City of Santa Clara
Special Meeting Agenda
Special City Council Meeting
Hybrid Meeting
City Hall Council Chambers/Virtual
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
5:00 PMWednesday, November 16, 2022
The City of Santa Clara will be conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely). Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and City of Santa Clara Resolution No. 22-9150 Councilmembers may teleconference from remote locations and the City continues to provide methods for the public to participate remotely • Via Zoom:
ohttps://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or
o Phone: 1(669) 900-6833
• Via the City’s eComment
As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City’s YouTube channel or Facebook page.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code §54956 (“The Brown Act”) and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the Mayor calls for a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, to commence and convene on November 16, 2022, at 5:00 pm for a Special Meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers located in the East Wing of City Hall at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, to consider the following matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them.
5:00 PM COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Call to Order
Call to Order in the Council Chambers (Open to the Public) Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values
Roll Call
GENERAL BUSINESS
Special City Council Meeting
Meeting Agenda November 16, 2022
1. Consideration of October 10, 2022, Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” and Direction to Staff for Timely Preparation and Council Approval of Formal Comment to Report.
22-1407
1. Council to comment on Council-related findings
and recommendations as follows: Findings 1a, 1b,
1c, 2, 3d (in part), 4, 5 (in part), 6, and 7 and
Recommendations 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a (in part),
3b (in part), 3c (in part), 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, and 7c.
2. Direct staff to prepare draft comment on operation-
related findings as follows: Findings 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d
(in part), and 5 (in part) and Recommendations 3a
(in part), 3b (in part), and 3c (in part).
3. Direct City Attorney’s Office to prepare draft
comment for timely Council approval consistent
with 1 and 2 above.
Recommendation:
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, December 6, 2022 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Special City Council Meeting
Meeting Agenda November 16, 2022
the scheduled event.
MEETING DISCLOSURES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
AB23 ANNOUNCEMENT: Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting.
Note: The City Council and its associated Authorities meet as separate agencies but in a concurrent manner. Actions taken should be considered actions of only the identified policy body.
LEGEND: City Council (CC); Stadium Authority (SA); Sports and Open Space Authority (SOSA); Housing Authority (HA); Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency (SARDA); Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority (BNPEA); Public Facilities Financing Corporation (PFFC) Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
If a member of the public submits a speaker card for any agenda items, their name will appear in the Minutes. If no speaker card is submitted, the Minutes will reflect "Public Speaker." In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible.
The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.
Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1 408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.
Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before.
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Consideration of October 10, 2022, Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” and Direction to Staff for Timely Preparation and Council Approval of Formal Comment to Report.
BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2022, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.” SeeAttachment 1.
California Penal Code section 933, subdivision (c), requires that the subject public agency shall comment on the report within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court as to the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Page 33 of the October 10, 2022 Report identifies the Civil Grand Jury’s specific requests for responses by the governing body:
A total of 12 findings: 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
A total of 19 recommendations: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, and 7c.
With respect to the Council’s comment to the findings, Penal Code section 933.05, subdivision (a), requires that public agencies respond with 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.
With respect to the Council’s comment to the recommendations, Penal Code section 933.05, subdivision (b), requires that public agencies respond with one of the following:
(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 City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
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.
The City’s responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, no later than January 9, 2023.
DISCUSSION
Below, please find the findings and recommendations from the attached report and staff’s recommended responses, if any:
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Finding 1b:
The meetings are typically held serially, with three councilmembers in one meeting and two in the next.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 1a:
Prior to voting on any 49ers-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 49ers 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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 1b:
The City should expand its existing calendar ordinance, City of Santa Clara Ordinance No. 1950, to City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Finding 2:
There is concern that the City Council Voting Bloc is getting real-time influence from 49ers lobbyists during City Council meetings.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 2:
The City should require councilmembers to be visible at all meetings either in person or on camera.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Finding 3a:
ManCo has not provided sufficient financial accounting to the City/Stadium Authority as required.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval.
Finding 3b:
The City has identified several fire and safety violations that ManCo has not remediated.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
Finding 3c:
The agreement with ManCo is designed to result 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.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval.
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.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval with respect to the following part of the Finding that there have been “repeated unabated fire and safety violations.”
No staff recommendation as to the remaining of the Finding.
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.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval with respect to the following part of the Recommendation as to “a comprehensive audit of Stadium Authority finances and the financial documents submitted by ManCo.” No staff recommendation as to the remaining of the Finding.
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.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval with respect to the following part of the Recommendation as to “the status of fire and safety remediation efforts.”
No staff recommendation as to the remaining of the Finding.
Recommendation 3c:
The City/Stadium Authority should allocate staff to oversee Stadium operations. This should include finances, management policy development, and regular website updates of the City’s financial City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
reporting documents. This will facilitate a better awareness of ManCo’s day-to-day operations. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval with respect to the following part of the Recommendation as to the current staffing levels “to oversee stadium operations.”
No staff recommendation as to the remaining of the Finding.
Finding 4:
FIFA and the 49ers have announced that 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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 4c:
The City and Stadium Authority should take no further action regarding FIFA until the information in 4a and 4b is made public.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
Response:
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a draft comment for Council approval with respect to the following part of the Finding: “The City/Stadium Authority has a protocol for initiating and completing operational tours of Levi’s Stadium.”
No recommendation as to the remaining of the Finding.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 5c:
The City should hire an independent consultant to evaluate 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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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 49ers lobbyists, (2) meets regularly with 49ers lobbyists behind closed doors, and (3) has engaged in actions that suggest loyalty to the 49ers above the City.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
Recommendation 6b:
The consultant should be tasked with looking at the unique challenges presented by the likely chance that the 49ers 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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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 unbiased manner without favor. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
Response:
No staff recommendation on City response.
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.
Response:
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
No staff recommendation on City response.
In addition, Staff reviewed the civil grand jury report as to statements about operations and other technical matters and have provided the attached clarifications which the Council may consider including in any formal comment. See Attachment 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense.
COORDINATION
This report has been prepared by the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Council to comment on Council-related findings and recommendations as follows: Findings 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3d (in part), 4, 5 (in part), 6, and 7 and Recommendations 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a (in part), 3b (in part), 3c (in part), 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, and 7c.
2. Direct staff to prepare draft comment on operation-related findings as follows: Findings 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d (in part), and 5 (in part) and Recommendations 3a (in part), 3b (in part), and 3c (in part).
3. Direct City Attorney’s Office to prepare draft comment for timely Council approval consistent with 1 and 2 above.
Reviewed and approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager and Steve Ngo, Interim City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS
1. October 10, 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Cover Letter and Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.”
2. Staff clarifications on the Civil Grand Jury Report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council”
3. Examples of prior formal comments to civil grand jury reports approved by the City Council:
a. August 5, 2015 response to “Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents.” b. August 24, 2016 response to “The City of Santa Clara, The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi’s Stadium, and Measure J.”
c. August 31, 2018 response to “Police and the Mentally Ill: Improving Outcomes.” City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
22-1407 Agenda Date: 11/16/2022
d. September 6, 2018 response to “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny.” e. August 27, 2019 response to “Inquiry into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.”
f. September 10, 2019 response to “City of Santa Clara Public Records Access: The Paper Chase.”
City of Santa Clara Printed on 11/15/2022Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
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 Page 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.
atched your searc criteria.
Concerned Citizens Oppos ing Christian Pellecchia fo r Ci!;y' Council District 3 2022, sr,onsored b)( DeBarto lo Corp. & Affi liated Entities, includ ing 49ers Footba ll Co. LLC
Concerned Citizens Opr,osing..ll!Lf)( McColloch for City Council District 2 2022. sponsored by DeBarto lo Corp. & Affiliated Entities. inclu ding 49ers Football Co. LLC
Frustrated Santa Clarans Or,posing Gillmor for Ma),'.or 2022 . .:,r,1onsored b)( DeBariolo Corp. & Affil iated Entities, including 49ers Football Compan)(, LLC
John Edwards (Jed) York and Affil iate d Entities. including the San Francisco 49ers Santa Clara Neighbors Supr,1orting Karen Hard)( for Cit}' Counci l District 3 2022, si;ionsored b)( and maj or fund ing from DeBartolo Corp. & Affi liated entit ies, including 49ers Football Co., LLC Santa Clara Neighbors Support ing Raj Chahal for City Council District Z 2022 sponsored by..i!.□.d...m.i!Jor...fun.ding from DeBartolo Corp~ Affiliated Entities, including 49ers Football Co., LLC
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 $5.7 million. There is no way to verify these numbers because ManCo has not been forthcoming with detailed documentation.
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Figure 3. Revenue and Expenditure Summary for Levi’s Stadium
According to a 2021-2022 budget document prepared by the Stadium Authority, a forensic auditor had been retained to conduct an "expanded analysis of non-NFL events’ revenues and expenses." That forensic auditor was hired by the former City Manager. According to the document, the forensic audit was expected to be completed by the Fall of 2021. However, the audit was never completed, and the Civil Grand Jury learned that the effort was ceased after the City Manager was terminated.
To fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the pessimism of the City about the prospect of non-NFL events resulting in income to the City , the 2022- 2023 Stadium Authority budget specifies zero dollars for Performance Rent. See Figure 4 below.
I
In Millions$
FY2019/20 Ticketed Non-NFL Events
Revenue and Expenditure Summary
ticketed Event Revenue Ex,pense
Monster Jam $ 1,6 $ 2.0
Bay Area Wedding Fai1r 0.0 0.0
USW NT -.-s South Africa 0.3 0.1
ICC: Chiws w Benfica 11 ,2 1.5
Rolling, Stones : No Filter Tour 11,.4 10.5
High Scho ol Football Series 0.1 0.1
Pac-12 Championship 3.1 5,7
Redbox Bowl 4.6 5.2
Tota Ii Ticke ted N'on-NFL Net Revenue to date $ 22.3 $ 25.1 'Numbers may vary due to rounding
Net
$ (0.4)
0.0 0.2
(0.3)
0.9 0.0
(2.6)
(0.6)
$ (2.8)
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Figure 4. Post-Meeting Material from the March 15, 2022, City Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting
Second, Measure J promised the voters that the City would financially benefit from the Stadium agreements. For that reality to occur, ManCo needs to book non- NFL events that result in Performance Rent to the City . One of the reasons Man Co has expressed for not being able to successfully book more events has been the 10 p.m. weeknight curfew. The Civil Grand Jury watched a February 2022 presentation made to the City Council by a reputable event management company hired by City staff, which proposed options for increasing revenue streams at the Stadium. According to their envisioned marketing strategies, the curfew need not be a significant impediment for booking talent. One of the ways presented to work around the curfew is to book half-bowl or quarter-bowl events that cater to smaller, more specific demographics.
After the presentation , the City Council Voting Bloc voted not to forward the marketing plan presented that evening to ManCo for consideration. T he City Council Voting Bloc members did not address any of the substantive points made by the marketing firm. Instead, one of the City Council Voting Bloc members referred to an email prepared by a 49ers lobbyist disparaging both the marketing firm and the City Ma nager. It is not clear to the Civil Grand Jury why the City Council Voting Bloc would not want ManCo to consider all strategies for booking non- NFL events. It is actions like these that show that the City Council Voting Bloc puts the 49ers’ interests ahead of the City’s interests.
Third, City staff have noted chronic f ire and life safety violations at the Stadium. A senior Santa Clara Fire Department official detailed ManCo’s extensive safety v iolations to help ManCo achieve compliance. From January 22 to October 23, 2020, for example, ManCo consistently had a monthly average of 21 outstanding violations. Repeated violation s included ventilation and explosion control safety measures, lack of compliance with minimum code requirements, expired Stadium Authority Operating Budget
(cont.)
12 E~pMSes:
Shared Sladium Manager Expenses
Legal ContingenOf
S8L Salos and Seivice
Semor and Youth Progra.n, Fees
Ground Rent
Performance Rent
Dlsc,etlonary Fund E,q:,ense
Utilities
Use of St.edCo Tenant lrnprovemenls
StadiumAuthotily Generei & Administrative
Nen,ing Rig Ills Commission
O!ho1 Expenses
Contribution to Operating Resetve
Trsosfers Out
Total Ex ans•s
Sl,:130,000
t0,54?.,420
2,os9.ooo E{Paid to
237,ooo the
460,ooo City's
o General
2so,ooo Fund
1,444,000 --
46,000
4,:105,000
91.000
723.000
369,000
44,785,580
$$8474,000
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.
City of
Santa Clara
("Cily")
Owns the land that the
Stadium occupies
Exhibit 1.1, Overview of Stadium-Related Leases and Agreements Various Public Parking
Agreements
Santa Clara Stadium
Aut hority
("Stadium Autho rity")
Constructed and owns the
Stadium
Operations
Agreement;
N aming Rights
& Mari<eting
Agreement
Forty Niners SC Stadium
Company, LLC
("StadCo" )
Leases stadium and owns
some tenant improvements
Non-Relocation
Agreement
Forty Niners Stadium
Management Company
("Ma nCo")
Manages and operutes the
Stadium
Forty Niners Footbal l
Company
("Team")
Leases stadium from StadCo
for home games
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.
Complianc e with Harvey Rose Audit R~commendations Status as of CL1ITent 12/12117 Sl1rus
I.A TI1e Stadium Authority Board should drrect the Executive Drrector to request I.he public safety costs lhresbold ·t,e adjusted through Partially Out of negotiations with SradCo to reflec, actual costs m the Cit)' for Comple~ Com.ph~e lorovidmg oublic safefvSefVlces for NFL events.
LB Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director and Stadium Authority counsel to notify Manco that the absence of five year capital expendirure plans for FYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 Comp!@~ C.cimplete i.vas a breach of Section 10.3 of the Stadiwn Lease and that lvl.anc::o is required to provide sucb plans undet: lhe lease for the clITTent and all future Stadium Au thority fiscal years.
1.C Tue Stactium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to provide a copy of I.he Operation and Maintenance PlJ.ll lo the Comple~ Comp l ete Stadiwn AutboriTy Board for review. in closed session if deemed necessary for public safety reason., by the Staditun Authority counse l. l.D Tue Stadium Authority Board sbould require that Stadium Authority stalf and Manco prepare an annual public sarety budget Pll'h:tll y Pam.illy in conjunction \\ith the City's public safe!)' departments detailing bolh Comple~ Comp l ete NFL and non-NF1. event public safety costs for submission to and adootion bv the Board.
l.E TI1e Stadiwn Authority Board should diiect the fa.:ecutive Director to renegotiate provisions of the Stadium Lease so tb:at the StadituU Authority receives a share of any concessionaire Comple~ Out of Complun,;:,e
revenue lhat exceeds the minimum guaranteed JII1ount from uon-NFL events.
1.f Tu~ Stadium Authority Board should dir~.t the & ecuti.ve Di:m:tor to noTify StadCo thar a formal coosolida Ted draft parking plan Not Not wust be produced and delivered To tile Comnmnity lmp !emeuted lmplew.eLted Development Depa.rb.nent and to the Board for reviev,• and approval as required under the Stadium Lease
1.G Tue Sradium Autliority Board should direct the Cliief of Police to present lhe public safe!)' plan to lhe Stadimn Aulhority Board for re\iew and furnlal approval (in closed session if deemed Part1;illy Out of
necessary by Stadium Anthoriiy counsel) and. to present any Comple-. Complimce updates to lhe public safety plan to the Stadium updates to The public safe!)' plan to the Stadi,w1 Author1T)' Board for review and documented adootion_
l.H Tue Stadium Authority Board sbould drrect the Executive Drrector TO formally notify StadCo thar the total cost for stadium insurance must be disclosed in the shared sr.tdium e."q}ellSes budget PmiJll)' pursuant to Section 4.6oftheManagement Agreement and, based on Com.pl@~ Comp l ete the disclosure. consider proposing m StadCo an amend.tlient to the Stadi1nn Leose to remove the provision lilllt lhe Stadium Aulhocity I pay a fi.xed amount of insurance costs. with StadCo paying an
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
I. I The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to fom1ally notify StadCo and lvLmco that Manco is in breach of the Management Agreement because it did not fitru1sh Annual Statements Not No, of Stadium Operations for FYs 2014-'15 and 2015-16, and to require lmpleme.c.te-d Impl~mec.ted that such s1atemenls be prm~ded for those years, for FY 2016-17 and each v.-,qhefeafter .
l.J The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to send fonual notification to Manco and StadCo that Manco \Vas in apparent breach of the Sradium Lease requiremenr thar a one year budget and five year projection of shared Stadi1m1 e.,-peuses be Out of providi,d on an annual basis to the Stadium Authority and demanding C0mplett- Compilll::1':e
that Manco pro,sde such budgets and projec.tions for the current and all future years. Toe Executive Director should be directed to provide a u.Ti tten response to Manco e.-.ch year on the draft budget submitted by Manco.
l.K The Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive and Treasurer to work with Manco to require that the annual operating budget and quarterly financial status reports disclose sufficient No t Not information to ensw-e that staff and the Board Gill determine whet.her lmplemim t@d [email protected] the Sradium Authority is adhering to Stadiun1 Lease requirerueuts contained in Artic.le-14 regarding the allocarion of excess Stadium Authority revenue.
1.L The Stadium Authority Board should direc.t the Executive Director to notify Manco that prflious annua1 m..1:rketing plans were i:n..1dequate as they did ru,t set forth reasonably detailed plans to develop, in1plement, and monitor marketing_ booking, advenising_ and prrunotion of non- Pi!l"llJlly Compl ete NFL activities_ The Board sbould furrher di.recr ·I.he Executive Direcror Cocnplett- 10 notify Manco that future ntarkering plans mnst include such derails and be reviewed for sufficient detail by the E'«ct ttive Director before being presented to the Board
I The Stadium Authority Board should direcr the faecutiv e Direcror to U, confer with the Fin.10ce Director 10 conii,r to determine wb.1t financial information would be necessary to assess non-NFL event financial PamJlly Out of performance, including incentive payments to Manco, and then notify Cmnplett- Comph.u::i..-:e Manco regarding whar additiortal inform.1tion will be required on an on1Ioin11: basis.
l.N • The Stadium Authority Board should dtrect the faecutiv e Dtrector to notify Manco that it is ,n breach of Management Agreement Sec11on J.3, \\<"hi.ch requires I.hat written revenue or other reports relating to non NFL events be provided to the Sradium Authority \\ithin 45 days of Part:1ally Out of each non-NFL event ,vith attendance projected to exceed S:15,000. Toe Cocnplett- Comphmi,;e Stadium Authority Board should filrt.he:r direct the Exea11ive Director to demand that Manco provide such i,vritten revenue reports according lo specifications to be detailed by the Treasurer for all ft!ture non-NFL events with attendance projected to e.xceed $25,000.
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
LO Tue Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Dirr:c.tor and Stadiwn Authority counsel to request an amendment to the Mamgement Agr=en t that would require formal and/or informal Not PMtJ.illy bidding procedures for any transactlous w:i Ill Manco affiliates or for lmp !ement•d Ccim:p-le~ transact:ioas above a designated threshold to ensure th.it goods and services received from an affiliate of Manco are compel!tivety priced.
J P The Stadium Authority Board should direct the E.xcr11tive Director to direct Manco to provide quarterly written reports to the Stadium P~3ll y Out of Authority, to be maintained as permanent Stadium Authority records, detailing parking lot information as required in the first an1endment to Complek Compbm.-:e
lhe management agreen1en1.
LQ The Staditun Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to require that all meetings, including the date and ptll])Ose of the Comple~ Complete meetings. between Stadium Authoniy staff and Manco be documented and reported quarterly or annually to the stadium aulhority board.
LR Tue StadilDll Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to establish procedures to ensure that all e..xisting plans. reports, and budget docw.nents required to be provided by :Manco are provided to Pm1ally Out of the Stadium Autbority in the manner required by existing agreenients. Compl.,;te- Comphmce The Stadium Authority Board should further direct the faecutive Director to report annu.1ily on the stan1S (receipt. review. and approval stanis) of each required plan. report , and. budget document 2A The Stadium Authority Board should request that l,,lanco provide the rdev.mt repons and documentation that back up the NFl. ticket P:u11ally Out of surcharge summary report in order to ret3in permanent verification of Complete- Compku:i.;:e the accuracy of the stu-charne calculated bv Manco.
2.B The Stadi1m1 Authority Board should negotiate with Manco to establish a level of detail regarding non-NU event revenue and e,,.-peuses that can be provided in Ciiy eyoft s, public documents, and pennanent records to be kept by the Stadilllll Authority withmn compromising :tvfanC.O's ability to book and n~otiate deals with non- Not No, NFL event acts and performances. The Board should direct staff to Implemented lm.plemec.ted include this level of detail fot both budgeted and actual revenues and expenses in the ann1'"il proposed budget and the quarterly financial stants reports to allow the Board and public to monitor the lne-rformanee of non-NFL events andManCo'snPf'fO'.llllr.1nee in
2.C 2.C The Stadium Authoriiy Board should require that a detailed breakdown of performance rent calculations and payments to the City Comph!te-
P:uti.illy
of Santa Clara be included in the budget and quarterly financial starus Comp lete reports using additional information provided by Manco.
