL Net Revenue to date $ 22.3 $ 25.1 *l,turoers rray vary due to rounding
Net
$ (0.4)

0.0 0.2 I
(o.3) I

0.9 o.o I
(2.6)
(0.6)
$ (2.8)

Page 19 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Figure 4. Post-Meeting Material from the March 15, 2022, City Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting

Second, Measure J promised the voters that the City would financially benefit from the Stadium agreements. For that reality to occur, ManCo needs to book non- NFL events that result in Performance Rent to the City . One of the reasons Man Co has expressed for not being able to successfully book more events has been the 10 p.m. weeknight curfew. The Civil Grand Jury watched a February 2022 presentation made to the City Council by a reputable event management company hired by City staff, which proposed options for increasing revenue streams at the Stadium. According to their envisioned marketing strategies, the curfew need not be a significant impediment for booking talent. One of the ways presented to work around the curfew is to book half-bowl or quarter-bowl events that cater to smaller, more specific demographics.

After the presentation , the City Council Voting Bloc voted not to forward the marketing plan presented that evening to ManCo for consideration. T he City Council Voting Bloc members did not address any of the substantive points made by the marketing firm. Instead, one of the City Council Voting Bloc members referred to an email prepared by a 49ers lobbyist disparaging both the marketing firm and the City Ma nager. It is not clear to the Civil Grand Jury why the City Council Voting Bloc would not want ManCo to consider all strategies for booking non- NFL events. It is actions like these that show that the City Council Voting Bloc puts the 49ers’ interests ahead of the City’s interests.

Third, City staff have noted chronic f ire and life safety violations at the Stadium. A senior Santa Clara Fire Department official detailed ManCo’s extensive safety v iolations to help ManCo achieve compliance. From January 22 to October 23, 2020, for example, ManCo consistently had a monthly average of 21 outstanding violations. Repeated violation s included ventilation and explosion control safety measures, lack of compliance with minimum code requirements, expired Stadium Authority Operating Budget
(cont.)
Expenses;
Shared Stadium Manager Expenses S3,230,000
Legal Conlingency 10,542,420
SBL Sales and Service 2,089,000 Paid to
Senior and Youth Program Fees 237,000 the
Ground Rent 460,000 City's
Performance Ren! 0 General
Discretionary Fund Expense 250,000 Fund
UUlllles 1,444,000
Use of StadCo Tenant lmprovemenls 48,000
Sladi umAulho r~y General & Administrative 4,205,000
Naming Rig his Commission 91,000
Olhor Expenses 723,000
Conlrlbut ion to OperaUng Reseive 369,000
Transfers Out 44,785,580
12 Total Ex enses $68 474 oco

Page 20 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

permits, alarm defic iencies, damaged doors on freight elevators, failure to maintain fire alarm systems, and portable unventilated heaters.

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed emails showing that the City Manager was criticized by 49ers lobbyists for supporting the actions of the Fire Department official. In August 2021, one of the members of the City Council Voting Bloc questioned why equipment had to be inspected each year. The City Manager responded that equipment inspections were required by state codes, and that neither councilmembers nor staff has discretionary authority to ignore these statutory mandates.

Last, ManCo rarely, if ever, attends City Council meetings where Stadium Authority business relevant to ManCo is being discussed. Commonly , a representative from an organization whose matter is being discussed would be present at the City Council meeting to present, answer questions, or explain a matter. As noted above, the City Council Voting Bloc who meet privately with the 49ers lobbyists have instead become the de facto spokespeople for the 49ers organization, advocating for their positions. This dynamic does not allow the minority councilmembers to ask direct questions of ManCo staff.

The Civil Grand Jury finds that the City Council Voting Bloc has displayed unacceptable behavior by aligning themselves with ManCo and putting the interest of the 49ers ahead of the interest of the citizenry of the City. By aligning itself with ManCo, the City Council Voting Bloc has effectively breached its duties to the City.

Lawsuits

The relationship between the City and the 49ers has been difficult from the outs et. Immediately upon taking possession of the Stadium, the 49ers filed to have the possessory interest tax reevaluated. This was an unexpected setback for the City, resulting in $13 million in rebates to the 49ers in 2018.

In August 2018, before the current City Council Voting Bloc was in place, the City/Stadium Authority fought and won a major victory that resolved a $180 million rent dispute with the 49ers.

The 49ers’ request for a rent reduction over the 40 -year lease term was denied and instead, the City/Stadium Authority was awarded a significant rent increase by an arbitrator.

In 2018, the City determined that the 49ers failed to pay $718,000 for the use of a City-owned golf course for Stadium parking. The 49ers responded with a lawsuit claiming that it had overpaid by more than $1 million and offered to settle with a $350,000 payment. The Civil Grand Jury learned that some people with knowledge of the litigation believed that the City had a strong case;

Page 21 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

however, that litigation was recently settled when the City Council Voting Bloc accepted the 49ers’ offer. The settlement amount did not even cover the City’s legal fees.

In 2019, before the current City Council Voting Bloc was in place, the City Council voted to terminate the contract with ManCo, triggering a lawsuit by the 49ers contesting the termination.

That lawsuit and others were combined by the court , and the parties were directed to attend mediation. Anxious to wrap this up quickly, the 49ers began an almost daily pressure campaign to sway public opinion and forc e the City to settle the lawsuits, all of which were initiated by the 49ers. The settlement would enable them to continue managing the Stadium.

A settlement was announced on August 31, 2022, pursuant to which ManCo would continue managing the Stadium and non- NFL events. There are r eports of shouting, swearing, offensive hand gestures, and aggression by one of the members of the City Council Voting Bloc during the closed session that occurred the evening prior to the announcement . The police were called , and they remained present for the balance of the Council meeting.

One day after the settlement announcement, contributions of almost $750,000 were made by the “Debartolo Corporation & Affiliated Entities, Including the Forty Niners Football Company LLC” to the PACs that support three members of the City Council Voting Bl oc in the upcoming November election. See Appendix F
for copies of the Late Contribution Report Form 497, which is the public disclosure form for these contributions.

FIFA World Cup

The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup is an international soccer competition. In June of 2022, FIFA announced that the Stadium will host matches for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that as early as 2021, members of the City Council Voting Bloc met with 49ers lobbyists privately to discuss hosting FIFA matches at the Stadium. Neither the 49ers nor the councilmembers would share with the City Manager or City staff what was being discussed or anticipated. At least one councilmember would not share what they knew because of a belief that confidentiality was owed to the 49ers. This is another blatant example of a councilmember putting the interest of the 49ers ahead of the City.

In February 2022, the City Council passed a resolution welcoming the 2026 FIFA World Cup (Competition) to the City . At that meeting, the then- City Manager raised concerns about how hosting the FIFA World Cup at the Stadium could negatively impact the City/Stadium Authority.

The then-City Manager presented a PowerPoint that noted concerns like security costs, as follows:

Page 22 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Government is requested - at its own cost - to assume full responsibility for safety and security at the [FIFA] Competition and Competition-related events. Security operations are not limited to stadiums, but also other locations used for the Competition, such as training sites, team base camps, hotels, broadcast center, FIFA Fan Fest sites, airports, train and bus stations, and other transportations[sic] hubs, etc.

The PowerPoint noted that the host city is also required to make certain declarations, and the then- City Manager expressed concerns about whether the City would be able to make these declarations.

For instance, the then -City Manager noted that the host city might be required to “adopt all measures and enact all necessary laws, ordinances or regulations (including local, regional or national laws, ordinances or regulations).” The then-City Manager further raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest because one of the head s of the host committee is also president of the 49ers.

As discussed below, the City Council Voting Bloc voted to terminate the City Manager two days later.

The City Manager’s concerns were warranted. A commitment to host the FIFA World Cup comes with many costs and possible pitfalls.

• Although the FIFA World Cup is expected to be a boon for local tourism, a major percentage of the profits for the World Cup is derived from ticket sales and advertising rights. The host city gets no part of these profits; FIFA takes all the profit as part of the agreement.

• FIFA has strict terms and conditions for host cities. The hosts are expected to have temporary housing to accommodate the players and fans from other countries. It is unknown if the City will be able to accommodate this requirement, what new infrastructure will be required, and how this influx will affect surrounding neighborhoods.

• According to Measure J, the City is responsible for all public safety costs associated with non-NFL events. One estimate for security costs alone to support FIFA events exceeded $15 million . This includes safety and security for hotels, training sites, transportation, broadcast sites, and team facilities.

Two major cities, Chicago and Quebec, declined to bid. One reason cited was that the cost to a host city had more than doubled in the past three years to almost $80 million. Others include the lack of transparency with FIFA’s policies, inflexibility, and long list of demands, which includes the requirement that all contracts for the event be written under Swiss law.

The City/Stadium Authority remains in the dark about the FIFA commitments and the potential impact to the City. Even though members of the City Council Voting Bloc met with 49er s’ lobbyists on the subject of the FIFA bid, the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation could not uncover any further information regarding this subject.

Page 23 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Operational Tours

The objective of the Political Reform Act is the promotion of impartial and ethical conduct of public affairs by state and local government officials. (See Cal. Gov. Code § 81000 et seq.) The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has primary responsibility for the administration of the Political Reform Act. ( Cal. Gov. Code § 83111.) Elected officials, like the City Council, are required to disclose their financial holdings on the Statement of Economic Interests filing via a form commonly known as the Form 700. (Cal. Gov. Code § 87200, et seq.) One of the central purposes of the disclosure requirements is to ensure that public officials “perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 81001, subd. (b).) The Political Reform Act was enacted because “[a]ssets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 81002(c).)

The City has its own rules regarding accepting gifts, including a prohibition against gifts from lobbyists. The City Council adopted and promulgated the Council Policy Manual “to provide clear, consistent and detailed direction by which the City Council, Boards, Commissions, Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, shall conduct City Council business and activities.” The City Council Policy Manual, Policy 050, “Gifts to Elected and Appointed Officials,” contains the following rules about gifts:

Elected and appointed officials are required to report gifts worth $50 or more on their annual Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) with the FPPC. If a gift valued at less than $50 is accepted, the elected or appointed official shall promptly disclose such acceptance either at a public meeting of a body on which official serves during the Reports of Members portion of the Agenda or, for elected department heads, in a written Report to Council.

Elected and appointed officials shall not accept gifts from any single source aggregating to $470 or more in a calendar year. If a gift or series of gifts aggregating to $470 or more is accepted from a single source during any 12- month period preceding the officials’ involvement in a decision affecting the gift-giver, the elected or appointed official may be required to disqualify him or herself from participating in that decision-making process.

Elected and appointed officials may not accept any gift from a lobbyist.

Councilmembers Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal are being in vestigated by the FPPC for exceeding the gift limitation from the 49ers. This investigation involves receiving 49ers game tickets. These

Page 24 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

councilmembers claim in their defense that they gained entry into the Stadium on a game day to conduct “operational tours” of the Stadium, ostensibly not to watch the game.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that the City ha d a protocol for scheduling operational tours.

Operational tours require significant advance planning and scheduling. Security personnel, pa id for by the City, must be available to escort councilmembers throughout the facility. Past operational tours were arranged through the City Manager’s office in coordination with the police department. Badges or access passes for an event were sent to the City Manager’s office and then distributed to councilmembers and staff who signified that they wanted to attend the tour. In addition, the operational tours were publicly notice d as a special meeting , and the publ ic was invited to the outside portion of the tour.

Hardy and Chahal attended the November 15, 2021, 49ers v. Rams game. They received passes to the game from the 49ers. It is unknown what kind of pass they received (e.g., general admission, VIP) because they have refused to publicly provide this information. Further, it is not known what the operational tour involved. For example, did the councilmembers observe the areas of ManCo's fire and safety violations ? None of this information is available because they did not arrange it through the City, have not discussed this information publicly, and the typical protocol of arranging, noticing, and coordinating operational tours was not followed. The Assistant Chief of Police for the Santa Clara Poli ce Department was unaware that this was going to happen, and protocol would have dictated that he or his staff be forewarned of a tour.

An additional councilmember on the City Council Voting Bloc told the Civil Grand Jury that he purchased a ticket on the day he was conducting his “operational tour” to avoid the scrutiny his fellow councilmembers were going through with the FPPC . If the City Council Voting Bloc requested operational tours in the manner that tours had been conducted by previous City Councils, there would be no need for councilmembers to “protect” themselves. When asked by members of the electorate to put the topic of their tickets on the City C ouncil agenda as an opportunity to explain themselves, the councilmembers refused.

It is worth noting that operational tours should be available for all councilmembers on the same basis.

Councilmembers’ acceptance of football tickets from the 49ers has raised serious concern s that these members are in violation of the Political Reform Act. Further, there are City laws that regulate this conduct, including the City’s ordinance code that makes it “unlawful…for any City official to accept any gift from a lobbyist.” As of this writing, the City has not opened an investigation into whether Hardy and Chahal violated City law. The FPPC investigation, however, is ongoing.

Page 25 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

There is a concern in the community about the temporal aspect of councilmembers attending special 49ers events and voting in favor of the 49ers on important Stadium Authority business. In particular, the day after Hardy and Chahal attended the 49er s game, they voted with the City Council Voting Bloc in favor of extending the weekday S tadium curfew. The curfew was put i n place to protect the neighbors on weeknights, but the 49ers have been lobbying to change it. The Civil Grand Jury cannot read the minds of the councilmembers, but their actions give an appearance of impropriety that is diminishing the trust of their cons tituents, their own City staff, and fellow councilmembers.

Ethics

As described above, the City touts itself as a leader in ethics and professionalism. The City has a policy that addresses “Behavioral Standards for Council Members.” The document details positive and negative behaviors illustrative of the core value of ethics.

Meeting Behavior

The Civil Grand J ury watched more than 28 hours of video recordings of at least seven City Council meetings and was shocked to see repeated instances of councilmembers behaving acrimoniously and disrespectfully toward each other, City staff, and the public. This type of behavior is not consistent with the Code of Ethics & Values that is supposed to guide the City Council (e.g., communicative and collaborative decision-making, mutual respect, and trust). And certainly, the Behavior Standards for City Councilmembers, which are supposed to dictate “a basic set of character traits and actions residents can expect to see Council Members meet and exceed” are not being adhered to by the councilmembers.

