POST MEETING MATERIAL
Marisa Welling
From: Kirk Vartan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Clerk; Hosam Haggag; Public Comment; Mayor and Council Cc: [email protected]; Dan Pulcrano; Vandana Ravikumal [email protected]; Ramona Giwaris; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; Tom Shanks
Subject: Please pull Consent Item: 4B - 22-1103 (Conflict of Interest changes per FPPC) Dear Mayor and Council,
I find it kind of insulting that city staff would put this item on the content calendar, meaning no discussion of any kind is needed or warranted. Just look at the title of the item: 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.
The city staff, under the direction of the Executive Director for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, felt it was appropriate to place a consent item (no public discussion) on something that is literally entitled: "Amending the Conflict of Interest Code."
With the Grand Jury report literally being heard in public at council today, that states this council is potentially violating laws and corrupt, has an ethics problem, and has many CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, I am utterly confused why something that is required by the FPPC (that is doing an investigation on two sitting council members) would try to be buried by making it part of a consent calendar. The consent calendar is for items that are "considered routine." Could the Executive Director/Acting City Manager please tell the public why he thinks this item should be considered "routine?" And if you look at what was updated, it really brings things into focus:
"Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC - Director of Procurement - 1, 5" Does anyone on the council find it concerning that the "Director of Procurement" was not required to recuse themself or file any paperwork prior to this being added today? It is absurd that the financial actor for the 49ers has not been required to be transparent on purchases made on the stadium by the 49ers for the past six years! I would ask this council please discuss this item and ask the Executive Director to explain:
1. Why he put this on the consent calendar (vs. a discussion item) 2. Why this position "Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC - Director of Procurement" needed to be part of this document 3. What possible conflicts existed over the past six years when this was not required 4. Why the Executive Director feels this is good policy to do at this point (separate from the FPPC requirement)
Kind regards,
Kirk Vartan
Santa Clara Business Owner
[Items listed on the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered routine and will be adopted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of the items on the CONSENT CALENDAR unless discussion is requested by a member of the Council, staff, or public. If so requested, that item will be removed from the CONSENT CALENDAR and considered under CONSENT ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.]
1