2.D The Stadium Authority Board should require th.1t !,,!anco provide reports and docUllleutation that can be kept in Stadium Authority P:un:illy Out of records, consistent with confidentiality provisions in the agreements Complete Ccmphml::e tha.t back up the non-NFL ticker surcharge Slllllil13fy" report in order TO verify that the surchari;!;e calculated bv Manco is accurate_
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
1 E The Stadimn Authority Board should require that a comprehensive accomting of Debt Service Fund transactions, including beginning and year-end balances, budget vs. acnial revenues and.e.xpenditures by Complete C<lmplete specific line item, and details on all transfers in and out of the fhnd. be presented in Stadium Authority budgets and fi.u.1llcial status repons.
2.F The Stadi1un Authority Board should require th.1t Discretionary Fund revenues~ expe11Ses, budget-to-actual comparisons. and accmmt Complete C-omplete balances be reported in Stadium Authority budgetary documents S<1Jarately li:om the On,-r.ating fun d.
2.G The Stadim1 Authority Board should require that lv!anco prepare the Ii ve year Shared Expense Budget. pe, the requiren,ents in the Stadium Management Agreement, and the Board should direct the E.xecutive Complete C,omplete Director to document receipt of the Shared Expense Budget, and pro\lide \winen comments to ~fanoo in response to the proposed e.."mf'flses.
2.H The Stadi1un Authority Board, StadCo, and ManCo shm~d amend the Management Agre<:ment or separately establish binding policies that do uot allow retroactive increases in authorized expenditures such as Not Not Stadiwn ~l.=ger e.,Jlenses, and sho1tld reqllire that deiailed 1mpl@m@ntf-d lruplf-mentei:i explanations be provided to ilie Board when additional fonding is requ,sted midyear in advance of such e.xpenses being incurred 2-1 The Stadi1m1 Authority should require that Manco prm•ide indepeudently prepared reports and docmnentatiou to back up the Not Not number of NFL tickets sold for each fiscal year in order to verify that lmplewent!-d lnip l!-w.ellted the senior/youth fee cakt tlated by Manco is accurate .nd lo have a set of perm.1llenl records docwnentiug the validity of this revenue. 2J The Stadi1un Authority Board and the City of Santa Cl1r11 should clarity when the City Purchasing Authority procuren1ent thresholds (Santa Clara f,,fanicipal Code Chapter 2. 105.070 et seq ) apply and Com.plete ( -omplete wheo the Stadium Authoriiy Procurement Policy lhresholds (Santa Clara Municipal Code Chapter I 7.30) apply.
2.K The Stadi1un Authority Board sho1tld direct staff to prepare policies and procedu,:es pertaining to all purchases 1J1.1de on behalf of the Stadium Authority to require a le\1e1 of specificity in costs. and services Not ;:_;fll llo,;,,.-u in all vendor contrncrs, that all invoices bill using the rates or unit costs l.mpll?nlente.d specified in their contracrs, and th.sit the ini.'Oices and comracts. be. periodically reviewed by Stadium Authority staff.
2.l The Stadi1nn Authority Board should require th.1t budgets and acn13l expendirures for the Stadium constrnction budget be presented alongside the Stadium Authority Operating Budget to pro,ide an Complete C-omplete ;1ce1.lf3te overall picrure of purchases for all materials0 services" and supplies for the Stadium
2.M The Stadium Authority Board should direct staff to report revenues and e..xpe:nditures on an accrual ba'>is in budge.tary documents Not Not so that all amounts presented reflect actual results for the year, 1mple.mente.d lmpl""meriteci reeardless of the timing of revenue receior or "''""'"'"' incurred
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
The Stadium Authority Board should request that staff prepare plan; for reimbursement to the City's General ftlnd for uureimbursed staff Not Not costs from the appropriate source: Discretionary Fund, Mauro, or, to lmp lem@nt@,d lmpl~ nted the extent funds are available and auorooriate. the Constrnction Fund.
3.E Tue Stadium Authority Board should request that staff have Manco prepare an annual comprehensive Public Safety budget, as required by the Stadium Lease, to include all components of Stadium public safety P:u-nJlly costs and reiruburse1:neut, including NFL public safecy co:!.ts paid for Compl.et. Compl ete direct! y by Manco on behalf of StadCo. by the Stadium Authority from the Discretionary Fund. and any costs paid using o (her funds such as the Construction Ftmd.
3.C The Stadium Authority Board should direct staff to develop specific definitions of which costs should be charged as overhead and which should be direct billed. Alternatively, staff should adjust the rate Not No t applied to direct billed staff costs ·from the current IO perc.ent to a more Impli!.me:c.te-d Implemente:ci appropriate rate, and communicate to all staflwluchpos itiolli or activities " ill be charged as overhead.
4.A The Stadium Authority should e.xercise its right stipulated in Ille agreement between master parking lot operator Cit)parl: and Manco PzrnJlly ( "Wl .l!lO'Wll.
to periodically audit the detailed records of individual parking lots Cowpl.eM- for NFL and non-NFL events.
4.B The Stadium Authority Board should direct st1ff to report back on the Nor Not
advantages and disad.-antages of adding City audit rights a; a lm:::,!eme11.t!-d W.pl!-mell:ted condition of or.1ntine: oarking n"'mli ts.
4.C The Stadium Authority Board should direct sL'lffto require that Manco provide a written reporr on matters related to off-site parking Not No t operations at their quarterly meetings, requiring that baseline lmp!eme.11.t!-d lmpleme oted information be provided in a specific format.
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
APPENDIX C: ADMONITION AND CENSURE POLICY
City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual
ADMONITION AND CENSURE POLICY
PURPOSE
This policy applies only to the Mayor and City Council members for improper conduct that may result in admonition or censure.
POLICY
It is the policy of the City Council that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics and Values.
Violations of such law or policy tends to injure the good name of the City and to undermine the effectiveness of the City Council as a whole.
Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of law or policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy.
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
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
Oo\r.l;l'"a,J:l~~;w,:«•~~31:idUII'
/l,i,IIIDltr;"~ ,g
✓..li'. OC l'lil~J'0.l!l~~_.-:rr.,w,:i ~
~ IHffl!II
~:li!IJll:.ll"-a:=~~¥03z,:::13j
~~CtDB'.D2Wn~
:5.11=,1.,.-mFU c:Kn:ta.1'111-c.c«un!:JI~
,;,J\~o:o:!?J,tSir; I~ '-'= 0:0111<!
Cou;l:1"WJ;i~~~- :la:l~
, ---.. ,.1et:1T,0
Park Cal~dll
ColllldlMld~-C.cncu=it~,..-48 ~ !1~ ~1,iedn,i
l~~FU C2ocaund
:6rl'~mcr,tr,. p-C....,c'J;, ne "'~c,,,,~ , .-.:1'80dl<P1.llulrl.Yr. ~{?..,-C0-: 1\ Meci.f,,g
~1)' 1."1!t-. :...i"'s .u:.. C.-U,-111"..ol. 1';r&.d \ol x:Nc ' L...l<TT - ~lJ~"'Tcnr:.
E-n l,M~-.0,-_J.., -""t. 0,:..-,:IJ"''-"--"'-' \f.,,....N.,., urr,~Je--,;~J•-.~r- J i9Cl:ti'; • .,....li~· □ .. 'l.lT?llft-<
E:-,rp M it;p,r. ea..lr J &:.. c,-.,.nam1._ liAlwA \!!K:'i~ , i....<r1; -"""""" •" •.JS'CnJIS..der .m~'1"l~ : Hora T~
-~M.l c--. .~ .1110.. ct..an.al'C1,. ~ ...._ vxMe . L.:11TT .0-.n- J, ., _ Alean~ '!l'!do~ Jc,~~~"'~~ :;.; 01:Pa - ~ ~~~ -.,. ~ Ja:..C.-""'d""I i.:v .... uar:"l~ U<ri;
~J,., "ltarr/ '!IKJoer .>a::-~::::.i,;,:,.-.,a,D;sa_ - ~ ~•'""f•-•~" :;-,-,ir, J a :;,,:,,,V<!N>l.,!;_arq Ll"' l,ic· ui...., tad".m-..-'IJJ Jr.. ~~c•.crJ:>,..,~~;.;O!s-4 -~
E?-,t• "•~:w:-:;"., J6:..C"1P>1IIOI ~ 1,1.:t.:.'<c~ U'T'f,~:..W-..= n.,JA,, ~ Bi:s:I._ r.:,:;n"'-- t>cJ..ce!-_,,ru,~
Ee- f lJ~ ~ J a :..Crar- '11'<11., ~ -U uar:i.e:~ u<TY
.,.,__.,,,.,. , 2ie-c,er-J ::-~:::i-ner,· 0""""'~
ta..._., ,~..,~.J a :..,:..-e,,'""11.,J;a1<1.-l.'al:j,j.e- ', LJ"'r, ~.a-J J&ir.- •~~kerh7'31~neF"".,. O.s-.a r,~
~~, ~ ~,:-.u:r, J.11:..C-O,,C/IOl.,Rllr.,i, LI IIC'le:. ~ [:>.d"am.. -...J a., '-'""tn71!1 S..der J~~.,-J!Nl~ :l.Y"a T~ l"lialc: ti=tng
E-v, t.ue>e.r,.-: ~ ll., ..a: C..--.ro::J!.Ot. 1->VL v .,,....Ne, . L.:ltrf, 3'.IZarmwJ~rr , NC-,:cy S...:La,- ..:a: "~'"" ~ □ :an J~
[ --..',M,-.r. , ~-3., ...,, c..~ F- \!.Y.Ne., L...lrrr,::-A"M>;n...hln ; ~ 5¢,;~ ,;,;"~~en~ D.-n, ~
I~~~=~~~ :~n~= ,_-..,, \b".,.e< ~ f, :!:"#"ar,~n.,J,nc "1rxnJ Pla:!': IL- llll
E-.J, MJ-.v. 0-3., ...,; C.."<:r,GM,1 F.~'Vl.\!.Y.N e,, L...lrr~::-.d'"armwJ1n ; ~ kc~ .>x" .:::i.u-im~ a.-n, Ti>=
"'-~t, 'J"!t-. :.ll,l:11i, ..lol:,,.C,r;r .dtd1'•&.1 Mx:l<e> U!JY.~.:n~Ju, ¥bDrj F-l!'.n=-r-en:. -. l?Yl 3 fD~
E.-.l)' •.b~· :,IIJ"'s.U :..~a.. i::,1.11~c , u,,y, ~nJJIU>'~i 11,:<;1= r.:,:;n-=t=•· c--"n3 r=
!.--,0,M.1 ~..-,:lq~ J,,e,;:;.l\rd'l,,._'tllt ,J;M,,:I"=' l.Jm~..tuJall~ i :n • Tc,.__
i..-,r'f l.tJ-•Sl,!lfl.J.U :rw<>r..:I'. ~JIJ,11-:,.~ Ul"!:::ulffUn::l'lu Jal'r'.Mt'K!'T; ~~~.J'I~ -·-,--:>.:o,uT:m:~
~"lle !:I""
=~ll': ,3lJ ~:~~ ~.,j :J,f>:1 ~ ~ ~IW".:l)Yol;u-r"""1lJl'TJ
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Cc,;rd~~~~l.t fllq°
OJ,r.drd.-=ca.::...-1.1 e---.anDE.D.'.S lftl Aul>nl:t; u ,.,, -. ,;:~~~SldN/UXIIIIHC,Qn:wm:::M , etr.,;::
- 5-~~~-2111.tU'I"
---2C"i:A •'-'~TOO'!;; :::;;,;..-.. 3C:l.-.e~~.r-a~r~,r.~t~u::.:tst:
eo..-...... ,., :i - :,;=.-. ..... ~ J ~
= ,,,.1.,....,. T"a::,u · N1ne,g!U7-"" Mnh".rin..,_.Dfu ,._-r,,ey~ =."-c ~ = • "1ell J9!: C,:,,Cet ; JJaonn~ ..igt"t::~~x='""O-.--.E" ~en..-" '10olt1~~
C..r:11111~azfc:P.t/ .~ftR~:i..~,~e;cn;~
--,,., ... oc.:::,., u .i~ ; op1,._-.,.· ffi_~..:.....,_ ; ::.tr'<I;:~ ~~ Cg:ten,n-..er,,tt- ~arat.,;w-,~ "~
::C:::A -~T:11:lC: ::,E,.•,e •~~r.;;Co~lf~~
:>!ll'r'-t?=.i;,-,e..,·..,NR ,.,_ =,:te111 er ,,1...,
~..-~ t.~"" c:t: G-:,.,,.-,;1!-
J.ca,,,. • ~~ Tr,pc<.·~ A..,,~N~.2"""'D":: , ::Bl.-.,,,,.:::,eo:1::i.-.r: . ::i;,., i.,pllte , ~ t:,A,J,w ...,_ t.iNI
'"' ~Ml:!~ ~ ~l.lttll\r.lBIMl'~Lllll~M ee:r-.a
~~~ct;,C<lir.d
SCE:At1 ~ · T~~~--=-=='!.~9£1.4~~i,&:Qli t , '5&!.
-~· 6':ta.\ // i~. ~""wt::::;S,:;:a.o,~:Mr>ior"n'llil'!l..,d;clS~ , qc,.,,sv: _. ~"II~~~~......,; ~I~-~
~ean:t-~/d!Q" ~ ~a
SC.A. IJ <!',:. ;;ip,;,; "ed°E:ll'S'!;SSI...SC-SA.ut;i,f~~e.lll'l'S~ll!"'='- ~;=F'l&-,qgc,;,=i:,
Cnel'"_, I
.ant~Cl~ C!llftll~l\!CaC" =~:n:
€bllftl~
'51:e:1.li~G:uld l,le,:li!Q
llt=<tP:.;,~~~ ~~~II nnr.u<
S:::aA.J•i~~ c~~,x,:~""~~~s:- :1111"
:ttla;r., ~mb
Sff,.li/L~·~-er ..... ~ · L..-,1,b,:~ Ke~r Pst-"3Lil:lriard".l,l.~ln.J.... G1et1nr-.:. 01r.-=;-~
c,;,;,,c.1~!:-I--Jdr ~ •i:~c~.ai;• A;u~~ ; -,.,~
-',:.;e<no-.,.-,m-WrLlr: Sen-.a, , :Oll'd-~ ,.;~ =-,,,, l'a!JY.D~~ ., ... ;:i...,,~ ..,_~~~ Rva~ Mll :,r~_..._.,.,;vm
FIM!;U,e.-H..-,
Erri1;· 1,1,P.1n~•,u; :),C.3f1 J:!'< ,:.-,, , '12--U, - \ l..ft1'}' ic-., ~ .::...ct" .... :,-,JHTJ,r.l',:i:-:-ef'J. ~ 'a,q~
EJT>.,·MJo1111e,o: :O:a,i,xl, .ff·Ct,srich;f,,~,J;M~ L4II) Ke...- Plll1c 3i.dn:,rr.tu _..,,, ¥1N:n ~o:::e::,,e-- ,o: r ,,_.,er-• "'~"" Tc~ ~
~ 1,/ro.c t.;ew=.We-d1, ~ ~ E""'Ll ~ .. -Ja: =~-~~II Cr.rlda~• .o:;n!"~..,...,.en· D-"'" ~
ClrD1=:- ~,TITC'lllllll il~~ -WeD'll'\:;llllf. v.ro-z. -- 1Wt.... ~.,1,:
Ent,rlJ l!.lllle-. ' JB~3-'J.111t;i'lllluJCr.an,:,11e,<· .n.;h3:...~ : '¥-:I T.;.~
:'-IJt ~ ~. ~ J1:,CNl/'ClnJ1,.J.a/'~,J_,.,,,! _ t.Jny · ...:,:.,,,;:_ ,! ~ T~:.)ud:Jn11Kl:W1r'¥"
_..,...,
f\DI; ' , 111g
~ •~!:.$'1 ,Jr.·~=i;:~~ =---- lj);,ct-~.,,Jn
~~~~Ja:::- · ~rtl'bfUIAXfc!,Li'f~'""-:s.d'....,..
.t:?:.i!!~'.:W'~TORS'
~ J' ~-..,, ~J:11: ~Fi:i"U 1,1,1.:,....,, ~ ,';~""llf'lt ~~ Jo%a-,fl~Cl.s1>T.....,.
-E-1:!"~~ ~ .J!E;~T= tl.>:?+et,U'T)' . ..c'"JI
~s...a,,J,ml'iJWLJ:l\irau:. Vl:!'- rlo'"'lcf~---.rll;e,o,-,,.. ~---~ .3-ttlllaQll'l:l!='IOIC ,.,.,.e ~~1131¢~
l.2T!,'~~Cl!~~&...r ~-.- ia_.-;f'~...:Pld-::
---~'-t><r.D,ra,IQW!'-=- •~--=.lmt~
Cmi't~..cS~Ja:.,"l:- . ~Ma::-1~ Ul!"~~m,:5~ ....-J«.i
~T=-==
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
JainCal t:ndar
C., W,,:W I nd 11.ell"a .,_~ CGo,.......,, ~ M.H,Uo , >M BIK!""' .~l.le • tl.~
:1-L ..,, 11<'-'°'P~=•• "l>P'Jn; F\.g-.: . :l erJ :r'Tc,-.r.n •u: L-''""' ~c,.,.
1.1:in1:>rn Alt. lt:ttl'.·-.,,c.,=F...-t
C-llll!ICI ~ ~ •• ~nWlT !enl l.ltt~n~ - {.Cse:111
IM-H:..,.. l!.a!rt> C.111~s=.-.-,.
:l ed•1U ..., c.,;,,.r.,;n
Cou!!:lf lffll A=c• Donc-.ncsM tctr,;ilffll;:";Jdl -..,=i~ L1"eti 1111 ~ ,~ .. Mu :n,· <:lllc-:tll COlr. c:J - comm"~1,;i, "'"""r:= ""•cl~..,,., ti,,Cl t eo.z..:e
C<l ln: ~ 1nd AL-~~~ll.ttt.. 'r,l l nd Clac'1....,
11;•.t,:,rllyM! ! ~
apec.iu •~~ <:!t/ C-O
""KIII I U •~- Ci.., ta.n: O
R, • .,,:,.,.,,.,. " :O:•f'-..,.d<-o~o r,: LVc1P-.: IOftl "IF cr "'.£. •c -.-->"!:>nc :nrc, c C.cr -.r :- ■ O!l~ . -::1, ~nc :c, •,or: L•n-,· 1.1>rne i., Rc1.ruc~ L>CCJI~:
;,.,,c u:tn:c ~l>nai;er , ::;i, ~,;11,c:, •~=
,:-, 1~ l.lam-ev.: -= •~·'"'...a LOl!tl, ,L IA!ll".>;11!" cf' C.etrr-.T'C! D:>"1: J"l:l F'"' ''= ,"!'J r:
:'"" <"nnc.:.::, 4~..,.. Li m' l.lxHc l , Re,i <It...:! Lott:,,: ~..- c ,,net Lian.._ ..,. :l•n •n n:o::.::o ~s..,~ J~~ -::i.e...,... Mr.o;,e,o-con:n-.r..c. , u..-,, ,,, F""''= .4!', r: ::
~~••,· ~,..._. TG<'I!: IA >r~ , c· :•112fN c,=,,..,, ... t ;:=- -3« :
! __. /Ll •tt-,.. .. , ::o_ar, 111.a<:H<ell, L•~,t::•~fi p_. ,V'rcr'o lied;~ Jc,~ 310 te ro: c., r_. Terre,
=- / Llatt·.e-.. ~.::...ar Ja: ,:,.-.,,..:r,o1..,;;31u i;!,11Ctkll, LIITF.MW p,rj4r':" r aortr •t"•••Mcr •l'•r Tr,...•
- -c,,.,,.., ,,.,,.Y<.,,,.,c ar, ••:,r,:,i0 4,;lie.-,L1r-1IA•d•c-l. KC'Q'.: len,nLd: -t,, ~~ CD"1=1~~~~ =~•cl;:::.':.•~:~>~:;,~;-: T~:~~;,;~";:~r, J i;i1·1;l ,;,-~;1 -a::t ::e-ed ->~oyi:t v:c : fk'e11aenl 'VP crc;.0 1c -.l'J"!: ,nc Otn l:clc c .... ,. .r e1a :,n, ':IO F"'s tllt) 4Scr: J:r. Call:t11. Fie,;, :l:efe<l Lctt,,l<I C.'l« l.lar -•c'- .L·c""".r.::,&::: trr"ll: 11>:'lo ::r,·~:.Co,j-"l...-:: , i -fl y i..t1m-.... ·: =:-:, ,,::it~o t.ooc,, <L IA>r>;,e•C>' COff"P' .riCU"" : on~ F'"' "= ,o.r-~r, ~:r, FntlC..ICC 4Se.-: Li ff)' f.1XHCJ , Fi<'ll Ol:oed LOCI:\'"<~.,, ,,.~ 1,nc: L1anljl ..... o an •r.,n: ,c, .. ~ .... J-"'~Otl! ~•,e-,: PA>r.o~ rc,' l;~P'fl'.r .co~: :till Pl,IIII>; '-"'=lit: : = .H : r:: Cl- !1"..!ITCM:< Mlt-1~1 ~tll':3 ~l'.!ll.l0t 'l1enl 0" 4 l>er:
n•-• '"•"• --•••• -• •••-n• ••n-
Clr,l:,ICCC .. rr .r,CJa:>nO l;a,;:r.i.: ,c,JS•r:Jr.:::..u ,n, Fic,;,:tl!rodLctb:,1•1 r:..,.,,:,r1.11r-- •c•e,i,,1c"-!!'lir.:,&".:1ni2;i,:. ,.,,,,..., ,11,.,,._ -:: ,,.,=n. n:.c:o-" l...-::, •Jel::I :BL, . :in:ccnctr.:ct,:m. lo OBL OI :, c.=c:,rv f i) c ~•'l:l"J Co:t:, E 1,n : ..... 1y Mam-... , -=•~,,,,. .. n loD'll(1 L l.lr;>;ll!"cf' Coff:l".JT.C, D""' J"l:l f Lllllk.-1.-,r:
Jctn ~'"" =-not1C11Cc.J~ e.-: ,L•IT)" l!xtkl· , R~ :le...:! Lott:~ t: C..Orrp l1nce ~ , • .._..,., 3 .,, <r,,ino,co4! .... J,..,n :lr.~ -..m . lAY.>:,,,•o-C...-r-.r-c,n.,,, ... lf ll(III, .... .,,, -::! = Olr9':g1ccc1tr- .r-cn ,o: :;., Fr.,,.:co4S<,.,J:r.OaJl3" , li<9:b! rt lUICtr Jl<I, l':!:nn L~ r::1' .. ~lliJ :101~•• J1'1" RtNt'l , L,:.Jr: C':1" t<t-'l«t.l 1r:ioe•c• c.»1c.-. n ~,& =eii c :;,..,""" :'1..:-'l: ~ •nn: : co"-l ...-::. •l•'::I 3BL: . ~n: ccnctr. : ct.cm.I• CBL =• :: o=•=• rv f i>.c 31'1:l:I Co:t:, E 1,n : -11~ I.tam-_...,, -= •~:,.,..·-.n Lol!tlr :L l.l>r ... ;ll!rcf' <:otrP' ..-..c, D:1!1: :r,:l P Lllllk ..-.r-,r:
r.,, Frwnc!oco 4~= L>rr, M:,rHel, ~e,: o1•...:I Lotl:y<~: c..o.-c 1,nco l.ol•nac.,.,., ::ran •~-..:.::, 4~ .... J></ICtc i:·,.,.,., r.tY.>)'el'C>' o,r- r-.rntl:I,: .,, PIIDl-: ,,,.,,,, .::= S:OOPM ,Jp,ec!al c-,l Ueot,,,~
J ;?ll ~tl ~ cl" - -111:o~ e-r: U ret ..,~;i• ..--, - . t.ie e~ l.'tr. J~~ !·tt' ~U
.c/H~ J:~ l:IO ~It
Cn •P rr,, Jo,-~~~ .. ,n =1• j i:.: ,t:, tC.3-' ec;o,;c, _,,j .,,.,, :c-ctr ,;,- Eril:• :>« =1F1, C-•~ =,.,,. 3~,,,..,,
~ ! :I:.11.Cl«:IOd a e-.:<1DriC,:,:n:R""-" ll.'l ~
eo...r-:n •s j NJlt,o~:u t«-:urrenlt lcclr
~uti: , Ue ef.