The Civil Grand Jury learned of a concern that a member of the City Council Voting Bloc has participated with their video camera off during Zoom City Council meetings so as to communicate with 49ers lobbyists for direction. Whether this is legally permissible is beyond the scope of this report; however, for the sake of transparency and accountability, and because of the unique challenges of the relationship with the 49ers , the Civil Grand Jury believes all video cameras should remain on during remote meetings.

There is a City Council Government and Ethics Committee that is supposed to meet regularly.

According to the Legislative Meeting Calendar on the City’s website, it appears that they have not met this year. There are also ethics guidelines and an Admonition and Censure Policy on the City’s website, but there is no effective enforcement mechanism of the City’s ethics guidelines other than self-policing—singling out an individual for bad behavior and voting for their dismissal. This type of enforcement mechanism fails for members of a majority voting bloc because a majority vote of the City Council is required to initiate an action.

Page 26 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Treatment of City Staff

Another behavioral standard the City Council has adopted is “[t]reating the public and City Staff, at all times, the way I treat highly regarded colleagues in businesses or professions.” And a behavior to be avoided is “criticizing or embarrassing the City Manager or City Staff in public.” Throughout its investigation the Civil Grand Jury uncovered evidence of disrespect toward staff by members of the City Council Voting Bloc.

Members of the City Council Voting Bloc doubted the accuracy of City staff’s work and favored the 49ers’ interpretation on a variety of subjects. The Civil Grand Jury saw no evidence that this doubt was warranted. As mentioned previously, the Civil Grand Jury viewed documents showing members of the City Council Voting Bloc advocating on behalf of the 49ers and arguing with staff about state safety codes and established norms . On many occasions , these arguments led to City staff expending an inordinate amount of time defending their already well-reasoned analysis .

During City Council meetings, members of the City Council Voting Bloc repeatedly challenged the staff’s efforts and recommendations regarding increasing revenues of the Stadium. M ost disturbing was the instance described above where during a City Council meeting a member of the City Council Voting Bloc used an email sent by a 49er s lobbyist as his reason for not accepting City staff recommendations. Overall, the Civil Grand Jury saw a hostile environment for City staff, illustrated by a text conversation between two members of the City Council Voting Bloc remarking that a member of the City staff was not afraid of them.

Section 807 of the City Char ter makes it clear that “except for the purpose of inquiry, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the City Council nor any member shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.” A violation is a misdemeanor.

Under the City Code, the City Manager is tasked as the chief administrative officer with responsibility for the administration of all affairs of the City. (Santa Clara City Code §§ 2.15.020(a) & (c).) The Civil Grand Jury learned that the then- City Manager made a complaint that , among other things, a councilmember was directing City staff . An outside investigator was hired to investigate the complaint. If true, the allegations in that complaint may have violated the Charter.

On August 23, 2022, the City noticed a closed session meeting under the exception for "public employment appointment" for the City Manager. At that meeting, the City Council Voting Bloc voted to stop the investigation made from that complaint.

City Attorney and City Manager

The influence of the 49ers on the City’s governance is undeniable: regular meetings with councilmembers, PAC funding of campaigns supporting 49er s-favorable candidates, and feeding

Page 27 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

councilmembers talking points are all counter to the City’s interest. This dynamic presented insurmountable challenges for the former City Attorney and former City Manager.

The job of the City Attorney, who also holds the position of General Counsel for the Stadium Authority, includes defending both entities in the numerous lawsuits the 49ers have initiated over the years. (Santa Clara City Code § 2.25.020.) Before the City Council Voting Bloc e xisted, the City was successful in defending litigation brought by the 49ers. The Civil Grand Jury learned that the City/Stadium Authority had reason to believe that it could prevail in defense of litigation filed by the 49ers. At a City Council meeting in April 2021, two of the City Council Voting Bloc admitted that 49ers lobbyists had expressed that they “would like to see [the City Attorney] gone” and that they had “concerns about the City Attorney.” In September 2021, the City Council fired the City Attorney. The vote was 5-2, with the City Council Voting Bloc voting in favor of termination.

As detailed above, the former City Manager defended her staff against inappropriate behavior from the City Council Voting Bloc. She opened investigations. She raised concerns about ManCo’s compliance with contractual agreements. She has had to defend herself from personal attacks by 49ers lobbyists, who told the City Council Voting Bloc that they wanted the City Manager/Stadium Authority Executive Director gone. On February 22, 2022, she spoke out about concerns related to the FIFA event, urging caution and the need for more information. She also raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest related to the 49ers. Two days later, the City Council fired the City Manager with a contractually obligated severance package. The vote was 5- 2, with the City Council Voting Bloc voting in favor of termination.

The Civil Grand Jury commends the former City Attorney and former City Manager for putting the interests of the City and Stadium Authority first, which has come at great personal and professional cost.

Page 28 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

CONCLUSION

The promise of Measure J was exciting for City residents. However, t he reality has proven more complex than expected and has unveiled the lack of protections the City has in place to insulate itself from Stadium management issues and 49ers influence.

Open meetings are the core of good governance. The Civil Grand Jury has noted the frequency and proximity of closed-door meetings between the City Council Voting Bloc and 49ers lobbyists, which are suggestive of serial meetings prohibited by the Brown Act. Further, the relationship with ManCo is proving problematic in that the City /Stadium Authority is not holding ManCo to its obligations.

Recently, the City/Stadium Authority settled legal action brought by the 49ers. The details have yet to become public, but it is very concerning to the Civil Grand Jury that several councilmembers received large campaign donations from 49er s-backed PACs within days after the decision to settle. This, compounded with the fact that the City has been without a permanent City Attorney for over a year, raises great concern.

The former City Manager attempt ed to bring to light the lack of transparency surrounding the management of the Stadium and its financ es. Additionally, the former City Manager raised questions regarding potential risks to the City posed by upcoming FIFA events. The City Manager was subsequently fired. Those concerns remain unresolved, and it seems unlikely that they will be addressed under the current culture.

In general, with the existing City Council Voting Bloc , the City Council operates in a manner inconsistent with the ethical ideals it touts on the City website. The Civil Grand Jury finds that the City needs to rethink its current structure for maintaining high ethical standards and work with experts in this field who can help the City insulate itself from its current ethical dilemmas.

Page 29 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report points to serious concerns about the City Council Voting Bloc. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the “City”– which currently has a governing board that consists of this majority – will be required to vote to determine if it agrees with these findings and whether it will accept the recommendations. (Cal. Pen. Code § 933.05.) It is the Civil Grand Jury’s charge to investigate government operations, and this report seeks to do that despite the obvious limitation posed by the City Council Voting Bloc.

Finding 1a
The City Council Voting Bloc meets regularly, and as often as weekly, with lobbyists for the 49ers.

While these councilmembers report the date, some of the attendees, and a topic of the meeting, there is no requirement to disclose the substance of those discussions, and the councilmembers do not disclose the content of these meetings.

Finding 1b
The meetings are typically held serially, with three councilmembers in one meeting and two in the next.

Finding 1c
The frequency of meetings of the City Council Voting Bloc with the 49ers lobbyists has created concern about the City Council’s governance and leaves the impression that the City Council Voting Bloc is meeting in a manner to subvert the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements. This has led to distrust amongst councilmembers as well as between the councilmembers and their constituents.

Recommendation 1a
Prior to voting on any 49er s-related matters and to prevent violations of the Brown Act, the City councilmembers should publicly disclose on the record if they have met with a 49er s lobbyist regarding a topic on the meeting agenda, the name of the lobbyist (s), the date of the meeting, all individuals present, and any information provided by the lobbyist(s). This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 1b
The City should expand its existing calendar ordinance, City of Santa Clara Ordinance No. 1950, to require minutes of all meetings , including the attendees , agenda, duration, and a detailed summary of matters discussed, to be posted online with the calendar. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 1c
To restore public trust, the City should require that meetings with 49ers lobbyists be recorded so the public can be assured that these closed -door, frequent, and proximal meetings to the City Council meetings do not violate the Brown Act. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Page 30 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Recommendation 1d
The City should establish an open governance commission to evaluate the City’s current open government practices and make recommendations for improvement. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Finding 2
There is concern that the City Council Voting Bloc is getting real -time influence from 49er s lobbyists during City Council meetings.

Recommendation 2
The City should require councilmembers to be visible at all meetings either in person or on camera.

Finding 3a
ManCo has not provided sufficient financial accounting to the City/Stadium Authority as required.

Finding 3b
The City has identified several fire and safety violations that ManCo has not remediated.

Finding 3c
The agreement with ManCo is designed to resul t in Performance Rents payable to the Stadium Authority for non-NFL events; however, expenses from those events result in no income payable to the Stadium Authority.

Finding 3d
Despite ManCo’s lack of financial transparency, failure to schedule non- NFL events in a fashion that yields a financial benefit to the City/Stadium Authority, and repeated unabated fire and safety violations, the City recently agreed to keep ManCo as the operator of the Stadium.

Recommendation 3a
The City /Stadium Authority should hire a certified public accounting firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Stadium Authority finances and the financial documents submitted by ManCo, to begin no later than February 1, 2023 and annually thereafter.

Recommendation 3b
The City/Stadium Authority should advocate for a third- party referee to oversee all of ManCo’s management activities. This third party should report on a quarterly basis at City Council meetings the status of fire and safety remediation efforts, to begin no later than February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 3c
The City/Stadium Authority should allocate staff to oversee Stadium operations . This should include finances, management policy development , and r egular website updates of the City’s financial reporting documents. This will facilitate a better awareness of ManCo’s day -to-day operations. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Page 31 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Finding 4
FIFA and the 49ers have announced th at 2026 FIFA World Cup matches will be held at the Stadium. The former City Manager raised concerns about the lack of information and potential risks the event could pose to the City/Stadium Authority.

Recommendation 4a
The City/Stadium Authority should request that the 49ers provide a report on the status of the commitments made to the FIFA event. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 4b
The City/Stadium Authority should evaluate if the FIFA event poses risks to the City/Stadium Authority, including specifically the risks outlined by the former City Manager regarding security costs and the nature of declarations required of the host city.

Recommendation 4c
The City and Stadium Authority should take no further action regarding FIFA until the information in 4a and 4b is made public.

Finding 5
The City/Stadium Authority has a protocol for initiating and completing operational tours of Levi’s Stadium. Several councilmembers have not used this protocol and have conducted operational tours on game days, which has raised concerns about whether these councilmembers have accepted gifts in violation of the Political Reform Act and City policy. These actions have also created the appearance of a lack of transparency, which has fostered distrust between City councilmembers, toward the City staff, and most importantly, with the residents of the City.

Recommendation 5a
The City/Stadium Authority should adopt a policy and outline procedures for elected and appointed officials to conduct operational tours of the Stadium. This document should be published on the City’s website to properly inform the public. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 5b
The consequence for not adhering to the proper protocols for operational tours should result in an evaluation whether the City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual, Admonition and Censure Policy should be invoked.

Recommendation 5c
The City should hire an independent consultant to evaluat e and publicly report on whether councilmembers have violated City Policy No. 050, “Gifts to Appointed and Elected Officials.” This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Page 32 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Finding 6
The relationships between the City, Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo are creating ethical dilemmas and governance challenges . The governing body for the City now consists of the City Council Voting Bloc , which (1) has received significant campaign contributions from 49er s lobbyists, (2) meets regularly with 49er s lobbyists behind closed doors, and (3) has engaged in actions that suggest loyalty to the 49ers above the City.

Recommendation 6a
The City should hire a qualified legal and ethical consultant to evaluate the challenges presented by the unique relationship between the City and 49ers and prepare a public report on the findings and recommendations. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 6b
The consultant should be tasked with looking at the unique challenges presented by the likely chance that the 49er s lobbyists will continue to influence elected officials and City governance.

The consultant should specifically be tasked with evaluating the benefits of mechanisms like an oversight body or commission, auditors, and changes to the ordinance code and other governing documents that better ensure accountability and transparency in the relationship with the 49ers.

Finding 7
Although the City consulted with Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and boasts of having model ethics rules, those rules were developed before the complexities created by the passage of Measure J. The City’s current policies, like the Admonition and Censure Policy, do not work where the challenges are presented by a minority of the City Council membership.

Recommendation 7a
The City should add to the City Code of Ethics & Values and the Admonition and Censure Policy a procedure to enable the public to file a complaint and testify at a public hearing to help remediate ethics violations. This should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 7b
The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission, with guidance from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, to help ensure that all public officials conduct government decision-making processes in an ethical, transparent and un biased manner without favor. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.

Recommendation 7c
The City should require councilmembers to attend additional training in good governance provided by a third party such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics no later than February 1, 2023, and once a year thereafter. The training should include the Brown Act with emphasis on issues such as serial meetings, closed sessions, the fiduciary duty of government officials, filing Form 700s, and other issues related to good governance.

Page 33 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Finding 8a
The City Manager and City Attorney positions are important executive-level leadership positions within the City. The City Attorney and the City Manager raised concerns about the 49ers and councilmembers activities related to the 49ers. Both were fired shortly thereafter.

Finding 8b
Members of City staff, including the former City Attorney and former City Manager, have shown commendable loyalty and dedication to the City and its interests.

Recommendation 8
No recommendation.

Page 34 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

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 Santa Clara
1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c,
3d, 4, 5, 6, 7
1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a, 3b,
3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b,
5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c

Page 35 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX A: CITY AND 49ERS RELATIONSHIPS

Comprehensive Audit of Stadium Authority Finances , prepared by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, August 2017.

