City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 25, 2024

City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual

ADDING AN ITEM TO THE
AGENDA
PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to establish a clear, effective, and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, placed on the City Council agenda for consideration.

POLICY/

PROCESS FOR

CITY COUNCIL

MEMBERS
Referral from Members of the City Council in Advance of a Meeting:

After consultation with the City Manager (and/or City Attorney, as appropriate), the Mayor or any individual Councilmember may submit a written request by using the Council Item Request Form to the City Manager’s Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council agenda,.

An item may be referred to the City Manager for inclusion on a City Council agenda during a Council meeting by City Council action.

The procedure for written request from the City Council shall be as follows:

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

2. Prior to submitting a Council Item Request from, the Member shall discuss the proposed request with the City Manager (And/or City Attorney, as appropriate) to determine if City staff’s response does not satisfy the Member’s request, the Member shall submit the Council Item Request form for placement on a future City Council agenda.

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

Referrals from Members of the Council at the Council Meeting If an issue arises during a Council meeting that may require future City Council action a City Council member may also request, through a referral, that such item be agendized for future Council consideration.

Such a request may be considered by the Council following the City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Revised 10/24/2023 CP 030
Resolution No. 23-9278

City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual

POLICY/

PROCESS FOR

COUNCIL

COMMITTEES

POLICY/

PROCESS
FOR

MEMBERS
OF THE
PUBLIC
“Procedure for Handling Requests at the City Council Meeting” set forth below.

Referral from a Council Committee:

Council Committees may request that an item to be considered for inclusion on a future City Council agenda by formal committee action. Any such request shall be submitted to the City Manager in writing. Provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the City Council agenda packet the item shall be included for consideration at that City Council meeting in accordance with the “Procedure for Handling Requests at the City Council Meeting” set forth below. .

Requests from Members of the Public:

Members of the public may request that an item be added to a City Council Agenda in any of the following ways:

1. Public Presentations: Any member of the public may address the City Council under the “Public Presentations” section of the agenda to make a request of the City Council to add an item to a future meeting.

If a member of the public wishes to provide a written petition of their request prior to their appearance at a Council Meeting they may be submitted as follows:
a. Email:

City Council: [email protected]
City Manager: [email protected]
b. MySantaClara App:
www.santaclaraca.gov/services/make-a-service-request
Note: Written Petitions will not be listed on the City Council agenda, and the member must be present at the meeting to present their request.

2. Individual City Councilmembers: Members of the public may directly petition individual City Councilmembers to request that an item be added to a future Council meeting. The Councilmember may then choose to submit the request through the Council referral process outlined in this Policy, above.

3. City Manager and City Departments: Members of the public may also petition the City Manager or City staff for specific action. The City Manager and/or staff may respond, as appropriate, directly to this request, or direct the member of the public to the other methods of petitioning the City outlined above.

City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Revised 10/24/2023 CP 030
Resolution No. 23-9278

City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual

PROCEDURE

FOR HANDLING

REQUESTS AT

THE CITY

COUNCIL

MEETING

1. At the meeting where the request to add an item to a future agenda is heard, Council discussion is limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. Valid considerations that can be discussed include whether the matter is within the City’s jurisdiction, being addressed in some other way, City resource requirements, legality, timing, and prioritization.

2. Council may take the following actions when a request is made:
a. No Action.
b. Refer the request to City staff for further study and a timely report back to Council.
c. Refer the item to a future annual Council Priority Setting session meeting.
d. Placement on a future Council meeting agenda for further consideration or action.

3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. If the request requires more than thirty (30) calendar days to prepare, status updates will be provided to the City Council every sixty (60) days as an informational memo.

References
10/27/2020 Revised, Resolution No. 20-8895
Attachments: Council Item Request Form
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible

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

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

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

Reference: Council Policy 030 – Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 23-9278
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Resolution/Council Policy 030 Page 1 of 2
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-9278

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY 030 ENTITLED “ADDING AN ITEM
ON THE AGENDA”
WHEREAS, amending the policy on adding an item on the agenda will establish a clear, effective and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items, within the jurisdiction of the City Council; WHEREAS, the amended “Adding an Item on the Agenda” policy updates the process for referral from the Members of the City Council and updates the procedure to include consultation with the City Manager and/or City Attorney as part of the procedures; and, WHEREAS, the amended policy also updates the process in which members of the public have options to include items for consideration to the City Council by participating in public presentations, by petition to individual City Councilmembers or by petition to the City Manager and City Departments for specific action; and
WHEREAS, the amended policy further clarifies the procedures to handle requests during City Council meetings where the request is heard and Council discussion is limited but actions may be made to the request; and
WHEREAS, the policy has been amended with the intention of streamlining the public meeting process while maintaining opportunities for both the public and the Council to request topics to be addressed by the City and the City Council at future meetings.

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

1. That Resolution No. 20-8895 adopting amended Council Policy 030 (“Adding an Item on the Agenda”), attached here as Attachment 1, is hereby repealed in its entirety. //
//
//

2. That Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda," attached here as Attachment 2, is hereby approved and adopted.

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

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Resolution No. 20-8895
Chahal, Hardy, Jain, and Watanabe, and Mayor
Gillmor
Becker and Park
None
None
ATTEST: ~

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

2. Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" Resolution/Council Policy 030
Rev: 7/27/2023

City of _ j~I!,\ 0~ .,,' __ '.'. · c~'C$lJNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM Santa Clara·,_
The Center of What's Possible ZfiZL1 JLJ\l I 8 PM 3: 43 The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council Mayor Lisa Gillmor, Councilmember Kathy Watanabe Contact E-mail [email protected], [email protected] Contact Phone 408-836-0313, 408-429-4440
Today's Date June 18, 2024 ----------------------------- WRITTEN REQUEST I, Mayor Lisa Gillmor & Councilmember Kathy Watanabe , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:

Please see below.

We respectfully request that this item be placed on the June 25th City Council agenda.

The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report titled "Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council", findings reveal serious dysfunction within the City Council, hindering effective governance and public engagement. Placing this discussion on a future agenda is crucial for addressing the systemic issues and restoring public trust in this governing body.

Therefore, we request that this item be added to the the July 9th, 2024 City Council agenda for a public discussion on the Grand Jury report, the findings , and possible council actions.

Reference: Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN 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
Sent via email
Santa Clara, California 95050
1500 Warburton Avenue
c/o Mr. Hosam Haggag, City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
June 12, 2024
: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Haggag:

The 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council.

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

1. each applicable Finding:

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

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

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowen, 2023-24 Presiding Judge, Superior September
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than 10, 2024. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall 2023-24
Foreperson
Karen Enzensperger
Sincerely,
(408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

Civil Grand Jury
cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023-2024 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
June 12, 2024
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES:

Santa Clara City Council

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFLICTS ................................................................................................................................. 3 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 8 City of Santa Clara ....................................................................................................................... 8 Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Measure J ........................................................................ 9 Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council ............................................................ 10 Ethics, Public Trust, and Good Governance ............................................................................ 11 California Public Records Act ................................................................................................... 13 California Fair Political Practices Commission ....................................................................... 13 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 14 INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 15 Behavior on the Dais ................................................................................................................... 16 March 2024 Primary Election .................................................................................................... 23 Fiduciary Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 26 Public Records Act Requests ..................................................................................................... 29 Ineffective Governance and Ethics Committee ........................................................................ 31 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 35 REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX 1: Statement Of Behavioral Standards................................................................ 41 APPENDIX 2: Councilmembers’ Inappropriate Behavior .................................................... 42 APPENDIX 3: League Of California Cities: Your Role As An Elected Official [excerpt from Randy Hamilton article] ............................................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX 4: Review Of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions ...... 46 APPENDIX 5: Councilmember Training List As Of June 29, 2023 ...................................... 49 APPENDIX 6: Councilmembers’ Orientation Packet – Section 2 (excerpt) ......................... 50 APPENDIX 7: July 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes Item 5..................................... 69 APPENDIX 8: Purpose And Overview Of The 2023 Charter Review Committee .............. 71 APPENDIX 9: Ethics Committee Presentation, December 4, 2023 ....................................... 73

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 10: Understanding The Role Of Ethics Commissions ........................................ 74 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 85

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

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

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB 1234 Enabling legislation enacting California
Government Code section 53235 requiring that
if a local agency gives any type of
compensation, salary, or stipend to, or
reimburses the expenses of a member of its
“legislative body” (as defined in California
Government Code section 54952), that local
agency's officials must receive two hours of
training in ethics every two years.

At-Large Election A type of election where a public official is chosen from a larger election district (city)
instead of a smaller subdistrict within that city.

Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act (California
Government Code section 54950, et seq.)
governs meetings conducted by local
legislative bodies, such as boards of
supervisors, city councils, and school boards.

California Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC)
The state commission responsible for the
impartial administration and enforcement of
the Political Reform Act, as well as informing
and assisting public officials, employees, and
candidates to comply with its provisions.

City Charter In cities where the citizens have elected to have a charter (known as charter cities), including
the City of Santa Clara, the legal document that
establishes the government structure of the city
and defines boundaries, specific powers,
functions, essential procedures, and legal
control.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Commissions Bodies made up of appointed members who are usually qualified electors in the City of Santa
Clara, but do not hold any paid office or
employment in City government, unless
otherwise noted in the City Charter. They act in
an advisory capacity to the City Council,
providing a conduit for community input on a
variety of issues and matters affecting City
residents.

Committees Bodies typically comprised of appointed
Councilmembers, City staff, and partners that
serve as an advisory body to the Santa Clara
City Council.

Institute for Local Government (ILG) A nonprofit organization that promotes cooperation among local cities and counties,
and provides education and support for local
government leaders.

Joint Powers Agreement A contract between two or more public agencies, such as a city, county, school district,
or special district (e.g., a municipal utility
authority), which allows the agencies to
cooperatively provide services or exercise
shared powers outside each agency’s normal
jurisdiction. In the case of the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority this agreement created a
separate governmental entity.

League of California Cities (League of
Cities)
An advocacy group for local government that
offers education and training programs
designed to provide California city officials
with the information, training, and resources
necessary to effectively run a municipality.

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.

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

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 Action Committee (PAC) A body organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect or defeat candidates,
or support or oppose ballot initiatives or
measures. Most PACs represent business,
labor, or ideological interests.