-a:anu,c.n riac• re~:l«'t a lcct )UC. '• c•Pr::. n~ '/ P a'Pll> •c 11."'a<r:Y.:I r..~te,:i~ i;.:--.., u, ~1:cr.: oan fr.ir,c ri,,:c "-":It'!., Jr.: ;.:1,.1~ :-:r or1-11na,;..,.cr F.., I., ,._~ ..... ~n ~• r.e.-,.-u,, ltatet1• , :'.lion_, "'~•~ . E'l1" M,,,h ... , lo!.>'l•~o,.:,f(.c,--or.can,n, "j Put:· , .-\~r,, c,,, cr,.., :,.«o ~~•" ..,,.'T')' i.bd,le C<l"1Gl.o,:.cl ,U "3~<f 31SF ~s:-:c,•S•r: .JC«l"3tci: ·.eru , P.J Y•~•- -: C¢"1 '11...,IUCU:1t.:IF\be -: .. -:::au-:: :J~~!! t:, IJIMJTCf'!~ IAY>Jqtt <i'': llb!r1 !1 E'!Jr.< -=c ,1. ~ ~ -'-:'e'!.; 1Ac<1;· R,'3 •• & :Jt '-!- Poll'C' .. , nit' ro::l = .. ~ ~!>:YO 0-.-,1~ T nEn: : ... ., ; Pttf"
Put:r : IJ.e•t
-- . ~lnl: ~lc Cc,rr-.r c,lbno :;, , Fn,:i:u •scr.: J:r.Cll1 3", fit9:l:ef•l Lcttt ,1:1 r:c-,orM•~..-,C, F.hl c"!I'> ""&Cir>:•~ ,c.,,..,,-.., ::,lloS>;:.,,. ' "'"'"""~!en E'l1''1 "' """" ••· M•n"'ller C>l'Co"1'1Un1::r.«.: 1t.:1 F>,.J<'c,'\~ . Ca,F -. r-:1..:-:
~~.,., LI i""/ r.toct, .. ;1, lir,g .: tcrn LcU:,,• ~ c.c--p 11\':C MY~•- C-Y :r.,r.: ,:e,:, -<~er:. J~ :n ;;1:~•u~. ,.iar•11er er-;..,mr-..., 1t110,~ »".:I PIC> .; 11.-.ir.:. iaf' ~ ~•• ~ :, »""• TCN: IA»""~t1¢',:,t,,r,, 1 Er,:i•~•r-•r:.~= 45cr: A,:, '.CID!i, f r-1.x c :" Put~, IM•t=
Pul:I : /-'-et ~
Rl"<,I C,,,»".Oll..<;:•c·i:ered . ,C,Oy':t V c iP"e llllent ... P c•=.i,,1c -.1'1'!.311C Otnltglc (ctr,- .r Cl lbn : : .. Fr.a : :co 4S<t? J :r. ~all:tll. Fi<?,.:teftl Lci:D'Jl<t t<-s«M ar.JQO•c· =~ c'l:l'I ~, :::n:~: .:,,.,,,.,.~ : 11 ' "' 1:r, ="'"'·"'°"!...-::, i -fl rM ~m-..,,, <;e;ilo>o-onl.Ot>ll1' 1L IA,.....,_,..,c,-c=r-.r;c all:ln, a,;lf LJt>lk.4l".>n ~ Fnnc :cc 4~·= Liff)' MEPk ll, R~ :n,,e,:i LOCC\I"<~ c.o..-~ l!n co •11na-.; ..... o an 'n'l: c:0:04!U~ JO-:t, ::.r.c·~ .= IA Y.,,:te•~c-:r-!".rOll:l.~: I'll Puw: 11.•,r: .:= " l•n Q ':,,a Tom-, 1,1:,ssaer c1' Er.en~ I E'lJU <l'"ffll. ~: 4'9ff'!a, .... , A<:lctl IJ,ro,;, e-<1° ,.,.,ccs,cl,.,l:t.....o ,. ccy••~
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Jiilll Ca.!endv Ceontinued
~,r u1c r ... c:-, >, 1c: ~..,,•,e,,t,V" , cl "'..C ·: .,_""!Ir., :t'l:I ::i nt~~ I< e<,,.-,.-..,,e11,.,,, 3an="lnc ,c.:c..l.e,,n; . ,, .:i.:...•n :,,..at. la n,,,ralP ~t u: .'-••r. !:.~"l t,e,;,c : n-..-,u~cn, C.11"r:,nc:c a4 ~,er., E·,,·', -4,c,- ,e,., t.tn;ai;e1 , · s ""'1uo.a-:
,,,., P..tl 1: ,._.,r.;. -;.,,, Cr.inc,:c, ~~,r.: _,or,· ,..,: N: ' C-<:..-c ..,c: f11n1-;,cr , .., =r,,:_.:c a.1~~r~ Jc~r- 3tttr~r.: ,.w !IOt 'i:f ~ ""'" r 1c11 ~,, -i,,:r Fur.•: •-a r.:
-~ ·•:n:, c,.,,, -,..,, t"~•-c· ~rr• · .-.,.,_: ..,:nt " " -~:r.:
~,r,...o:r....::-, , 1ctF~:r,rt •vc1c•-=..cr: .,_"flr.,]"1:r:::n1::r 1:c.:ir-r-.11101 :>"I:
3 .,, ="lnC•!-<C .. "'"" , ., l ...... !< r.ct M1n1g,,r ,•p~c .. , A4 >r! It. r.:."11-09C Gor ::.OLr~ U~g.a~on. ::.a~ PII.!/ ~ t~ r«i<:~ 20]: ~ls'lrt~ 111d ~•i:11ct" -Cc..- ~ r u~c n, ') 31 =nnc :csi ~:;'"" E•1 >_, M...:;,e,.e f.tn•~ "' ~•co..,"'"", ~,:,-..:
,1,11,,,. , =1r,.,, ,n o ?...coot""°"""'· r:;., =r.inc.:co •~~r.:.L>T, V>:,!,1: , Cc..-p ,..,co f11n1.;ter c ...
Cllaha1Cili!lld2I
Caundl11111"A:l!'latl u ~UHlll ~ -!!l>ec:at
,..._bn!llCLY:l~ um
:;i~ J ~Ct,,C,,lr.id
;;!~ l ~Cl;,Olu>.I
a~ ~ c-1,...,Ht-ia
C<:nce<'I - .><111 m,:;,. :i.:JU'I' _,,!IOl'.S 11,,rr:. ~}l:ff i'l~'<lr!rn~ Coneffl~"'1 amo:.c.:ad..,..
d~'II:
Jol't Mtttng <rf tne e<>ll".d>n:I_CGncum:fl: _
.:l:,dl u:, ••- ·
coo~~l'artn;i-:1M~.-.!.:~1rn:z>enur ,ai
_,
=,., :..:c, ~~er< Jc: t $1ccrer.: MY-:,;,:•;:,•~ ..-..,._.,.c,l .:,,,0->1:I P111> : ,.,.,..r:
:= _,.,,n:. c; •n• T~n~, . t.1>n1-;,cr c• :X1trr1 :ri:lQ~:nt ~;; -~:r:
c;y u1,:r..,,:-, ,'le: F..,·:·:1,~t1v= , cf "..t,: .,_"fir.a "1:1 Cini:~: :.:...-..-.11 c,1,-,, 3 an """lnN~C ..l.!',on; .I: :!-~•· o:,r,,:, M1n1a,,,r OIP~t u: A,> r., I. r.:."ll-09 < Cci- - r c, ~cn, -:,.,!"r:ln,;'Ka~ ~= · l!:'ll', Sh :.·.e,., t1na~ e, c"C.o.,,.,,\>11 c.,,.,;,r-::
••~ P~t,u: ~r., . Ca. '"'nc .:c, •~c.-:1-•..-, 1>s:!-!•1 (;c r,-t 1anco f1•••.;ter "'.!an =,...-..:,e:,:,.!~•" Jcehr..1,nr,n:- -•••J•rcfCcr- .,,...,c,Hcno,ncl'uti,: '<~r. ~r ~?on:, c; 1n1 T:rrc: , t,11n,...,. ~, :Xlorr> Eri:l;lt.,,,nt c= -lor:
,:i.,,= ... nc•!-<c ..l.e,,n; . >< :i....,,.,n : , r:,a M1n1,cr,•P ~tu: A•,r..~ !::."lt,e,;!c Ccr-.r cncn: . ~,,=nnc ,c, •·= E'fl '1 ,.-. ~,. , 111n1~e, c•C" ""' ""' a :.,:,r:
n o P<.1::0:<~r.; . ~•• ·r.,nc ,:c, : !icn:.L>T, Y,a: .!l t •1 Ccr,-t ,..,c• t1•n•,;,,r '3111 •r.inc-cc, .<;;:r: ;o:-:t 3 1,:pr..,--:; 1.1 ,u;r., ,.,,. C.Cr=r c1~on,~,:1 ~Yl!loc ,...,r: :• ~Y .... c r ... e,, Irle! F..,~'.j...,t ,v= , c"C..t " .. "fi r?: ,..,,1 ::lnl!J I: ::.Or-r"1 1CJl "1! ,:i.,,= ... nc•>:c.J.a<en: .a: :i...,,,n, :cr. c,M1n1,c r,1P..c•i:A••r: 1.r.:."1-1<9c .-.,.,,,,, ., c,~cn, r..,,=r..nc ,:c,~"""' E~~', '4.r_,,.,.,, Man;ai;e, c!'D'l "·'""-""".:,r.::
,n c P<,Clll ..... ,r... ':-IS =rue :o ~ ~~"! .3 T, '-'>:"It C.Cl"'t MIC: t11n1-;,cr :;:-, ••t~ C,t ...,.,t,,;:._ •;, ,e ~ ... ~d::nt •·r • , er~~" \ • nr.; o,:I J lrr.:~ , ~.,,.,...,, c,t ,,. .>: :11.111. !<!r.c, l!>n~•• ,• p ...c,,: ,,_•~r.,;. ~l-09" c.:,-·.,,u...:~au LY'"J \h,'I! _c.,,,.-p!! s:t L1111~er, E'fl• 1lh1t11,,., IA1r..3QC•c •c.:,..,,...., c, 1,., , .>rd =:£,c",l1 1!1:U..:i
J1n:l ,C-tt4" Ctnltc1 C"l':.r;1 naJ "f'1 1.1•r:r a a'llcna :,-.--.er.; E"11, Lii -. Kaf!fl HJrl't,';Ch:nr.::i . ,;.111;1. UICP,,t L.1111'. .1:t.r :I: Dbnalo;rr.;
~1 r ,_..._Pl.VN' . ~.....,... JJS.c..-..r,..,,,,1.,~1.t,,cm, •, urrr .o;n,_,.,.~~ ,,...,.,.,..,"'";
-~-=•1 IA•~· PUrN1 ksd'r.~ u ,. <.."\11\4RlL ...w\YI 1.acNt .
L.llrr .10:1110::-.c-r::..n'ltNIT'ln-:
-~ ~ .. et:
Emry tami-,, ; O'll,..,,,.111: ; Cllora,,;,o,<;:n:r, .-.,:n~ . Ollllo ,~: -•· l.11:t.et. • . .....-1(...- ........ ,
E!:'-"( Lh~<i i<::,i..,n-i:,ruy;:,,.),n , .4'J; ~ .R1 n10cMX'.f'C I l-"71' J~,..., • n,_, ,,,_ -~---~,"~"'";~-1FJ'f"Rl.C rai,1 1i..._...,,_,:r...~«
R,r ... MacNe • L1-.Jc •n z•-r.rtn<.CA_ T.,,.,..
i..-J1 ~ ; ~-tr:1 r ~cr.an 11 ::>~ Jz,,: ow.,~«
l'lllt ...i MllCNol . L...- Ja,.r, ."•1...-bm:cct.....,Tonc Ernlrt ..lllallew.: IU'eft Hal"U~ . J:r..C,-.ana/lOL. F..l'Ll;lli ~tl L~T -v.n:;. ~-:i: ..... roar.;
Ernlrt.U:lrle\l,'! tuten Hdr.s.,.a.,.J,: L.-.anano, li.Yt.U.'.Y.Jl~ . u ~-..... ,.,,.r.
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
£,t~
~ J.;CC FU.
3.Q.C.U:: n LP:M
.31-t ~ ~CPU .
i::a.n:i :ll"Jl'!l lllJ:tll'lrt.e ~ P,Jeetro
<.ot.r..,ct:iond ~se. Can:...r=-t~~rd~ls::IUl'I"
,'ir.lJ- •11,L~
;:'J"",",.ffll1D.n-"~~ t,;;.a,i:~Can ~~"1' , !. ,~:.mienl af ~= .•--,~ ·-~
C"-161'1;}01)' -1~1"c~~~u::.~c -e al2"11:'!Jt=o
.11, tn: ~Cl:u.,.ad-ool=..:t--;Cfl
catr.z:f :rn,j~>,ea;, ccn~~~ :i r11ru::raro
,'ir.lJ........., •· ~
.. 0c.':.a:S~~~ .. 1, ~
~ ~~:i etJCil!E.:JI
-"-al¼ .~Ol'C>a •....,.
~s;id~e:.~ •.1eeizo
prc~"llt'~Go311=
c.cucJ r.d Nmh:ffle ~ •~eefflCI
C0axl :r..D~.t:cr~U ttti:llj
a..-1.cotn:1 ~ 1-
:s;,:e:111- ~~~~~t--•~t1111";t00
~-"•--~
,::at; er.L,x!J te r.ftl
F i,Dit(K'Cti: ::;~,: r;:, =.c.. Cl1:et n t o:io::C!ll::.."'lca: i'ar I ..... _,t',11
0u.F.:d :Gd ~~~l =ePQ
""""
Fuo;;_-
al\l1.tc.!1"..Nl~ ~~-C/11!1h3 ~3:,_.a1J,J;.TS'!J~ .
~t., M,l1ci e' urr: ·,;,,:.:;h ~t.eri:-~11 T::im:.:.
=fl' r"J ~ -..ll, ct.:itil ~ '.ll!jmt,J:1.:; ; Cllla~~~l'ltt,t .fxHe-l LI<rT...o-.;n,..--:Der11T.= euo., _ _,
,.,.llll, .. ,l!l'\ !!e.<':; ll'l ~il:fY.~ ... IIINl~B~ . i.:ar.,, c•ar-ai. :l'l' r,, f J-:J:ti::
"""'-.,...,.....,
:::;:.s1111on.~1.,.,;,::; ~ [;-~JT~ • • 'olt~ ...:!!l'J!' M~N!!'l l'tkro'l~ a Rl11:;ri,,..-.,,
F"""-
!!=~~
't3tu ::.ti~. L.Yr,l.b;Nr! , Em'lo~~J!J713\~.R~
C1Jlll'l:I DIF ll - ~ J 3:; ~
=!3h.it Cr-,axityA, Jr.$~ : ~T= .i:i::ht,~i;,;;.!i; i::~ a,,._._..
~nu Ct'.,JMIOOI. En1tf "3eie.i.>::1 LYr, ..U~'-.ie-1 .-;:,: ~ . Ob,,!;) •=J.a~.,31'!-tlher'"?
;:;~ ,JICrm:::Z,cJ.
Jr~ scvim:; .,~::; ~ . E•rn,M::i un:,,. '.11'/l:k:tlet , R;ii c nY~. l'-'.vlll C-"17.::!r.
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
APPENDIX F: LATE CONTRIBUTION REPORT FORM 497s
Type or print In ink.
Late Contribution Report Amounts mar be rounded to 'i'lhole dollars.
NA~OF FILER
Dd3artolo Corp<'ofllloo ~": Affihlllcd Entitii:s. Jm;bulin1 tllt :Forty 1,:lI),;rs Foolball Comp::my LLC, 1-.REA CODE/P HONE NUMBER
SlREET AOOI\ESS
CITY
Santa Clara
Late Contribu tion(s ) Received
1.0. NUMBER ell -~I
4882,IO
STATE
CA
ZfP CODE
95~ •
Date of
This FIiing ---'0""9-'10aa21..:20a,2,:2_
Report No. __ ~_10_-L_C_R_I_IJ_~_I
C Amendment
to Report No. ____ _
:1t<r,li1 l"'>t">lll"" )
No. ofPages, ___ 6 __ _
DATE FULL NAAIE. ~AILING ADDRESS ANO ZIP CODE OF CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTOR
RECEIVEO
•cm1nbu1or Codes
IND -In_, ..
COM· Recipient Camnillee (ahor than PTY ar SCC)
OTH - Oher
Rea,on for .Amendment
Ill" r;o•••nu.A.1.-10 lf.h'Tflll U), Nur,lllf_"J
PTY • P01111cal F'ar1y
SCC • Sm■ I Conlrii..tor Conrnillee
CODE '
□ IND
□ COM
□ 0TH
□ PTY
□ sec
□ IND
□ COM
□ 0TH
□ PTY
□ sec
□ IND
□ COM
□ 0TH
□ PTY
□ sec
Date S-arnp
Pa~clofl5
LATE CONTRIBUT ION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
Fer Official Use Only
IF i,N INDMDUAL AMOUNT ENTER OCCUPATION i,NO EMPLOYER
tF SRF,EMl'\.Or'Rl,f,., TEQN.WE (-Fll-•S~SS RECE<VEO
F~PC Form 497fJuna l01 I
FF"PC Toll-Free Helpline : 866fASK-FPF"C
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Late Contribution Report
Typo or prlfll In Ink.