City of
Santa Clara
("City")
Owns the land that the
Stadium occupies
Exhibit 1.1: Overview of Stadium-Related Leases and Agreements Various Public Parking
Agreements
Santa Clara Stadium Operations
Agreement;
Authority Naming Rights
("Stadi um Autllorily ") & Marketing
Agreement
Constructed and owns the
Stadium
Forty Niners Stadium
Management Company
("Manco")
Manages and operates the
Stadium
Forty Niners SC Stadium
Company, LLC
("StadCo")
Leases stadium and owns
some tenant improvements
Forty Niners Footba ll
Company
("Team")
Leases st adium from StadCo
for home games

Page 36 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX B: HARVEY ROSE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

NOTE: Status as of 12/12/17 came from a City analysis. Current status is based on information the Grand Jury learned during the course to its investigation.

Compli ance with Harvey Rose Audit Recommendations Starus as of Current 12112117 Sranl'>
I.A The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to request the public safety costs threshold be adjusted through Partially Out of negotiations with StadCo to reflect actual costs to the City for Complete ComphJDc@ lvroviding tmblic safety services for NFL events.

LB The StadilWl Authority Boord should direct the Executive Director and Stadium Authority counsel to notify Manco that the absence of five year capital e.xpendirure plans for FYs 2014-15 and 201S-16 Complete Compl@te
was a breach of Section 10.3 of the Stadium Lease and that Manco is required to pro\>-"ide such plans under the lease for the current and all furure Stadiwn Authority fiscal years.

LC The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to provide a copy of the Operation and Mainten,,nce Plan to the Complete Co mpl e-te
Staditw1 Authority Board for review, in closed session if deem.ed necessary for public safety reasons by the Stadiwn Authority counsel.

LD The Stadium Authority Board should require that Stadium Authority staff and Manco prepare an annual public safety budget Putially P.lTtlilly in conjunction ,vith the City's public safety departments detailing both Complete Complete NFL and non-NFL event public safety c,osts for submission to and adootion by the Board.

LE The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to renegotiate provisions of the Stadium Lease so that the Stadiwn Authority receives a share of any concessionaire Complete Out of Comphm ce
revenue that exceeds the minimum guaranteed amowit from non-NFL eve:nrs.

LF The Stadium Authority Board should d irect the Executive Director to notify StadCo that a fonnal cousolidated draft parking plan Not No t must be produced and delivered to the Comnrunity Implemented lmpleme.Il.ted Development Department and to the Board for review and approval as required under the Stadium Lease.

LG The Staditm1 Authority Board should direct the Chief of Police to present the public safety plao to the Stadium Authority Board for review and fonnal approval (in dosed session if deemed Putially Out of necessary by Stadium Authority c01msel) and to present any Complet e Complun ce updates to the public safety plan to the Stadium updates to the public safety plan to the Stadium Authority Board for review and documented a<lnntion_

1.H Tue Stadium Authority Board should direc.t the Executive Director to fonnal ly notify StadCo that the total cost for stadilllll insurance must be disclosed in the shared stadium e.xpenses budget Partially purn,an t to Section 4.6 of the Management Agreement and, based on Complete Complete the disclosure, consider proposing to StadCo an an1endment to the Stadium Lease to remove the provision that the Stadium Authority loav a fixed amount of insurance costs, \'1ith StadCo oavina an

Page 37 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

I. I Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to formally notify StadCo and Manco that Manco is in breach of the Management Agreement because it did not furnish Annual Staten1ents Not No< of Stadium Operations forFYs 2014-'15 and 2015-16, and to require. Implemented Implemented that such staten1ents be provided for those years, for FY 2016-17 and each VP~r thereafter.
1J Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to send fonnal notification to Manco and StadCo that Manco \Vas in appatent breach of the Stadium Lease requirement that a one year budget and five year projection of shared Stadiwn expenses be Out of provided on an annual basis to the Stadium Authority and demanding Complete Comphance that Manco pro,;de such budgets and projections for the current and all future :;,ears. Tue Executive Director should be directed to provide a written response to Manco each year on the draft budget submitted by Manco.

1.K Tue Stadi\U11 Authority Board should direct the Executive and Treasurer to work ,vith Manco to require that the annual operating budget and quarterly financial status reports disclose sufficient Not No t information to ensure that staff and the Board can determine whether Implemented Implemented the Stadium Authority is adhering to Stadium Lease requirenlenls contained in Article-14 regarding the allocation of e.xcess Stadium Aurhority revenue.

1.L Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to notify Manco that pr~ou s annual marketing plans were inadequate as they did not set forth reasonably detailed plans to develop, in1plement, and monitor marketing, lx>oking, advertising, and promotion of non- Partially Complete NFL activities. The Board should further direct the E .... ecutive Director Complete to notify Manco that furure marketing plans must include such details and be reviewed for sufficient detail by the Executive Director before being presented to the Board.
l.M Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to confer with the Finance Director to confer to determine what financial information \vould be necessary to assess non-NFL event financial Parri,ll!y Out of performance, including incentive payments to Manco, and then notify Complete C'omphance Manco regarding what additional information will be required on an onlloinll basis.

1.N Tue Stadi,m1 Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to notify Manco that it is in breach of Management Agreement Section

3.3, which requires that "ritten revenue or other reports relating to non NFL events be provided to the Stadium Authority within 45 days of Puri .illy Out of each non-NFL event ,vith attendance projected to exceed $25,000. Tue Complete Complunc e Stadium Authority Board should ftlrlher direct the Executive Director to demand that Manco provide such "ritten revenue reports according to specifications to be detailed by the Treasurer for all future non-NFL events \\;th attendance oroiected to e.xceed $25,000.

Page 38 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

1.0 Toe Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director and Stadium Authority counsel to request ao amendment to the Management Agreement that would require fonnal aodlor infonnal Not Pam.illy bidding procedures for aoy transactions with Maoco afli.liates or for Implemented Compl ete transactions above a designated threshold to ensure that goods and services received from an affiliate of Manco are competitively priced.

The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to direct Maoco to provide quarterly written reports to the Stadium Partially Out of Authority, to be maintained as pemianent Stadium Authority records, Comple te CocnphJDce detailing parking lot information as required in the first amendment to the management agreement.

1.Q Toe Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to require that all meetings, including the date aod purpose of the Comple te Compl ete meetings. between Stadium Authority staff and Maoco be documented aod reported quarterly or annually to the stadium authority board.

LR Toe Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to establish procedures to ensure that all existing plaos, reports, and budget documents required to be provided by Maoco are provided to Partially Out of the Stadium Authority in the manner required by existing agreements. Comple te CocnphJDce Toe Stadium Authority Board should further direct the Executive Director to report annually on the status (receipt, review, aod approval stanrs) of each required plan. report. and budget document

2.A The Stadium Authority Board should request that Maoco pro,,de the relevant reports and documentation that back up the NFL ticket Partially Out of surcharge rummary report in order to retain pernianent verification of Complete Compliance the accuracy of the surcharge calculated by Maoco.

2.B Toe Staditnn Authority Board should negotiate ,vith Maoco to establish a level of detail regarding non-NFL event revenue aod e.xpenses that can be provided in City reports , public documents, aod pernianent records to be kept by the Stadium Authority withotn compromising MaoCo's ability to book and negotiate deals with non- Not No, NFL e;·ent acts and performances. Toe Board should direct staff to Implemented Impl eme nted include th.is level of detail for both budgeted and actual revenues and expenses in the annual proposed budget and the quarterly financial stahJS reports to allow the Board and public to monitor the flf"ffonnance of non-NFL events and ManCo's 1lf'1fonnance in

2.C 2.C Toe Stadium Authority Board should require that a detailed breakdo"n of performance rent calculations and payments lo the City Comple te Partu.11:v of Saota Oara be included in the budget and quarterly financial stanrs Compl ete reports using additional informalion provided by Maoco.

2.D Toe Stadium Authority Board should require that Maoco pro,~de reports aod docurnentatioo that cao be kept in Stadiuru Authority Partially Out of records, consistent ,vith confidentiality provisions in the agreements Complete Comphance that back up the non-NFL ticket surcharge summary report in order to verifv that the surcharee calculated bv Manco is accurate ..

Page 39 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

2.E Toe Stadium Authority Board should require that a comprehensive accotmting of Debt Seiv:ice Fund transactions, including beginning aod year-end balances, budget vs. actual revenues aod e.xpenditures by Complete Comp lete specific line item, aod details on all lralsfers in aod out of the ftmd, be presented in StadiUID Atrthority budgets and financial status reports.

2.F The Stadium Authority Board should require that Discretionary Fund revenues, e.xpenses, budget-to-actual comparisons, and accmmt Complete Comp lete
balances be reported in StadiUID Atrthority budgetary documeols =aratelv from the On,,r,,fing Fund.

2.G Toe Stadium Authority Board should require that Manco prepare the five year Shared Expense Budget, per the requirentents in the Stadium Management Agreement, aod the Board should direct the Executive Complet e Comp lete
Director to docun1ent receipt of the Shared Expense Budget, and provide \vritten comments to Manco in response to the proposed e.xneni.es.

2.H The Stadiwn Authority Board, StadCo, and ManCo should aruend the Management Agreement or separately establish binding policies that do not allow retroactive increases in authorized e.xpenditures such as Not No t Stadium Manager e.xpenses, and should require that detailed Implemented lmp lt!lllented. e.xplanations be provided to the Board when additioual funding is requested midyear in advance of such expenses being incurred. 21 Toe Stadium Authority should require that Manco provide independently prepared reports aod documentation to back up the Not Not number of NFL tickets sold for each fiscal year in order to verify that Implemented Implemente d the senior outh fee calcu1ated by :rvtanco is accurate and to have a set of permanent records documenting the validity of this revenue.

2.J Toe Staditun Authority Board and the City of Santa Clara shmtld clarify when the City Purchasing Authority procurement thresholds (Santa Clara Municipal Code Chapter 2.105.070 et seq.) apply aod Complete Comp lete when the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy thresholds (Santa Clara Municipal Code Chapter 17.30) apply.

2.K Toe Sta di tun Authority Board should direct staff to prepare policies and procedures pertaining to all purchases made on beha lf of the Stadium Authority to require a level of specificity in costs aod services Not Cnk~O\VU
in all vendor contracts, that all invoices bill using the rates or unit costs Implemen ted specified in their contracts, aod that the invoices and contracts be periodically reviewed by Stadium Authority staff.

2.L Toe Staditun Authority Board should require that budgets and actual expendirures for the Stadium construction budget be presented alongside the StadiUID Authority Operating Budget to provide an Complete Comp lete accurate overall picture of purchases for all materials, services, aod supplies for the Stadium.

2.M Toe Stadium Authority Board shmtld direct staff to report revenues and expenditures on an accrual basis in budgetary docmuents Not No, so that all amounts presented reflect acrua.l results for the year, Imp lemente d Implement ed reoardless of the timin• of revenue receiot or ex-•~ incurred.

Page 40 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

3.A Toe Stadi1m1 Authority Board shou ld request that staff prepare plans for reimbursement to the City's General Fund for w,reimbursed staff Not Not costs from the appropri ate source : Discretionary Fund, Manco , or, to Implemented lmp lemellted the extent funds are available and :mnmnriate, the Constmction Fund .

3.B Toe Stadium Authority Board shou ld request that staff have Manco prepare an armual comprehensive Public Safety budget, as required by the Stadium Lease, to include all components of Stadium public safety Parti.Jlly costs and reimbur semen t, including NFL public safety costs paid for Complete Complete directly by Manco on behalf of StadCo , by the Stadium Authority from the Discretionary Fund , and any costs paid using other funds such as the Construction Fund .

3.C Toe Sta di tun Authority Board should direct staff to develop specific definitions of which costs should be charged as overhead and which should be direct billed. Alternati vely, staff should adjust the rate Not Not applied to direct billed staff costs from the current IO percen t to a more [email protected] Implemente d appropriate rate, and communicate to all staff which positions or activities v,ill be charged as overhead .

4.A Toe St adium Authority should exercise its right stipulated in the agreemen t benveen master parking lot opera tor Citypark and Manco Parti.illy Cnkno"'-n to periodically audit the detai led records of individual parking lots Complete for NFL and non-NFL events .

4.B Toe Stadiun1 Authority Board shou ld direct staff to report back on the Not Not advantages and disadvantages of adding City audit righ ts as a Implemented lmplewe med condition of ar.mtine: oarkino nPrmits_

4.C Toe Stadiun1 Authority Board should direct staff to require that Manco provide a written report on matters related to off-site parking Not Not operations at their quar terly meetings , requiring that baseline Implemented Implememed informa tion be pro,~ded in a specific format.

Page 41 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX C: ADMONITION AND CENSURE POLICY

City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual

ADMONITION AND CENSURE POLICY

PURPOSE
This policy applies only to the Mayor and City Council members for improper conduct that may result in admonition or censure.

POLICY
It is the policy of the City Council that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics and Values.

Violations of such law or policy tends to injure the good name of the City and to undermine the effectiveness of the City Council as a whole.

Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of law or policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy.

City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible

Page 42 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Council Members from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct.

At any point during any of the processes described in this policy, the Council may refer the matter, as appropriate, to the Santa Clara County District Attorney for investigation. Following such a referral, the Council may proceed with any actions it chooses to undertake under the provisions of this policy. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding actions it may choose to take in response to violations of law or policy, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to two types of action: admonition and censure.

Admonition

An admonition may typically be directed to all members of the City Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in violation of law or City policy, and that, if it occurs or is found to have occurred, could make a member subject to censure. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions, although it would not necessarily have to be triggered by such allegations. An admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder, would not necessarily require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true. An admonition may also be treated as taking action to criticize a council member’s conduct.

The right to criticize is protected by the First Amendment, and may be done individually, or as a whole by motion.

Censure

Censure is an official reprimand or condemnation made by City Council in response to specified conduct by one of its own members. Censure is disciplinary in nature, and requires the formal adoption of a resolution setting forth the council member’s alleged violations of law and/or policies. Censure may require an investigation, and must protect the due process rights of the council member. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the council member as an elected official but a censure is a punitive action that serves as a punishment for wrongdoing.

Page 43 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

PROCEDURE

Informal Admonition

An individual Council Member can make an admonition at any Council meeting during the Public Presentations or Reports of Members and Special Committees portion of the meeting.

