City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 18, 2022

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.

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: 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.

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 9, 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

Pag
e of 61

UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT :

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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
.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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;

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

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.

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.

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

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,

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).)

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX E: COUNCILMEMBERS’ CALENDARS

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

APPENDIX F: LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT FORM 497s

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

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).

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).

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).

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).

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 § 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. § 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.