Political Reform Act California Government Code section 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 Political Reform Act of
1974 also regulates lobbyists’ financial
disclosure and lobbying practices.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

SUMMARY
The 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) received multiple complaints concerning the unprofessional and antagonistic behavior of specific members of the Santa Clara City Council (Council) during public meetings.

The Civil Grand Jury found that councilmembers’ behaviors reflect deep divisions, rivalry, and routine disrespect among the Mayor and Councilmembers and towards other City of Santa Clara (City) elected officials. In addition, several Councilmembers have turned public meetings into spectacles by displaying abusive and belittling behavior from the dais towards members of the public; by political grandstanding, pontificating, and digressing from City business; by exhibiting a serious misunderstanding of parliamentary procedures; and by performing outlandish antics, such as reading from a satirical cartoon book. All of these behaviors contribute to lengthy public meetings, waste staff time, hurt morale, and discourage volunteerism and public engagement.

The broken relationships among the members of the Council and the inability of Councilmembers to work together as a cohesive group have undermined the effective governance of the City. In this atmosphere, Councilmembers cannot effectively lead the community they were elected to serve.

With $600 million in unfunded infrastructure needs and fiscal year 2024-2025 projected deficits ranging from $6 million to $19.3 million annually, it is imperative that the Council collaborate to solve the City’s problems (City of Santa Clara, April 29, 2024).

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

BACKGROUND
City of Santa Clara
The City is a diverse community of more than 129,000 residents and has its own municipal electric utility, a 70,000-seat-capacity National Football League (NFL) stadium, a world-famous swim center, a convention center, a university, a community college, and an array of high-tech and Fortune 500 companies. The City is relatively small and yet has the benefit, as well as the associated costs and responsibilities, of these amenities that many larger cities do not have. It is a charter city, meaning it abides by the laws of its City Charter, a document adopted by voters, which outlines how it is governed. Any changes to the City Charter also require voter approval. This form of government allows a city to tailor its organization and elective offices by taking into account the unique local conditions and needs of the community.

Council Manager Form of Governance
The City Charter provides for a “Council Manager” form of government, meaning that the operational responsibilities assigned to the City Manager are separated from the governance and oversight responsibilities assigned to the Mayor and Councilmembers (City Charter, Section 500).

The government structure consists of an elected at-large Mayor, six elected Councilmembers who represent six distinct geographical districts, and an appointed City Manager (City Charter, Sections 600; 700.1; 800). The Mayor is recognized as the presiding officer of all council meetings and is the ceremonial head of the City (City Charter, Section 704.3). The vice mayorship rotates among the Councilmembers on an annual basis. In addition, the City has an elected City Clerk, and it is the last in California to have an elected Police Chief. Oversight of the Mayor, Councilmembers, City Clerk, and Police Chief comes from the voters. The Council Manager form of governance is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Council Manager Form of Governance
MMN&L!@ii I

41.;/11 %1•11;•

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
A current list of City Councilmembers, their districts, and their terms, is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Current Councilmember Terms
The City Manager serves as “the chief administrative officer and the head of the administrative branch of the City government” (Santa Clara City Code § 2.15.020). The City Manager prepares and administers the annual budget, and prepares and submits an end-of-fiscal-year report on the finances and administrative activities of the City. The City Manager’s powers and duties include having executive direction over the heads of all departments and the power to appoint and remove department heads. Additionally, the City Manager has the power to initiate investigations into the affairs of the City. The City Manager does not have oversight over elected officeholders or Council appointees, although they may hire a third party to investigate alleged illegal behaviors (Santa Clara City Code § 2.15.020).

The City Attorney is appointed by the Council and their duties and powers are to “represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices” (City Charter, Section 908). As appointees, both the City Manager and the City Attorney serve at the pleasure of the Council, meaning they may be dismissed by a majority vote without cause.

Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Measure J
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority) came into existence when the City created a Joint Powers Authority pursuant to voter approval of Measure Jin 2010. According to its website, the Stadium Authority “exists as a public body, separate and distinct from the City, and was established to provide for the development and operation of Levi’s Stadium” and it “is structured so that the City is not liable for the debts or obligations of the Stadium Authority” (City of Santa Clara, January 29, 2024). The Mayor and Councilmembers serve as the governing board of the Stadium Authority, with the Mayor serving as chair. Officers of the Stadium Authority include the Councilmember District First Elected
Term
Expires
Kathy Watanabe 1 November, 2016 2024
Raj Chahal 2 November, 2018 2026
Karen Hardy 3 November, 2018 2026
Kevin Park 4 November, 2020 2024
Sudhanshu “Suds” Jain 5 November, 2020 2024
Anthony Becker 6 November, 2020 2024
Lisa Gillmor Mayor November, 2018 2026

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City Manager, who serves as its executive director; the City Attorney, who serves as general counsel; and the City’s Finance Director, who serves as treasurer. The Stadium Authority owns Levi’s Stadium (Stadium) and the Stadium Authority Board (Board) and officers oversee and are responsible for its management, operations, and fiscal administration.

The Stadium and the promise of Measure J were alluring to residents and City leaders, due to the perceived benefits the Stadium would bring. The measure passed with 58% of the vote, and the San Francisco 49ers Football Company LLC (the 49ers) spent close to $4 million to support the measure. Measure J’s stated intent was to “safeguard the City's general and enterprise funds and protect City taxpayers” (County of Santa Clara, 2010). In addition, City leaders anticipated that new revenue would be generated for the City’s General Fund, new jobs would be created, and there would be dedicated community funding. Whether or not the promise has been fulfilled has come up repeatedly in heated debate at City Council meetings and many attribute the root cause of the dysfunction on the dais to these disagreements and the 49ers’ involvement in local politics.

According to Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Campaign Disclosure Statements Forms, DeBartolo Corporation & Affiliated Entities, including the Forty Niners Football Company LLC, spent over $4.5 million on the 2022 Santa Clara election. According to the City’s Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings, contributions to independent Political Action Committees (PAC) as of January 31, 2023, were as follows:
• For Councilmember Anthony Becker, mayoral campaign: Over $1.5 million. • For Councilmember Raj Chahal: Over $620,000 and over $375,000 against Chahal's opponent.
• For Councilmember Karen Hardy: Over $610,000 and over $420,000 against her opponent. • Against Mayor Lisa Gillmor: Over $1 million. (City of Santa Clara, 2024) Three 49er-sponsored PACs which supported Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal, and Karen Hardy were established on September 1, 2022. Two days after a contentious August 30, 2022, closed session vote that approved a 49er-initiated settlement agreement with the Stadium Authority, over $804,000 was deposited immediately into those accounts. Three more 49ers-sponsored PACs were established within the following two weeks of the settlement vote. The latter three PACs opposed the candidates running against Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal, and Karen Hardy. PAC information and figures can be found on the City of Santa Clara Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings. The website is clickable and searchable.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council
In the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (2022 Civil Grand Jury) Final Report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council” (see 2022 Final Report), the 2022 Civil Grand Jury found the appearance of a lack of transparency, unethical behavior, and a lack of fiduciary responsibility regarding the Stadium by five Councilmembers (City Council Voting

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Bloc). The Report found that Council meetings had “repeated instances of councilmembers behaving acrimoniously and disrespectfully toward each other, City staff, and the public.” Furthermore, it stated, “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 the City governance” (Civil Grand Jury, 2022).

The 2022 Civil Grand Jury also found that even though the City had a Government and Ethics Committee made up of Councilmembers, the committee had not met for an entire year and no enforcement mechanism of the City’s ethics guidelines existed other than self-policing.

Additionally, the Report stated that Councilmembers had voted in a closed session to end a thirdparty investigation into themselves. The Report recommended that the City create a procedure that would enable public participation in remediating ethics violations by the Council, and also recommended the creation of an independent Public Ethics Commission.

The Council’s official response to the Report, dated January 4, 2023, agreed “that it must confront its political turmoil, including mending strained relationships among Council/Board Members” (see Response from the City of Santa Clara). The response went on to state that the City did not need an independent ethics commission because a Council Governance and Ethics Committee already existed.

In April 2023, Councilmember Anthony Becker was indicted by a Santa Clara County Criminal Grand Jury for allegedly leaking the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report to the 49ers before its official release and for allegedly lying about it to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury. Count 1 of the indictment alleges that Councilmember Becker committed perjury and willfully failed “to maintain the confidentiality of the draft grand jury report provided to him on or about October 5, 2022, by disclosing the contents of the confidential draft civil grand jury report ‘Unsportsmanlike Conduct:

Santa Clara City Council’ to Rahul Chandhok and reporter(s) and/or editor(s) of the Silicon Valley Voice prior to the grand jury report's scheduled public release on October 10, 2022” (People v.

Becker, 2023). Criminal Grand Jury transcripts show that Councilmember Jain and a member of the 49ers organization testified that Councilmember Becker leaked the report. As of this writing, Councilmember Becker is still awaiting trial.

Ethics, Public Trust, and Good Governance
City of Santa Clara Ethics and Values Program
“Ethics laws are designed to preserve the public’s trust in its public institutions and those who serve in them by setting a framework to guide conduct and behavior” (Institute for Local Government, 2016).

Beginning in 2000, and after working closely with the Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, the City created a City Ethics and Values Program which included an Ethics and

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Values code and a list of Behavioral Standards for City Councilmembers. This award-winning value-based code was used as a model for many agencies throughout the State of California. Its goals were twofold:

1. To make Santa Clara a better community, built on mutual respect and trust.

2. To promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct among all involved in City government elected officials, City staff, volunteers, and members of the City's boards, commissions, and committees. (City of Santa Clara, March 22, 2019) As part of the Ethics and Values Program, every Council meeting begins with a reading of its Statement of Behavioral Standards (see Appendix 1) by the Assistant City Clerk, which reads as follows:

The City of Santa Clara has adopted a Code of Ethics and Values, and Behavioral Standards for Public Meetings to promote and maintain the highest levels of conduct. This includes mutual respect, robust discussion, and allowing City business to be done in an efficient and consistent manner. Please note that, as the presiding officer, the Mayor’s direction in matters of process and decorum should be followed, and that use of the gavel indicates all conversations must conclude and everyone in attendance should come to order and attention. Welcome, and thank you for your participation.

The City's use of values as guidelines for public service has, in the past, received national attention and become a model for other communities wanting to codify ethics into municipal government.

Good Governance
In addition to the detailed Ethics and Values code, Councilmembers have a Council Policy Manual (Policy Manual) and the Santa Clara City Code (City Code) to guide their behavior and define their roles and duties.