Censure

The Council may request a formal censure action be placed on a Council agenda. The City Clerk shall provide notice of the possible censure to the Councilmember who is the subject of the action. The notice shall contain the specific charges on which the proposed censure is based and the date and time that the matter will be heard. Upon hearing the testimony, the Council may take action by resolution setting forth its findings and stating the terms of the censure.

City Council-approved policy dated 5/15/2018

Reference:

Adopted May 2018 P&P 047 Page 2 of 2

Page 44 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX D: THE BROWN ACT

(Excerpted from “The Brown Act - Open Meetings for Legislative Bodies”)

Serial Meetings

The issue of serial meetings stands at the vortex of two significant public policies: first, the constitutional right of citizens to address grievances and communicate with their elected representatives; and second, the Act’s policy favoring public deliberation by multi-member boards, commissions and councils. The purpose of the serial meeting prohibition is not to prevent citizens from communicating with their elected representatives, but rather to prevent public bodies from circumventing the requirement for open and public deliberation of issues.

The Act expressly prohibits serial meetings that are conducted through direct communications, personal intermediaries or technological devices for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to action to be taken. (§ 54952.2(b); Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 103.) This provision raises two questions: first, what is a serial meeting for purposes of this definition; and second, what does it mean to develop a concurrence as to action to be taken.

Typically, a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members. For example, a chain of communications involving contact from member A to member B who then communicates with member C would constitute a serial meeting in the case of a five- person body. Similarly, when a person acts as the hub of a wheel (member A) and communicates individually with the various spokes (members B and C), a serial meeting has occurred. In addition, a serial meeting occurs when intermediaries for board members have a meeting to discuss issues. For example, when a representative of member A meets with representatives of members B and C to discuss an agenda item, the members have conducted a serial meeting through their representatives as intermediaries. The statutory definition also applies to situations in which technological devices are used to connect people at the same time who are in different locations (but see the discussion below concerning the exception for teleconference meetings).

Once serial communications are found to exist, it must be determined whether the communications were used to develop a concurrence as to action to be taken. If the serial communications were not used to develop a concurrence as to action to be taken, the serial communications do not constitute a meeting and the Act is not applicable. In construing these terms, one should be mindful of the ultimate purposes of the Act -- to provide the public with an opportunity to monitor and participate in the decision-making processes of boards and commissions. As such, substantive conversations among members concerning an agenda item prior to a public meeting probably would be viewed as contributing to the development of a concurrence as to the ultimate action to be taken. Conversations which advance or clarify a member’s understanding of an issue, or facilitate an agreement or compromise among members,

Page 45 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

or advance the ultimate resolution of an issue, are all examples of communications which contribute to the development of a concurrence as to action to be taken by the legislative body.

Accordingly, with respect to items that have been placed on an agenda or that are likely to be placed upon an agenda, members of legislative bodies should avoid serial communications of a substantive nature concerning such items.

Problems arise when systematic communications begin to occur which involve members of the board acquiring substantive information for an upcoming meeting or engaging in debate, discussion, lobbying or any other aspect of the deliberative process either among themselves or with staff. For example, executive officers may wish to brief their members on policy decisions and background events concerning proposed agenda items. This office believes that a court could determine that such communications violate the Act, because such discussions are part of the deliberative process. If these communications are permitted to occur in private, a large part of the process by which members reach their decisions may have occurred outside the public eye.

Under these circumstances, the public would be able only to witness a shorthand version of the deliberative process, and its ability to monitor and contribute to the decision-making process would be curtailed. Therefore, we recommend that when the executive director is faced with this situation, he or she prepare a memorandum outlining the issues for all of the members of the board as well as the public. In this way, the serial meeting violation may be avoided and everyone will have the benefit of reacting to the same information.

However, this office does not think that the prohibition against serial meetings would prevent an executive officer from planning upcoming meetings by discussing times, dates, and placement of matters on the agenda. It also appears that an executive officer may receive spontaneous input from any of the board members with respect to these or other matters so long as a quorum is not involved.

The express language of the statute concerning serial meetings largely codifies case law developed by the courts and the opinions issued by this office in the past. In Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 796-798, the court concluded that the Act applies equally to the deliberations of a body and its decision to take action. If a collective commitment were a necessary component of every meeting, the body could conduct most or all of its deliberation behind closed doors so long as the body did not actually reach agreement prior to consideration in public session. Accordingly, the court concluded that the collective acquisition of information constituted a meeting. The court cited briefing sessions as examples of deliberative meetings which are subject to the Act’s requirements, and contrasted these sessions with activities that fall outside the purview of the Act, such as the passive receipt of an individual’s mail or the solitary review of a memorandum by an individual board member.

In Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95, 105, the court concluded that a series of individual telephone calls between the agency attorney and the members of the body constituted a meeting. In that case, the attorney individually polled the members of the body for their approval on a real estate transaction. The court concluded that even though the meeting was conducted in a serial fashion, it nevertheless was a meeting for the purposes of the Act. (See also, 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 63, 66 (1982); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 820, 828-829 (1980).)

Page 46 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX E: COUNCILMEMBERS’ CALENDARS

S~ect
Coln: I --~Medng-3lad...,, -.affly...., e ~g
~l.lel!/lllo:<!tr.eeo;,,a
Ooln;land~1~lkdnl;l-~d al
Mtt!lng3an l:!I C 11r,i ~~
Coun;l -~con,;r.rn,m~
SJ1~ ~SFM 111- C.NC-olncl
5J17am2 5::IXIFM ~~Cl:YCowxl
Coln: l lllld~Cona.rrefll~ ,
~Coun: DMeetr.ci ana~A:111al'tflAet:!r.G
PutC almd.u
cour.: • --~lliff!ln~ - □ tadtmAurlor'lyWttang

3.'~!,::CC!FtA Cl:vCcundl
U1f2tf22.4::0lFM ~ct:rCourc ll Meell,q
~(%/Coun:!IPAeetr.G
1110.'!0ll s.ccicu
Counc:I ana ~Connm:111 ~ ,
E.••1t1 1.1..-.... , ::::111an, Ja: CNn:IIIOl.lu."lll , lob:N el , LltlT"£, Ja~.:!Ep'len: , Dlr .lTate:

E'l'il:,M a!l"leW:l, ::::l\lan, Jll: Q".Jnlhct , Fu."111, lob:Nel , LIIIT"£,:.:d"an:1UJ ah; /VeaTj Becker;Jo-.n.:~en:[)(r.i a T~
E....-, ~1ae.ewJ ; ::..»J,r,Ja:C......,ar,,:,t,iu,, ..-_ 1o1ac:Nl!'l, LltlT"£, :::..r.,,n~-r.,J an , A.'C'D'ly Btt~ JD~-.:::ltfll'lef';-S; Ol.1N - -:."'e:

E....-, ~1ae.ewJ; ::.tj1t'..JU c. ...... al'lDt, iu,,..-, 111KN1!., LIIIT"£, ::;--~"r.l Jan ; AICIO!ly a«~ JD:."l::llt!lher'1: Dl.1N -ate:

Pl.l:IIJcMeet no
E....-, M--; ; ::..»J,1r, Ja: Cl'onal'GJ, Rll~l,I; t.lK~ , LltlT"£. :;:.-.d"ar.~"r.lJan ;N~y Htt~Ja ~-.~~ D;rio - ate:

E.-1"/ M-"'I : ~ Ja: Cl',anar,,:,t, Rll~l,l. t.lK~ , LltlT"J; ~~"r.l Jan ;N=mtly Htt~ JD~"l~her't; D'3N - .:tft':

Pl.l:lllcMeet no
E.-; 1:, ~1-., :::::uan.Ja: C.">S'ICl/101.,lu.-U.1.'.KNel , LIIITf,~:IUJ an. ~ &e<:ker..11;1!;.n:C __...e-,:D:¥1 a Torw:

Pl.l:lllcM eet1111
l'l.l:lllcllle ct
f'l.mllcMec:t1111
E......, ~l.c'rVl"'l ; ::..»J,r, Ja: CN,r,ar,,:,t,Rllf ..l,l_t.lK~ , LltlT"J; c--.r~-r.,J an ,k':,'l(l!IY a«~Ja:.-.~l'lel"1 : D;rio - -:."'e:

Pl.l:IIJcMeet no
E....-, ~1.lC'le ... -s; ~ JU CNinal'lDI. Fiar..-, t.lK~, LltlT"J; ::;--. r.--"r.lJ an ; J,r.:,ofly 9tt~ Ja:.-.~ her'~: D¥4 - ate:

Pl.l:lllcMtt t 1111
E.-; r, ~ll trie'#'l , :::::uan.Ja: CNn:IIIOl.lu.'111. U..xN el , Llffl'"f, ::;--:IUJ an. Nr::rcff J &e<:ker..v.n :e.-,.ue-,:C'.an a r-.

E."'il:, Ma!l"leW:l, ::::>11an, Jll:Cl"t>nar,,:, t,, 1u."lll ; lilDcNel , LltlT"£,~::,;,,J an, Areaiy &e<:ker.Jmn.'.l.">"U.en: D:r.l a l' •
f'l"~ JcMeet no
E.-s1:, ~1-. . :::::u1t11.Ja: C.-.r,a1101.,Fu.-u, l.'.KNe t , L111TJ;~:ruJ an. ~ 1 &e<:ker.Jmn::__...e-,:O(a<l a T~
Pl.l:llleM eet ,..,
E.-al:, Mair'-. , :l:l\lan. .Ill: CNn:IIIOl. lu."111; ... .,Kt,lel , LltlT"£. :l:".>:l"'iail:IUJan; Arr;:,;ff/ &e<:~Jmn.:~.e,,:D:r., a l' •
E.-; r, ~latrie'#'l , Olllan.Jll: , C.-..imllOl.lu.'111. .. ..xNe l , LltlT"J;~:IUJ an. /VeaTj &e<:l:er. .o,:;n :O ~em. C'an a r-.

E.-al:, uair-. , ::::111an • .Ill: CNmllOl. Fu."111: ..,->::Net , LltlT"£. :l:".>:l"'iail:ru Jan; Arr;:,l;,rJ &e<:l:er.Jmn::-e-,:o:ri a r~
Pl.l:lllcM eet ng
J'l'"~lc~l eet,..,
Pl.l:lllcMeet ~
E.-al:, ~latrie'#'l , ::::111an, Jll: CNn:IIIOl.lu.'111.M.a:N el , LltlT"J; :l:"..d:">x\:IUJan, Arr:::arJ &e<:ker.Jmn:Q.-,.uen:O,ao, a T-.

E.-;1:, ~1-. . :::::uan.Ja: C.">S'ICl/101.,lu.-U.1.'.KNel , LIIITJ; O--:IUJ an. Arr:::arJ &e<;1:er;.,1mn:1;,:,,u.e-,:D:an a Torw:

E.""il:, Uaff"-. , Olllan.Jll: C.">S'ICl/101.,lu.-U.l.'.KN el , LIIITJ;~:IUJ an. Arr:,:,nJ &e<:ker..lD:n:e-e-,:D:an a T~
Pl.l:lllc M eet 1111
E.-al:, Uatf'-. ;3!\lan. J~ "C-i.,n.;tu;t. R.lo.-r.l:~1Kheil, i..rrr::::ua~,;nu Jarl,'tl!IIIOff/ S.-dz r __.,,,..n~en:-0:"""T"'"':
f'l"~lCM eet ""
E."'i l:, Uatf'-. "3!\lan. J~ ,C:l\lrld' ,;k. ~ -U:1.1Kh~Larry,3u~ ~,;I\U Jah ,'Vtll0!1'/ 6'<:l:er.Jo-.n~e<::-::t"""Ta,n,:

Page 47 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Becker Calendar
1'mli! Sub"ea
!f1 5.Q~1~
Sl"l&r.?~~~ .&:,,:15-PM
Pulllc M!:ell!O _,.._
£ ,n ty ~;_~~:n~~~ l=e~::,,':t"~ ;
Pulllc M!:ell!O
a.ceA U-''l'er.. Topic.-: est·: OC3 "'-um crni<::rdll e l1~< ~ Fle l1 Cu l:. :lr f:i w.dl""' ; li:al'u Cl'wln:l"al; La rT"J""° "' e . K ...-nP""', □ udh a n:1'111.loll n ; J c,-., Cctr 1rLJ'lfll •:Jll andFlF"'-IDl llE et,,fll'l!!"! · DIY".31-c:tft:
~c.aA ••-t<;oer.. - ~ ; M1111rt1Rllrr.:;Mn~ ~i.nt~ o1 ~orS ~le!'lt. SC3Ao- 1~:i,;, cc~. Fle kl Cea!:. eon::~ : ~1m1111 R;.t:1:..~~~ C~O'•erie-111; :::moran;1 Yaur,~ •tt;
~L>;> 0 "nn!-put l c:mty'"'idl el c,rlc:e<:rd Uct..-.: ~ e 3C3"'- J.1 -'~ - opc:: c.3-F e l:I .C e E.;CD ~ I~~:

Con1'!1e'lce r-.te e -.n-, , ta'>cf h ~
Cc.cA D,9er.. . T~c:: □ Sl.. • i! ld DeY::: ; CD~ay ~:

Gofflerenu o n;.i;. l!ffll•~- NRA :::"" :t"'" ~~c«cer~1attt E.CSA /f 4~; Tq,lcFl..:ISl!al:, , --PC ri-: a'\ a.r.: ; "" o:uic 1 :n:1~cman,,niMedl'!g
Sl)eO!ICOlld~
,_eon,.....,,
&C8A 1r "-:lel?iTap;c:. acs,.,, 1••1na&-.ogee;B..ooe-:~lN· . ~ l~~~Cooncl~ ·; saL
,_eon,
acs,.,, 11 4s..,-; n,pc,,; T,;,pk:;: acs,.,, ~_.-,,,,..11.llll!UQ;IOI S.......-,;~~ & ~Elpor.29rHil1J;o,,tt.rdF;r.e-.-e: , l.niec:"":arJ l~ra~s:
s-....M!n - ~
c«r,<!~~ i--.-~. ec.-.e-tlefl'l.Ji, e r.aha\ ~:emti'f~ s,..,,, LO'• , A.:: e mb'r,errllff u ari:: E-fflllllfl, Crlll'ICl memMr 11:e,111 =rt PH1c1.1 iclr.:r.: m, Jr,, Meror o DIY"d - c:tftO Jcoh.C"""'Ht: F.llr uic,•.i,roct; 11,1a· oro am .Jee,_ Em ly Ulllllrfi :; 3:11;.an, J I '-, C "'1nC1"'1ck, RJl.-.:.1; t.'..>:Nl!I\ Lxry Kn ' n ?YII . Cld."lxl:l'IJ J! l'l: .b<h. C-:"Eno ~DII.IIT~:

LOQI V-,rb-..i: Nn,:~ l ll; ~~y Smty tl,tlnn,: J1: $:t1 111; ~h!.1 Cl'landl'>:lk; Jo-.n~en: 0'""3~
i:...-.1~ ~~ ... ,: ; ~ Ja ::, Ct.and hDl, "-11\Lt, tl.xNe l. LllT'I ; JD::.., (lll!l:lhtr ~ . OIY".31 Tc.rre:; :::..a:J:in . 11:e ,111 P¥t.