Amou~• may t,e rounded lo whole dollars.
lATE CONTRIBU TION REPORT N_A_Ml!_ O, __ FI_L_ER ______________________________ Da_ te_o_f ________ ...., _____ D_at_e_Sl_a_m_ p __ _ D,lltu:tolo Corpon1io11 ,'< AlliliatcJ Enli!ie,_ ]11cluJi11~ ~,. Forty );u,m Football Cmnp,ul) LLC. Tn is Filing ___ l~l\t-•0~2~-!~0=22~ CALIFORNIA 497 FORM
AREA CODE/PHONE NUMBER 1.0 . NUMBER l"KOICillllle' I
.1 -•10
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
Slt1 11 Clam
STATE
CA
ZIPOOD E
950_1.4
Late Contribut ion(s) Made
DATE FULL NAM I:. MAILINGAOl)RESSANO ZIP COOEOF RECIPIENT MADE Cl~ co•1TTEE. ALSO ENTER 1,0 NUMBER)
--
419,01120~2 S.111la Cln111 Con1n1unlly Lc:11dcN Supportin~ AnUumy Bcd:cr for Mayer 2022 Sima Cl""1. CA 910)4
[DIii' PcndLng
•191U l ... O~~ s1111a Clara Commumly L .. dcrs Supporting An!hany Bccl:er for Mai·or 2022 Sanla Cl..-.. CA 9105,1
11)11 Pc11d111~
09m1,2on s.,,,, CJ.,.. Community ~"'de,, Supporting Aa!hony Beder for Mayer 2022 San1a C"Jw,. r A 9~0~,1
[J),i Pcni"!tng
09101 ,101~ Sama Clan Comniunily Leaders Supporting Anlh.ony Bc:ti:cr fl)f' :Ma)'Or 2022 S1<1la Cl&ra. CA 9)U)4
lD~ Pendrn~
Reason for Amendment :
Rep0 rt No. __ -~1_0_-1_.,_R_I _I 3_\ _I
D Amendment
10 Report No. ____ _
:e•t:l.lntliil.a..il
No. of Pages, _____ _
CANDIDATE AAD OFFIC E
OR
MEASURE AND JJRISDICTION
AntJmny Beel.er
Ma"or
Jl.ill~Jktion; OIiier
C"II)' of Saul• ('J.,.
An!hony Becker
Miyo<
J1m,qi[ctm,n: OIiier
Cily of S'1.11la C"]Ull
Anlhony Uc~ker
M.11,'tlr
fari~dict1~)n. Ol her
Cily of Santa Clllil
Amlnmyl:::ltl.':J...cr
Mil>i~
far1~~ikl1~~11: O!l1cr
C11y or Sarna C1ar111
For Official Use Only
AMOUNT OF OATE OF ElECTION
CONTRIBUTION [If ,t,PPLICABLE)
S.32~. 2.5 \JO 11 /0&.12022
sumoo 1rn~1 12.2
Sl.l00 .00 11 108/20;2
S9.0!>8.00 11 /08 202J
FPPC Form 4 97(Junel011
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
'T7111Tll'~
Type or print In Ink.
Late Con tribution Report Amoums mill' be rounded to ""1ole dollars. "AME OF flLER
Dc-0artol.J Corponilion ct Affiliated £nlilics. lm:ludm~ I.ht forty ~1t1crs Football Company LLC AREA COOEIPHONE NUMBER I □ NUMBER ti' ~~I
4 8240
STREET ADDR ESS
STAI E
CA
ZIP C-OOE
9l 54
Late Contr ibution(s) Made
DATE FULL NAME, MA.JUNG ADDRESS !aJ"-4D Z I? CODE OF RECl?IEN T MADE (IF COMMITIE E, ,11,LSO EP-llER ID, NU MBER)
-- --
09 01 _011. Sa:rita C'la.ra. ('amniunlty I.eadrn S L1pp1.ming An1hany Redctr for May IX' :!022 s..,1• Cl"'11. c 11 ~i.-1~~
I°" PtOldlll•
09,0l•10lj Sanl• Clam Comm1m11y Leaders Sopp.ining Mlhony Red.er for Mayor l022 Str1t:. Clan.CA 9-5054
IIR' Pcndm2
09,02 ... 0~1 SMl.ta CILn O.:i:nununity Lcadtn S t1ppot1.in~ A11thony Bcd:.ct for MayCllf' :!0?1 $lint.a Clm. CA 9'~n54
10,1 Pciidme:
09.'0l f::!O:!:J Sl!l'Lta CIUII Kc:1~hbo:rs: SuppCJrtin~ Kuen 1-hrdy foc City Council Dt9rln 3, 2022 S0<tta Cll!ll. CA ~)Q54
J[)r 1 Pcrn1me
Reason for Amendment·
Date of
Thi5 Filing __ ..cr,~9·0.~"~lO~l.c.l_
Report No._......c~..cl.c.ll..c·Lc.cCcck.;;;l.;;.13c.c~..c..! C Amendment
to Report No . ____ _
No. of Pag,.,,._ __ .;;.6 __ _
CANDIDATE ANO OFFICE
OR
M E.lSURE AND JURISOICTlON
A11thuny Bi::,d,C"J"
Ma),.-
J1m,.Jidli) 1L. Ol hc:r
\'11y of S:uua Clan
Amhon~ Bcc\:c-r
Ma,or
Jurlsdicllon: thcr
City or Sa.-11a. Claf'a.
Artrl1r.my B c ... ·kcr
Mavor
Juds.Jicfo.m: Qlhct
• .. .'11)' \,r San l;i Cl:,i.n.
Karen Hard\·
City ("1J1J11dl Member Di~n~13
J1ir1o.;.d1c1mn: O!hc:r
Cit)' of Sat1La Clan.
AMOUNT OF
CONT RIBUT ION
il9.:!~ 0 OU
iU9l ,00
~8.000 .00
iI&).4 , i,o
LATE CONTR IBUTION REPOR T
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
Fo, Official Ust, Only
OATE OF ELECTION
IIF AP'f'Ll(;.,l,SLEI
11/"8/:'o::
111os1202:
11,osno 22
l l1t1St?1122
FPPC Form 497(Juno/01 J
FPPC Toll-Free lielpllne : 8661.A.SK-FPPC
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Late Contribution Report
Type or ~rlnl In Ink.
Amounts may be rounded to v.tlote dollars.
L.ATE c or-l TRIBUTION REPORT N_A._ME_O_F_F1_LE_R ___________________________ ...,._Da_ te_ O_f ________ __, ____ D" a""t-o""a'""e_m_p ___ _ Dc:Bartolo Coqn._na ion -..'t Affili11tcd Entitie lncfodmg tln~ Foity iner:s Vootball C<11np1my LLC. Th is Filing --- •~•9~,0~2~12~n~n~ CALIFORNIA 497 FORM
STREET i>ODRESS
l,0 , NU~8ER l'JCIO~I
d 8S2il 1
STATE ZIP CODE
95054
Late Contribution(s) Made
DATE FULL NAME. l,i .. lLING AO DRESS mo ZIP CODE OF RECIPIENT MADE jlF COlilMITTEE, ALSO Et-llE~ ! D, NIJM8E~)
09101 r.nn Sont• Cl"" :,lcighb'° Supporting K,mi lhrdy f~ City COWJed Di<trict 3 20?2 Santa Clar.a, CA 95054
IDP Pending
O?IOJ l'~Ul:? S11111 ,·11111 :-.<i.1hb<» Supporling K""" HarJy rcc Ci1yC01111<il Distri<1 3 21122 Santa Clara. CA 95054
IDII Prndm~
,~ •111n un: $11111 (~11111 N~~1bm Suppocting KIVffl HnJy roc Cily ("01111cil Dis&rit'I ~ 21122 S11nt1 Clll1l , CA 9~054
11),tp Pcndm~
(~·,,1,~nn Sonla Cl"" N<i'lbbors Supponing K,mi lhrdy for CityCoUllod District 3 2U22 Santa Clll1l, CA 9~05,4
ID/a Prmdinji;
Rea,son for A.rnendmen1·
Report No. __ M_O_•l~C~R_l _l3_~1_
=:J Amendment
10 Repon No. ____ _
I ~c~ .an [9kllYI
No. of Pages _____ _
C.ANDIDATE _.,,DOFF ICE
OR
MEASURE /IND JURISDICTION
t-::1 .. n:n H;irctf
Cit>" Council Manbtr D1!!1.rit:t 3
Jun..:dLdrnn Oh.;: r
C1ty PJf Santa Ch.ra
E\:11en Uw<l,
CLt;· Council ~(ember D1!11.nl't 3
Jun,d [dion O hcr
c l,}' (\fS:anl:aCh.n
1-:uen Uw .. h
ctr;· cou,i.;;I Manbcr 01-.trlt.1 .l
Jun,d(Cth)n. ~ her
c l,>· ,\f S:aCll:a Chlll
f.:arcn llorcl) .
j~:{~~~:!~•.I &1;:;bcr D1~UIL1 .l
c l,>· ,\f S:ant:a Ch.ra
I
Fe, Officiol Use Only
Page-I of6
AMOUNT Of DATE OF ELECTION
CONTRUlUTKlN IIF .APPUC.A8LE1
SL.992,00 11 o:s .. u22
$2 .~IJ(),(H) 11 n s . Oll
!Ull )~ 11 r,si-:?nn
$1.99) ,\ID 11 ·os ion
FPPC Form 497(Junel011
FPPC Toll-fro Helpllllo: 866/ASK-FPPC
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
lype or prt,t In Ink_
Late Contribution Report Amounts may be rounded•~ "'101 • dollar~.
N.A rfEOf"RLER
DcBivtolo Corprfl1ion & .lliffiliatcd Entities, Jndudin,g the fon.y Kmcrs Football Company IJ.C.
AREA CODE/PHONE NU "1BER to. tWMBER 1, .-.itf)clt!le l
•SS240
srnEET A_DDRESS
CITY
-. ntaCfam
STATE
CA
ZIP CODE
9505,1
Late Contribution(s) Made
DATE FULL 1'1AME. MAILIN GADDRE&SAfi D ZIP CODE OF RECIP'JENT MADE (IF 4;~1TTEE . AL-S:O ENTE'R ID, NUMBER)
U910 1/2lff! SMI• Clan. Sejghbooi Suppor1ing lllj Ch>llal For ril)' Cow,cil District 2 2022 S811I• Cl.,., C IL 9~0S4
IIJ# PcndJng
09/0) -::022 S81lla Cl011 Nej!lJbors Supporling R1j C1taJ,al for Cit)' Cow,cil DiS1ti,1 2 lOl2 S111111 CL,1111, CA 9~0-<4
lllr' Pcndin~
09 01 "20:!'! S1111ta Clan Sejghbor, SlJl]l'«tin~ Roj C1talial for Cil)' Council Di.<lfict l 2012 S811la C't:11'111, CA 9~0.'-4
JDP. Pcndin~
l.119 0)~'1•1:!'! Sanla Cl:11'111 ~c:ighbOl"'!ii Supparling R1j Ch~al far City ("on.ncil District 2 2012 Sa11U ("Lan.. CA 9.505"4
II)# P<odine
·Reason for Amendmen t:
Date of
This Filing ---°"~·0~2~·2~0=22~
Report NO. ---"-M'-'0--'• lcc,CccRccl --'I 3-'-:>'--!
D Amendment
to Report No. ____ _
'"'':ll~"''t".!'Jrl)
No_ofPages _____ _
CANDIDATE ...... D OFFICE
OR
MEASURE AND .VRISDICTION
Raj Chah•I
C-it)'<'(ll1tK11 ?\lcrn1~r 1)1~11~-• ~
JunsJil1km Other
C'ity of Suma CliU'"d
Raj l11•h•I
C'itt Council Member Oi~nt.:1 ::!
J11n"J1'1.1on; Other
City of .Santa C'l,IJ"'~
Raj Chahal
l'it) Council Member Db1n~·1 :!
fon~d1ttk1n Cithcr
City i:Jf Santa Clan
Raj Ou,ha l
Cit)' C11t.mi::1I t\lanbcr {Jp;tncl :2
Ju11idJct1an. Oth4;r
C'ity uf Santa C-1:ara
Dai• Slo.n,p
Pa_gc S or'6
AMOUNT OF
CONT~ISUTION
SISu.-ni !JO
Sl.99~ 11()
$::!)lli).,)()
SJ.-tll.'j
lATE'CONlR iBUTION REPORT
CALIFORN IA 497
FORM
F o, Officio I Use Only
DATE Of ELECTION
(IFAPPllt;I\B lE )
IU)&:?012
11/08 ll1'2
1 Litl&:!0:!2
l lfflg.1:!0'.22
FPPC Form '97(JuneJ01 I
FPPC Toll-Free Hel1>llne: 866/ASK-FPPC
REPORT TITLE UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
1),1>8 or 1>rlnt In I"". Late Contribution Report Amounts may be rounded to wtlole dollaJs.
IIAI\£ OF FILER
DcBartolo Clll1''-1ratil)J\ .. 'L; Amlrnted Ent1tic-.. ln.::ludltJ~ lhe Fort~· Kincc-;.-Football C,.1mpan) LLC .
Af EA CO DEIPHOt-lE NtJ>/18Ef\ 1,0, NUMBER 11" a:~ 1;,c1e:
,188240
STREE T ADDRESS
CITY
Saul.ii Clam
STATE
CA
ZIP CO DE
9505,1
Late Contribution(s) Made
DATE FULL NAMO:. MAILING ADDRO:SS MID ZIP CODO:OF RECIPIENT MADE tlF COMMITTEE. ALSO ENTER 1.0. NUMBER)
09·0Ll202J. Salli• Cl,ra 1-:ci~hb°" Supporting R,j t1l,hal for Cily Council Disu-ict 21D22 Sai,la Clmn. CA 95054
ID~Pcudmg
Reason for Amendment·
Date cf
This Filing ___ 0~9_10~2~•2~0~2~2_
Report No. --'-~!'--CO~-L~C~'R-"l-'-13~~..c...!
0 Amendment
to Report No. _ ___ _
!u,i:laoti~ c.,...1
No. of Pages ___ 6 __ _
CANDIDATE Al-JD OFF~E
OR
MEASURE NID JURISDICTION
RajCh,hal
Citv Council Mcnbcr Di.-strh:l 2
Jurh,dr ... ·uDn; OIJlct
City or Santa Clam
I
Dale Stamp
AMOUNT OF
CONTRll!UTION
SJ.9nr)I)
LATE OONTRIBUTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA 497
FORM
Fo, Officlel Use Only
I
DATE OF ELEC'TION
OF APPLICABLE)
11 ,os121m
FPPC Form 4971June/01 l
FPPC Toll-frta Helpline: B661ASK-FPPC
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
WESTLAW
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
Credits
(Added by
Stats.1996, c. 1170 (S.B.1457), § 1. Amended by Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), § 5.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2008 Main Volume
Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), in subds. (a) and (b), in the introductory paragraphs, substituted “(b)” for “(c)”; in subd. (b)(3), substituted “head” for “director”; in subd. (c), inserted “agency or” throughout; inserted subd. (e), relating to investigations and meetings with the grand jury; and, in subd. (f), substituted “presiding” for “supervising”.
CROSS REFERENCES
Grand jury defined, see
Penal Code § 888.
Words and phrases, “county”, see Penal Code § 691.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Encyclopedias
Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 716, Recommendations and Reporting.
Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 717, Responses to Findings.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Witkin, California Criminal Law 4th Introduction to Criminal Procedure § 43, Reports.
West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 933.05, CA PENAL § 933.05 Current with all 2017 Reg.Sess. laws.
(C) 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
WESTLAW
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW
1 Clarifications Regarding Grand Jury Report
Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury Report and offers the following clarifications:
1. General comment: The terms “City” and “City Council” are interchangeably used with “Stadium Authority” and “Stadium Authority Board” in the report. For the majority of these references, the Stadium Authority and Stadium Authority Board are the correct terms as the Stadium Authority is a separate entity from the City.
2. Page 4 – “Stadium Authority” in the “Glossary and Abbreviations” section: Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the joint powers managing entity created 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.
3. Page 5 – Last sentence in the first paragraph in the “Summary” section: Stadium Authority is the owner of the stadium and has general oversight of stadium operations.
4. Page 5 – Second sentence in the second paragraph in the “Summary” section: StadCo also contracted with the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (ManCo), an affiliate of StadCo, to manage the Stadium and non-National Football League (NFL) events.
5. Page 7 – First sentence in the third paragraph in the “Measure J and Management of the Stadium” section: As described in 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.
6. Page 8 – First sentence and bullet point: Stadium Authority is a Joint Powers Agency and is a separate entity from the City of Santa Clara.
7. Page 8 – Second sentence in the last paragraph in “The 2017 Compliance Audit” section: Staff has provided the Stadium Authority Board with several status updates on the progress of the remaining recommendations since the Harvey M. Rose Associates Audit was first presented to the Board in 2017. The most recent update was provided on March 24, 2020.
8. Page 9 – Second sentence under the first bullet point: ManCo has provided high level five-year projections of Shared Stadium Expenses.
9. Page 9 – Second bullet point: ManCo provides financial information at year-end. The Financial Management System should provide more timely details of financial information. The Stadium Authority receives a one-page 45-day report for each Non-NFL Event.
10. Page 9 – Third bullet point: Some source documentation for NFL events are not available to the Stadium Authority. The Stadium Authority receives some spreadsheet calculations. Stadium Authority’s audit firm, KPMG, has some access to the source documentation during their financial audits.
11. Page 17 – Second sentence in the second paragraph under the “ManCo” section:
ManCo last paid Performance Rent in FY 2017/18.
2 12. Page 17 – Last sentence in the fourth paragraph under the “ManCo” section: As previously noted, staff has provided the Stadium Authority Board with several status updates on the progress of the remaining recommendations since the Harvey M. Rose Associates Audit was first presented to the Board in 2017. The most recent update was provided on March 24, 2020.
13. Page 17 – Second sentence in the last paragraph of page 17: The Stadium Authority made $857,000 from the 2019 Rolling Stones concert.
14. Page 18 – Second sentence in the first paragraph: The forensic auditor was hired by the Stadium Authority.
15. Page 18 – Fourth sentence in the first paragraph: Audits are continuing regarding non- NFL events and Public Safety construction fund expenses. These have not been completed but are still actively being worked on by the Stadium Authority’s consultant.
16. Page 19 – Fourth sentence in the first paragraph: The company that was hired was not an event management company; rather, an independent consulting firm that assists in the planning and operations of sports and entertainment venues and events.
17. Page 19 – Sixth sentence in the first paragraph: The firm presented half-bowl and quarter-bowl events as a potential type of event to explore, not as a workaround to the curfew.
18. Page 24 – Second sentence in the first full paragraph of page 24: Security personnel are available to escort councilmembers throughout the facility.
19. Page 24 – Last sentence in the first full paragraph: One of these operational tours was publicly noticed as a special meeting.
20. Page 30 – Finding 3a: The Stadium Authority receives the majority of the financial accounting documents at the end of each fiscal year. The Financial Management System should provide additional financial transparency throughout the year. The system went live in April 2022.
21. Page 30 – Finding 3b: Since 2021, ManCo has remediated many of the code violations that the City previously identified.
22. Page 30 – Second sentence in Finding 3c: As previously noted, ManCo last paid Performance Rent in FY 2017/18.
23. Page 30 – Recommendation 3c: For FY 2022/23, the Stadium Authority has 6.70 FTEs budgeted, who are responsible for the programmatic oversight of Stadium activities.
24. Page 35 – The Naming Rights Marketing Agreement is between Stadium Authority and Forty Niners Stadium, LLC.
25. Page 36 – Appendix B: As previously noted, staff has provided the Stadium Authority Board with several status updates on the progress of the remaining recommendations since the Harvey M. Rose Associates Audit was first presented to the Board in 2017.
The most recent update was provided on March 24, 2020.
<
<i:::
~
z
0:::
<
0 LL
.....J
u
(.)
z
Santa Clara
~.e,:, Michael J. Sellers
M-America Gty Chief of Police
~IIIP July 29, 2015 2001
Honorable Rise Jones Pichon F I L E D Presiding Judge ~UG - 5 2015 Santa Clara County Superior Court
DAVID H. YAMPSAKJ 191 North First Street Ct"-'~Cllller,Qelll San Jose, California 95113 •~~~CA~ fll---Cln 8",&I IN u 16 DEMY Dear Judge Pichon:
Per California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, please find below the City of Santa Clara 's response to the findings and recommendations found in the 2014-2015 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents".
FINDING 6:
"The Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement, dated July 2010, has not been revised in five years, is over 100 pages long, and should be revised and shortened."
RESPONSE:
The respondent AGREES with the finding per 933.0S(a) of the California Penal Code.
RECOMMENDATION 6J:
"The City of Santa Clara Police Department, as a member of the Police Chiefs' Association of Santa Clara County, should advocate for revision of the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement".
RESPONSE:
The respondent AGREES with the finding per 933.0S(b) of the California Penal Code.
The Police Chiefs' Association of Santa Clara County is currently working on revising the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement.