Other well-known guides for best practices and professional behavior include the League of California Cities (League of Cities) and the Institute for Local Government (ILG). The League of Cities and the ILG work with municipalities to train government leaders in effective and successful governance. Nearly every city in California, including Santa Clara, belongs to the League of Cities.

Among the League of Cities’ core beliefs is that “ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations, and that conducting the business of government must be done with transparency, openness, respect, and civility” (League of California Cities, n.d.). The ILG states that “[c]ollaboration among elected bodies and between individual members takes effort. Finding common ground and cultivating respectful relationships early on can make for a more civil and effective governing body” (Institute for Local Government, 2015).

Both the League of Cities and the ILG provide information, training, and resources for elected officials and their staff to ensure public trust through effective and ethical collaboration. The

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
resources from the League of Cities are even included in the orientation packets of incoming Santa Clara City Councilmembers.

Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order
In addition to those described above, two other important resources direct behavior and governance, and specifically guide public meetings: The Ralph M. Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order. The Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 54950 et seq.) governs all public meetings and ensures the public’s right to attend and participate in them. Robert’s Rules of Order is a manual of parliamentary procedures used by jurisdictions throughout the United States as an agreed-upon guide for conducting public meetings. All Santa Clara City Council, commission, and committee meetings are conducted and facilitated by using Robert’s Rules of Order, which uses an established set of codes and rules of ethics that help organized bodies hold orderly and efficient meetings (Santa Clara City Code § 2.10.020). It allows the majority to rule while giving the minority a voice. It is the standard for facilitating discussions and group decision-making. Every incoming City Councilmember receives information about Robert’s Rules of Order as part of their onboarding.

California Public Records Act
The California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 7920.000 et seq.) defines “public records” as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (Gov. Code § 7920.530(a).) It further defines "writing" as meaning “any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” (Gov. Code § 7920.545.) The public can inspect or receive a copy of any of these records unless the record is exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code § 7922.000.) Documents sought under the California Public Records Act are commonly referred to as PRA requests.

California Fair Political Practices Commission
The FPPC is an independent five-member body whose primary responsibility is for the administration of the Political Reform Act. The Act, passed in 1974 by California voters, “regulates campaign financing, conflicts of interest, lobbying, and governmental ethics” (California Fair Political Practices Commission, 2022). The FPPC website goes on to acknowledge that “enforcement matters now frequently take several years to come to resolution, oftentimes not until after a respondent has been reelected to the office they held at the time a complaint was filed or out of office entirely.” Anyone who suspects a violation of the Political Reform Act can file a complaint with the FPPC.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury conducted more than 40 interviews and watched over 400 hours of Council, committee, and commission meetings from January 2020 to May 2024, via video and in person.

Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury read and reviewed:
• The City Charter and Ordinance Code.
• The City’s Ethics and Values Program.
• The Council Policy Manual.
• Measure J.
• Testimony from the Criminal Grand Jury proceedings conducted in 2023. • City Council meeting agenda packets.
• Audit reports.
• City and Stadium Authority budgets.
• Stadium contracts.
• Litigation documents.
• City emails.
• City staff reports.
• Various documents supplied by the City.

The Civil Grand Jury used these sources of information to analyze facts, and develop findings and recommendations for this report.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

INVESTIGATION
In April 2024, the City commissioned a survey of 400 likely voters to determine residents’ appetite for a future bond ballot measure. One of the questions asked was whether the City was moving in the right or wrong direction. Figure 3 shows the results of that survey and the results of a similar survey that asked the identical question in June 2018. Both surveys had the same methodology. In 2018, 63% of individuals surveyed believed the City was moving in the right direction. A few years later, in 2024, only 40% of those surveyed indicated satisfaction with the direction that the City has taken, representing a 23% drop.

Figure 3: June 2018 and April 2024 Survey Responses of Likely Voters in the City As Reported by the City of Santa Clara
Much has occurred between those years, including a worldwide pandemic and political upheaval on the national level. Civil discourse has deteriorated on all levels, and it is demoralizing.

Therefore, it is more important than ever that local elected officials set a positive example and comport themselves with dignity, professionalism, and mutual respect. Since the first survey was conducted in June 2018, the makeup of the Council also changed with the addition of five new members. The investigation portion of this report details the behavior of Councilmembers as witnessed on the dais.

Santa Clara: Right Direction / Wrong Track so% ~---------2~0~1~8~v-s-.~2~02~4~ S-u_rv_e_y_o~f~R~e-s~id~e- n_t_s----------~ 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
63%
Right Direction
42%
18%
Wrong Track Undecided
■ 2018 II 2024

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Behavior on the Dais
Meetings
Council meetings occur on Tuesdays at least
two times per month. They are streamed live,
video recorded, and available for viewing on
multiple platforms (City of Santa Clara, April
27, 2023). Council meetings are called City
Council and Stadium Authority meetings
because both City business and Stadium
Authority business are agendized for these
meetings. Managing a City, a City-owned
utility and a City-owned stadium is similar to managing three large corporations, which means lengthy and highly complex meeting agendas. In order to complete all necessary business, Council meetings must proceed in an efficient, professional, and cordial manner. Among the Mayor’s responsibilities as the chair is ensuring that Councilmembers have a chance to voice their opinions, facilitate pertinent discussion, maintain order, and, if necessary, restore order.

As noted previously, specific parliamentary rules apply to every part of a public meeting, including how and when items are to be discussed, by whom, and in what order. Rules apply to how to deliberate, when to stop a discussion, and how to take a vote. Under the Brown Act, Councilmembers may discuss and deliberate only about items that are already on the meeting agenda. There are two different mechanisms for the public to speak at Council meetings. Members of the public may speak about any topic for an allotted time during public presentations and they may also speak for an allotted time about items that are specifically on the agenda.

Councilmembers should not discuss or deliberate about topics that the public brings up during public presentations because they are not on the agenda. Councilmembers may acknowledge the comments briefly and direct staff to address or agendize the topics for a later date. (Gov. Code §54954.2(a)(3).) The Brown Act and variants of parliamentary procedures, such as Robert’s Rules of Order, are followed by every public body in California and are necessary to ensure fairness, equity, and order.

In watching more than three years of online and in-person meetings, the Civil Grand Jury witnessed various Councilmembers consistently displaying unprofessional behavior towards each other and the Mayor while on the dais. Councilmembers have used the dais for political grandstanding, long off-topic monologues, and personal insults, such as accusations of lying. Councilmembers violate rules of order at almost every Council meeting. Additionally, there are smaller inappropriate actions that also serve to undermine the seriousness of meetings, such as eye-rolling when the Mayor or members of the public speak, and Councilmembers laughing at the antics and rude behavior of some of their colleagues. The totality of these observed behaviors in addition to a “This is my first time to a city council meeting.

I don't see any communication amongst
councilmembers here, I just see griping and
bickering.”
- City Council Meeting Public Comment, 6/6/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
general lack of collegiality visible on the dais inhibits good governance. (See Summary of Council Behaviors, Appendix 2, Items 2, 10, 14.)
The Mayor serves as the ceremonial head of the City and the presiding officer of Council meetings. At the October 4, 2022, meeting, Councilmembers spent almost two hours deliberating the authority of the Mayor to send a letter on City letterhead without their prior knowledge and consent (see Appendix 2, Item 4). The Charter makes clear that the Mayor has broad powers to
communicate the City‘s position on various matters (City Charter, Section 704.3). The interim City Attorney, the acting City Manager, and the Assistant City Manager confirmed at the beginning of the discussion that the content of the letter was consistent with Council policy, that the City Attorney had no legal concerns, and that the Mayor was within her authority to issue the letter. Councilmembers continued complaining, ignoring the explanations of the City’s professional staff, and continued going off-topic. The discussion finally ended after members of the public started calling in to protest that Councilmembers were wasting time.

In addition to disrespecting the position of the Mayor, Councilmembers consistently challenge her authority as chair of City Council meetings (see Appendix 2, Item 15). The Civil Grand Jury learned that, although Councilmembers understand the meaning and function of the gavel, Councilmember Becker and Councilmember Park repeatedly ignore the gavel when they have determined they want to speak more frequently or for a longer period. At one Council meeting, Councilmember Becker was gaveled multiple times and stopped speaking only after the Mayor stopped the proceedings and instructed the Assistant City Clerk to read aloud the City’s adopted procedure regarding the use of the gavel (see Appendix 2, Item 8).

Councilmembers also disregard rules on when it is appropriate to speak (see Appendix 2, Item 7, Item 13). Specifically, Councilmember Park regularly insists on speaking at length after public presentations about items that are not on the agenda. Furthermore, he frequently tries to interrupt votes in progress by speaking after the discussion has been closed, a breach of established parliamentary procedure. Councilmember Becker consistently makes motions before agenda items have been discussed or deliberated. When this occurs, other Councilmembers are forced to discuss the specific motion or amendment, as opposed to having a thorough discussion and deliberation about the agendized item, and then crafting policy and voting on it. This gives control of the discussion to the motion maker.

Frequently, Councilmembers grandstand and talk about personal issues that have nothing to do with City or Stadium business. Sometimes the topics concern political grievances or events that “Some of the
councilmembers need to
get over themselves and
start focusing on what's
really important.

Letterhead is not
important. This project is
really important, as Santa
Clara residents are really
looking forward it.”
- City Council Meeting
Public Comment, 7/11/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
happened years before. For example, when disagreements about the Stadium come up for discussion, Councilmembers frequently mention who supported or opposed the Stadium before it was built over 10 years ago, instead of concentrating on the Stadium item of business that is before them at the moment. This behavior on the dais diverts focus from real City business and unnecessarily prolongs meetings, which often end between 11 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. Needlessly long meetings greatly impact staff who must attend Council meetings and discourage public participation because the meetings go into the night when most people are asleep.

Personal Attacks
The Civil Grand Jury viewed many instances of personal attacks by Councilmembers against each other, against the two other elected City officials—the City Clerk and the Police Chief—and even against volunteers and members of the public (see Appendix 2, Item 1).

One of the most egregious examples of a personal attack against a member of the public occurred at the February 7, 2023, Council meeting. The attack was directed towards a local City of Santa Clara business owner, who has worked with the Mayor on promoting worker cooperatives in the City.