E.1Y l.1.1a!'lew:.. ~ ,Jit:;Cl\1ncl'd.,"'11'U, t.b:~~ , ~~---- ...... '31'!; .m., s -~aT-mr.

E....,- u~u, ... ,: so,, ,J,c,, c-. R:n.l;U.11:liel, li?Y. H-, -~ •3!NTorre:
"""
E.-ty ~-...... . ~ ,Jit:;cti.wl<f'd.,Rllll'U, t.b: ~ - ~i'3rll ,&dlrl:.."ll .\!t',; Joal B~ . ~aT-mr.

E.-wy ~-...... . ~ .J,c,,Ch.n:r,,:f; , F.llfl.l , tAac ury, KNn=s,,;&.w~"U .'.W( ~, s ~ ; o.taT~
SCSA /I O e.-_ ~ - Se~ ~A~\;:::-an.Emn:Dll ,=l)'al,"e"..• -~ E."'W)'l.1.1a!'lew:.. ~ . J~ Ch.n:r,,:f; , Rlllu. tAacNe;l. ury. ~ ~ ~"ll .'.X-.:
~<31 , --._ Ji:,;.iS~ o.taT~
.JDlll,lee!llg11ttrieCOlld--~
"""'""""" Spea .- 0r)'Cculcl~1edll0
SCSA H 4~--ooo: Concertl4la:Se
Recen:t~caic=.u::Cln:e-!~/\"°.er~i;llr.'~
SC:S"'-11 4Se"-., - ,x.c-:-Ct)'&.Yffno,;~ng!t».lncor,nc; . cG"Cer: •,CKIXe . : ~ aelllfl , s..mr- aer.lca
-E.-,,-~ -....,,: - &G,,n , J,c,, C-. ~ IA.acNt!l uny, .b-"- i -~o.r.aT~
E.-ty ~-...... . ~ ,J~cti.wl<f'd.,Rllll'U, t.b: ~ , ~?s,,;~ .\!t',; Joal B~ . ~aT-mr.

Coln::unerrtier S-.mJWl,RMt.l Q:lll'dlOi! , \llc e ~ - IVC) 111P\Oi::N'71r. rG .,.._,,.. ~ ~ ~~.Serkll"Ur ,agei or ~~ .... .,..~ &Slrlffo;K~ .
~ l.cacNe-l, ~~~~ ~...,N'. or'/,1t:::1:.t/;:;~fl ¥MlN'II:
;;:mt, Mlft"'l!'w:; B:,(l,n, Ja:;Cl'lllnll"d., Finll;t.bcN"'1, Lllr)· ,-~Sud'lr:..~ J.x-,;Joe:n -·-Ccvlc l :n:1~~~ Pl&t~
~a.nee= i:=-~~~~=~=--~ s.::06-Q~ ; s:~ Emt, ~ B:,(l,n, Ja:;cr.nr.:.t., ~~ Lllr) ·,-~s .-...~. -Wl;Joe:h

Page 48 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Jain Calendar
eovxn1nd,._ n ~.Weee.,ig 1nd:::-...,,
"'-'l"«IIJMe •tlrr,i
lito"U~,O ~•al•'.en:d.<IOOY!:LV:ceF'e<-::IOe!'l'\/P cfP..b' lcAlll-,: ono .::nt~ tc ,;g,,.._call""•• :::an Fronc bco 4~= Lori'}' 1J1cNel . lite~>!en:~ Lo~1 1:.:. c.omi,11ance t.11r11Qer.:::.,Franc!K<14~ =
p u,,,... "':,JU ~ l•O< ~!;· ~ · ·~· P~IC :::~~ c.c,:.:, """' ~ Rl~U•. L•y•· :n1~"': ~<=~r=c~f!::t:7£fE·;:f ~~~~=~:::i.~ Co:.n:11 ~ /wlt>Dr : e,ecn:urr.mlJ tt PUl:!:C: 11,et:
3 BLan~ ae1.e-: pncoo 'l1rr 1ngR.g,c . :::eNo,1Tou:nF •~L~ l"e••NC1.,. ~10<n:,rn Fuc !c::.re"''t,rG--F,- •
counar..:1- u Cot1curr..m1J ttu.a a1>11tpeaa1
w ..:;- 3 ..,._. c,.,, t taalumAL11ler'!"
F'eo .:iua:::s-., :Jtl<ll.ll''lo~ .a-••'""'=
'"'Kl' l l a.! .. anQ=
c.o~"'' :<1.<,!fff• .... ~ --. =--s.1:: 1, Ca!t-!y cc,1, . :tad lum NURC. J , .....

Rg-...,;
~ loll,l tt=r,g c,!C..."1,C-0'""1 - c.,,._.,.,.,1u 1onA,pp;,1ti~.,,a ~
"°""' A•n<1- n ~Mtte,,g ana:::mo;..,,
__ ..,
~Kl al K U tln~ Cltf~
'"'ect al a.! .. anQC<IU>Cll
£,-ii~ uoane .. ·• 'I•~•== LODO)'•L MY..>;iti<l'C.c ,rrr .,rca11an, >n:1 PL1D1.:.....-,:,,·,:
:;i,.. Ft11nc!K<1 4~= Larry IJO<N~I. Re; ,to...., l.<ltt y ... corr ~ lae.<e IJMai:,« , ::: ...

F,.,, (!lc<10'!ei;JC-.l'.:J ~"'""' tJar.1~,;f'Cc 1r1r.n'c o110n: r>:1P L1DIO:!l."";o'.ro :: • J....,, o..-... r......,, ,J ar .. .,,..., •• , 111"11'_. , ........... ,..,., ~~,.,., E---i':I ~Iott......,, ::.a.tan. J a,;~'-'- •lul ; t.loc:Nell. Lony: t;evl-> Part" -.s«t..- · J..,n:Jl -~enOor,..Tor,,o
E.""i~ ~lott. ...... , Ca.a IJKN•II. Lony; t;•YI->
p.,. _ ~B•<t..-Jc• n:J1-~.n, o:ar..>T.....,,
E ""i~ ~,a11.. ...... , :::, •• ,.,, Ja•; e..--.o~ ',.ll'NJI; ~IKNe ll. Lony: t;•yl-> Part" -. &«t..- · J..,n:Jl -~en oar,4, To,rn
-~ . .

C.C,;,;,,nu,:.,, , , 3 111 •rinci<cc-49-er. ,Uny Ml~M-1, ROQ ,ton,o U:ctr,f:L C<lmCI .,,,~ 1.11n,1o,,r , c,,.. Fn ne1:co •~= .io:n :::to,,.,..,,,,. -~-• <If C..:,m..,~IUIJO.'tl Yd P,~ C !l."llr'I :lF ~9«< . 0:0.-.ll T-. !J..-,4,::,rr ,;I' E<l!f"IO Flo "U C..-..ndol =tegl:,en:d - -Y!<L V.c• F'e<-::IOel'I (l,'P "'P>,b' ltA~ r, ,no 3trmg !c C-rr..rlc 1~:,r,: :::,.. F""1d :c<1 ~<;,er. J.,, :Jot),.., ~:t..-.-:1 U:«-11•~ :;:,,sla'IJ1r..>Qere-•- 1c A11'111r. .i. :::tn-:•~ c C<lmrrunlc:lllOn• ::!Jn ""'""'•co~, ...,,

5.--il11J l!II\N '< 'l •~!:.:,O"M LODO)' , L MY..>;iti<l'C. Cll'rr.ri catlan:>n:IPLID IO:.....-,:,,·,:
:::,.. F,..,c-,c<1 •9=.L•rl'J MacN~ I. Reg ,to...., L<1tc:f"-C..Orrt lance 1,1.,,ai:;«. 3.,, F,.,,Cl«<1•!fe"' J<>:r3!01:"JOt'.: tJ..-,4,;itiCl'C Cll'rr.ric 111011:"".:IP1111liC!l...,..r: .:! ' •~. c..-... T~.M•r.ag«cf:I!Oll'..>,i;J"(,JQO "'""t:Jl' ~!fer. :Jtrm!llc C-1r..rlc 1~:,r,: :::.,, Fn,nd:c <1 JS.:r.. J.,, :Jotlri. ~:t..-.-:1 l.otl,-/1•~ ~nn LH ,.,,.,...1n , no .,, c:o:,, J1meo Rcw,.,.,,L,,...r• :::;;,,,.. :;:,,s1a"M1r..>Qerc•"'r.b'ICA!l'11" ,I, :Jin'..-. C c.c,m.,....,1,.nc-n, .:!-1"1 •,.,s d 1e<> •9er::

FlC'lcl :JBL,. :en conce~ .,~ •• 3BL ,o leo """'«•r'g. p,..,, c :l•~ Co<i>, E!Wn E---ily 1.1.m, .... , i;;.-.•,:ie= lol>O)': L ,...., ... _ .,. c-rr..-. ·ut1an: >n:1 PLIDl<C ~ -r:

J<:M ::: .. F,..,Clc<149=.L•rryl.lacN~ I. Reg•to-L <1tt:,.,_0o .. c 11nce l.l.,,ai:; ... :l.,, F,.,, Cl,co• !ie,,, J c-.r3!01:..,.,.,_, ,J..-... ;jtiCl'CCll' O'.ri Cl1IOll:~Pllll liC!I...,.. .. ::: , --~-~ - .. . .
3tr m glc C-rr....,coa:,r,: C""F""'c,co~S.:r.. J1, 3otJ.,,.~,t..-!11l.ol: t>-/1:~ Kennue ,..,... 1n, nn .. c o:1, J1me< Rcw,.,.,, u vr , :::~ :;:,,"la'M 1r..>Qere-·- 1cAff111r. .i. ~•~ c C<>m,run1c:n;on, .:!Jn ""'s c,co Oer::

Flel:! :l EIL•, :tn "'''-«~ "~ •. :l BL u J•• ll'OCO<Ol'\g P,..,,,c :l•~ Co<t!. E!Wn 5.--il~ IJl!ll\ e .. ·• •;,~•== LODO)'•L MY..>;jti<I' tc,rrr.1 \'ut1an, >n:I PLltlliC .......,,,.,. :ll)eC!IICcuodiU.ellnQ
Counc11oni:A·..t.!>:irtf-eo e-onc-~~t.leet!""onoc:::~1r1A· =• Tn, l J-• =t::r••" •iel!I :::•11>. :::e:::A B-~ . llft:lmort ~«...-~ E-1- C<'I •IF -'1 C,aog, : " lf'lc'1 :Jy:'>e'n
Ope,daiCl'o: NI C~ olanC<Kn: UMtttln~
e-:u,,,;ll"""Ault!o r : e1~1J tt~
::: .. F,..,C!I.CO O=,L•rl'J ~1acN~ I, Reg ,to...., L<ltc-:,:::, C<>n,c lane• IJMai:,« , ::: ...

F,.,, C1,c<1 •!fe,,, JC-.1'.:l!01:..,.,.,_: ,J..-,4,~,;!'Cc1rrr.r1cat1an, ,...:IPllllliC!l."lr<::! • PutflcU.- ,:t'""
"l.1nu1enanOG11. ro;i1<t•rH IOU:,l.,_ ,...,ePr •~•..., YP ,;!'Pi!>lc!l."111, r..:i :;.,:,-._,; ceo,-;,un,: a,cr-.s. OanF'81"1Cl1KO •-;.o'$;J••.:?->.!•" :::""'~"'"" ai:;« Cf Pulll!C.....-,:,,·r, ,1; :::nie; ccc.....- un!Cot:Cll•, ~n F,.., c,i,:o o~ . e ;,•1 1,1,r.:...,u , u.n1.,.ro1ec1r.....-Vca11<:>r-,r>:1P~CA"lr. :::OnF,.,.,Cl 1c~•o;,,,,-• • ..-'TTMoc.<1•I Co;,0 1:..~, ~ 1,t""~"' ::,.,,F,,.,, d :c<1JS.:r.. Jo:n ::.~-..r .s. lJy,1:ie,-,;f' c.c,,,,,..., ,t.r.U,a naP<.acA l'l ln. :l-F•:kr:O'Y..>Tc ~, . ...... .llllel.,.E.fleml l En~__,.'11. 3 F 4~r:'f~ I)' 'I :ia n"i.! c-~:":.P~-e~~":.,,.~ <>e= 3tov • et.r11 : .