Sincerely,
Michael J. ellers
Chief of Police
Police Department
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
FAX (408)248-0276
[email protected]
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
The Honorable Rise Jones Pincho
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
F ILE D
SEP 2 2 2016
Kl
!;!Oil
City Manager's Office
WIii/!¥ August 24, 2016
Re: Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report - The City of Santa Clara, The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi's Stadium, and Measure J
Dear Judge Pinchon:
The City of Santa Clara received the 2015-2016 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report entitled "TI1e City of Santa Clara, The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi's Stadium, and Measure J". Per California Penal Code Section 933 (c) and 933.05, please find below the City of Santa Clara's responses to the findings and recommendations.
Finding 1:
Since the passage of the Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act (Measure J), there has been no compliance audit. During the course of the Grand Jury's investigation, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority board approved a Measure J compliance audit to be performed by a third party, to be selected.
Recommendation 1a
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority should specify that the compliance audit cover the time period beginning with the passage of Measure J through March 31, 2016, the end of the Stadium Authority fiscal year.
Responseia
The Measure J Compliance Audit Request for Proposals was issued on May 13, 2016.
The scope of the audit was based on specific audit requirements provided to staff by the Stadium Authority Board. The scope includes a comprehensive Measure J compliance audit of Stadium Authority finances dating back to April 1, 2014 (i.e., the period of the fiscal year of the first year of operations) through March 31, 2016. The Board has already selected an auditor based on this scope, and a contract with Harvey M. Rose, the selected auditor, has been executed.
The Respondent is reviewing options to expand the auditing scope as suggested by the Civil Grand Jury. It should be noted that the activities undertaken related to the Stadium during the time period between the passage of Measure J and March 31, 2014 were primarily construction related. A separate cost allocation review of construction expenditures was completed by KPMG on November 17, 2015. 1500 Warburton Avenue,. Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone: (408) 615-2210,. Fax: (408) 241-6771 • www.santaclaraca.gov Honorable ruse Jones Pichon
August 24, 2016
Page2
Recommendation 1b
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority should specify that the scope of the compliance audit include whether City of Santa Clara general funds have been used for the operation or maintenance of Levi's Stadium in violation of Measure J.
Response1b
The Respondent agrees with this recommendation and this was included in the scope of services for the Measure J Audit discussed above ..
Recommendation 1c
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority should specify that a Measure J compliance audit include a review of the billing and tracking procedures used when City employees perform Stadium business and how and when the City is reimbursed.
Response1c
The Respondent agrees with this recommendation and it was included in the scope of services for the Measure J audit.
Recommendation 1d
Once the audit is complete, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority should release the results to the public.
Response1d
The Respondent agrees with this recommendation. All Stadium Authority and City audits are publicly posted as part of meeting agenda packets. In addition, audits are also posted on the City of Santa Clara Finance Department web page. The completed audit will also be posted on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority web page.
Finding2
The public safety costs incurred during the first two NFL football seasons at Levi's Stadium have exceeded the monetary threshold stated in the Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act (Measure J).
Recommendation 2
If the public safety cost overage continues through the 2016 NFL season, the City of Santa Clara should seek an adjustment of the public safety cost threshold in accordance with clause 7.5.4(b) of the.Amended and Restated Stadium Lease Agreement by and between the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Forty Niners Santa Clara Stadium Company LLC dated March 28, 2012, As Amended and Restated as of June 19, 2013.
Honorable Rise Jones Pichon
August 24, 2016
Page3
Response2
The Respondent agrees with this recommendation. It should be noted that the Respondent initiated discussions with the Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC (StadCo) on public safety costs in 2015 and requested the commencement of negotiations following the end of the second NFL season (February 2016) - one full year in advance of the lease provision. While the parties previously agreed to enter into early negotiations, these discussions are currently on hold pending resolution of the arbitration process.
Finding3
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority's Finance Director, Treasurer, and Auditor positions are currently held by the same individual.
Recommendation 3
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority should adopt the same structure as the City of Santa Clara, where the auditor position is separate and independent from that of the finance director.
Response3
The Respondent agrees with this recommendation. While tl1ere is no evidence that an actual conflict exists and there are already established internal controls within the Finance Department (e.g., multiple signatures are required to initiate transactions) and the Stadium Authority is audited annually by an independent third party, the Respondent agrees that having these functions all under one position could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Joint Powers Agreement that created the Santa Clara Stadium Authority defined Board and staff positions and assigned the title of Finance Director /Treasurer/ Auditor for Stadium Authority to the City's Director of Finance. The Respondent will bring forward a recommendation to the Joint Powers Authority (JP A) partners to change the JP A Agreement to reassign the Auditor title.
If there are any questions in regard to the City's response to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations, please contact me at (408) 615-2210. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report.
Sincerely,
. 1'2-- -•- . {),,.J I' ~rr
v Batra
Acting City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
August 31, 2018
Honorable Patricia Lucas
Presiding Judge
(ENDORSED)
Fs~P~1;o
Clerk of the Court
Superl01' C0Ufl of CA Qounty o! santo Ciara
ev ceJones
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Presiding Judge Lucas,
Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Council Members
Debi Davis
Patrick Kolstad
PatriciaM. Mahan
Teresa O'Neill
Kathy Watanabe
Please see the attached Report to Council. This report was unanimously approved at the July 10, 2018, meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara.
Per California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, this report is the City of Santa Clara's response to the findings and recommendations found in the 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Police and the Mentally Ill: Improving Outcomes".
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
~~
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
Enclosure
cc: Chief of Police
City Manager
City Attorney
Mayor and Council Offices • 1500 WarburtonAven:ze a Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone (408) 6:t5~2250 • Fax (408) 241-6771 • www.santaclaracagov 18-810
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 7/10/2018
Action on Response to the 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "Police and the Mentally Ill:
Improving Outcomes"
BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2018, the 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled, "Police and Mentally Ill: Improving Outcomes" (see Attachment 1) California Penal Code§ 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department which 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 lo matters under the control of the governing body.
California Penal Code§ 933.05 contains guidelines for responses lo Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this letter.
As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(a) public agencies are required lo "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable finding. Further, as stated in Penal Code§ 933.05(b), the City of Santa Clara is required to respond to each applicable recommendation with one of four possible 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 lo 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; or,
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
The City's responses to the Civil Grand Jury's findings are due to the office of the Honorable Patricia Lucas, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, no later than Tuesday, August 7, 2018.
DISCUSSION
One of the issues examined by the 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury was, "the circumstances around law enforcement officers using deadly force against citizens who were in a mental health crisis, whether or not they were committing a crime." The key focus of the resulting report is law enforcement mental health training policies. The Grand Jury interviewed, surveyed and researched law City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/i4/20·t B
powered by Legistar 1M
18-810 Agenda Date: 7/10/2018
enforcement ar,d dispatcher personnel, District Attorney's Office staff and County Behavioral Health staff, and the various training courses they receive. Information from and regarding the County of Santa Clara and the 1 ', law enforcement agencies operating within the County was reviewed. The Grand Jury's work culminated in a report entitled, "Police and Mentally Ill: Improving Outcomes." The report contained five findings and nine recommendations that are applicab!e to differing combinations of agencies, depending on the levels of record-Keeping, crisis response units, and officer training that the agencies provide.
Currently, the City of Santa Clara provides four (4) hours of mandatory crisis intervention training to 100% of its officers and dispatchers. According to the report, SCPD is the only department in the County that requires this level of training for a/I of its officers and dispatchers. Only two · findings/recommendations are listed as applicable to the City of Santa Clara and !hose are identified in the report as Recommendation (1) and Recommendation (2D).
FINDING 1:
The first finding requiring a response is Finding (1) which states, 'The County's AB 71-required criminal justice reporting surpasses that of many jurisdictions nationwide. However, the presence of mental illness in a given incident report is not mandated by AB 71. Reporting this data would assist law enforcement agencies in understanding the relationship behveen mental illness and officer involved shootings, and help in revising their training programs." RESPONSE:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code.
The presence of mental illness in officer involved shootings could be a significant factor and having this knowledge could help revise police training programs.
RECOMMENDATION 1:
As a result of Finding (1), the Civil Grand Jury issued Recommendation (1), which states, "Law enforcement agencies submitting AB 71-required data should report, to the extent possib:e, whether mental illness was involved in their use of force data, starting in 2019. This applies to al! the agencies reviewed by the Grand Jury, which are the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office, the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety and the following law enforcement agencies: Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain Vie,v, Palo Alto, San Jose and Santa Clara."
RESPONSE:
The City of Santa Clara will implement the recommendation per 933.05(b)(2) of the California Penal Code with the AB 71 reporting due by February 28, 2019.
FINDING 2:
The second finding requiring a response is Finding (2) which states, "The Grand Jury found that training in crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques beyond what is included in the POST Basic Police Academy helps improve the outcome of law enforcement contacts with the mentaliy ill." RESPONSE:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code.
Ci1j cf Santa Ciara PrirJed on 7!14/2C18
:::owered by Legist.ir'"'
18-810 Agenda Date: 7/10/2018
Crisis Intervention Training has been found to be a useful tool in defusing situations involving police and the mentally ill.
RECOMMENDATION (2D)
As a result of Finding (2), the Civil Grand Jury issued Recommendation (20), which applies to the City of Santa Clara and it states, "The following law enforcement agencies should include Crisis Intervention Training and De-Escalation technique training in their Continuing Professional Perishable Skills and Communications training: Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety and the following law enforcement agencies: Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos Monte Sereno, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose and Santa Clara." RESPONSE:
The City of Santa Clara will implement the recommendation per 933.05(b)(2) of the California Penal Code.
The Santa Clara Police Department provides 80-hours of Advanced Officer Training (AOT) to each police officer over a two-year cycle. The department will add Crisis Intervention Training and De Escalation technique training into this two-year cycle, with the first class being scheduled in the fourth quarter of 2019.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense.
However, implementing the additional record-keeping and training may result in increased expense, which will be addressed by budget action if necessary.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney's Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Mayor Gillmor to send the City's response to the Civil Grand Jury Report to the Honorable Patricia Lucas, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, no later than Tuesday, August 7, 2018.
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/14/2018
powered by Legislar™
18-810
Reviewed by: Michael J. Sellers, Chief of Police
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Grand Jury Report 1718-06 Final REVISED (05.08.18)
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4
Agenda Date: 7/10/2018
Printed on 7/14/2018
powered by Legistar™
Cityof
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
September 6, 2018
Honorable Patricia Lucas
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Presiding Judge Lucas,
(ENDORSED)
F s!P~2= D
8 Clerk of the Court
BY upenor Court ot CA County o/ Santa Clan,
. DEPUTy
Janice Jones
Housing and Community
Services Division
Please see the attached Report to Council. This report was unanimously approved at the August 28, 2018, meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara.
Per California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, this report is the City of Santa Clara's response to the findings and recommendations found in the 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny".
Thank you for your time and consideration.
01\~
isa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
Enclosure
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
1500 Warburton Avenue • Santa Clara, CA 95050 •Phone: (408) 615-2490 • Fax: (408) 248-3381 • www.santaclaraca.gov 18-916
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
Action on City's Response to the 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny"
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2018, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled, "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny" (see Attachment 1) California Penal Code§ 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department which 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 letter.
As stated in Pena! Code § 933.05(a) public agencies are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable finding. Further, as stated in Penal Code§ 933.0S(b), the City of Santa Clara is required to respond to each applicable recommendation with one of four possible 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; or,
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
The City's responses to the Civil Grand Jury's findings are due to the office of the Honorable Patricia Lucas, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, no later than Thursday, September 20, 2018.
DISCUSSION
Below, please find the findings and recommendations from the attached report and staffs recommended responses including references to policies set forth in the City's General Plan Land Use and Housing elements directly responsive to the issues raised in the Report.
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by LegistarrM
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
Finding 1a:
Lack of housing near employment centers worsens traffic congestion in the County and increases the urgency to add such housing.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. The City's General Plan, updated in 2010, provides capacity for over 16,000 new attached residential units in Santa Clara (General Plan Table 5.2-1 Summary of General Plan Development Potential 2010-2035) primarily to be located in nine Focus Areas (Figure 5.4-1) located in proximity to employment areas and transit facilities. In 2016,the City adopted the Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan, located adjacent to the Ca/train Lawrence Station in norther Santa Clara and anticipates adoption later this year of the Tasman East Specific Plan, located adjacent to the VTA Tasman Light Rail station. Both of these Specific Plans convert existing industrial lands to high-density residential use, together adding capacity for 8,000 new residential units in close proximity to existing employment centers. Furthermore, the City has recently initiated new Specific Plan efforts (e.g., Freedom Circle Specific Plan, Patrick Henry Specific Plan) that would add several thousand units of additional residential capacity through conversion of existing employment lands within north Santa Clara.
These efforts are also reflected in General Plan policies specific to each Focus Area:
Policy 5.4.1 P12 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the El Camino Real Focus Area.
Policy 5.4.2 P14 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the Downtown Focus Area.
Policy 5.4.3 P20 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the Santa Clara Station Focus Area.
Policy 5.4.5 P13 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the Lawrence Station Focus Area.
Policy 5.4.6 P16 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the Tasman East Focus Area.
Finding 1b:
Mass transit stations (Caltrain, VTA, BART) create opportunities for BMR units.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. The City's General Plan promotes the development of affordable housing throughout the City, and also promotes higher density residential development and a proportional increase in BMR units in proximity to transit facilities, as stated in the following General Plan goals and policies:
Goal 5.3.2 G3 Affordable housing units dispersed throughout the City to avoid a concentration in any one neighborhood.
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by LegistarT"'
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
General Plan Policy 5.2.3 identifies Priority Development Areas for new housing that are "in a pedestrian friendly environment served by transit"
Policy 5.3.2 P2 Encourage higher density residential development in transit and mixed use arnas and in other locations throughout the City where appropriate Policy 5.3.2 P6 Provide adequate choices for housing tenure, type and location, including higher density, and affordability for low and moderate income and special needs households.
Policy 5.3.2 P7 Construct and preserve affordable housing for low and moderate income households through the use of public subsidies, regulatory incentives and flexible development standards. -
Policy 5.3.2 PB Require new residential development to comply with applicable regulations for the provision of affordable housing.
Policy 5.3.2 P9 Encourage senior and group residential facilities, and affordable housing developments near neighborhood retail, support services and transit facilities.
Finding 1c:
Density bonus programs are not being used aggressively enough to produce the needed BMR units within one-half mile of transit hubs.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. As referenced above, the City in many cases requires that new residential development within proximity of transit facilities be at higher than traditional densities, with the goal of achieving high yields of new residential units while also addressing neighborhood compatibility. The City's General Plan currently designates lands in proximity of transit with density ranges that vary from a minimum of 37 DU/AC to a maximum of 100 DU/AC, and is considering a range of 85-350 DU/AC for the Tasman East Specific Plan scheduled for adoption later this year. The City has seen some use of density bonuses for affordable housing projects, but has also observed that as development costs increase significantly for housing types (e.g., Type I construction) that would achieve even higher density, there is not sufficient demand to achieve those higher densities or fully utilize density bonus programs. The City's General Plan fully supports the use of density bonus programs:
Policy 5.5.1 P3 For residential development providing more affordable units than required based on the City's lnclusionary Housing Policy, allow a density bonus, consistent with California State density bonus law, provided that the increased density is compatible with planned uses on neighboring properties and consistent with other applicable regulations and General Plan policies.
Recommendation 1a:
To improve jobs-to-housing imbalances, the cities of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Mountain View and Sunnyvale should identify, by June 30, 2019, parcels where housing densities will be increased. The identification should include when projects are expected to be permitted and the number of BMR units anticipated for each parcel.
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 9 Printed on 8/2412018
powered by Legistar 1M
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
Response:
The City has already identified and designated parcels as Focus Areas within the City for higher density residential development. The City has completed the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Lawrence Station Specific Plan area and is currently in the process of preparing Specific Plans for the Tasman East, El Camino Real, Patrick Henry Drive and Freedom Circle Specific Plan areas, with expected completion of the Specific Plan process for each in 2018, 2019 or 2020 depending upon the Plan area. Collectively these Plans will provide for over 20,000 new housing units, of which at least 2,000 would be BMR units as the City transitions to a 15% inclusionary requirement. Some of the market rate and BMR units are already permitted and under construction. A majority of units are expected to be permitted within the next five years, but implementation in some cases could take longer and will depend upon market conditions.
Recommendation 1 b:
Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub that will help them meet their low income and moderate-income BMR objectives in the current RHNA cycle, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Response:
The City agrees with this recommendation. The City is working on a comprehensive strategy to meet its RHNA targets to implement its General Plan Policy 5.3.2 P1 "Encourage the annual construction of the housing units necessary to meet the City's regional housing needs assessment by reducing constraints to housing finance and development". The Lawrence Station, Tasman East, El Camino Real, and Patrick Henry Specific Plan areas, as well as a recently filed application for a 6,000 residential unit mixed-use development adjacent to the VTA Old Ironsides light rail station, are located within one-half mile of transit rail facilities as well as bus service and each will require an inclusionary BMR component that in aggregate will generate at build-out of each approximately 2,000 BMR units within close proximity to transit. The City is also processing 100% affordable housing projects within the Lawrence Station, Tasman East and El Camino Real transit oriented areas. A significant number of BMR units will thus be distributed throughout these transit-oriented areas as part of the City's strategy to meet its RHNA allocations.
Recommendation 1 c:
Cities should revise their density bonus ordinances to provide bonuses for LI and moderate income BMR units that exceed the minimum bonuses required by State law for parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub, by the end of 2020. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Response:
The City is in the process of a comprehensive Zoning Code update expected to be completed by the end of 2019. The City will evaluate how to implement this requirement as part of the update.
Finding 2a:
Employers in the County have created a vibrant economy resulting in an inflated housing market displacing many residents.
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by LegistarTM
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding in that it is evident that there has been sustained job growth in the past few years which further contributes to demand for housing and increased housing costs. Most new development in Santa Clara is being implemented on existing commercial lands and not directly resulting in a displacement of existing residents. The City also provides services through its Housing program, such as financial assistance for residential rehabilitation, to enable low income residents to remain in their properties.
Finding 2b:
Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County are not mandated nor evenly shared.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. The City of Santa Clara along with a small number of other cities in the County, has taken a leadership position by adopting an Affordable Housing Impact fee that became effective August 1, 2018, to require commercial developers to financially contribute toward the City's production of BMR units.
Recommendation 2a:
The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the recommendation and will defer to the County on a timeframe for implementation. While the City has already adopted impact fees for nonresidential projects, the City is open to working with the County and other cities to discuss impact fees on a County-wide basis.
Recommendation 2b:
Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers to create a fund that subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15 cities.
Response:
The City agrees with the recommendation. On February 22, 2018 the City of Santa Clara adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance that includes housing impact fees for nonresidential projects, such as retail, hotel, office, and light industrial projects, beginning on August 1, 2018. The full Ordinance <http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=56670>, Resolution and Fee Schedule <http://santaclaraca.gov/homelshowdocument?id=56672> are provided for reference.
Finding 3a:
RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable their cities to develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub-regions can serve as instructive examples for cities in the County.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees in part with the finding; however, Finding 3a requires further analysis.
This issue would best be considered by the same County task force taking up the issue of employer- City of Santa Clara Page 5 of9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by LegistarTM
18-916
based housing impact fees.
Finding 3c:
Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA sub-regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees in part with the finding; however, Finding 3c requires further analysis.
This issue would best be considered by the same County task force taking up the issue of employer based housing impact fees.
Finding 3e:
High-cost/low-cost city RHNA sub-regions could be attractive to high-cost cities because they could meet their BMR requirements without providing units in their cities.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees in part with the finding; however, Finding 3e requires further analysis.
This issue would best be considered by the same County task force taking up the issue of employer based housing impact fees.
Recommendation 3a:
Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub-region they would be willing to help form and join, and report how the sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing, by the end of 20i 9. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara does not see a need to implement the recommendation at this time as the recommendation warrants further analysis from both the County and State. The cost of land is a significant barrier to affordable housing creation, but there are other significant barriers such as community resistance, availability of infrastructure and services, and neighborhood compatibility concerns. While Santa Clara has been identified as a high-cost City within the Report with the implication that Santa Clara should transfer some or all of its RHNA obligation to a lower cost city, Santa Clara remains committed to the production of BMR units within Santa Clara and considers this desirable given its proximity to employment centers. It is thus unclear for Santa Clara as to how participation in a RHNA sub-region would provide regional benefit. While RHNA sub-regions may also provide an outlet for cities that lack the political will to create affordable housing, Santa Clara is committed to the production of affordable housing through its General Plan and other policies and ordinances. The concentration of BMR units in low cost areas, such as Gilroy, may exacerbate some of the environmental impact of the housing crisis - namely traffic. Housing is especially needed in cities like Santa Clara where the Jobs-Housing ratio is unbalanced.
While the City acknowledges that since losing the Redevelopment Agency in 2012, creating new affordable housing has been challenging for Santa Clara and all cities across the Bay Area, several initiatives are now coming into effect that will enable the City to resume its BMR production. Over the past year, the issuance of Measure A funds and the implementation of inclusionary housing and impact fees have provided the resources to once again create a healthy affordable housing pipeline.