Additionally, the business owner frequently attends Council meetings and has been an outspoken critic of the behavior of Councilmembers Park and Becker. At the Council meeting, Councilmember Park, who was chairing the meeting due to the Mayor’s absence, noted that the local business owner was in the audience and then proceeded to read aloud from the cartoon book All My Friends Are Dead (see Appendix 2, Item 5). He had modified the title to All My Friends Are Termed Out, and he continued to repeat that phrase multiple times. The comments referenced the fact that the Mayor will be terming out in 2026 and cannot seek re-election as mayor. The display was an attempt to ridicule and intimidate the business owner. Furthermore, during the reading, both Councilmember Becker and Councilmember Hardy can be seen snickering at Councilmember Park’s behavior.

This was not the first time that Councilmember Park had singled out and ridiculed this individual.

It had even occurred earlier that evening after the business owner had spoken regarding an agendized business item. In fact, there are numerous instances at City Council meetings during which both Councilmembers Becker and Park participate in such behavior.

Another example occurred at the June 6, 2023, Council meeting. While commenting on whether the position of Chief of Police should be elected or appointed, Councilmember Park accused the Police Chief, his wife, and their children of profiting from their involvement in a nonprofit organization. He implied and alleged improprieties and illegal acts (see Appendix 2, Item 11). As a result, the Chief’s wife and the president of the non-profit organization attended a subsequent meeting to defend their reputations and to explain the transparency rules and requirements of the organization. The dais is not the appropriate venue for making allegations of illegal behavior. It is “If we can't work
together, we can't
make anything
work.”
- City Council
Meeting Public
Comment,
12/12/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
never appropriate, civil, or principled to make personal attacks against family members of any elected officials.

At numerous meetings throughout 2023, Councilmember Becker made angry and derogatory attacks from the dais against a City Commissioner who had criticized the Councilmember on a local news blog (see Appendix 2, Item 9). Dozens of residents, including fellow Commissioners and colleagues, came to Council meetings to speak publicly to defend the Commissioner, who had been an active City volunteer for decades and who had positively impacted and mentored many children in the community. At the June 6, 2023, Council meeting, a fellow Commissioner summed up the problem with Councilmember Becker’s actions as follows:
[the commissioner]...is now being persecuted in this manner. It makes me think that my volunteer work can be scrutinized at a level like this when you have better work to do. So, I would very much like to discourage the removal of a commission member because you don't like what they say. That’s schoolyard play, Ok, and I want to be better than that and I want to believe Santa Clara is better than that honestly. It would make me rethink my position on the council [as a commissioner] if our words were used to take us out of volunteer positions.

The Mayor recognized the public speakers and spoke up to defend the Commissioner’s reappointment, but Councilmember Becker and others blocked the reappointment multiple times; Councilmembers Becker, Hardy, and Park voted “no,” and Councilmember Chahal abstained.

Councilmember Chahal did not explain the abstention; it was used as a “no” vote. When asked by the Mayor to state the reason for rejecting the reappointment, none of the Councilmembers who voted against or abstained from the reappointment specified any criteria that the Commissioner had failed to meet in his position that would warrant his not being reappointed. Councilmember Becker, in a deliberate disregard for professional behavior, refused to look at the Mayor or respond in a civil manner, leaving the audience visibly frustrated and angry.

Councilmember Chahal’s abstention appears to be a deliberately orchestrated pattern of using abstentions without giving a reason. Abstentions are different from recusals, which require a legal basis and are determined prior to discussion beginning on an agendized item in consultation with the City Attorney. An announcement is made before discussion begins and the recused councilmember must leave the chamber. For an abstention, a councilmember may participate in a discussion and then can choose to abstain only from the actual vote. When an official recuses, because the recusal has a legal basis, the official does not count toward quorum for the item. But when the official abstains, they still count toward quorum, and this disrupts the voting tally and record-keeping. Councilmember Chahal has stated publicly that abstaining without giving the public a reason is legal; the Civil Grand Jury recognizes that thisis correct, but frequent abstentions are not an ethical or recommended best practice for elected officials. As stated by ILG:

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Responsibility is a key component of ethical behavior. Attending and being prepared for meetings is a major element of an elected official’s responsibilities and, hence, ethical behavior. So is voting in general. It may be tempting to abstain because of concerns about making an unpopular decision or simply not knowing which decision is best. As hard as some decisions are, making decisions is what you were elected to do. It is manifestly unfair – and unethical – to abstain or otherwise put your colleagues in the position of taking the heat for a necessary but unpopular decision. (Institute for Local Government, 2002) Training materials given to Councilmembers explicitly state that removal of Commissioners should be based on professional criteria and not due to personal grudges (see Appendix 3):

But City Commission members do not report to individual Council Members, nor should Council Members feel they have the power or right to threaten City Commission members with removal if they disagree about an issue. Appointment and re-appointment to a City Commission should be based on such criteria as expertise, ability to work with staff and the public, and commitment to fulfilling official duties. A City Commission appointment should not be used as a political ‘reward.’ Concerns about an individual City Commission member should be discussed with the Mayor. (Hamilton, 2024) The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that commissioners serve at will and that the City Charter allows the Council to remove commissioners without cause. However, Policy 032 of the Policy Manual, “Review of Concerns Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions,” outlines a process and guidelines that are consistent with the City’s Code of Ethics and Values, which provide optional courses of action, and ensure fairness and respect (see Appendix 4). Although the incident in question was a refusal to reappoint and not a removal, best practices dictate that Council Policy Manual procedures and the Code of Ethics should have been followed.

Councilmembers are in a position of authority and the
dais they sit on is literally raised above the rest of the chamber. They have the power to affect people’s daily
lives in impactful and consequential ways, including
staff, residents, and business owners. Personal attacks from the dais by councilmembers contradict every ethics and government resource and training document
available to City officials (see Appendix 2, Item 6). Such behavior goes against best practices for good governance. Furthermore, open and transparent government depends on volunteer and constituent engagement. The actions described above can have a chilling effect on a City’s ability to attract volunteers, employees, and businesses.
“I wish you folks could get along.”
- City Council Meeting Public
Comment, 7/11/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Lack of Preparedness
Councilmembers receive the agenda packet for upcoming Council meetings the Friday preceding the Tuesday Council meeting; similar to the timeline followed by other public agencies. The City Manager makes themself available to meet with each Councilmember before each meeting to review the agenda and materials included in the agenda packet, and to answer questions so that Councilmembers can prepare and be ready to discuss, deliberate, and make decisions regarding the City’s business. Additionally, Councilmembers may reach out to the City Manager via email or meet with the City Attorney.

As noted before, the City is complex and requires a good working knowledge of all of the intricacies of City operations and functions. Therefore, it is critical that Councilmembers read and thoroughly comprehend Council agendas in order to make logical and informed decisions that significantly impact residents and local businesses. The Civil Grand Jury learned that not all of the Councilmembers read their agenda packets, nor do they meet regularly with the City Manager.

This lack of preparedness can be observed at meetings.

At the August 30, 2022, meeting, during which the Mayor was recused, and Councilmember Chahal was absent, Councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Watanabe, showed such confusion during their deliberations about what they were voting for, and about the process, that they were unable to decide on any of the four financial options presented by City staff and residents. The discussion was regarding the replacement of a collapsed concrete wall that had been damaged by City trees. Homeowners asked the Council to take partial financial responsibility for the project, but Councilmembers were reluctant to assist the residents (see Appendix 2, Item 3).

Public documents show that staff had worked with residents for over a year to develop and research options that could be presented to the Councilmembers. After hours of discussion and debate, the acting City Manager and interim City Attorney instructed the residents to file a claim with the City. The lack of preparation and inability of Councilmembers to collaborate and make a decision squandered staff time, wasted residents’ time, and ultimately cost the City more money since the settlement sum was higher than some of the original options Councilmembers had to choose from.

At the August 22, 2023, meeting, the Council considered a General Plan amendment during a public hearing. After lengthy public comments, Council deliberation resulted in Councilmember Becker trying to negotiate from the dais with the applicant. He insisted the applicant change the scope of the project on the spot; giving the applicant only five minutes to decide. The applicant explained that they had worked on the development plans for over two years and that they could not decide on significant changes in such a short amount of time. Councilmember Park, who was chairing the meeting, displayed general confusion about the proposed motions and required detailed guidance from staff. The item was finally voted on at nearly 2:00 a.m. Once a development project is in front of the Council, significant time and money has been spent by both City staff and the applicant. Fundamental changes to the scope of a development project should have occurred earlier in the process and not during the public hearing. This behavior reflects a lack of

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
preparedness and a serious lack of understanding of the Council’s role in the legislative process (see Appendix 2, Item 12).

Staff Morale
In addition to managing, overseeing, and implementing City and Stadium business, City staff at all levels spend hours, days, and months researching, evaluating, and preparing information to support the Council in making informed
decisions. City staff members are knowledgeable, are
experts in their fields, and have displayed the utmost
professionalism at Council meetings. However, some
Councilmembers behave as if they are more knowledgeable on certain topics than the highly experienced City staff.

Additionally, there are many instances of Councilmembers struggling to make decisions or to come to a consensus regarding motions about more complex items that staff bring before them.

They show confusion and frequently go back and forth about how to move forward requiring staff to lead them step by step. They struggle to define what they want and give clear direction, especially when attempting to change the scope of items that come before them (see Appendix 2, Item 16). This behavior undermines staff morale.

The Civil Grand Jury has learned that although staff members try to ignore the animosity and public displays of bad behavior, they find watching Council meetings to be demoralizing, shocking, and embarrassing. Some staff members have indicated they are surprised at the collegiality and decorum they witness when watching council meetings in other local municipalities. The most recent City employee satisfaction survey dates back to the summer of 2019, before the makeup of the current Council. At that time, 77% of respondents stated they were satisfied overall with the City as an employer (City of Santa Clara, October 7, 2019). Because employee morale is key to staff retention, it should be concerning to the City that it has no current measurable data about staff morale. The Civil Grand Jury has learned from several sources that the City has developed a far-reaching reputation for having a dysfunctional Council, and that recruiting has been an issue because candidates have watched the contentious City Council meetings. Effective city government depends upon a city’s ability to retain institutional knowledge and recruit highly qualified staff. The climate created by some of the Councilmembers jeopardizes the quality of City staff recruitment and retention.

Council Training
All Councilmembers have been trained in ethics, governance and parliamentary procedures for Council meetings as part of their Councilmember orientations. In addition, the City Manager and City Attorney are available during and outside of meetings for questions and guidance, and Robert’s Rules of Order is available online. But, other than state-mandated Assembly Bill 1234 “If you want people to be treated
equally, then you have to do the
same thing.”
- City Council Meeting Public
Comment, 6/6/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
(Salinas) ethics training that must occur every two years, councilmembers only received governance training during onboarding (AB 1234, Stats. 2005, ch. 700; see also Appendix 5).