P ut! !t lal!-..r....,
3tr lfeg !cCe<rrr.rl t1 110n,. ::: .. F,.,,Cl,co4 S.:r: J1, 311j) ... R.-.;i1:t..-!111.J>tt>'/1H :;:,,sla'IJ1r..>Qere-•- 1c A11'111r. .i. :::tn-:•~ c C<lmrrunlc:lllOn• ::!Jn ""' ""'•co~! = , E;,,•1 1.1.-:,e·••, ~,ar.og« otC<l;,;,..., 1c.r.1er.:ona,,....a.cAr- a1r:. 3anF,ar,c n,co •~.Ulrey IJK M·.I. F109·1tol'r<I LOU.fl•~ C"'"" lll'ICO tA..-.llll., , ::!..-. •~ l:tO .,.,.., JC•h :;:to;"""• • l.lat",090"rC(C.0,,,11' ... lcolloft•.-.:I P~ C!l."111>. W ~~ .... o,..-.,, Tc~ 1.1..-.aQer ,;I' e.n..-->1 Er-Q_.,."'"'-::;: 4,0,: A c• Ac1<1<,. F:r.anc:e, ~F lito"Ul;Nna ,O ~•~lo,en:d.<IOOY!:L V:ceF'e<-::1.,.,.,1(\/P cfP..b' lcA~"'" "° ::itrm g!c C-rr.nc , a.on, :::,..F,.,,c,co4S.:r.. J o, :lotJ,...~,t..-Hl.ol: t>-/1•~ :;:,,"la' Mar..>Qerc· "',..,,;1c All'lllr: ,I; :ltrr.•o c C<>mrrunlcatlOn: . ::!Jn '"'~ C!:to ~,...,,

5.--il~ IJOlll\e•·· '!•~·=- LODO)'•~ MY..>;jti<I' tc,rrr.ricatlan• >n:I PLltlliC .......,,,.,. :::,.. F,..,ci.co •~=,L•rl'J ~lacN~ I, Reg ,to...., L<1t0'/ :::. C<>rrc 1ar.co 1,1.,,ai:;«, :::.,, F,.,, Cl «o•!fer.Jc-.1'.:J~--., ,J..-,4,~,;f'C ...... .l'icatlan•"".:1Puc, l!C!l....,,r: ::! • ~,.,, :,,.~, Tonn . "4~1;ier 01 e....-,, 1 En~•~"'""'·:;.• •~.Ale•Ac!"" M..-.llll.,.,., 1n,..cean~~~-..1= olotcy l.,

Page 49 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Jain Calendar Continued
GotC.O<r: c !.lt ,1~Gr1, Co.aP .. y -Y 1~ca.:: ct1,2!!21~•111 cmg:maci ccnon c1:c: , •!F"
'-!1~u1 cr. .... ao11, Ylcc P-e:ll!Cflt r.~ 1 cl Fut le A~ n :ma o n..-;i•t Co,r,r .111c.c:>n:
:;i..., F'al'C ll,CC,.l.:le"l;, ••• :J"·"" · CC1'Ct l,!ill'll(IC,01 l"utl lt " ""' n & ~rate,:i, c Ccff'-..nc aaon ,, :l"" Fnn~co 4Sen ; Em"1 t.1 - ·••• ~'""'Ill.., ci'Co.,,m"'1-<.r.c,-,:
1na Putllc "'":In , ::i .. Fnnc':co 4~r. - :t!TY t.11<."l•IL CCIT'C lll'IC! ~lll'll gof , o ....

Fr:mt':co .I.~: Jc: t :lt.-i:t cr: , tA ..-->ger o'C<I IT'IT' .rlcllCDn: .. ~a Put>' lc Al'a'r:

CF 4~=. o,...,, TolTc:, ~lll'IIQCf ci' Emr-.a'. Er<l~ c.,,cel :JF ~~r:

RU~I Cr....,oc1 , Ylcc P-e:IMm N ~ 10! F'UC:llc "'":Ir. :ma ~1:.: C.0,nlT'unl<.>lbn:

C1n •r..-.: l:<"049cr: . LYT" IA1ch c c.om 1i....: c l.' :m1er ~sFnmc':c,oer:
'-!l ~lil c r. .... ao,1 , YICC P-e : 1ae,,1 r.- 1 Cl =,at IC A.~ l"I 11>0 Ohl!";I JC Cofl'IT'.lllt at!:>n:
,::.,,F 'lol't:.CC, 4<;,cr: ;J t: :J~M . : cl'ic, ~1111'11(1CtOIF'utllt" "llll"l&::::ratc,;ilc Ccff'-...;caaon,, :l:m Fnnc ?.:co 4Sen ; Em •,1.1-·••· ~IMl(ler ci'Co.,,.,,.,,,_<.r.Cf' ,:
1na Putllc A'"'lln , :l:m Fnnc':co 4~r. _:my t.11<."l•k C.tlT'C 1111cc IAlll'II QO!', ::: ...

Fr:m tl1C-O"-~:Jc : 1'13t!1:t •r:s. tA ..-->gefo'Co lT'IT'.rlCIIC:>1'1:.anaPut>lctl,...,r,; ::1-F 4~= . 0 111'11 TOIT~, ~llll'llgct ci' ~,.. ... ~19C"'te l :JF ~~r,; '-!1~ul c r. .... aoll, YICC P-e:ll!Cfll r.~ 1 cl Fut IC A~ l"I :ma on..-;i >t C.OIT'IT' .IIICIIC:>n:
:;i.,,F'al'C ll,CC,.l.:le"l;,.t: :J"·"" · ;;:•l'iet l.1111'11(1CtOll"utllC" "llln& ~rate,:i, c O-e:mnn UUIIIIY He.- . Levr: ,e:.,a .r-. t c,;.r: ~a P11y ca.:: cf! , 4~r. W ~n-q, C.C,,,-.;r;c 1aCt1:, :lan Fnncisco 49= . E"' •1 I.I-••· ~•ar111er ci'Co"'"'l""tr.Cf',:

Tore Sub'ecr
F..-x~ 1na F'Ul:llt "'"':11"1, ::i .. Fnnc?.:co 4~r.~:ur, Ml <.'l! U, CclT'C llll'ICC ~llll l gct , ::: ...

CbahalCal e:id:lr
Coi;n;:l ll'ld.....,_..,_ 0or:,:l.ffer.li:t.1U t'.na
Couxlllfl<l-em:Mi>Mn~-~,um
iJ.--W ~1c-<'!:'nC-"'Colrodl
COI.WIC:l .. d~~SCO,,Cll!Cfl!Meema-~
~a.t,lll¢11rli~,..,,,._.
::C-..ldumc-•Cflt:lr.,p:.tt,e.,aor.t1l'li:1t.~;Jt.,rnooen,i:,:,-,11 _,
I!: ~ (:.¢olr.d
Cc<;r,cl..,.....,_ ..,_~ M~c
l!:~ ¢ounc l ~
:lC.'.lAl/ 4Scr-:. ~...am,:c:u.a llm ~
eot.!tll13C-3.-. ~t.e':'na
C-~ne1acm~ . C-anan~111am0< :tld trn
-011•,t,e.,,,
JDW;~oftnceoinc:Sand-l!S~
-~ ' CGl'ICM~,F'llkr gl!ICl~ l"LX :::,;..:s,..,,~1 1
•r..-.: J,w .t~ . Jo:n cn,a hCfl:• ~ :m1g,,,r ofCcff'-.:r.:c111an:1naPutt' cA~ n CF 4~= . o,..,, TolTc:, ~11111..,.,-ci' Eml".a'. En;;:,,;ic.,,cnl :JF ~~r:
:;i.,,F'Wt l:.c,:..1.s,c-.,. 1:~."" - ::Cn o,1.1111111cro!Put llcA -.. n& ~rate,;il c ec,,,-,,,.c 1aon:,:JanFr u c1Sco49=. E"' "•t.l-•:.~•..,ac: erctc.o.,,.,,.,,_ <.r. i:,r.1 1na Put:IIC ""1111"1, 3 ltll Fnncisco 4Sc r. _:my M•<.'IOI CCl'I'~ llll'ICC ~'""'""' · ,. .,, Fr:1nc:11;co4Sc"' Jo,:r:311,p,,,cr,: , M.Jo~1;pcrcl'Cc,r-.:r>c;>00n::maP~cA'"'ll"' ::;e Rar. ul c ~"""°" · Yltc P-e:1<1"'11 flo'F I ci' Puc le A"tll"I ltll0 OlnllP~ I• C.OIT'IT' .IIICat!Dl'I:

OM F'Wt 'x,:. , s,c-. ; ... ;::~ .... . ::~n et ~111'11(1U O! Putllc A'"'lln & ~ c C.C,,,-.;r;c 1aon:, :l an Fr:1nc11;c o '~= - E"'"' I.I-••· ~,..,ac:erci'Co"'m""-tr.""4 1na F'Ul:llt "'"':11"1, 3,.. Fn nt?.:C-0 4~r.~:ur, Ml <.'IOI C<:IT'~ llllCC ~llll lgct , 3.,, F-..r.cx,:. 49er:
'l.111111 Cr..tr.cnc• . Vice Prc:10er.t (V" 1 c:tPlll>llt .._.,l"I :ma ::i-. c~ c e<>mrru,11c1t.""• ...1: ::!~.111. ::c n:et ~11n111uol F'Ul:I c A'"'llr. & :::.M.._, c c.o,-.,, unlc.r.c~.: , L!rrf -cN• C.,,r~l! ancc Mar.ac:~ E-nl!y ,.._.mica: , tJ or.- , c' C.OmlT'ooltat!Dn: ...-.:1 ~~cA•air.: , t.locn
Jav a·~.C"iefO tr m <T1 0!"<:cr;ll'10 J m ~ler t'.l'I0 1mona= ~ lfl&W e.r."..'l-ll'ff'I -r; J ::t:h C~.O'a'tl ""Cm:
-~-----
EmlyM11!1lcr.:Kaml l-,-.n2r,~J ••c...-..nal'"ol.,F;.r. 1LM.K t.tt , L:tt!' .10-.l'l~Cfl• l)(anatOl"K
Em ty t.llllh~a,: Kam, HarOJ; ~ J I< C......,,QN:11., Fi.Y.1,,1.MKN<:•, L......- .ic,--n..,_..,cru. O'ana-.
---
Eml y M1m>cr.: Karffl ti..,,,..~ J•• c...-..nal'"ol.,F;.a':,t.l.\x N<: , L:tt!' .10-.l'l~.eniO:anaTOl"K
Emty tAall!>Ct:::lll"",..lt: ;cn a!11%101.,.'l l lU; -'O'-h:::..P,efl: O: .. , tor.TO l\ral Ai<'T. ~\1ct,,c l ·...:.r,rl(......, 1-,'M:t, E.~ 1.1,-...:i . 11;Wen "-1_.r c.w,n •• •~; e ra,, -., iunu , ~1tc:.'le L UtTy-J, :..~ Clar.aT~
----
E.-l'/~-.;~ ;.cr.1 ycF..ljCMn 11 ::i1.an. J •~. C.........,l!c-. l<at Ul. lAacN<:L,....,.Jc:n::-r,e,,:,.[J,.,,..T~
E-l'/~-.. ~;.cr.1 y· F..ljCMn 1l :l1.an.Jn , c.--..n:ll>c.,_ i..ar ul lAacN<: L3'TJc:h.C'--l'IM:IJ"""T~
El'lilf- .Kam1H""3' F,~J1:J:,.-,11'11IN:1J.Rl.~cl ,
L.wrr.X,--h~CM'011\1 t atrP:

El'lil)l- ,Kam1H""3' F,~Ja:.C,,,.,,IIN:I J.R,!,.~ cl ,
L :n'-cru.-:l;ll\ltatrP:

Page 50 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

ILlilC-:! nm,
7ll l.12D?2
snann 4.1JO P-M
5111U ll22
311 5J2D22
tM1/l D.?2
Horny Calendar
e:xn:.t :r..::li'llltrlarl: e.. Ctr..::lffef"..tMee....., COir.ic:I :!ind~ can~ llttOn g ~ 3U:l l.im
- •U-• FlF,.-, ,>moir,:e menL co.a PiYJ conc:er.: oetre r, & Amc"1cerren tof r:tr1r,11b"~ :o::cer ··-CC!rl cl and-Aut'a:11 ~ C0n C\ffell t U e::~~Sp ec:lal ll~ :;i :B:lnl3 C Dn ~irn Spedli l ~ i1 CtJCOar.d
Pn:-.:. Cor~ e l'tlr Co.a P tiy Con::er:

Co:u:Elr.d~ e!.Clnc i.m:i!M eetr.ia
Pn:mot!on Rlr CO.op/A;;" COfltff:

Epe,::1111 CC:und l .r.m AlltJ'la1:le:. CCia:!nffl t Mee!tl a :in::I SD.l= .._,........-..,..,e,er,ina
Soedtl COun: I IAeetr.m
~ :r..clAllt!'Kxt: e!, Clnci.m-.JM eetna
=1FAui:,j.r.e , c:,ncer.r;,pa,11e
a counc:1 Meetrfl
c.oncer. up::11111!! llfG
Pi.atl c Ci=lx:~ 0- C:t/ 1::-.r.. , ~ lrllll C101".:em~. i-,:,pe rcr ,ll :-..,er~~ 1bid
coir...c:t Slid~ C0nttrrtfll -=-i na .r.d- 313!:lllm
"""""''U-•
F =-A~rl. WIiier re:il ~ . c--o-, em:w vl~c:~ VCP
"' .,,, .. ~
FutiltMe ello.l
Fubltl.li!: ellnO
Al'r:'cf1 y 3tt.WYll rt'Ml)' Ott'le:t":itsll 11m ema~
:lT' ty&".'>1tlN '":i'K.Jrffl~Fi.,1(CNlnlll t :3;:,,:;an, J11-:.;c~ ~.