Although it is always cheaper to build affordable housing in lower cost areas, that is not always the City of Santa Clara Page 6 of9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by Legistarm
18-916
appropriate solution.
Recommendation 3b:
Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more low-cost cities with one or mo;e high cost cities, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara does not see a need to implement the recommendation at this time as the recommendation warrants further analysis from both the County and State and it is unclear that it will provide a benefit in terms of BMR production within Santa Clara. The City is however prepared to participate in the formation of a RHNA sub-region should such an effort move forward on a County wide basis.
Recommendation 3c:
High-cost cities and the County should provide compensation to low-cost cities for increased public services required for taking on more BMR units in any high-rent/low-rent RHNA sub-region, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and the County.
Response:
As discussed in Responses 3a and 3b, the City is committed to the production of BMR units within Santa Clara and based on current policies in place, anticipates the ability to perform well going forward in terms of meeting the City's RHNA allocation.
Finding 5a:
Uneven BMR achievements among cities is caused in part by varying inclusionary BMR unit percentage requirements.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees in part with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code.
Uneven BMR achievements are also caused by varying policies and priorities among cities. The City could be supportive of a consistent approach across the County, but would be concerned about any lessening of the City's current requirements in order to conform with other cities.
Finding 6:
In-lieu fees, when offered as an option, are too low to produce the needed number of BMR units, and delay their creation.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara generally agrees with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code. The City's adopted ordinances prioritize inclusionary units for new residential development.
The production of BMR units would be further supplemented through commercial linkage fees and access to Measure A funds and other outside funding sources.
Recommendation 6:
Cities with an in-lieu option should raise the fee to at least 30% higher than the inclusionary BMR equivalent where supported by fee studies, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Campbell, City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by Legistar™
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
Cupertino, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara does not see a need to implement the recommendation at this time. The City's Affordable Housing Ordinance was structured with a preference toward mandatory inclusionary housing. The only projects that can voluntarily pay an in-lieu fee are those projects with fewer than ten (10 units). For all other projects, any alternative means of compliance, including payment of in lieu fees, requires the execution of a Development Agreement, which would be negotiated on a p roj ect-b y-p roject basis.
Finding 7:
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code. The City is committed to robust community engagement in the land use planning process to help address community concerns. This commitment is reflected in the City's General Plan (e.g., Goal 5.3.1 P2 Encourage advance notification and neighborhood meetings to provide an opportunity for early community review of new development proposals) and the City's Land Use Outreach Policy (attached) adopted in 2017.
Recommendation 7:
A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and a/115 cities, by June 30, 2019.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the Recommendation and is ready to participate in such an effort.
Finding 8:
It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding per 933.05(a)(1) of the California Penal Code on a limited basis. The City of Santa Clara has data available on BMR units produced within Santa Clara and includes this information in its annual reporting to the State.
Recommendation 8:
All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units, starting in April 2019.
Response:
The City of Santa Clara has data available on BMR units produced within Santa Clara and includes this information in its annual reporting to the State. The State provides online a summary of data submitted by all jurisdictions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by Legistar™
18-916 Agenda Date: 8/28/2018
There is no fiscal impact to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney's Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Mayor Gillmor to submit the City's response to the Civil Grand Jury Report to the Honorable Patricia Lucas, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 20, 2018.
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Grand Jury Report
2. Land Use Community Outreach Policy
3. Affordable Housing Ordinance and Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 9 Printed on 8/24/2018
powered by LegistarTM
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
August 27, 2019
The Honorable Deborah A. Ryan
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Ryan,
(ENDORSED)
FA~G~2= D
Ctark of the Court
~ CoUlt of CA County ot Santa Clara
IV ,Bn ±oey \--\ Llflb/g_nepurv
Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Raj Chahal
Debi Davis
Karen Hardy
Patricia M. Mahan
Teresa O'Neill
Kathy Wat anabe
Please see the attached Report to Council. This report was unanimously approved at the August 20, 2019 meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara.
Per California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, this report is the City of Santa Clara's response to the findings and recommendations found in the 2018-2019 Santa Clara Coun ty Civil Grand Jury Final Report, Inquiry into the Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.
In addition to the attached report I would also like to emphasize some serious concerns the City Council conveyed at the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting regarding the governance structure of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Specifically, it was emphasized that:
1. The VTA Board Chair should serve a two-year term;
2. Clarity must be given on how appointments to the VTA Board are made. Some cities, like Santa Clara, rotate appointments while others take a more political process approach;
3. The governance structure should be reviewed to increase equity, thereby ensuring the needs of all communities, regardless of size, are met.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
City of Santa Cima
Enclosure
Cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Mayor and Council Offices • 1500 Warburton Avenue • Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone (408) 615-2250 • Fax (408) 241-6771 • www.santaclaraca.gov 19-834
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@S antaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 8/20/2019
Action on the City's Response to the June 2019 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Inquiry into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority"
BACKGROUND
The Santa Clara County Grand Jury ("Grand Jury") initiated an investigation of the governance of the Valley Transportation Authority ("VTA") and on June 13, 2019, the Grand Jury transmitted a letter to the City along with a report (Report) entitled "Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority" (Attachment 1).
California Penal Code § 933(c) requires that a governing body of a particular public agency or department, which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report 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.
As stated in Penal Code§ 933.05(a), the City of Santa Clara's governing body is required to "Agree" or "Disagree," in whole or in part, with each applicable Finding. To be clear, the options for the response to Findings are:
1. Agree in Whole
2. Partially Agree
3. Disagree in Whole
4. Partially Disagree
As stated in Penal Code § 933.05(b), the City of Santa Clara's governing body is required to respond to each applicable Recommendation with one of four possible actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the possible 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; or,
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 5 Printed on 8/14/2019
po•Nereci b'I Legist.2.r•'..1
19-834 Agenda Date: 8/20/2019
The City 's responses to the Civil Grand Jury 's Findings and Recommendations are due to the Office of the Presiding Judge , Santa Clara County Superior Court , no later than September 16, 2019.
Approval of this report satisfies the requirements of Penal Code§ 933(c ), which requires the City Council to respond to the Civil Grand Jury report no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury subm its its final report to the presiding judge of the Superior Court.
DISCUSSION
This section provides additional information included within the Report, as well as a proposed response to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations based on the July 15, 2019 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting discussion and input.
The VT A is an independent special district created by the California legislature in 1972. Initially, the County Board of Supervisors provided direct oversight of the VTA ; however , effective January 1, 1995, the VTA began operating under a Board of Directors composed of elected officials from throughout the County. City staff has enjoyed a positive working relationship with VT A staff for many years and regularly coordinates with them on items such as projects, grants , operations and Measure B funding.
The Report mentions that, according to the Civil Grand Jury, the VTA has been plagued by declining operating performance and recurring budget gaps between projected revenues and expenses despite significant population growth and employment levels throughout much of Silicon Valley. The Report also references past County Civil Grand Jury reports from 2003-2004 and 2008-2009, that in summary concluded the operating performance of the VT A compared unfavorably to peer organizations; the VTA Board had not effectively managed VTA finances, resulting in substantial structural financial deficits ; and, that a root cause of this performance was the governance structure of the VT A Board.
The 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury initiated the most recent VTA investigation on August 15, 2018, and concluded it on May 29, 2019 . The investigation primarily focuses on issues stemming from the past reports , such as the VTA Board of Directors structure ; the overs ight of VTA 's operating and financial performance ; the handling of VT A's structural deficit ; and VT A's ability to address complex challenges as it confronts the future of transportation in Silicon Valley . The Civil Grand Jury carried out its investigation through the following methods:
• Conducting site visits to VTA offices and other facilities ; • Utilizing the transit system including light rail and buses ; • Interviewing numerous individuals , including past Board members , committee members , personnel, stakeholders , and city and County government officials ; • Reviewing governing documents from the California Public Utilities Code, VTA Administrative Code , and VTA Board and committee meeting documents;
• Reviewing past Civil Grand Jury reports , as well as reports from the California State Auditor and several others ;
• Conducting comparisons of operating and financial performance to other transit organizations ; and
• Attend ing or reviewing regularly scheduled meetings of the VT A Board and committees .
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 5 Printed on B/14/2019
powered by L~gistar~.-.,
19-834 Agenda Date: 8/20/2019
The Report concluded with a list of five findings which included Recommendations under each Finding (Attachment 2). On June 18, 2019, the Civil Grand Jury transmitted a letter (Attachment 3) to the City Clerk referencing California Penal Code section 933 (c), which requires that a responsible governing body of a public agency subject to the reviewing authority of the Civil Grand Jury respond to the presiding judge within 90 days regarding applicable findings and recommendations in a final Report. The Civil Grand Jury has requested responses from 17 agencies, including the City of Santa Clara. Per page 47 of the Report, the Grand Jury specifically requests response from the City of Santa Clara regarding Finding 1 and Recommendations 1 c, 1 d, and 1 e.
As the report focuses on effective governance, City staff added the report to the July 15, 2019 agenda for the Governance and Ethics Committee. Councilmember Teresa O'Neill serves as bot h the City's Governance and Ethics Committee Chair and the VTA Board Chair. The draft minutes for this meeting are included as Attachment 4 and the input that was received from the City's Governa nce and Ethics Committee is included in the proposed response that, if approved , must be forwarded to Presiding Judge Deborah A. Ryan by September 16, 2019.
SECTION 1: Response to Findings and Recommendations [Penal Code§ 933(c)] Finding 1
The VT A Board, currently made up exclusively of elected officials from the Santa Clara County, Board of Supervisor, the City of San Jose and other smaller cities in the County, suffers from· - A lack of experience, continuity and leadership;
- Inadequate time for the directors to devote to their duties to the VTA Board due to their primary focus on the demands of their elected positions;
- A lack of engagement on the part of some directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulting in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization; - Domination, in terms of numbers, seniority and influence, by representatives of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and the City of San Jose; and
- Frequent tension between the director's fiduciary duties to the VTA and its regional role, on the one hand, and the political demands of their local elected positions, on the other Response to Finding 1: Per the discussion and input of the Governance and Ethics Committee , the City of Santa Clara City Council "AGREES" with Finding 1.
Recommendation 1 c
As constituent agencies of VTA, each of the cities in the County should prepare and deliver to VTA and the County Board of Supervisors a written report setting forth its views regarding VTA governance, with specific reference to the elements listed in Recommendation 1 a. These reports should be completed and delivered prior to December 31, 2019.
Response to Recommendation 1c: Per the discussion and input of the Governance and Ethics Committee, the City Council concludes that, "The recommendation requires further analysis." The City of Santa Clara Governance and Ethics Committee discussed the concept of City Council establishing an Ad Hoc Committee to convene with the purpose of reviewing this issue in more detail City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 5 Printed on 8/14/2019
Agenda Date: 8/20/2019
and preparing a written report in regard to improved VTA governance. This report could include various topics such as reviewing the governance structures of other transportation agencies , board size, terms of service , selection methods , qualification requirements and methods to ensure proportional demographic representation . This report should be completed and submitted to Presiding Judge Deborah A. Ryan by December 31 , 2019.
Recommendation 1 d
Within six months following the completion of the studies and reports specified in Recommendations 1 a, 1 b, and 1 c, the County of Santa Clara and/or one or more of VTA 's other constituent agencies , should propose enabling legislation, includ ing appropriate amendments to Sections 100060 through 100063 of the California Public Utilities Code, to improve the governance structure of VTA (which potentially could includ e an increase in the director's term of service , the addition of term limitations and the inclusion of appoint ed directors who are not currently serving elected officials).
Response to Recommendation 1d: Per the discussion and input of the Governance and Ethics Committee, the City Council concludes that "The recommendation requires further analysis." The City of Santa Clara Governance and Ethics Committee discussed this recommendation on July 15, 2019 , and questions were raised as to whether or not these types of modifications would improve the current situation with the VT A. The committee also mentioned the possibility of seeking the assistance of Assemblymember Kansen Chu to lead any future efforts associated with proposing enabling legislation, including appropriate amendments to Sections 100060 through 100063 of the California Public Utilities Code to improve the governance structure of VTA. This recommendation could also be discussed further amongst the proposed Ad Hoc Committee members and included in the report identified under the Response to Recommendation 1 c.
Recommendation 1 e
In order to provide more continuity in the leadership of the VTA Board , within six months following the complet ion of the studies and reports specified in Recommendation 1 a, 1 b, and 1 c, the County of Santa Clara and/or one or more of VTA's other constituent agencies, should propose enabling legislation amending Section 1000061 of the California Public Utilities code to provide that the Chairperson of the VTA Board shall be elected for a term of f\No years rather than one.
Response to Recommendation 1e: Per the discussion and input of the Governance and Ethics Committee, the City Council concludes that "The recommendation requires further analysis." The City of Santa Clara Governance and Ethics Committee discussed this recommendation; however, questions were raised as to whether or not these types of modifications would improve the current situation with the VT A. The Comm ittee also mentioned the possibility of seeking the assistance of Assemblymember Kansen Chu to lead any future efforts associated with proposing enabling legislation amending Section 1000061 of the California Public Utilities code to provide that the Chairperson of the VTA Board shall be elected for a term of two years rather than one. This recommendation could be discussed further amongst the proposed Ad Hoc Committee members and included in the report identified under the Response to Recommendation 1 c.
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 5 Printed on 8/14/20 19
Agenda Date: 8/20/2019
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15778(b)(5) in that is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional cost to the City other than staff time and expense.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-not ice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santacla raca .gov <mailto :clerk@ santac laraca .gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council approve this response and authorize Mayor Gillmor to submit the City's Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report to the Honorable Deborah A. Ryan, Presiding Judge , Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose , CA 95113 , no later than September 16, 2019.
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Civil Grand Jury June 13, 2019 Letter and Report
2. Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations
3. Civil Grand Jury June 18, 2019 Letter
4. July 15, 2019 Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting Minutes (Draft) City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 5 Printed on 8/14/2019
City of
Santa Clara
The Cen ter of What's Possible
September 10, 2019
The Honorable Deborah A. Ryan
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Ryan,
(ENDORSED)
F
ILE
SEP 1 6 2019 D
Clerk of the Court
~ Coun of Ctl0tmty 11an1a Clara
av ::enw~ Let b DEPUTY
Please see the attached Report to Council. This repmi was unanimously approved at the September 4, 2019 meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara.
Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Raj Chahal
Debi Davis
Karen Hardy
Pat ricia M. Mahan
Teresa O'Neill
Kathy Wata n abe
Per California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, this report is the City of Santa Clara's response to the findings and recommendations found in the 2018-2019 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "City of Santa Clara Public Records Access: The Paper Chase." In addition to the attached report I would also like to emphasize some serious concerns the City Council conveyed at the September 4, 2019 City Council meeting. Specifically, it was emphasized that:
• The lack of benchmarking that should have taken place during the investigation; • Why has the City of Santa Clara been targeted?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, ,
if:.-c:~
City of Santa Clara
Enclosure
Cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Mayor and Council Offices' 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara . CA 95050 · Phone (408) 615-2250. Fax (408) 241-6771 wv,w.santaclaraca.gov 19-981
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warbu rton Aven ue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gav
@SantaClaraCity
Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
Action on the City's Response to the 2018-2019 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "City of Santa Clara Public Records Access: The Paper Chase"
BACKGROUND
Based on a resident complaint , the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury ("Grand Jury") initiated an investigation of the City's and Santa Clara Stadium Authority's contracting procedures (Attachment1 ).
It is important to note that the Complainant Form asks the complainant to "Please describe any previous attempts to resolve this complaint , including the agencies you contacted , and the action taken by the agencies. You may attach additional pages as necessary'' (Attachment 2). Unfortunately, the Complainant made no attempt to resolve the serious allegations against the City of Santa Clara, nor did he seek any information about public sector procurement requirements from professional staff, which are complex in nature. City staff learned about the complaint from the media articles.
Although the Grand Jury did not find any wrong doing with the contracts that were the subject of the complaint, the investigating Grand Jurors began a review of the City's procurement processes in general. The Grand Jury stated that in the course of its investigation , they changed the focus of the investigation to the City's handling of requests for records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Given the Complainant's inflammatory communications with media about the City's handling of public records, this report will contain a full discussion of the City's practices and how they comply with the law.
On June 18, 2019, the Grand Jury published a report entitled "City of Santa Clara Public Records Access: The Paper Chase" (Attachment 3). The report contained four Findings and six Recommendations that require City response by September 16, 2019. Specifically, California Penal Code§ 933(c) requires that a governing body of the public agency, or department which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report, 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 guideline s for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations. As stated in Penal Code§ 933.05(a), public agencies are required to "Agree" or "Disagree," in whole or in part, with each applicable Finding. To be clear, the options for response to Findings are: 1. Agree in Whole; 2. Partially Agree; 3. Disagree in Whole; and, 4. Partially Disagree.
Further, as stated in Penal Code§ 933.05(b), the City of Santa Clara is required to respond to each applicable Recommendation with one of four possible actions:
1. Recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action;
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 21 Printed an 9/312019
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
2. Recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future , with a timeframe for implementation;
3. 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; or,
4. Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Approval of this report satisfies the requirements of Penal Code 933(c), which requires the City Council to respond to the Civil Grand Jury report no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits its final report to the presiding judge of the Superior Court.
DISCUSSION
This section of the report provides discussion of two key categories: (1) response to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations as required by Penal Code§ 933(c) and (2) pertinent facts omitted from the Grand Jury report that would have resulted in a more balanced and factual report and clarification or commentary about the Grand Jury's approach to investigate the City's records management.
Section 1: Response to Findings and Recommendations [Penal Code§ 933(c)J Finding 1
The City does not properly respond to CPRA requests because it: (a) does not indicate if it will respond ; (b) does not respond within 10 days; (c) overutilizes the 14-day extension ; (d) invokes the need for a 14-day extension for reasons beyond those permitted in the statute; and (e) fails to provide all documentation responsive to the request.
Response to Finding 1:
The City of Santa Clara "Disagrees in Whole" with Finding #1. Below are responses to the Findings sub-pa its:
Response to Finding 1(a):
Guideline/Law -- The CPRA does not require that a public agency ''indicate if it will respond," Government Code 6253 (c) requires that the public agency determine whether there is responsive records to the request and to notify if there will be records to produce. Specifically, the CPRA only requires written response to extend beyond the ten-day period , it must do so in writing stating the reason or reasons for the extension and the anticipated date of the response within the 14-day extension period.
Pursuant to the California Government Code 6253 (c) " ... In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powered by Leg1star1 •·1
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
on which a determination is expected to be dispatched." The agency does not need the consent of the requester to extend time for response .
City Practice - Consistent with the law, and as an enhanced practice, the City recently began to use a standard response when acknowledging a public records request, which is a best practice and serves as an indication that the City will respond to the requester within the 10-day period. This standard response to the requestor is not a requirement of the CPRA; however, the City provides it as a courtesy to a requestor to immediately let them know that we are in receipt of their request for records. Specifically, the standard response states:
"Thank you for your public records request received on [insert receipt date]. The City of Santa Clara acknowledges receipt and pursuant to the California Public Records Act provides this response to your request.
The City will provid e a further response to your request on or before [insert 10 day date].
Should you have any questions or concerns, during this process, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] " Response to Finding 1(b):
Guideline/Law -- The City responds to public record requests within the 10-day period in compliance with Government Code 6253 (c): "Each Agency, upon a request for a copy of records shall, with 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disc/osable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. " City Practice -- In cases where responsive records are readily available within the 10-day period, the City provides those responsive records. In voluminous and/or more complex requests, the City provides responses on a "rolling basis." The League of California 's Cities: California Public Records Act publication entitled The People's Business, A Guide to the California Public Records Act [Revised April 2017] states (Attachment 4):
When faced with a voluminous public records request , a local agency has numerous options - for example, asking the requestor to narrow the request, asking the requestor to consent to a later deadline for responding to the req uest, and providing responsive records (whether redacted or not) on a "rolling" basis, rather than in one complete package. [Page 22]
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 21 Printe d on 9/3/2019
oowered by l eg,:it8r''·1
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/412019
As stated above, if records are available within 10 days they are released; however, if there is the need to determine if more records exist, in those specific responses the City provides an estimated date of when additional records may be available . California Government Code 6253 (b), (c) states " .. . each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records , shall make the records promptly available ... "; " ... within 10-days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disc!osable public records in the possession of the agency ... "
The League of California's Cities: California Public Records Act publication entitled The People 's Business , A Guide to the California Public Records Act [Revised April 2017] also states:
The right to access public records is not without limits. A local agency is not required to perform a "needle in the haystack " search to locate the record or records to the request ...
Nevertheless, if the request imposes a substantial enough burden , an agency may decide to withhold the requested records on the basis that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. [Page 23]
PRA Request -- Ms. Georgine Scott-Codiga submitted a CPRA on December 3, 2018. At the time of submission of the request, it was easily determined that the records request was broad and voluminous (Attachment 5) and the Assistant City Clerk sought the interest of Ms. Georgine Scott Codiga to narrow down the request during several telephone conversations between December 6 - 14, 2018. The Assistant City Clerk reported to the City Manager's Office that Ms. Scott-Codiga declined to narrow down the below request. Thus , on December 14, 2018, when it was clear that the requestor would not be narrowing the result, staff invoked the 14-day extension to compile the high volume of records. Within days the records were available for inspection , on December 19, 2019.