Although many resources are available to Councilmembers to do their professional development— including but not limited to registering and attending the numerous classes and webinars offered by the League of Cities and ILG—it is concerning that the City is not conducting formal, regular, and frequent training, especially given the unprofessional behavior that has become standard on the City of Santa Clara dais (see Appendix 6).

March 2024 Primary Election
On March 5, 2024, Measures A and B–ballot measures to
change the City Police Chief and City Clerk from elected to appointed–were voted down by the City electorate. Placing the measures on the March 2024 Primary Election (Primary) ballot cost the City $432,000, not including ancillary costs. The defeat of Measures A and B on the Primary ballot was the culmination of questionable behavior on the part of
Councilmembers who forced the issue, without determining if the charter change was of interest to voters. The Civil Grand Jury does not take a position on the ballot measures, but rather that the Councilmembers have a duty to work on behalf of their constituents. The process is another example of personal animus controlling Council direction and wasting City resources.

Placing Measures A and B on the Primary ballot was injudicious and had its roots in existing contentious relationships that certain councilmembers have had with the elected Police Chief.

There have been accusations on both sides. The Police Chief has called on the County of Santa Clara District Attorney to investigate Councilmembers and their relationships with 49ers lobbyists.

Councilmembers have been vocal on the dais about their personal desires to change the Police Chief’s position to an appointed position, which would mean that the Police Chief reports to the City Manager or the Council, as opposed to voters. Councilmembers’ stated reasons have vacillated between personal animosity and political motives; concern that there is a limited pool of candidates to choose from due to a residency requirement and that the current qualifications are not stringent enough. Without question, however, an appointed Police Chief as opposed to an elected Police Chief would be less likely to publicly criticize a councilmember, for fear of losing their job.

In June 2023, the Council voted to create a Charter Review Committee (Committee) whose primary function was to:
… determine if the positions of Chief of Police and City Clerk should be appointed positions by either the City Council/City Manager or continue to be elected; look into the “If this is how you guys
function, I guess we take a
really good look at the next
election cycle...”
- City Council Meeting Public
Comment, 12/12/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
specifications and qualifications of each role comparable to other cities; and recommend additional qualifications as it relates to the positions. (see Appendix 7) The Committee member’s nomination form stated that the “[t]he Council may accept, amend, or reject the Committee’s recommendations and for those recommendations that are approved, determine the best method to structure the ballot measure(s)” (see Appendix 8). If a charter change were adopted, the Council would also decide whether to put it on the Primary ballot. The following direction was on the Committee application (see Appendix 8):

The Committee must be impartial, unbiased and free of any perceived political gain. The Committee must adhere to public meeting requirements and strive to include and educate the community about the process and purpose of a Charter Review, the importance of a City Charter and to solicit community input on proposed changes prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.

Each Councilmember appointed a member from their district, and the Mayor’s appointee was atlarge. The Committee conducted five evening public meetings from August to October 2023. City staff organized the meetings and provided dinners, support, resources, direction, speaker presentations, and opportunities for public engagement.

It was not until after the creation of the Committee that the City conducted an online survey to gauge residents’ desire for a charter change. However, the survey was compromised, as there were almost 6,000 responses by suspected bots, overwhelmingly in favor of changing the Police Chief and City Clerk positions from elected to appointed. There were only 243 responses from registered users. The Civil Grand Jury learned that the survey results were not considered by the majority of the Committee members. Ultimately, the Committee voted 5 to 2 in favor of putting two measures, Measures A and B on the ballot. Measure A proposed a charter change for the City Clerk from elected to appointed and Measure B proposed a charter change for the Police Chief from elected to appointed. At the December 5, 2023, Council meeting, the City Council voted 5-2 to accept this recommendation; the Mayor and Councilmember Watanabe dissented. The Council also voted to allocate $432,000 to put the two measures on the Primary ballot, a sum which was in addition to all of the ancillary costs that went towards the support of the Committee.

The process to put Measures A and B on the ballot raised serious issues, including:
• There was no public drive to make the change from elected to appointed. • The City survey, which only occurred after the Committee had been formed, allowed unregistered users and was attacked by bots, causing most of the Committee members to disregard all of the survey results, including the ones that were completed by registered users. The survey results from registered users mirrored the results of the Primary election:
72% of registered survey respondents chose “no” to changing the Police Chief from elected

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
to appointed and 72% voted against Measure B; in the survey for City Clerk, 66% of registered users responded “no” and 67% of voters rejected Measure A. • The Chair of the Committee was aware that public sentiment was in favor of changing the residency qualifications for the Police Chief, as opposed to changing the position from elected to appointed, and consequently sought guidance from the City Attorney as to the scope of the Committee. Staff confirmed at the Committee meeting on September 21, 2023, that “the City is able to establish its own eligibility and qualification criteria for its local elected positions.” But instead of pursuing the question of changing residency requirements, the Committee continued to focus on placing Measure B on the ballot. • At least two Committee members had made up their minds before the first Committee meeting. One expressed to Committee members that they were going to vote the way their Councilmember wanted, and another member had been campaigning to make this change for over 20 years. This contradicts members’ promises in their application to be impartial and unbiased on the issue.
• Councilmember Jain consulted frequently throughout the process with one of the Committee members and seemed to be strategizing with them. This conflicts with Committee member’s promise to be impartial and unbiased.

It is important to note that the Council can, by a majority vote, put an item on a ballot and send it to the voters, without engaging a committee. This is significant because the Civil Grand Jury learned that one Councilmember understood that based on the Committee’s composition, the recommendations would be predetermined, meaning Committee members would vote like the Councilmembers that nominated them. If this is accurate, there was no legitimate need for a committee.

An additional concern with the way the Council handled the entire process was with the wording of the question on the ballot. The Council adopted the following ballot language:

Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing that the Chief of Police position be appointed by the City Manager be adopted? (County of Santa Clara, 2010) At the final Committee meeting on October 17, 2023, a Committee member voiced concern that the existing wording made it “harder for people to understand the statement.” During the December 5, 2023, City Council meeting, the Mayor and Councilmember Watanabe advocated for clarification; specifically, they wanted to add the following six words to the ballot question:
“instead of elected by the voters.” They did not prevail. Subsequently, residents, including two Committee members, filed a lawsuit to force the City to change the language, but the lawsuit failed as the language was found to be legal (Satish Chandra et al vs Shannon Bushey et al, 2023).

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
The 2022 Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “If You Only Read the Ballot You’re Being Duped,” which cited the reasons that the standard of ballot language should rise above simply being legal:

Many voters cannot comprehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself. . . . Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical.

Ultimately, the “no” vote on March 5, 2024, was remarkably lopsided. If this had been a close race, then one could argue that there was a substantial desire for a charter change by City residents.

However, given the unusually uneven results, it is apparent that Councilmembers who promoted placing Measures A and B on the ballot were either out of touch with their constituents, or were uninterested in public sentiment.

Furthermore, the Councilmembers who supported Measures A and B failed to show a clear understanding that ballot measures require an aggressive campaign to mobilize and educate voters.

Councilmembers voted to spend public funds on putting a charter change on the ballot without planning for and anticipating how to win voter approval. This demonstrates carelessness with the City’s general funds.

Fiduciary Responsibilities
The Council has a fiduciary responsibility to constituents. Councilmembers need to collaborate and have mature discussions to successfully advocate for the City’s financial interest and wellbeing. If Councilmembers do not cooperate and model professional behavior, constituents are less likely to trust the Council. Figure 4 shows survey results from an April 2024 voter survey and compares them with the same survey question from June 2018. Each survey asked likely voters to rate the job that the City is doing using tax dollars responsibly. The total positive response in 2018 was 49%; the total positive response in 2024 is 37% reflecting a 12% drop in voters’ perception that the City is acting in a fiscally responsible manner.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Figure 4: 2018 and 2024 City Survey of Likely Voters in the City Two presentations to the Council in its capacity as the Board regarding the financial reporting for the Stadium clearly illustrate how several councilmembers prioritize their preoccupation with political grandstanding rather than focusing on their fiscal duties regarding Stadium business.

Stadium Authority Audit
Part of the promise of Measure J was that non-NFL events (concerts, sports, and non-ticketed events) would provide revenue to the City’s General Fund. This has not come to fruition. The purpose of an audit is to provide information so decision-makers can make responsible financial decisions. There are yearly audits that are limited to the Stadium Authority’s financial position and there have been more extensive, intermittent audits, that have included the Stadium’s management company (ManCo). Throughout the years, these more extensive audits have questioned the availability, accuracy, validity, and transparency of financial information coming from ManCo.

On September 26, 2023, during a special Stadium Authority meeting, the forensic accounting firm J.S. Held presented the results of an audit of non‐NFL events for the fiscal years ending March 2018 to March 2020. J.S. Held had been engaged by the Stadium Authority to analyze annual financial statements for ticketed and special non-NFL events to ascertain if the statements were accurate, properly supported, and documented.

J.S. Held reported that the “documentation provided by ManCo for individual Ticketed and Special Events is inadequate for determining whether the financial results for each event were reported accurately” (City of Santa Clara, September 26, 2023). In that same meeting, J.S. Held stated that it “could not determine from the provided documents if the reported results are accurate or inaccurate, and additional documentation and information is needed to make that determination.” The Job the City of Santa Clara is doing using taxpayer dollars responsibly 0 % ,-----------------------------------,
70%
39%
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
2018 2024

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
The reason ManCo gave for withholding the public Stadium’s financial documents from the auditor was that it had concerns about the continuing litigation between ManCo and the Stadium Authority. The Council questioned the audit and lack of documentation; however, the majority of Councilmembers were unwilling to direct staff to pursue the missing financial documents. The Mayor pointed out that the issue of transparency lies with ManCo, and since the Stadium is a publicly owned facility, ManCo should be cooperative in providing source documentation for a transparent audit. Councilmember Hardy said, “[the] report looks simple; I could have done it very quickly.” Councilmember Jain suggested that once ManCo hears that there is a concern regarding the documentation, ManCo will “hopefully” make changes. Councilmember Becker blamed the issues on previous councilmembers and stated that he was being “gaslit” again. Councilmember Park said that he knows that ManCo will not cooperate. It bears repeating that ManCo works for the Stadium Authority.