Rll hu M ad.le t L.!1!1\f:...t-:.h J,-z.cl'!t'Jl•·o.an a To m!-:

FUDll:Me ellna
:11"1:,&'..ntlN '":i :;:~ ct.1twlt, 3~;,n, .,I;,-:;; Ctl 3norlC«, "i:JIU;t.11~ l L::11r ..t:-:.11e-:e:il'len:;~n11T~
Fubiclilie el!ng
~Meetln:I
MM!:, nem~ of ne ~!.. ,'l.lnhony Beeflier, Ratw.ll C<"'l,1na1 ·:rr ry M3tnew:; J,:XI' " :; J 11-:. ::::·
FutilclJe el!ng
3 al 311 Ja-:.•&.b:~ 1-... ..b: R Seo-.en-:. -~:l er:;
Publc:WieellnO
1-i~l Ch rl,ll " R_,/lu l ctMM!h!l J'3ef:;
PutilcMe ellng
AJbkMc ellng
:;:aru: cn1n:rioll , a-:. ~D'.anal"~ •• Vo E-~en:. -6rY MrNeol ,<\JCI Acoon ,5, R;:i C,n.,_~
Fubltt.ae ellna
R;:ihi., Ctl .Jndho .. !:Yo 3 ~:11n. :,~ Tc~~ Ja:l' 31~ &~ Ct'a hlll
Futlicf.<e CH"""
FutikMie ellnO
.•i::!IIU Cl'Ul nd:°ool;, LSIT"J" t.b:M l~ Em ry PA.llttl'll!!'II!!. JD!!..-. :3te~. R.llJ cnaru.. oir» -= J,1~ "' - ~-
.•tun, Chan!:I~ •• ..Y. S.ll.)sn, U .llNI T~~ ll.tt. c~~!!. ..!. FU.-. =~• <;:,1ttLJ Cl'landhO:li, En1t, M .lllr"-. , LSIT'f t.!SCNe-1, JU~. OLY..> - ~ . Jll !!...-. :31rD11er<!:

Jo~I" SRp-.en~ . J ,1~ -2~ . En11)' PAattnew ..Yf'J 1.'11:Nel , R,llj C M."tll , ~:-t.JC~ i,;
Fublclofe e lln;

Page 51 of 61 ends

UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX F: LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT FORM 497s

Type or p~nt In Ink.

Late Contri bution Report Amount s may be rou nded to whole dollars.

NAME OF FILER
D<:Bartolo Co,poration &. Affiliated Entities. Including the Forty Nincrs Football Company LLC.

AREA CODE/PHONE NUMBER

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
S.nta Clo.-.

Late Contribution(s) Received

1.D. NUMBER (I~>
48824 0
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
9505 4
Date of
Th is F ili ng --~09~f0~2/~2~02~.2~
Report No. MO-LCRll3M
D Amendme nt
to Report No. ____ _
(tx pl61'1bebw)
No. ofPages. ___ 6 __ _
CATE FULL NAME. MAI LING AOORESS AND ZIP CODE OF CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTOR RECEIVED CODE •
·contributa- Codes
IND - Individual
COM - Recipient Ccmmittee (cthe r than PTY or SCC)
OTH- Other
Reason for Amendment:
111'" COJ,MTTl!f.ALSO Elrfff.RI.D . NUhWEll)
PTY - POiiticai Party
SCC - Small Contributor Committee
□ IND
□ COM
D 0TH
D PTY
D sec
D IND
□ COM
□ 0TH
D PTY
D sec
D IND
□ COM
□ 0TH
D PTY
D sec
Date Stamp
Page I of6

LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
For Official Use Only

IF AN INDIVIDUAL AMOUNT ENTER OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYER
(F saF- EMPI.O'VEO.E.NTERN,l,,W.f CW "'1$.'fif$S) RECEIVED FPPC Form 497(June/01 )
FPPC Toll -Free Helpline : 866/ASK-FPPC

Page 52 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

m 1M1.a
Type or print In Ink.

Late Contribution Report Amounts may be rounded to whole dollars.

NA/IE OF FILER
DeBartolo Corporation&. Affiliated Enlilie Including U1t Forty incr Football Company LLC.

AREA CODEJPHONE NUMBER 1.0. NUMBER ~--l
488240

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Santa Clam.

STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
95054
Late Contribution(s) Made

DATE FULL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE (IF COMMITT'EE, ALSO ENTE~ 1.0. t~UMBER)
09101no22 Santa Cl3ta Community Leaders Supporting Antl1ony Becker for Mayor 2022 Santa Clam. CA 95054
ID/I Pending
09101no22 Santa Cl3ta Community Leaders Supporting Antl1ony Becker for Mayor 2022 Sonia Clam. CA 95054
IDH Pendi112
09101no22 Santa Clam Communily Leaders Supporting Anthony Bcd::cr for Mayor 2022 Sonia Clam. CA 95054
!DH Pending
09101no22 Santa Clam Community Leaders Supporting Anthony Becker for Mayor 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
IDH Pendini:

Reason for Amendment;
Date of
This Filing 09/02/2022
Report No. MO-LCRl13M
D Amendment
to Report No.
(e-i:p~n bei'JW)
No. of Pages 6

CANDIDATE AND OFFICE
OR

MEASURE AND JURISDICTION
AJ1U1ony Becker
Ma~r
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Anthony Becker
Moyor
Jurisdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Anthony Becker
Mayor
Jurisdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Antl1ony Becker
Mayor
Jurisdiction: Other
Cily of Santa Clara
Date stamp

Page 2 ends

AMOUNT OF

CONTRIBUTION
SH5.725.00
Sl.992.00
S2.500.00
S9,09S.OO

LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
For Official Use Only

DATE OF E LECTION
(IF APPLICABLE)
11/0 .022
11/0812022
11/0812022
11/0812022
FPPC Form 497(Juno l01 )
FPPC Toll-Free Helpli ne: 866/ASK-FPPC

Page 53 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Type or print In Ink.

Late Contribution Report Amounts may be rou nded to v.hole dollars.

NAME OF FILER
DeBartolo Corporation & Affiliated f.lltitic Including the Fony 'incrs Football Company LLC.

AREA CODE/PHONE NUMBER 1.D. NUMBER ~ - -•
488240

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Santa Clara
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
95054
Late Contribution(s) Made

DATE FULL NAME , MAILING ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE (IF COMMITTeE, ALSO ENTERl .0 . NUMB~Ft)
0910112022 Sanl• Clara Communi1y Leaders Supponing An1J1onyBed(er for Mayor 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
ID# Pending
0910112022 S11111a Clara Community Leaders Suwarting Anthony Becker ror Mayor 2022 Santa Clara, CA 95054
ID# PcndinJl
09/02/2022 Santa Clara Community Leaders Supporting Anthony Better for Mayor 2022 Santa Clam, CA 95054
ID/I Pcndin.ll
0910112022 Santa Clara Ncighbon; Supporting Karen Hardy for City Council District l 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
ID/I Pcndin.ll
Rea.son for Amendment:

Date of
This Filing 09102/2022
Report No. MO- LCRll 3 I
D Amendment
to Report No.

Cexptalf'l ~I
No. of Page 6

CANDIDAT E ANO OFFICE
OR

MEASURE ANO JURISDICTION
Anthony Bccl<er
Mayor
Jurisdiclion: Other
City of Santa Clara
Anthony Bcd(cr
Mayor
Junsdicliou: Other
City of Santa Clara
Anthony Becker
Mayor
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Karen Hard~
City Comml Member District 3
Junsdic1ion: Other
City of Santa Clara
Date Stamp

Page 3 ends

AMOUNT OF

CONTRIBUTION
Sl9,250.00
Sl.992.00
SS.000.00
SIS0.475.00

LATE CON TRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
Fo, Official Use Only

DATE OF ELECTION
(IF APPLICABLE }
1110812022
1110812022
11/0812022
11/0812022
FPPC Form 497(Jun e/01)
FPPC Toll-F ree Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC

Page 54 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

171'Mt?.tl
Typo or print In Ink.

Late Contribution Report Amounts may be rounded to v.tiolo dolla rs.

NA.t.E OF ALER
DeBartolo Corporation & Affiliated Entities, lncluding the Fony Niners Football Company l,..LC.

AREA CODE/PHONE NUMBER 1.D. NUMBER ~-l
488140

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Sant, Clora
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
95054
Late Contribution(s) Made

DATE FULL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE OF COMM ITTEE , ALSO ENTER 1.0 . NUM BER)
09/0 l 022 Santa Clara cighbors Supporting Karen Hardy ror City Council District 3 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
[ON Pending
0910 1 .022 Santa Clara eigl1b<lrs Supporting Karen Hardy for City Council District 3 1021 Santa Clara, CA 95054
ID# Pendin2
0910 1 .022 Santa Clam eigl1b<lrs Supporting Karen Hardy for City Council DistriCI 3 2021 Santa Clara, CA 95054
ID# Pending
0910 1 022 Santa Clara eighbors Supporting Karen Hardy for City Council District 3 2022 Santa Clara, CA 95054
IDN Pendin•
Rea son for Ame ndment:

Date of
This FIiing 09/01/ 2022
Report No. MO-LCRll3M
D Amendment
to Report No.
(e>iplHl bel:JW)
No. of Pages 6

CANDIDATE AND OFFICE
OR

MEASURE AND JURISDICTION
Karen Hard)'
Citf Council Member District 3
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santo CJ,ra
Karen HardY.

Citr Council Member District 3
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Karen Hardy
Cit)' Council Mo11bcr Di&rict 3
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Karen Hard)'
Cit)" Council lanber District 3
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Date Stomp
Poge4 of6

AMOUNT OF

CONTRIBUTION
Sl ,992.00
Sl. 500.00
SJ,411.75
$1 ,992.00

LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORN IA 497
FORM
F ~ Officia l Use Only

DATE OF ELECT ION
{IF APPLICABLE]
I l/08/2022
IJ/0 2022
1110 2022
11/0 2022
FPPC Form 497(June/01 )
FPPC Toll -Free Help line: 866/ASK-FPPC

Page 55 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

')1111MH
Type or print In Ink.

Late Contribut ion Report Amounts may be ro unded to v.tiole doll ars.

NAI/E OF FILER
DeBartolo Co1poraLion & Affiliated Entities, Including the Forty incrs Football Company LLC.

AREA CODE/PHONE NUMBER I.D. NUMBER ,_..,.)
488240

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
San1a Clara
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
9505<1
Late Contri bution(s) Made

DATE FU LL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE (IF" COMMITTEE, A.LSO Etn'ER I.D. NUMBER)
09101/2022 Santa Clara cighbors Supporting Raj Chahal for City Council District 2 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
ID# Pending
09/0 112022 Santa Clara tighbors Supporting Raj Chahal ror City Council District 2 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
JD#Pcn<lin•
09/0112022 Santa Clara cighbors Supporting Raj Chahal for City Council Di trict 2 2022 Santa Clara. CA 95054
ID# Pending
09/0112022 Santa Clara Neighbors Supporting Raj Chahal for City Council District 2 2022 Santa Clara, CA 95054
ID# Pcn<lin2
Reason for Amendment:

Date of
This Filing 09/02/2022
Report No. MO-LCRll3M
D Amendm ent
to Report No.
(OJ:OIH'lbe!OY¥')
No. of Pages 6

CANDIDATE AND OFFICE
OR

MEASURE AND JURISDICTION
Raj Chahal
City Council -!ember District 2
Juns<liction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Raj Chahal
City Council Momber District 2
Junsdicdon: Other
City of Santa Clara
Raj Chahal
City Council ·!omber District 2
Junsdiction: Other
CityofSanl3 Clara
Raj Chahal
City Council 1ember Dig:ricl 2
Junsdiction: Other
City of Santa Clara
Date Stamp

Page 5 ends

AMOUNT OF

CONTRIBUTION
SI 80.475.00
Sl.992.00
$2.500.00
S3,4l 1.75

LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
For Official Use Only

DATE OF ELECTION
(IF APPLICABLE)
Li /0 2022
l 1/0812022
I 1/0812022
ll /0812022
FPPC Form 497(J une/01)
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/AS K-FPPC

Page 56 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

n 11Nm,11
Type or print In ink.

Late Contribution Report Amounts may ba round ad to whola dollars .

NA'1E OF FILER
DeBartolo Corporation & Affiliated Entities. ~,eluding tho Fo,t y Niners Football Company LLC.

A REA COD EIPHON E NUMB ER

STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Santa Clara

1.0. NUM BER or~P'cabll!!I!
488240
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
95054
Late Contribution(s) Made

DATE FULL NAME, MAILING A DDRESS AIIID ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE ~F COMMITTEE , ALSO ENTER 1.0. NUMBER )
09/0 1/2022 Santa Clara Neighbor. Supporting Raj Chahal for City Council District 2 2022 Santa Clara, CA 95054
ID# Pending
Reason for Amendment :

Date of
This Fi ling 09102/2022
Report No. MO-LCR113M
0 Amendment
to Report No.
l~PlalflbebW)
No. of Pages 6

CANDIDATE AND OFFICE
OR

MEASURE AIIID JURISDICTION
Raj Chahal
City Council Member District 2
Jun diction: Ot her
City of Santa Clara
Date stamp
Pagc 6 of6

AMOUNT OF

CON TRIBUTION
$1,992.00

LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
For Officia l Use Only

DATE OF ELECTION
{IF APPLICABLE )
111omo22
FPPC Form 497(June/01 I
FPPC Toll-Frae Helpline : 866/ASK-FPPC

Page 57 of 61 ends

UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REFERENCES

Interviews
Numerous interviews were conducted between June 8, 2022 and September 22, 2022.

Bibliography

Ballotpedia.org, Santa Clara Stadium for the 49ers, Measure J (June 2010), https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_Stadium_for_the_49ers,_Measure_J_(June_2010)

(accessed August 25, 2022).

Black’s Law Dictionary, 2d Edition, https://thelawdictionary.org/ (accessed August 30, 2022).

Callaghan, Hana, “Public Officials as Fiduciaries,” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, May 31, 2016, https://scu.edu/government-ethics/resources/public-officials-as- fiduciaries/ (accessed September 27, 2022)

City of Santa Clara website, The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/SantaClaraCH.html#706 (accessed
August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Ad Hoc Stadium Audit Committee, Comprehensive Audit of Stadium Authority Finances, prepared by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/city-committees/ad-hoc-stadium-audit- committee, August 2017 (accessed August 31, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Behavioral Standards for City Council Members, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/278/635713044859030000

(accessed August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Council Policy Manual, Admonition and Censure Policy, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57775/636620765388100000

(accessed August 27, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Council Policy Manual, Gifts to Elected and Appointed Officials, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61570/636748651228600000

(accessed August 25, 2022).