The requestor made an appointment at her convenience to inspect the records on December 24, 2018. Responsive to the request and in compliance with the law, albeit it appears to have been "a needle in the haystack" request, the City appropriately presented the responsive records to inspect by presenting all boxes of responsive documents .
1. All "General Services" Bids, RFPs, RFQs, for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority within the last five years in the amount of $40,000.00 or more.
2. All "General Services " contracts (excluding utility contracts) for the city of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority awarded within the last five years .
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powered by Leg,star"·'
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
3. All invoices for "General Services " contracts (excluding utility contract invoices) awarded in 2017 and 2018 for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
It is worth noting that The People 's Business , A Guide to the California Public Records Act states , " Although the law precisely defines the time for responding to a public records request for copies of records, it is less precise in the defining the deadline for disclosing the records. Because the CPRA does not state how soon a requestor seeking to inspect records must be provided access to them, it is generally assumed that the standard of promptness set forth for copies of records ." Govt Code Section 6253(b) states , "each state or local agency, upon request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall makes them promptly available. " In this case , given the voluminous amount of records requested , making them available within six business days is prompt and reasonable. While the Requestor states that she reviewed the boxes for over two hours and finally gave up, it is important to keep in mind that the City's response was completely compliant with the law and that we did seek to narrow down the request. The customer experience is not an element of complying with the law, the standard is producing the requested records as required .
Lastly, during the course of this Grand Jury review, there were three distinct public records requests.
Table 2 below, shows the dates that the records requests were submitted to the City and the timely dates of our response:
Table 2: Summary of Grand Jury PRA Requests and City's Date of Response Public Records Request City Date of Response
CPRA #1 by the Civil Grand December 19, 2018
Jury December 3, 2018
(Attachment 5a) Note: A
standard 10 response that the
City uses was not issued
because the Requester was in
constant communication , within
two days of submitting the
request, and therefore there
was no need to acknowledge it
since that was already
happening.
CPRA #2 by the Civil Grand February 19, 2019 (This was a 10- Jury February 6, 2019 day Courtesy response-the 10th
(Attachment 5b) day fell on a weekend and the
next working day following a
recognized holiday was Tuesday ,
February 19)
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 21
Notes
Staff was in communication within 10 days with
the Grand Jury between December 6 - 14,
2018 to clarify and narrow request, with no
success. As a result, the City appropriately
invoked a 14-day extension to compi le and
gather all responsive records and had them
available by December 19, 2018. An
appointment was scheduled for the Grand Jury
to review the documents on December 24,
2018, at a time appropriate for the Requestor.
This request was very voluminous and could
have fallen under "the needle in the haystack"
reference.
The Grand Jury visited City Hall a few days
after submitting their 2nd CPRA to check on the
status. On February 19, staff provided a
response that records would be released on
February 20, 2019. On February 21, 2019 staff
responded by "producing 1 O out of 15 unique
requests to the Grand Jury and continued to
produce records thereafter . Staff informed the
Grand Jury that additional records were
identified and would anticipate releasing the
last five requests on March 1, 2019.
Printed on 9/3/201 9
power ed by Legista r"-'
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
CPRA #3 by the Civil Grand April 10, 2019 and April 22, 2019 The Grand Jury submitted a third CPRA. Staff Jury April 3, 2019 (Attachment acknowledged receipt on Apri l 10, 2019 and 5c) communicated that respons ive records would
be available on April 22, 2019 . Staff
appropriately provided the CPRA citation for a
14-day extension with the reason that the
timeframe needed to be extended.
Response to Finding 1(c-d):
Guideline/Law -- The Government Code 6253 (c), which states:
In unusual circumstances , the time lim;t prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records , the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances " means the following , but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. (2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. (3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein. (4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.
City Practice -- The City utilizes the 14-day extension only as allowed by the California Public Records Act {CPRA) and responses explicitly state the reason for the extension for each request.
The City's process in invoking the 14-day extension is in compliance with the Government Code 6253 (c).
PRA Request -- The Grand Jury's use of the word "overutilizes" the 14-day extension is subjective.
As noted in Table 2, the City used the 14-day extension, with the proper citation, for CPRA #1 and #3 was used . The Grand Jury Report contains no analysis of the City's overall responses to records requests and draws conclusions based on their limited three requests , ignoring the hundreds of other requests that are administered. The 14-day extension is relative to the statutory requirement to respond to the request. The legal standard for actually providing records is "promptness" . How promptly the City provides records depends on many factors including: the broadness and complexity of the request itself, how the City keeps and indexes the records being sought, the physical nature of City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 21 Printed on 9/3/201 9
powe red by Leg ,starH-•
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
the records and their location, and the human resources that the City has available when the request is received relative to the other public records requests that are being made at the same time . The City can only do what it can do with the resources that it has available to perform the request/tasks.
In instances where there are a large number of requests seeking a large number of records under circumstances where the records are not easily located or retrievable , the City will respond with "rolling" batches of records (which is compliant with the law and referred to as an acceptable practice by the League of California Cities: The People's Business, A Guide to the California Public Records Act). In other words , the City provides responsive records when they become available. Other jurisdictions also take this approach when faced with similar situations and believe it to be in compliance with the CPRA. As a reference, staff is providing another example of when the 14-day extension was invoked and how the City documents the CPRA exemption (Attachment 6).
Response to Finding 1(e): The City complies with its legal duty to provide all records responsive to the requests that are made, as noted in the City's responses to Findings 1 (a-d). Although the current process is manually driven and is staff resource intensive , the City does in fact go through an extensive , coordinated and often cross-departmental search process for responsive records and releases records as they become available and deemed responsive . It is not unusual for the City to release records in multiple batches and the City advises a requestor if more records may be available and whether more time is needed. This is an action permissible within the CPRA and legally compliant. The CPRA does not require a public agency to produce all records at once or within 10 days. In those cases where the City does not possess responsive records, it is communicated with the requestor promptly that the City has no responsive records, per Government Code Section 6253 ( c).
Note: Over the past weeks, the City has been inundated with hundreds of new unique records requests. During this time, both the Public Records Manager and the primary legal staff person have departed City employment and two voluminous records requests were addressed outside of the 10-day requirement , albeit we responded to both.
Recommendation 1
The City should train staff responsible for responding to CPRA requests to timely indicate if the City will respond to the request and, further , only invoke the 14-day extension where permissible.
Response to Recommendation 1: The Recommendation has been implemented. Well before the Grand Jury report was issued, the City had established a set of actions to achieve a modern and less decentralized service model, detailed later in this report . For example , on March 8, 2019, a joint workshop was held for Agenda Coordinators and Public Records Liaisons from each department to review the agenda management process and public records process . In addition , there were trainings offered on August 5 and 7, 2019 to review the public records process prior to the August 13, 2019 user training for the new NextRequest software, which is anticipated to launch in mid to late October 2019. At these trainings, the California Public Records Act was reviewed in detail, including the 1 O day requirements, as well as the 14-day permissible extension parameters .
Finding 2
The City lacks a written policy to guide staff in responding to CPRA requests in a manner that complies with the law.
In Response to Finding 2: The City of Santa Clara "Disagrees in Whole." The City has had a City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powe red by Lcg1star-:-:.,
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
written policy for staff to respond to CPRA requests , compliant with the law, since June 1999. The City of Santa Clara's practices are supported by key actions taken at the policy , administrative /operational , and legal level:
(1) City Council Policy Manual - This document has been updated significantly over the past 18 months , and frequently reviewed by the Governance Committee for full City Council action. In fact, in 2017 the City Council approved a City Council Policy #046 titled "MA YOR AND COUNCILPUBL!C RECORDS POLICY " (Attachment 7) to manage its compliance with recent court actions and best practices with public records management. (2) City Manager Directives - The administrative policies for the City of Santa Clara are managed through the City Manager Directive-Procedures (CMD) process which provide instructions to the organization to direct procedures , practices and policies. The Grand Jury report fails to acknowledge GMO #13, dated July 23, 2003, and titled "PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS ," (Attachment 8) which specifically provides instructions to the organization on how to respond to public records act requests .
(3) City Attorney Advice - Following court rulings relative to public records , the City Attorney regularly provides advice with respect to developments and changes in responding to public records requests.
As mentioned above , former Administrations failed to keep current the CMD administrative policies.
CMD #13 will be updated to reflect new practices and procedures once NextRequest is implemented and observed for six months and further updates will be done or as needed based on other changes.
Note: For FY 2019/20 , as part of its reforms , the Council approved funds for the City Manager to hire a consultant to review the CMD policies and advise on which CMOs required updating. With focus on updating the Council Policy Manual, staff decided to outsource this work to accelerate modernizing CMDs that require amendment .
Recommendation 2
The City should create and implement a written policy, by October 31, 2019 , to guide City staff in complying with the CPRA.
In Response to Recommendation 2: The Recommendation has been implemented and the City has been compliance since June 1999. As noted above , the City of Santa Clara has two policies related to public records :
1. CMD-Procedure #13 entitled "Public Records Requests ", which has been in place since June 1999. This policy is being updated to reflect new practices and procedures ; and
2. City Council Policy #046 entitled "Mayor and Council Public Records Policy", effective since 2017 .
Finding 3
The City's disorganized record keeping and lack of a functional records management system hinders its ability to timely and accurately comply with CPRA requests . Although the City purchased records and CPRA management systems 18 months ago, it has yet to implement those systems.
Response to Finding 3: The City of Santa Clara "Disagrees in Whole." Again, the Grand Jury City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
uses a subjective term to characterize the City's records management.
In fact, this characterization was the source of a lengthy discussion during the "Exit Interview" when staff expressed several times that the records management is more accurately characterized as manual (with some records digitized) , decentralized , and, as a result, inefficient. The Grand Jury emphasized , during that conversation, that unilaterally focusing on Santa Clara's practices would serve as an example to encourage other cities to change because they would not want a similar Grand Jury report issued about them .
A simple benchmarking exercise would have yielded important contextual information about how other cities manage their records. The City requested that the Grand Jury benchmark to better inform how the City of Santa Clara compares to other regional cities. They declined to add that information to their investigation. City staff completed said benchmarking and, in Section 2, Figure 1: Volume Benchmarking of Public Records Requests , illustrates that the City of Santa Clara is like other regional local governments with both a combination of manual and digitized records maintenance, such as: Cupertino , Fremont , Milpitas, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. Unfortunately, the Grand Jury did not think that it was important to benchmark our records management practices to understand whether they are common or not, which would have informed a more accurate Finding because each is similar to Santa Clara (except for volume of requests).
It is important to note that the manual method of records management does not mean that the City cannot locate records or is disorganized ; however, it does mean that it takes longer and requires much more staff resources. However, new technologies offer and allow for more efficient uses to better the public , which the City is fully engaged in implementing but, as it is well known, new software systems cannot be implemented without first preparing an organization for the change.
City staffs work has been very focused on modernizing systems that better serve the public, promote transparency, and advance modern administrative practices . Within the context of much change in these areas , the City has been able to timely and accurately respond to CPRA requests and has been working on various process improvements over the course of the last 18 months that directly prepare for the NextRequest implementation. It is a well-known practice in information technology software implementation, that organizational readiness and business processes need to be stabilized to accept new technology. Below is a summary of some of the major efforts taken over the past 18- months to advance the organization in a more efficient public records management process and prepare it for greater use of digitized records systems (Attachment 9):
1) Resolved Financial Deficit -- Achieving financial stability for the City enabled the addition of a Procurement Manager, Contracts Manager, and Public Records Manager which are all core to improved records management. In January 2018, when the City Manager first surfaced this matter before the Council, had the budget deficit not been resolved, there would have been no opportunity to add resources needed to resolve service areas. In fact, faced with a $46 million deficit , the City would have been facing the preservation of other core services, beyond records process improvements . (Timeframe = October 2017 - June 2018 for FY 2018/19 and July 2018 - July 2019 for FY 2019 /21 )
2) Implemented a Council Agenda Management System (Granicus) -- Within the City Manager's first 90 days, action was taken to prepare the organization for the implementation of Granicus because it was deemed the software system that would achieve the most significant City of San ta Cl ara Page 9 of 21 Print ed 011 9/3/2019 poweraci by Leg,;tar-··•
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
impact of advancing the City's records management (i.e. , establish a workplan , communicate workplan, establish and schedule user training for many departmental report writers , establishing new report writing formats and requirements, Council approval of a new agenda format, Council approval of action minutes, implementation of software , testing of software while concurrently maintaining both agenda production systems , and resolving glitches that naturally surface during this process). Granicus is a system that supports City Council (and Boards and Commissions) agenda management , from agenda development phase to minute production.
With the implementation of this software system , the City made a significant leap with archiving reports , resolutions, ordinances , minutes , agendas , and attachments to reports for transparency and quick public access to these records . (Timeframe = October 2017 - March/April 2018) 3) Implemented a Log to Track CPRA Requests- Given the high volume of records requests, to support the Council and organization with informed decision making and workload management, the City began collecting data of CPRA requests and has observed the upward trend of more frequent and complex records requests . This data helps with understanding the CPRA request activity. Data analytics in this area of public service was not previously periormed in prior years/decades, January 2019 was the first time that CPRA data was reported. (Timeline = ongoing )
4) Council Policy Manual - At the Governance Committee meeting of April 10, 2017 , the Committee unanimously recommended the approval of a Mayor and City Council Public Records Policy, particularly with the recent court case Smith v. San Jose relating to public records on both private and public accounts pertaining to the conduct of public business . The Council adopted a resolution to approve the Mayor and City Council Public Records Policy #046 on May 16, 2017. (Timeframe = April - May 2017)
5) Relocate Significant Amount of Public Records for Proper Storage - The Council acknowledges that we are short on workspace for employees . With the addition of the above referenced staff, space was needed for them to work. Additionally , the former City Clerk stored the City's archives in a room in City Hall that did not support the proper storage requirements for City archives, and they were at risk of water, or other forms of, damage. This put the City's records at risk of rotting and destruction. Recognizing that this was not a best practice, the Administration acted to properly store the records at a facility that provides the proper storage conditions for our valuable City archives. This action opened space for the new employees and this action alone was a tremendous effort and advancement for records management. (Timeframe =September-October 2018)
6) Establish Funding, Job Description, Recruit, and Hire a Public Records Manager - Public sector employment requires that a new job description/classification be coordinated with the relevant bargaining unit and approved by the City Council. The City Council approved the Public Records Manager job description on June 26, 2018 . Through resolving the financial deficit , the City was able to fund this position in July 2018. Upon approval of the classification, the City posted the position on September 6, 2018, after completing "meet and confer" labor requirements for the proposed job descriptions, and a job offer was made upon finalizing the interviews in early November 2018 . The Public Records Manager began work on January 14, 2019. It should be noted that it can take six to nine months to recruit and place employees . (Timeframe = February 2018 - January 2019)
7) State Law Change re Police Records (AB1421 and AB748) - Assembly Bill 1421 went into effect in January 2019, which requires Police Departments to release certain records and videos. Assembly Bill 748 went into effect on July 1, 2019 , which will now require the Police Department to release body camera video of shootings within 45 days.
City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
Police Departments from throughout California received CPRA requests shortly after the law went into effect. The process to respond to these requests is very staff intensive and requires a coordinated effort between with the City Attorney's Office and the Police Department. The Police Department reclassified one Staff Aide position to a Records Specialist for Fiscal Year 2019/20.
The process to review one shooting case may take approximately 30 days. Given the research needed and specialty in this area, two audio/video companies have been contacted and identified to conduct the redaction function. (Timeframe: September 2018 - present) 8) Assess Department CPRA Response Processes & Establish New Practices - In order for the City to understand the needed improvements and City practices, the Public Records Manager met with Department Directors to learn about processes and areas of opportunity for improvement beginning in February. She developed a process that began establishing a less decentralized model and log system to track the City's many requests, on March 12, 2019 she joined the Assistant City Clerk in a workshop providing educational training on the agenda management process and public records process to agenda coordinators and public records liaisons for each department. (Timeframe February - April 2019) 9) CPRA Training Development and User Training - In March 2019, upon completion of #7, City staff provided an educational training workshop and provided basic training related to the CPRA that was tailored based on learning the needs of the organization. 10) Basic Public Records Management Training & Pre-NextRequest Training -- In preparation for the NextRequest launch , staff also provided basic public records management training as well as NextRequest user trainings for all public records liaisons from all departments on August 5, 7 and 13, 2019.
(Timeframe January- August 2019)
11) LaserFiche Department Director Workplan Prep - On April 8, 2019, the City Manager's Office and IT Director presented a PowerPoint presentation that contained key information about the planned implementation of Laserfiche software with key milestones outlined . The purpose of this meeting was to review the organizational needs to prepare for the implementation of this software and to hold a discussion about preparedness and workload, to anticipate how to advance this effort. This PowerPoint presentation was provided to the Grand Jury on April 5, 2019 , in advance of presenting it to the Department Directors (Attachment 10), which the Grand Jury failed to mention. Absent acknowledgement of our workplan for LaserFiche implementation, with target dates, misleads the public about our efforts. 12) Laserfiche Soft Launch-- At the above referenced meeting, it was suggested that the timeline be adjusted and that Laserfiche be prioritized. A soft launch of Laserfiche has been implemented with the City Attorney's Office to assist with work process and anticipate any implementation changes in the workplan created. It is anticipated for a broader implementation in fall 2019, which will largely begin with scanning documents, establishing user rules, and other organizational preparations that will go past December 31, 2019 (an arbitrary deadline set by the Grand Jury). Once completed, Laserfiche will allow City Departments to scan vital records to a "central repository' for enterprise records management of vital records. (Timeframe = April 2019 - Present).
13) Records Query Improvement - Given the volume of public record requests, staff has worked to provide focused and relevant search terms to the Department of Information Technology (IT) to yield more focused responsive records and to create a more efficient search of records. IT staff collaborated with the Microsoft exchange engineers to review opportunities to streamline the search results. As a result of this, the search now eliminates duplicate emails and can be provided to staff in a pdf format upon request. Prior to this effort, it was not uncommon for any City of Santa Clara Pagei1of21 Printed on 9/3/2019
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
email sweep to produce a large volume of duplicative records for review by staff.
The former City Clerk procured both Granicus and Laserfiche through a combined RFP process in FY 2016/17 and an informal process for the NextRequest sofuvare. While the Grand Jury's recommendation is solely focused on just implementing the sofuvare systems , the Grand Jury failed to recognize the resignations of key staff that occurred during that same time and its impact to implementation, coupled with the organizational needs required to be "digitized" ready (as outlined above) . It is worth noting that during the past 18 months:
• Former Assistant City Clerk resigned in December 2017 (interim staff backfilled this position) • Elected-City Clerk resigned in February 2018 (interim staff backfilled this position) • Current Assistant City Clerk started in September 2018 • Deputy City Clerk was appointed in December 2018
• Public Records Manager began in January 2019 and departed the City in August 2019 • As-needed employee began in June 2019 to support response to public records requests • Funding for a Police Records staff position to comply with new laws Based on the significant staff transitions , the Administration needed to assess and ensure that the software systems were best matched for the goals of the organization while stabilizing staff resources and responding to the growing number of requests. The Administration quickly identified the need to implement the Agenda Management System (Granicus), which enhanced transparency and made it easier for the public to access public records. It also allowed for video streaming of Council meetings and provided the closed caption feature along with the visual display of the live vote during a meeting . Following implementation of Granicus , NextRequest was temporarily put on hold to focus on the smooth transition to Granicus, which enables greater levels of transparency with City records and data and strengthen staff resources. NextRequest preparation and implementation was re-instituted in Spring 2019 and is scheduled to launch in Fall 2019. Now, the City is working towards milestones for achieving the implementation of Laserfiche which will eventually modernize document repository and production processes along with records management, work flow processes, and transparency .
As with Granicus , the Administration must prepare for the system implementation with training and all the change management to completely implement citywide .
The above detailed outline shows that the City has not wasted the past 18 months, rather completed significant baseline processes that needed to complete to prepare the organization for increased "digitized " system implementation . It appears that the Grand Jury members based their Findings and Recommendations on a series of actions related to their three CPRAs (ignoring the 100+ records requests that we compliantly address at once), including appropriately providing a volume of contracts in storage boxes in response to the first public records request. As a reminder , for example , the Grand Jury's first CPRA requests were voluminous and likely a "needle in the haystack" request , and were as follows :
1) All "General Services " Bids, RFP's, RF Q's for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority within the last five years in the amount of 40,000 .00 or more ; 2) All "General Services" contracts (excluding utility contracts) for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority awarded within the last five years; 3) All invoices for "General Services" contract (excluding utility contract invoices) awarded in 2017 and 2018 for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 21 Printed on 913/2019
powered by Le91su:v1 ':•
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
While a computerized system would provide a quicker and faster response and would have the ability to drill down to search for a specific type of contract, the production of said storage boxes was entirely responsive and compliant with the law. As mentioned , the City coordinated this response based on the City Attorney's recommendation to provide expedited documents to the Grand Jury for their inspection.