The Council could have voted to reject the incomplete report, but acceptance of the audit passed on a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Gillmor and Councilmembers Watanabe and Park refusing to accept an incomplete audit without documentation. A second vote was required to continue with future audits. The Mayor requested a stipulation that the scope of work for any new audits would require that ManCo provide source documents, which were missing for previous audits for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. After much debate, the motion did not include her request that ManCo be required to give the auditors appropriate financial documents. The vote was 5-2, with Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe voting no.

Stadium Authority Financial Status Report
On February 6, 2024, the Council received the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2023. The presentation of the Status Report indicated an absence of performance rent flowing into the City coffers in 2023, a lackluster outcome for Measure J (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Net General Fund Impact, Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report, Quarter Ending September 30, 2023 (City of Santa Clara, February 6, 2024) City of Santa Clara
Net General Fund Impact
For Stadium Authority
Period Ending September 30, 2023
Ground Rent $ 495,000
Performance Rent
Senior and Youth Fee
Sales Tax
Total Net General Fund Impact s
69,313
306,234
870,547

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Mayor Gillmor questioned the accuracy of the revenue
numbers and the way the revenues are documented. She asked how the financial information in the reports is verified. Three Councilmembers attacked Mayor Gillmor for questioning the financial information presented. From the dais,
Councilmember Park attempted to controvert the Mayor’s
concerns by performing a real-time web search that literally said, “where does the [concert] money go,” and using the search results as support for his contention that the Mayor’s statements were baseless. Councilmember Park has a pattern of doing real-time web searches for information during discussion and deliberations as opposed to preparing in advance. At the same meeting, Councilmember Becker, then serving in his capacity as Vice Mayor, was highly critical of the Mayor, calling her a “gaslighter” and charging that because she had originally supported Measure J over a decade ago, her suspicions regarding the veracity of the revenue numbers are hypocrisy. Councilmember Hardy accused the Mayor of sounding like a “three-year-old throwing a tantrum.” The City Attorney finally stepped in to calm things down and the vote to accept the financial status report was 4-2, with Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe voting no.

Councilmember Park was absent from the dais at the time of the vote.

Councilmembers have a responsibility to know how revenue is collected and distributed, and to ask critical questions about reports and audits. During meetings described above, some Councilmembers resorted to argumentative rhetoric instead of critically reviewing and analyzing the information and working together to advocate for better transparency and accountability.

Bond Measure for Ballots
The Council is currently exploring placing a bond measure on the November 2024 General Election ballot to address the City’s $600 million infrastructure needs. The City has not adequately maintained or planned for anticipated capital improvements for decades. “Many of its facilities – parks, community centers, fire stations and swimming pools - reached the end of their expected lifespan years ago” (Hase, 2024). The City’s world-class George F. Haines International Swim Center has been closed due to safety concerns. Additionally, although it’s been greatly reduced, the City has a small General Fund shortfall of $900,000 projected for fiscal year 2024-25, followed by deficits ranging from $6 million to $19.3 million annually (City of Santa Clara, April 29, 2024).

Traditionally, revenue enhancement measures to address significant deficits go to voters for approval. In California, bond measures require a two-thirds vote to pass. To meet such a high threshold requires political will, cooperation among the Council, and the public’s trust.

Public Records Act Requests
A clear indicator of the lack of public trust in the Council and hostility between Councilmembers and the Mayor is the sheer number of PRA requests that the City receives. PRA requests help “Differences of opinion don't
diminish our communities,
they strengthen them.”
- City Council Meeting Public
Comment, 6/6/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
ensure the public’s right to a transparent, accountable government; cities cannot charge for the service. The City receives an inordinate number of requests in contrast to other local cities, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: PRA requests comparison for 2022-2023 for local agencies The large volume of PRA requests is a direct result of the conflict between the opposing sides of the Council.

Councilmembers and individuals (including a
Councilmember’s spouse) who support them, frequently
make PRA requests for the conversations of other
Councilmembers and of the Mayor. The City has received
as many as 90 requests in one day, only to have another similarly voluminous request issued as a response from the other “side.”
Under the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 7920.000 et seq.), elected officials of any local or state agency are “entitled to access to public records of that agency on the same basis as any other person.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that although it is legal, it is extremely unusual for councilmembers to make PRA requests involving fellow councilmembers for political reasons and that in other cities, it is not a recommended best practice.

This battle of PRA requests causes stress for City staff members, increases their workload, and takes time away from their regular duties. It is difficult to track the amount of staff time spent on fulfillment and the production costs because requests often have to be routed through multiple departments. In addition to Councilmembers, one PRA request can touch a dozen staff members and sometimes a City employee will have to go through hundreds of thousands of pages. Because of the complexity, tracking the yearly cost of PRA requests is a difficult task. The Civil Grand Jury learned the estimated costs for the City to fulfill PRA requests are as follows:
• Fiscal Year 2021/2022: Approximately $2.2 million.
• Fiscal Year 2022/2023: Approximately $1.8 million.

City Population** 2022* 2023* Cost Per Person
(22/23)***
Sunnyvale 156,000 471 604 Unavailable
Milpitas 80,300 316 375 $ 2.50
Santa Clara 128,000 1,392 1,321 $ 16.41
* Counts are approximate based on data publicly available. ** Population according to the 2020 US Census.
*** As reported by City Administration.
“I am concerned that the council
will block [the Independent Ethics
Commission] again rather than
do what is best for the city. I
really wish you would work
together.”
- City Council Meeting Public
Comment, 7/11/23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
• Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (through March 15, 2024): Approximately $1.3 million.

In addition, the City uses external third-party firms for assistance with the processing and production of certain PRAs. Those figures are summarized as follows:
• Fiscal Year 2021/2022: $86,172.
• Fiscal Year 2022/2023: $308,689.
• Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (through March 6, 2024): $58,185.

The City of Sunnyvale did not have available figures, but the City of Milpitas estimated an annual cost to fulfill PRA requests for 2022 and 2023 of approximately $312,000 each year, significantly less than what Santa Clara has spent.

The PRA is a positive tool intended to increase transparency for the public, but in Santa Clara, it has been weaponized by Councilmembers and their supporters. The Civil Grand Jury has found that it is actually City staff and residents who are paying the price.

Ineffective Governance and Ethics Committee
As noted earlier, a 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report recommended that the Council establish a Public Ethics Commission to ensure public trust, and the Council rejected this recommendation on the basis that a Governance and Ethics Committee already existed. But the Governance and Ethics Committee members are Councilmembers, and therefore not an independent body nor a body that can self-regulate.

At the July 11, 2023, Council meeting, the Mayor proposed creating an Independent Ethics Commission, positing that the Council cannot police itself. Councilmembers Hardy and Becker strongly objected to creating such a commission, and a motion made by Councilmember Becker and seconded by Councilmember Hardy “to not to move forward with an ethics commission” and “direct staff to hire an independent consultant … to review the current behavioral standards,” passed on a 5-2 vote with Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe issuing dissenting votes.

As of the release of this report, no independent consultant review has occurred.

The Civil Grand Jury found that the Government and Ethics Committee began regular quarterly meetings after the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report was published, which is commendable. The meetings have produced constructive discussions. Most recently, at the December 4, 2023, meeting, staff presented a list of guidelines and a suggested work plan with new Governance standards, which would tie meeting procedures to the City’s Code of Ethics and Values, and Behavioral Standards (see Appendix 9).

The new work plan may be a step forward, but it is only one of numerous work plans suggested by the Governance and Ethics Committee since 2021. Few of the work plans have been agreed

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
upon or adopted by the Council, including the most recent one. Behavior at Council meetings shows that the Governance and Ethics Committee has no influence and no oversight powers; the committee cannot even get agreement from fellow Councilmembers on a work plan.

Additionally, the Governance and Ethics Committee has no mechanism in place to hear the concerns of residents regarding the behavior of elected officials. The only immediate recourse the public has is to speak during public presentations at City Council meetings or to request to put a discussion item on a later agenda, also known as submitting a “030” and as outlined in the Policy Manual under “Adding an Item to the Agenda.” For an 030 to be accepted, a majority of the Council needs to vote in favor of it. The Policy Manual also has an “Admonition and Censure Policy” under Policy and Procedure 047 for improper conduct, which applies to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Again, a formal censure action requires a majority vote by Councilmembers to place it on the agenda. However, censuring colleagues risks further inflaming tensions. At the March 12, 2023, Council meeting, Councilmember Jain stated that after the councilmembers censured the Mayor and Councilmember Watanabe, nothing changed. He stated that “censure votes are a waste of time; there are no consequences,” and their relationships did not get better.

The Civil Grand Jury watched numerous Council meetings during which residents have called in, spoken in person, and emailed the Council to express their dismay and to request that the topic of Councilmember behavior be placed on the agenda for discussion and censure. Additionally, members of the public have appeared before the Council to speak in defense of targeted people.

Other residents have stated that after viewing such behavior, they were apprehensive of being targeted and ridiculed for speaking up. Five Councilmembers have consistently refused to address the repeated requests made by the public. They have not allowed discussions about the lack of public trust, or the complaints from residents about their behavior on the dais. Under current rules, Councilmembers have the sole authority to examine and police their behavior, a task they have proven themselves unwilling to do.

Municipalities can employ various types of independent ethics entities to ensure good governance and adherence to ethical behavioral standards by elected officials. Local municipalities, including the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, and the City of San José have Ethics Commissions with varying responsibilities and degrees of oversight (see Appendix 10). Other nearby cities, including Los Gatos, have created successful models for fair and transparent ways to concretely address behavior by their elected officials. One argument the Civil Grand Jury heard against an independent ethics commission was that councilmembers would appoint people loyal to them and that such a committee would be weaponized. There have been, however, committees formed by the City whose appointees were vetted and selected by staff and then brought to Council for a vote and a process like that would mitigate these issues.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Another argument the Civil Grand Jury has heard against an independent ethics commission is the existence of the FPPC. Although the FPPC is an independent oversight body, its primary focus is election law and laws surrounding lobbying and gift-giving. The FPPC has no jurisdiction to address compliance with the Brown Act or rules of parliamentary procedure. Following the law is the minimum standard by which electeds should conduct themselves. Additionally, as noted earlier, the FPPC, by its own admission, can take many years to conclude an investigation, and should not be the only entity that the City relies upon for transparent governance. As of the release of this report, there are two open FPPC investigations filed against Councilmember Park dating back to 2021. FPPC investigation information can be found on the FPPC Complaint and Case Information Portal. The website is clickable and searchable.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

CONCLUSION
City residents expect that their elected leadership will exercise their responsibility to work together to achieve consensus when administering City business. The role of leaders is to create an environment that promotes collaboration, an essential component for building an effective Council. The inability of the City Council to communicate respectfully and work together has undermined the effective governance and morale of the City. Councilmembers have shown that they cannot get along, they will not get along, and that their differences are irreconcilable.