Page 58 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

City of Santa Clara website, Ethics & Values,
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/governance/ethics-values (accessed August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, “Registered Lobbyists as of 6/8/2022,” https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=63338

(accessed August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Lobbyist Regulations & Forms, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-clerk-s-office/lobbyist-regulations- forms (accessed August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, City News: Community Letter Regarding Stadium Authority Fiscal Update and Measure J Non-Compliance, July 27, 2020,
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/41601/3171 (accessed August
25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Ordinance No. 1949, Regulation of Lobbying Activities, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18860/635975456189130000 (accessed August 25, 2022).

City of Santa Clara website, Ordinance No. 1950, Calendars of Certain City Officials, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17539/635906972573800000

(accessed October 3, 2022).

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Registrar of Voters, Complete Text of Measure J, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/19097/635989947732370000 (accessed August 25, 2022).

County of Santa Clara 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury, Final Report. “The City of Santa Clara, The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi’s Stadium, and Measure J,” June 15, 2016, https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/MeasureJ.pdf

(accessed August 25, 2022).

Federal Elections Commission, Lobbyist bundling disclosure https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/lobbyist-bundling-disclosure/

(accessed September 27, 2022).

Forty Niners Football Company LLC website, Front Office Directory, https://www.49ers.com/team/front-office-roster/ (accessed August 25, 2022).

Page 59 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Hase, Grace, “Santa Clara appoints interim City Manager for $214 an hour,” Mercury News, April 6, 2022, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/06/santa-clara-appoints-interim-city- manager-for-214-an-hour/ (accessed August 31, 2022).

Hase, Grace, “Santa Clara has yet to accept $3.3 million settlement from the 49ers over Levi’s Stadium management lawsuit,” Mercury News, August 17, 2022, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/16/49ers-offer-santa-clara-3-3-million-to-resolve- lawsuit-over-levis-stadium-
management/?utm_medium=browser_notifications&utm_source=pushly&utm_content=49ers%2 0offer%20Santa%20Clara%20$3.3%20million%20to%20resolve%20lawsuit&utm_campaign=m ercurynews.com-2331020 (accessed August 25, 2022).

Hase, Grace, “Santa Clara, 49ers settle lawsuit over Levi’s Stadium management,” Mercury News, August 31, 2022,
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/31/santa-clara-49ers-settle-lawsuit-over-levis-stadium- management/ (accessed September 5, 2022).

Juneja, Prachi, “Effects of FIFA World Cup on the Economy,” Management Study Guide, https://www.managementstudyguide.com/effects-of-fifa-world-cup-on-economy.htm

(accessed August 25, 2022).

Killion, Ann, “Congratulations, Santa Clara, you’re the 49ers’ company town now,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 1, 2022,
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/Congratulations-Santa-Clara-you-re-the- 17413892.php (accessed September 5, 2022).

Kroichick, Ron and Williams, Lance, “How Santa Clara’s 49ers honeymoon turned into a poisoned relationship between team and town,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 5, 2021, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/How-Santa-Clara-s-49ers-honeymoon-turned- into-a-16436051.php#photo-21430093, (accessed August 25, 2022).

Kroichick, Ron and Williams, Lance, “49ers make ‘best and final offer’ to settle lawsuits with Santa Clara,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 24, 2022, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/49ers-make-best-and-final-offer-to-settle- 17396338.php (accessed September 5, 2022).

Levi’s Stadium website, Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, Staff Directory, https://www.levisstadium.com/staff-directory/ (accessed August 25, 2022).

Page 60 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

Levi’s Stadium website, San Francisco Bay Area, Levi’s® Stadium Selected To Host FIFA World Cup 2026™, June 16, 2022,
https://www.levisstadium.com/2022/06/san-francisco-bay-area-levis-stadium-selected-to-host- fifa-world-cup-2026/ (accessed October 4, 2022).

Murphy, Tim, “These cities decided that paying to host the World Cup just wasn’t worth it,” Mother Jones Magazine, June 17, 2022, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/06/these- cities-decided-that-paying-to-host-the-world-cup-just-wasnt-worth-it/ (accessed August 25, 2022).

Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Adopted Fiscal Year 2021/22 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget, March 23, 2021,
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/73805/637877893853065947

(Accessed October 5, 2022).

State of California, Office of the Attorney General, “The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies,” 2003, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf (accessed
August 25, 2022).

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Response from the City of Santa Clara, August 24, 2016,
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/Responses/ResponseCityOfSantaClara0 92216.pdf (accessed August 25, 2022).

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Status Report from the City of Santa Clara, May 24, 2017,
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/Responses/05.26.17%20Response%20- %20City%20of%20Santa%20Clara%20-%20Measure%20J.pdf (accessed August 25, 2022).

Williams, Lance and Kroichick, Ron, “49ers, Santa Clara settle lawsuits after mayor calls police at heated meeting,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2022, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/49ers-Santa-Clara-settle-lawsuits-over-Levi-s- 17410765.php (accessed September 5, 2022).

Page 61 of 61 ends

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

This report was ADOPTED by the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this 10th day of October, 2022.

______________________________
Mr. James Renalds
Foreperson

§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 California Statutes Annotated - 2018
West's Annotated California Codes
Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Of Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Title 4. Grand Jury Proceedings (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 3. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury (Refs & Annos) Article 2. Investigation of County, City, and District Affairs (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05
§ 933.05. Responses to findings
Currentness
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall

Credits
(Added by
Stats.1996, c. 1170 (S.B.1457), § 1. Amended by Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), § 5.)

CROSS REFERENCES
Grand jury defined, see
Penal Code § 888.

Words and phrases, “county”, see Penal Code § 691.

RESEARCH REFERENCES
Encyclopedias
Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 716, Recommendations and Reporting.

Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 717, Responses to Findings.

Treatises and Practice Aids
Witkin, California Criminal Law 4th Introduction to Criminal Procedure § 43, Reports.

West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 933.05, CA PENAL § 933.05 Current with all 2017 Reg.Sess. laws.
(C) 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1290 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Council Written Request (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Mayor Gillmor Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Take Action on the Mayor’s proposal for a Santa Clara Anti-Corruption Reform Plan in response to the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report titled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council”

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda (Attachment 1) sets forth the procedure for written petitions. Any member of the public or Council may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Per the policy, the written request will be submitted on the agenda, in the form substantially provided by the requestor, without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review. If a simple majority of the City Council supports further study of the request, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council.

DISCUSSION
The City Manager’s Office received a written request from the Mayor on October 11, 2022 requesting to place an agenda item at a future council meeting regarding a Santa Clara Anti-Corruption Reform Plan in response to the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report titled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct:

Santa Clara City Council” and that this item appear on the October 18, 2022 Council agenda. (Attachment 2)

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with considering the request.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 153778(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

COORDINATION
This item has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-1290 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Set a future Council meeting date to take action on the Written Petition received.

2. Take no action.

3. Any other City Council Action, as determined by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.

Submitted by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Policy and Procedure 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda

2. Council Written Request submitted by Mayor Gillmor dated October 11, 2022 City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. 20-8895

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA TO REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 20-8809,
AMEND COUNCIL POLICY 030 ENTITLED "ADDING AN ITEM
ON THE AGENDA," AND APPROVE THE COUNCIL ITEM

REQUEST FORM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, amending the policy on adding an item on the agenda to establish a clear, effective and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items within the jurisdiction of the City Council placed on a meeting agenda; WHEREAS, the amended version of the Adding an Item on the Agenda policy expands on the current policy language by clearly stating that, when a written request is first considered, discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Adding an Item on the Agenda policy, attached hereto as Attachment 1, includes a Council Item Request Form for the City Council's use when requesting an item for inclusion on a Council meeting agenda and adds the procedure for written requests from
members of the City Council.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Resolution No. 20-8809 is hereby rescinded in its entirety.

2. That amended Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" with the Council Item Request Form, attached hereto as Attachment 1, is hereby approved and adopted, and the City Manager is directed to number (and renumber, as appropriate) the Council Policy Manual such that they are organized in a logical fashion.

II
II
II
Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 1 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17

3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27rH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES : COUNCILORS :

ABSENT : COUNCILORS :

ABSTAINED : COUNCILORS :

Attachments incorporated by reference :

Chahal, Davis, Hardy, O'Neill, and Watanabe,
and Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None

ORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

1. Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 2 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible

PURPOSE
POLICY

ADDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
To establish a clear, effective, and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, placed on the City Council agenda for consideration.

Members of the City Council :

The Mayor or any individual Councilmember may submit a written request by using the Council Item Request Form to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. At the meeting where the request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.

Referral from a Council Committee:

Council Committees may submit a written request to the City Manager 's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. ·
Council Committees may bring forward a recommendation to the full City Council by way of the Committee minutes, which are typically prepared within three weeks following the Committee meeting.

Items Referred During a Council Meeting:

By Council action, an item may be referred to the City Manager for inclusion on a City Council agenda. If the request requires further study of the item from staff, a full analysis shall be prepared at the direction of the City Manager with at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the meeting, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. If the request requires more than thirty (30) calendar days to prepare , status updates will be provided to the City Council every sixty (60) days as an informational memo.

Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 1 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible

PROCEDURE

FOR WRITTEN

PETITIONS

ADD ING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Written Petitions and Public Presentations:

Any member of the public may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council to be heard under. the "Written Petition" section of the City Council's regular agenda within two (2) Council meetings after received . After the initial Written Petition is placed on the agenda, a majority vote of the City Council may add the item to a future Council meeting for action . Any member of the public may address the City Council under the "Public Presentations" section of the agenda. If the presentation includes a request of the Council, a majority vote of the City Council may refer the item to the City Manager to be properly added to a future meeting, in compliance with the Brown Act.

1. All requests to address the City Council shall be submitted in writing .

Written Petition forms are available for the petitioner's convenience on the City's website and in the City Manager's Office , City Clerk's Office, and the Mayor and Council Offices . Alternatively, an email may be submitted to clerk@santaclaraca .gov.

2. Once the Written Petition is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (request and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager .

3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.

Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 2 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Cente r of What's Possible

PROCEDURE

FOR WRITTEN

REQUESTS

FROM CITY

COUNCIL

ADDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA

1. Members of the City Council shall use the Council Item Request Form to submit a written request for inclusion of an item on a future City Council agenda .

2. Once the Council Item Request Form is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (Council Item Request Form and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager .

Attachments : Council Item Request Form
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 3 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
The Ce nter o f Wh at's Possible

COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council ___________________ _ Contact E-mail
----------------------------
Contact Phone _ ____ _________ _ _______ _ ____ _
Today's Date ____________________________ _

WRITTEN REQUEST
I, __________________ , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda :

Reference: Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895

COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM
The Council Item Request F orm is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager’s Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where th e initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the it em. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council
Contact E-mail
Contact Phone
Today’s Date

WRITTEN REQUEST
I, , hereby request that the following item
be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:

Reference: Council Policy 030 – Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
October 11, 2022

To: City Manager for October 18
th meeting item regarding the Santa
Clara County Grand Jury report.

The Civil Grand Jury report clearly documents violations of law and the potential for corruption.

Today, in response to the Grand Jury, I’m proposing Santa Clara’s Anti- Corruption Reform Plan:

1. The City Council should accept the Grand Jury’s findings an d recommendations at the next possible council meeting.

2. The City Staff should work on the Grand Jury recommendations immediately to meet the February deadlines.

3. Councilmembers should publicly pledge to voluntarily and fully cooperate with all investigations that involve potential violations of law or potential corruption.

4. If Councilmembers wish to redact or withhold information from investigators, they must publicly report at a City Council meeting why they are doing so.

5. Councilmembers should disclose to our City attorneys all communications with the 49ers lobbyists on all matters that could have a financial impact on the City.

6. The City Council should create an independent Ethics Commission that is responsible for ethics training of Councilmembers and City Staff and has the power to censure and admonish wrongdoing.

If we love our City, we need to rebuild our bond with residents starting today.

Lisa Gillmor
Mayor, City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1289 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Council Written Request (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Vice Mayor Jain Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss:

The Grand Jury Report and how to respond to the Findings and Recommendations and how the City might implement some of the Recommendations and Discuss Workplan and Schedule for the Governance and Ethics Committee

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office received a Council Written Request on October 11, 2022 requesting to place an agenda item at a future council meeting to Discuss: 1) The Grand Jury Report and how to respond to the Findings and Recommendations and how the City might implement some of the Recommendations; and 2) Workplan and Schedule for the Governance and Ethics Committee. (Attachment 2).

In the request, Vice Mayor Jain states:

On October 10th, 2022 the Santa Clara County Grand Jury of 2022 released its Final Report titled "Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council" with 8 major findings and multiple recommendations for each of the findings.

The reports state the following:
"The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the "City11- which currently has a governing board that consists of this majority - will be required to vote to determine if it agrees with these findings and whether it will accept the recommendations.”
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: The City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
22-1289 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Findings: la, lb, le, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c,3d, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8b Recommendations: la, lb, le, ld, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, Sa, Sb, Sc, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8 Since the City of Santa Clara is the only Agency that can "respond", we need to have a meeting to discuss the Findings and Recommendations and any other claims in the report.

I would like to place on the Council agenda a discussion of the report and how the City should respond to the Findings and Recommendations and how the City might implement some of the recommendations. The Governance and Ethics committee started discussing some of the same issues at the June 7th, 2021 meeting but there have been no subsequent meetings of the G&E committee so there should also be a discussion of the workplan and schedule for the G&E committee.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with considering the request to be placed on a future agenda except for staff time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any report to Council may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .

ALTERNATIVES

1. Set a future Council meeting date to take action on the Written Petition received.

2. Take no action.

3. Any other City Council Action, as determined by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.

Reviewed by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Policy and Procedure 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda

2. Council Written Request submitted by Vice Mayor Jain dated October 11, 2022 City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/13/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. 20-8895