Like other municipalities that do not have a computerized system or digitized records , the process is more staff resource intensive and manual. At the time, staff attempted to work with the Grand Jury to narrow the request in order to provide the exact documents sought. Because the City does not index or file contracts based upon contract amount it did not have records responsive to the Grand Jury's request, so it produced all contracts from the relevant time period for the Grand Jurors to examine.
This is completely responsive and compliant with the law; however, recognizing the magnitude of produced documents, staff continued to offer assistance to the Grand Jury and seek clarification about their request.
Last, the Grand Jury's Finding does not recognize that the organization cannot just implement two software systems on top of an inefficient business process and without first improving them. For software systems to be successfully implemented in a large organization, with staff distributed in various locations throughout the City, it is important to establish workplans and sequencing of milestones to advance the overall goal. Had the Grand Jury inquired about how the past 18 months were utilized, they would have been able to acknowledge the above required milestones that were needed to launch the NextRequest system this Fall 2019 , and the steps being implemented for Laserfiche.
The City disagrees in whole because as explained in the "Exit Interview," the context of their investigation matters and, by the above information, it is eas\ly to observe that the City compares equally to other cities and that the required work to implement these new systems has been well underway.
Recommendation 3a
The City of Santa Clara should implement its records management and CPRA management systems by December 31, 2019.
Response to Recommendation 3a: The recommendation has not been implemented; but is anticipated to be implemented by mid to late-October 2019. The CPRA management system , NextRequest, will be a public portal where requestors can make online records requests. Requests will either be received directly from the system or entered by staff and each request will be assigned a tracking number and will be facilitated electronically. Any and all responsive records will be uploaded, and the system will notify the requester that their records are ready for review.
Additionally, the City is in the process of implementing Laserfiche, which is a full records management program, and far more complex than NextRequest. The recommended timeline of implementation by the Civil Grand Jury for the Laserfiche records management system by December 31 , 2019 is not reasonable and that was explained to them during the close out interview. This recommendation does not consider the other city reforms, daily workload of staff to remain compliant with the CPRA, and the other 33 software system upgrades and/or replacements that are City of Santa Clara Page 13 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
pov1erad by Legistarn.,
19-981
concurrently being implemented.
Recommendation 3b
Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
In the absence of an operational CPRA and records management system , the City of Santa Clara should create and immediately implement interim procedures to comply with the CPRA.
Response to Recommendation 3b: The recommendation has been implemented. The City is currently using a manual logging system to keep track of its incoming public record requests and is transitioning to NextRequest by mid to late-October 2019 .
Finding 4
The City's Public Records Manager is the only staff member trained to respond to CPRA requests, yet the records are decentralized requiring the Records Manager to rely on other staff within multiple departments to search for and obtain the documents responsive to the CPRA requests.
Response to Finding 4: The City of Santa Clara "Disagrees in Whole." While the Public Records Manager is a sole job classification, each department has one or more departmental staff assigned to coordinate the City's responses to CPRA requests. Staff relies on subject matter experts to respond accurately to requests . As shared with the Grand Jury members, the City has several staff members who are trained, equipped and have the professional experience and ability to assist and support the City's public records response process. To serve in the best way possible , the City recognizes that having staff in various areas and expertise levels, who are involved in the process for public records , increases its ability to fully respond to public records requests.
The position of Public Records Manager cannot serve as a subject matter expert in every department to identify all responsive records to a request and, accordingly , as a long-standing practice , the City has had multiple staff within its departments trained on responding to CPRA's . The Public Records Manager 's work is to ensure consistency with response methodologies, support the system development , prepare for the various required trainings with this change management of the entire organization, and track requests that do not fall into one department or are more complex in nature.
Recommendation 4
The City should identify and train necessary staff on compliance with the CPRA by October 31, 2019.
Response to Recommendation 4: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Clara has trained staff. The Assistant City Clerk and the Deputy Clerk as well as key staff people in the City Manager 's Office are fully trained on the CPRA and provide guidance and assist in fulfilling public records requests. In addition , the City Attorney 's office provides legal support when necessary in responding to public records requests. In 2019, trainings with front-line staff have been held on March 12, August 5, August 7, and August 13. Additional discussions about these efforts have been held with executive staff throughout the year. Trainings are going to also be scheduled on a quarterly basts moving forward. ·
DISCUSSION
City of Santa Clara Page 14 of 2i Printed on 9/3/20 ·1 9 19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
SECTION 2: Contextual Background, Benchmarking, and Commentary of the Grand Jury's Report and Method
The following section provides more contextual information regarding the public records management process and the engagement with the Grand Jury from December - June 2019 which led to the Grand Jury Report. This section is organized as follows:
1. Context of Driving Overall City and Public Records Reforms
2. Benchmarking Data that the Grand Jury Failed to Provide
3. Characterizations and City's Response
1. Context of Driving Overall City and Public Records Reforms During the period of January through June 2018, against the backdrop of a looming $46M+ three fiscal year deficit (for the period underway to plan for a two-year budget process), the City Manager and City Council agreed that the highest order of priority was to stabilize the City's unfavorable fiscal outlook, preserve service levels and avoid hundreds of lay-offs, and develop a revenue strategy to raise funds needed for critical high risk administrative processes. The City Council agreed with this strategy and embarked on a period of reforms. It should be noted that many Councilmembers at the January 2018 Goal and Priority Setting session made comments about how this was the first time that they had heard these details about the state of the organization and high- risk administrative practices. It is unknown why past City Managers failed to make public these high-risk conditions or work to mitigate/resolve the projected deficit, as they pose significant adverse impacts to the City's functioning and financial future.
The Grand Jury's observations of public records management are not new, nor has this topic been ignored by the City. In fact, within her first 90 days on the job, City Manager Deanna Santana presented at the City Council Priority Setting Session in January 2018, her assessment of the state of the organization and reported publicly to the City Council on her findings of the high-risk administrative processes that require attention . Unfortunately , because other high-risk administrative processes existed, staff was strategic in its ability to drive change in many high-risk areas of service.
Within many high-risk areas of service, three relevant areas were: procurement practices, contracts management, and public records management. One of the City Manager's recommendations was that the City needed to improve its management of the City's public records process, as well as the need to add resources to this decentralized system that was found to be inefficient. In fact, as reported earlier in this report, the City began to implement reforms immediately related to the public records process. As previously noted, Attachment 9 is a visual of the many efforts taken over the last 18-months related to public records and transparency measures, specifically.
Additionally, at that January 2018 meeting, the City Manager commented that the Administration was making significant advancements with implementing Granicus, the City's agenda management solution, which would catapult the City's records management and improve transparency at once.
Use of the Granicus software was strategically selected as the first milestone for advancing public records management because it would immediately modernize the extremely manual process used City of Santa Clara Page 15 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powered by Legista1m
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
to produce all legislative documents related to a City Council agenda (along with Boards and Commissions ). Indeed, the Administration was successful with moving on the implementation of Granicus during the first half of 2018.
Concurrently , staff began aggressively reviewing each fund and line item expenditures of the City budget. By June 2018, City staff was able to balance the budget , reducing the deficit from $8.6 million to $1 million , and propose the addition of three key positions relevant to the Grand Jury's investigation : Procurement Manager , Contracts Manager, and Public Records Manager. For Fiscal Year 2018-19 , the City Council added a Public Records Manager position to assist with improving our public records management and improve coordination in a decentralized model. The position was filled in January 2019 . Had staff not prioritized this effort, there would have been layoffs and no possibility of bringing in the required resources to support the reforms required to correct high-risk administrative processes. This action cannot be ignored in the context of the City 's ability to implement new software and other accomplishments.
In January 2019, at the annual Goal and Priority Setting Session , the City Manager expressed that Granicus was now the new norm, while also providing data on the growing number of public records requests and how the lack of resources made it difficult to concurrently respond to public records requests while leading the effort to implement vital software to modernize the practices , such as NextRequest and Laserfiche .
Thus, the context for understanding the state of public records management within the City of Santa Clara must be factored into the City's response to the Civil Grand Jury report. These include:
• Significant projected deficits (est. $46+ million) that , under this scenario , must focus on is financial security;
• Plagued with several high-risk administrative processes due to failure to correct or modernize in the past;
• Workload overwhelmingly exceeds the staffing resources and where new initiatives continue due to need or opportunity ;
• Staff resignations or recent hires within this service area that cause for disruption in stabilizing workplans;
e Failure to modernize its informational technology systems and is now faced with needing to implement 34 systems to continue service delivery and modernize systems ; and, • Like all Silicon Valley cities where unemployment is 1.9%, that is challenged with recruitment and retainment due to competing with private sector compensation and the high cost of living , rendering cities to commonly recruit from other cities and delayed recruitment processes due to the precedent setting low unemployment rate.
In summary , the City has continuously acknowledged that the manual, inefficient, decentralized state of the City's records management presents some challenges. However , a decentralized and inefficient manual system does not render it out of compliance with the law , as concluded in the Grand Jury report. Indeed , the facts and context in this report demonstrate that the City has been well-aware of administrative processes that past Administrations failed to address: unfortunately, resources do not exists sufficiently to address all of them at once and, as a result, the City continues to deliver high quality service, take on strategic efforts, and drive reforms within our very limited set of resources .
City of Santa Clara Page 16 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
2. Benchmarking Data on Public Records
At the January 2019 session mentioned above, the City Manager also provided, for the first time , data that revealed the volume and quantity of CPRA requests during the 2018 calendar year which estimated approximately 1300+ public records requests received (including public safety request for information) . As with many California municipalities, the City also experienced a significant increase in CPRA requests.
This trend did not stop in early 2019. In the first 90 days of 2019, the City received CPRA requests at the rate of more than 25 per month (this does not include the sub-record requests, nor does it include some departments that are still handling their own requests such as Police and Fire). The majority of these public record requests are not just a single record request, rather multiple records requested and complex in nature, which requires a large workload to assemble and review (100s - 1,000s of documents to review prior to releasing).
The professional observations of staff are that the City of Santa Clara receives more records requests than other surrounding cities were validated by the City efforts to benchmark this activity. It is worth noting that the City of Santa Clara has multiple professional staff in this field of professional work that have served these cities and, in some cases , as City Clerks with extensive public records training. For example, the Assistant City Manager charged with oversight facilitated records requests in San Jose and served as Fremont's City Clerk. The Assistant City Clerk served as Deputy City Clerk in San Jose, and East Palo Alto and as City Clerk in Tracy, and Saratoga (which were not benchmarked) . The City Manager served as Interim City Clerk in San Jose and has participated in development of Public Records Request policy development for bay area cities (both small and large).
Lastly, despite the City staff's request to the Grand Jury to benchmark Santa Clara against other cities and its failure to include this informative data, the City took the time to conduct that work so that the City could understand how Santa Clara compares to our regional neighbors. Table 2 provides a summary of the results.
Table 3: Benchmarking of Pubic Records Requests
CITY POPULATION RECORDS DIGITlZED #ofMONTHL\' #o f ANNUAL
REQUESTS REQUESTS
Cupertino 58,302 Many records but not all are digitized 10-12 Over 100 Fremont 234,962 Some records, not all are digitized 25-30 300 + Milpitas 78.106 INo records are digitized +/-5 +/-55-60 Mountain 76,260 Some records, not all records are digitized Varies, average o Approx. 407 View 34
Sunnyvale 153,655 Some records, not all; Implementation of an 5 Approx. 60 Electronic Management System in 2020
planned
Santa Clara 127,134 Some records, but not all are digitized - 100/rnonlh 1300 (20 l 8 numbers including public safety) .. Note: Duong the course of the wntmg this report, the City was respondmg to 282 unique records requests. Within four days, the City brought down the open unique records requests to 168. The data demonstrate how quickly the City responds to its high volume of records requests
City of Santa Clara Page 17 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powered by Ley1star 1 '•1
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
This benchmarking data shows that Santa Clara is:
• An outlier with respect to its high volume of public records requests, when compared to like- regional cities, and not by a small amount; and,
• We are very much like other cities in that some records are digitized, but not all records are digitized.
3. City's Engagement with the Grand Jury
Table 4; Characterizations and City's Response
# Characterization Report Response
Page#
i "However, the 1 Oi 8-2019 Santa 3 Staff has acknowledged that the public records system is Clara County Civil Grand Jury found manua l, inefficient and requires less decentra lization, but this the City's recordkeeping to be does not render it disorganized . As noted throughout this disorganized and its staffing levels report, the manual (and in some cases digitized) records inadequate to process CPRA management does not impair the City's ability to be compliant requests in compliance with the with the CPRA, but it does require more staff intensive requirements of the law." processes. The Benchmark data shows that Santa Clara is no different from surrounding cities .
2 "The Grand Jury found that 3 The response time to provide responsive public records is obtaining public records from the compliant with the CPRA, as is noted in the above report. The City is a time-consuming and difficult time it takes to respond is often dependent on the manne r in chore." which files are stored and the magnitude of the request received . The City has not denied that the process is manual (with only some digitized docu ments), decentra lized, and inefficient, but it is compliant with the law. Additional ly, the City's practice is similar to surrounding cities, except for the higher volume, and there are opportunities to improve. It is worth noting that the City did ask the Requestor to narrow the request to better serve the Requester . In fact, when
presented with all of the responsive boxes full of documents for CPRA #1 , the Assistant City Clerk offered again if she was looking for a specific set of records . City staff is in practice of working with Requestors to assist them with identifying records, when the CPRA is overly broad of the inquiry is unclear.
3 "The Grand Jury encountered non- 3 The Grand Jury made three records requests : one on compliance by the City in response December 3, one on February 6, and one on April 3. to its CPRA requests. Regarding all three requests, the City provided responsive Noncomp liance with CPRA included records in compliance with the CPRA . The City may not have non-responsive replies to the provided records all at the same time, but they were always in requests , invalid excuses for communicat ion with the Grand Jury and provided records on a extensions of time, and incomplete ''rolling" basis-which is entirely compliant with the law. This is document production. " a common practice to provide responsive records when handling a complex and voluminous records needed to be
gathered , reviewed/assemb led that is compliant to
Government Code section 6253 (c).
City of Santa Clara Page 18 of2 1 Printed on 9/31201 9
powerecl by Legis1ar;'· 1
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
4 "The City acknowledged its 3 This City specifically stated that the system was manual, recordkeeping system was inefficient, and resource intensive. The report outlines in disorganized and in need of detail how City staff has used the past 18 months . The City improvement, but the City did not Manager also released to a Grand Jury member, a have an interim solution. The City's PowerPoint that was presented to the Executive Team on Apri progress towards implemen tation of 8, 2019 the detailed timel ines for both NextRequest and an existing recordkeeping software Laserfiche (see Attachment 10). It is unknown why the Grand has been without a sense of Jury did not acknowledge the PowerPoint workplan in its urgency." report, which provides supporting information that the City does have a plan.
5 "Closure of city offices other than 6 Government Code section 6253(a) of the CPRA makes it clear for recognized holidays does not that inspection of records is available during the office hours of extend or excuse compliance with the state or local agency. Staff advised the Grand Jury of City the time for response under the Hall's closure because the 14-day deadline fell within that time CPRA." (December 28, 2018), but provided the Grand Jury with a response well before the 14-day extension deadline. The Grand Jury visited City Hall on December 24 to inspect
responsive records.
6 "After searching through the boxes 7 If the Grand Jury is referring to the Banner and Singer for two hours, the Grand Jury was Contract, those two contracts were in fact in the boxes that unable to find the documents it was twere provided to the Grand Jury for inspection (as well as seeking . This was surprising since available on the City's website ). At that time, the Grand Jury the Grand Jury had previously did not specifically ask for these two contracts or narrow the obtained copies of several of the request to them when asked to if the voluminous request could requested documents from other be narrowed. Had the Grand Jury narrowed down their request sources." for a specific contract , rather than for all contracts over many years , City staff could have easily and timely responded . The Grand Jury's broad request played a role in the way the City responded.
7 "City staff was unresponsive to 7 This is misleading and in fact the attached emails serve as multiple requests to meet, forcing proof that the City Manager was responsive to meeting the Grand Jury to seek legal requests of the Grand Jury. As noted in the attached emails assistance to facilitate the (Attachment 11 ), there were other large-scale priorities that interviews." had to be balanced on her calendar. Scheduling was completed accordingly to the work load requirements and their characterization is subjective and does not consider another City priorities. Their statement that they were "forced" to seek legal assistance is their own prerogative and improperly characterizes the City's efforts to properly schedule a meeting as if we were reluctant or resistant to meeting. That is absolutely not the case, as evidenced by the supporting emails. The Grand Jury also met individually with the Public Records Manager on March 26, 2019 and on May 28, 2019
met with the following staff: City Attorney Doyle, City Manager Deanna Santana , Purchasing Manager Giovannetti , Assistant City Manager Nader, and Public Records Manager Davis. In short , the City was very responsive to the Grand Jury's meeting requests.
City of Santa Clara Page 19 of 21 Printed on 9/3120 19
powered Dy Legistarn1
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
8 "Due to the City's non- 8 As noted prev ious ly in this report, the City was responsive and responsiveness to its CPRA provided all responsive records to the three different CPRA requests after three months , the requests. It should also be noted , as it was quoted in the Grand Jury concluded that its Mercury News published on October 3, 2018 "The Grand Jury investigation had become futile. ind icates that people shou ldn't file citizen complaints unless Accordingly, the Grand Jury they have exhausted other attempts to resolve any issues. But changed the focus of its Becker said he had been unable to get the city to review his invest igation to the City's concerns." (Attachment 1 ). Neither the City Manager nor the compliance with the CPRA." City Attorney were contacted by the Comp lainant 9 "The Grand Jury learned that the 9 Once again, as noted in the report, the City has advanced City had been trying for over 18 many efforts over the past 18-months (see Attachment 9). The months to implement a records City Manager also released to a Grand Jury member , an management system and had advanced PowerPoint that was presented to the Executive procured two software systems: Team on Apri l 8, 2019 that noted the goals and the timelines Laserfiche, a records management for the implementation of Laserfiche and NextRequest (see system to track records; and !Attachment 10) . Unfortunately , the Grand Jury chose to NextRequest, a software system suppress acknowledgement of this informat ion and workplan used to trace records requests. To in its report that would have provided a more balanced date, these systems are not conclusion.
operational, and the City could not
estimate when they would be."
10 "The Grand Jury learned that the 9 As noted in the report, the Grand Jury report fails to City currently has no city-wide acknowledge CMO #13, dated July 23, 2003, and entitled process or written procedures in "PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS" which specifically provides place for complying with CPRA instructions to the organization on how to respond to public requests and that the Publ ic records act requests and City Council Policy #046 entitled Records Manager is the only CPRA "Mayor and Council Public Records Policy , effective since trained City Employee ." May 16, 2017 (see Attachment 7 and 8). As noted in the report, the City Attorney often provides Attorney
communication to the Council on new and updated legal
requirements regarding public record act requests and other pert inent laws.
11 "The City knew that the requestor 11 Government Code Section 6253 states that "Any person" may was the Grand Jury. Given the make a CPRA request." Government Code Section 6253 Grand Jury's statutory ability to states that "Any person" may make a CPRA request. No investigate and report on the City, it person has greater privilege to request records than any can be assumed that the City gave another person . The Grand Jury did not receive heightened the Grand Jury heightened attention . attention, rather the City provided the Grand Jury with the The Grand Jury is concerned same level of courtesy and customer serv ice when because it has greater access to responding to CPRA reques ts as it does with any other pub lic records than a private citizen requestor.
does, yet it had significant troub le
obtaining documents despite
multiple requests ."
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
COORDINATION
This reported was coordinated with the City Attorney's Office, the City Clerk's Office and The City Manager's Office.
City of Santa Clara Page 20 of 21 Printed on 9/312019
poweraa by Leg1starr·,;
19-981 Agenda Date: 9/4/2019
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Counci l Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City's website and in the City Clerk's Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santac laraca.gov <mailto :clerk@santaclaraca .gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council approve this response and authorize Mayor Gillmor to submit the City's Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report to the Honorable Deborah A. Ryan , Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street , San Jose, California 95113, no later than Monday, September 16, 2019.
Reviewed by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nadine Nader, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mercury news Article Published on October 3, 2018
2. Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form
3. June 18, 2019 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report ("City of Santa Clara Public Records Access: The Paper Chase.")
4. The League of California's Cities: California Public Records Act publication entitled The People's Business , A Guide to the California Public Records Act [Revised April 2017] 5a. December 3, 2018 Grand Jury CPRA Request
5b. February 6, 2019 Grand Jury CPRA Request
5c. Apri l 3, 2019 Grand Jury CPRA Request
6. Example of City Response Invoking a 14-day Extension
7. Mayor and Council Policy #046
8. City Manager Directive Procedure #13
9. City Stacked workload Diagram
10. PowerPoint for EL T - re: Laserfiche and Public Records 11 . Email Exchanges between City Managers Santana's Office and Grand Jury Member City of Santa Clara Page 21 of 21 Printed on 9/3/2019
powered by Leg1s.tar' .. ·'