Responsive and visionary leadership requires an ethical and well-informed City Council that will conduct the City’s business with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. The City Council has not achieved these standards. Instead, some Councilmembers have participated in personal attacks from the dais against fellow elected officials, residents, and volunteers.

Additionally, Councilmembers have failed to listen to and understand public sentiment, which has led to the loss of public trust. Such behavior is detrimental to the functioning of City government and divisive within the community, dampening public engagement with local government.

Egregious breaches of decorum by elected officials have a chilling effect on the willingness of residents to express their opinions or serve as community volunteers. Councilmembers should understand that compliance with the law is a low bar and should be the minimum goal in their roles as stewards of the City.

Councilmembers must prioritize the public’s interests and the City’s financial stability ahead of their own petty squabbles and quarrels. Currently, the City is facing a General Fund deficit and an infrastructure shortfall. The Council is exploring a variety of revenue-enhancing measures for the November 2024 General Election to address the budget deficiency. Whatever action the Council chooses to implement in addressing the fiscal integrity of the City will take a concerted and united effort on the part of the entire Council. It is critical that Councilmembers change their behavior, move beyond unprofessional conduct, and commit to adhering to the principles defined in the City’s Ethics and Values Code.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report points to serious concerns about members of the City Council. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the “City” currently has a governing body that consists of a majority of the same Councilmembers that the Civil Grand Jury has criticized in this report. These Councilmembers will be asked to vote to determine if they agree or disagree with the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and whether they will accept or reject the recommendations. (Penal 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.

Finding 1a
The working relationships among Councilmembers and the Mayor are broken.

Finding 1b
Some Councilmembers do not adhere to the City’s adopted ethical and behavioral standards while conducting City business on the dais.

Finding 1c
Councilmembers Becker and Park air petty grievances and engage in squabbles with other elected officials and constituents from the dais.

Recommendation 1a
The City should hire a conflict resolution professional and adopt robust conflict resolution training strategies. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1b
Councilmember Park should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training so he can learn to behave in a manner reflective of an elected official. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1c
Councilmember Becker should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training so he can learn to behave in a manner reflective of an elected official. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1d
Councilmember Jain should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training to learn to work more effectively for the good of the City. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Recommendation 1e
Councilmember Hardy should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training to learn to work more effectively for the good of the City. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1f
Councilmember Chahal should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training to learn to work more effectively for the good of the City. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1g
Even though Councilmember Watanabe has shown appropriate meeting decorum, the Councilmember should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training to learn how to work effectively in the current challenging Council meeting environment. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1h
Even though Mayor Gillmor has shown appropriate meeting decorum, the Mayor should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training to learn how to work effectively in the current challenging Council meeting environment. Additionally, as the meeting chair, the Mayor should receive training to facilitate effective meeting flow. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Finding 2
Councilmembers Becker, Park, and Chahal do not understand and/or do not follow established parliamentary and meeting procedures.

Recommendation 2a
Councilmember Becker should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 2b
Councilmember Park should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Recommendation 2c
Councilmember Chahal should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures, so he can demonstrate a better working knowledge of the parliamentary process. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Finding 3
Some Councilmembers do not uphold their responsibility to conduct the City’s business professionally and efficiently.

Recommendation 3
The City should adopt the formal resolution for Meeting Management Procedures developed and presented by staff to the Governance and Ethics Committee meeting on December 4, 2023. This resolution would tie meeting procedures to the City Code of Ethics and Values, and Behavioral Standards for Public Meetings, codify rules regarding respectful and professional language on the dais, and initiate more productive meetings to keep the Council and public focused on City business. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Finding 4
Some Councilmembers have become preoccupied by personal and political vendettas resulting in verbal attacks, mocking, and disparaging members of the public and community volunteers from the dais without consequence. Councilmembers have ignored the public’s request to address their behaviors.

Recommendation 4a
The City should establish an Independent Ethics Commission to oversee the behavior of Councilmembers and to ensure they model positive engagement with the public and reclaim the public’s trust. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.

Recommendation 4b
The City should hire an Independent Ethics professional and adopt robust ethics training strategies supported by policy. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 4c
All Councilmembers should participate in regular training and counseling with an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics to implement training seminars and workshops for Councilmembers to learn how to maintain collegiality on the dais by using proven techniques

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
and best practices to avoid tense exchanges, bad behavior, misconduct, and incivility, and how the rest of the Council can positively influence the behaviors effectively. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.

Finding 5
Councilmembers Becker and Park have engaged in unethical behavior on the dais by insulting, humiliating, and intimidating constituents and volunteers. Councilmembers Becker and Hardy explicitly encourage this behavior by laughing, snickering, or eye-rolling. Councilmembers Becker, Park, Hardy, Jain, and Chahal implicitly encourage these behaviors by failing to call out inappropriate conduct.

Recommendation 5a
Councilmember Park should pledge to train with an ethics expert from an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Recommendation 5b
Councilmember Becker should pledge to train with an ethics expert from an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Recommendation 5c
Councilmember Hardy should pledge to train with an ethics expert from an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Recommendation 5d
Councilmember Chahal should pledge to train with an ethics expert from an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Recommendation 5e
Councilmember Jain should pledge to train with an ethics expert from an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Finding 6
There has not been an employee satisfaction survey since 2019.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Recommendation 6
The City should conduct an annual employee satisfaction survey, administered by a third party, which can be answered anonymously. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.

Finding 7
City staff is exceptionally professional, well prepared, and consistently maintains their composure regardless of behaviors exhibited by the Council. Staff’s behavior is a model for the Council.

Recommendation 7
The City should commend City staff for their exemplary work ethic and professionalism. This recommendation should be implemented by August 1, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
The City of Santa Clara 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 6, 7
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following individuals:

Responding Individual Findings Recommendations
Mayor Lisa Gillmor 1a, 1b, 1c 1h
Councilmember Anthony Becker 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 5 1c, 2a, 5b Councilmember Raj Chahal 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 5 1f, 2c, 5d
Councilmember Karen Hardy 1a, 1b, 1c, 5 1e, 5c
Councilmember Sudhanshu Jain 1a, 1b, 1c, 5 1d, 5e
Councilmember Kevin Park 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 5 1b, 2b, 5a
Councilmember Kathy Wantanabe 1a, 1b, 1c 1g

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 1: Statement Of Behavioral Standards
AB23 AN1NOUNCEMIENT:
"Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Spaoe Authority and Housing Authority are entitl,ed to receive $30 for each attended meeting."
STAT'EMEN1T OF BEHAVIORAL. STANDARDS
The City of Santa Clara has adopted a Code of Ethics
and Values, and Behavioral Standards for PubUc
Meetings to promote and m1ainta'in the highest
l
1 evels of conduct.. This includes ni1utual1 _respect,
robu_st djscuss_ion, and a11owing City busines·s to be
done in an efficie·nt and consistent 1manner. Please
note that, as the presiding officer, the Mayor1 s
directiion in matters of process and decorum should
be followed, and that use of the gavel indicates all
conve·rsations m1ust condude and ,everyone in .
attendance should com·e to order and attention ..

We1lcome, and thank you for your participation.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 2: Councilmembers’ Inappropriate Behavior
Item
#
Behavioral Observation Meeting
Date
City of Santa Clara
Legislative Meeting Site Link
Timestamp
1 Councilmember Park is encouraged
to apologize; he attempts to
apologize for insulting the public at a
July Council Meeting comparing
homeowners to “Toddlers.”
8/24/2021 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1580
2:30:49
2 Councilmember Park accuses Mayor
Gillmor and Councilmember
Watanabe of lying in support of a
staff recommendation to provide
additional funds for ManCo staffing
changes.
8/24/2021 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1580
4:34:36
3 The Council is unable to decide on
any of the four financial options
presented by staff and residents.
8/30/2022 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1789view_157532
2:37:40
4 Councilmembers spend almost two
hours deliberating the authority of
Mayor Gillmor to send a letter on
City letterhead.
10/4/2022 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1804_id158946&
0:45:46
5 Councilmember Park, leading the
meeting, reads aloud from a satirical
cartoon book and dedicates it to the
Special Advisor to the Mayor.
2/7/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1864?meta_id=165
428
4:43:35
6 Public presentations receive ridicule
from the dais.
2/21/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1873
33:27:00
7 Councilmember Park begins an
extended discussion during public
presentation and Mayor Gillmor
stops the commentary.
3/7/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1879?meta_id=166
542
4:48:10
8 Councilmember Becker verbally
attacks Commissioner Field. Mayor
Gillmor uses the gavel to stop the
diatribe and is ignored.
3/7/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1879?meta_id=166
542
4:50:33

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Item
#
Behavioral Observation Meeting
Date
City of Santa Clara
Legislative Meeting Site Link
Timestamp
9 Commissioner Field is not
reappointed. Councilmember
Becker refuses to explain why he
wishes to single out the
Commissioner. This includes public
comment, three motions, two votes,
and Councilmember Chahal’s
abstention.
5/23/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1917?meta_id=171
445
1:33:16
10 Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember
Park disagree about the Special
Assistant to the Mayor, WorkerOwned Cooperative Initiatives. 5/23/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1917?meta_id=171
445
4:20:26
11 Councilmember Park accuses Police
Chief Nikolai and his family
members of misappropriating funds
and abusing their position on the
Sister Cities Committee.
6/6/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1922?meta_id=172
071
3:28:33
12 Inappropriate Council-developer
negotiation from the dais.
8/22/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1965viewtru
7:01:16
13 Councilmember Park attacks the
public; Mayor Gillmor asks him to
stop, but he continues for over three
minutes.
11/7/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/2015?meta_id=179
751
5:02:54
14 Multiple members of the public come
to the podium imploring the Council
to work together, act professional,
and work together as a team.
12/12/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
playerf/clip/2048
4:31:21
15 Councilmember Chahal and Mayor
Gillmor have a heated discussion.

Councilmember Becker is seen
mimicking the Mayor.
12/12/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/2048
5:41:45

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Item
#
Behavioral Observation Meeting
Date
City of Santa Clara
Legislative Meeting Site Link
Timestamp
16 Councilmembers struggle to make
motions and understand what they
are voting on.
04/23/2024 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/2107?view_id=1&
meta_id=187126&redirect=tru
e
4:56:04

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 3: League Of California Cities: Your Role As An Elected Official [excerpt from Randy Hamilton article]
Cooncl I Conduot Wirth Boards, Cmlllmlssions and Comm,itl!ees M Wa ra.t(>Jy fi'11d thatpoopla havl! good Sl!IJSl! unll·. thl:J' agro wilh us.. " - !Francois, Dur de La Rodiefourauld
The City has estnb 1shoo several Boarck, Comm1s. ion and Committees { wl lecllve referr-ed to a. Cily Commi S:i.ons:) as: a. me.ans: of ,gathering more cmnmuni 111put. Ciu.zens who serve on City Cammi . i.QJ:lrs: become more involve<! i.n government and serve a advisors 10 the City Council. They are a lua.bl e resource 10 lhe City'. leadership and should l,e treated with appredatlon and respect
Jif attll:lldlng a C:lty Con1m:l§ltl[o11 nieetlng, ~ress. pirsonal oplnlollS o:nly.

Coundl Memhers may altend any Ch1• Comm.iS:S1on. meeting, which are ah.Ya}'- open IO any member of Ille puhl ic.. However, the should l,e sensitive to 1he y their paruc1pa1mn - e!.pecially if 1t i advoc~1111g a certrun position - could he viewed as wfairl a:ffectins the l)l'OCes. .. Any puhl.ic oo,mment. by a. Cmmci.l 11,t:eml,er al. a City · ommiss:ion m~lmg should be clearly made as indli. idual op111ion and not a representation of 1he feelings oJthe e.nnre · -ity Council, unles. the ouncil hai; taken. a poS:illon. on the topic.. ouncil Membel'$ should n.ot appear befor-e a commi. 10n. on behalf of an ind1 idual, bu~ines:s a developer.

Rmm:uuoor diat C:lty Com:mJ5l'lfo.llll ~nre tlrn -rommuruty n.ot htdlividual CoutxH MMn&~ The · 1. Council appoinl 1nd1 id11als to serve on City Commissions, and it 1s the responsi hill . o.f City Commissions to follo pol.i.cy established by the Council_ But City omm1s. ion member .. d.o not ~eport to indi idulll Council Memhe-tS, nor sh.oul.d Coundl Member. feel th ltave the ov.-er or nght to threaten City Commission m.emhers wilh removal if !hey dlis:agree aooul an issue. Appointment and re-appmntment to a i Commission should be base<! on such critena as e pmi e, ahih • 10 work with slaff and the pubJ1c, and commitment to fulfil iii£; official duties. A Clty Commis. ion Bppoin.tment !.hould .nol. he ~ed a political "rev.-'.lrrd.'" Concerns about an mdi id1.m.l City Commission m.ember should be di.scussed with the Ma •or. • Be rnsportful of dllve.™-l ,op:ln:ior!S-.

A primary role of City Comm1s. ion i. ro represent man poinrs of view in lhe community and to provide the Council with advice based. on a full speclrum. of oo.ncems and p,ers.pectives.

Coun.c1I I\•1emhers may have a close working relation hip with some individual. eM ng on the Ci.1y Cammi . Jon!., hllil must. he fair and .respectf'ul of al.I -citizens se ins on City Commissions.

K,t@p• poli:tlral suppo t mvay rrom puhUc foruins..

Ci.ty · ommi . ion member. may offer political !.u:pport to a Coun.cll Members, hut not in a public forum while cond11ctlng offida.l duties. onverse , Cm.mdl Member. may support hoard ood comrnis:s1on. members who are running for office, l,ut not in an 0Jric1al forum in !heir capac1 as a. Cound.l Member.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 4: Review Of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions
dty of Santai a ara
Policy and Proce,cl:Ur,e Manual
REVIIEW OF CONICER.NIS/ COMPLAINTS REGARIDINIG CHY

BOARID/COMMISSIONS
POUCY
PROCfOURf
Th e Ciily of Santa Clara bel'.ieves th.at ~decision-makers mus:!: be independent, impartial., and accountable to th.e people: thei.,• se;rve: .. "1 The Ciily's Code of Ethics and Values lists the e:tru.cs and values-based standards the City h.as agn?ed will! ,gu·de the decisions an d oondu t of eve-iyone wh.o participates i11 the City's ,government 8€cause we seek publ'.ic oonfidenoe in the City's selVices and public trust of' its decision.-m.akers we hold oursellves a.coo11mtable: to umeet the most de:m.andi11g ethical standards and demonslJrate the highest lwels of a.chieveme:nil in following this rode.~ Although the City Ciharter allows e Council to remove a. Commissioner with no cause, lne: Council has created tihe: following process., w ioh provides gtf dehnes tihe: Council may choose to use to reso&ve a prob!e:m/oornplaint. The pohcy is based on a r;e,oomme:ndation from lhe Ethi.cs Oitlinanoe Committee:. Ft is oonsi.5te:nt wi , e Code of E ics and Values, in te:nns of fairness and respect towards lhe individual.. n pre:senre:s t!he Coun ~granted Charter authority of' remova l hut also provides optional. oow-se:s of a.ctiarn..

The C arter of' the: Ci of' Santa Clara provides for lhe removal of a Qty Commissioner b_ a vote of four City Council members. No cause has to be given. The acli.on to r,e:move a Commissioner v.•ould be an agendized City Council acliion item.

W en a concem/oompla int is i;ecei.ved Fega;rding a Ci . oard Member/Commission.er ill is r;eferre-d to th.e Ci Manager for review and follow-up. If posslble it is preferable to reso&ve a concern lhrougn open communication channe.ls at the staff level.. Complainants ar;e enooWaged to solve the problem infomilaili,, prior to registe:fing a formal compfaint The City Manager as several options for handling a concern/complaint:

1. The firs,t step is to verify the information. If not verified, the compla inant is informed and 110 further action taken. H inili~ • verified, the Q tv Manager oonducts an inveslii.gatia · r;evie:w of situaliion i.n oonsultalion v.ith. the Cit!,• Attorney, whe:r;e appropriate:. The individual who is the subje-ci: of the comp!aint will be notified unless criminal or legal naluFe precludes notification. !Issues that relate to the jufisdiction of lhe Fa ir 1 Fro111. Prll!amble of Th11 OJdtJ ofEfhia and Va~, City of mta CIM:!, _001 P&P032 Pa~ I ofJ

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Jul'f 200-1
dty of Santa aara
Policy and Prooedur,e Manua

REVIEW OF CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS REGARDING CITY
BOARID/COMIMISSIONS (cont.)
Pol'.i:tical Practices Commission (FPPC) are not covered by tlus policy_ Cil:y Attome:i;.1 has existing procedures to h.andle: FPPC and E eclion Code issues_

2. 'fhe following opllions are availabl\e for re:soMng oornplamls:
♦ The City Manager can choose to handle oonoem/ cornplaint diFectt or oonsult with the Mayor.
♦ The Ci:ti;.1 Manager can choose: to conduct further rese:,arch.; proviide infofil!lation and discussion of alte:maliives v.•ifu Ma:i,•or. ♦ Consult with Santa a ara Uni.versi . Marklmla Center for Applied ElliiC5, or oUJts:ide ethics experts.
♦ Refer the issu comp@int to , e Ma_ or and/or Cil:l,,I Council. · Refer the oonoe.m/oomplaint to the Chairperson of the specdi Board/Commission with e Cha:iI reporting back to l:!he City Man.ag2:r.
♦ Reier th.e is5U complaint to the Cil:l,,I Counoil Commiss,ion Revtew Committee.
· If legal issues are involved, the oonoe.m/complain is referred to City Attorney.
3 . Depending on nature of concemfoomplajnt and f.aatual infomration range of aations/options are available including an one (or oombination of) th.ese aations:
♦ o action based on unsuootantiated/Unfounded complaint; ♦ Oiscussi.on betu,een Mayor and Commissioner· Cit,;., Manager and Commissioner or discussi.on betu.•een Commissi.on Chair and Commissioner;
♦ Verbal counseling by Mayor w~th. Colil.lffiissione:r; · Letter to Com.missioner from Mai;.•or;
♦ Refer issue to Commission Revsiew Committee; Committee meel:s and reviews fa.els; ma:i;.i rn.ake advsisorv recommendation to Council or re.fer to City Manager and Ci _ Attorney for follow0 up- and P&P032 F'a.ge 2 ofJ

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

dty of S.antai a ara
Policy and Procedur,e Manual

IREVIIEW OF CONOEHNS/COMIPLAINITS RIEGAIRDING CITY
BOARD/COMMISSIONIS (cont.)
♦ Refer to M:a~•or a.ndfor City Council.
♦ Ciq.1 Coun.cil ma~• take adion ra.ngj.ng from note a.nd f.ile to removal from Commission. (See attached memorandum to e Commission Revii.ew Committee from lhe Ci:ty Aftomey da:ted ecernber 15, 1999.}

4. Follow-up response to complainant indicaling City as taken appropriate action.

Re(e,ence: i) Memo, dated December r 5,. I 999 from City Attorney, "levels of Exp.ressfons o( Disapprovui of a P,ubJk O(fidaPs A.ctiorisS" (attm:lledJ 2') Couricil-a})#)roved policy July 16, 2·002
}uty.2001 P&:P 032

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 5: Councilmember Training List As Of June 29, 2023 List d Col.Int.ill Tnii..,(15 Rl!!l.tillQ 10 lhl!!
Prttiedlll'l!O& of Otded)' Condllet al P'llbli<: Mi!!l!!ing• and lelhical Bl!flall'ior Agency iral11m11 Anend'e9[Bl am! Det9[BJ
Ci':)' cf Sam'!;!, Ciao;; Go\'em;;1m:.e . Li;;..- Gillmer:
" Deoembo., 3. 20 18
. K,,• )' w..-1 .. nabe:
" Deoemb;,1 3. 20 18
. Raj Chiltlal:
" Deoembo., 3. 20 18
. l<,inm l,l;!ord:(
" Deoembi!'i 13. 20 18
Ci,y cf .Sam'!a c1..., N'ew ,C,o._aocilrrnernib~_r . An_~oliy Becki!'r. orentaticra " Deoemb;,1 1. 2020
. S11d!1-Ji!im:
" Deoembo., 1. 2020
. K., . ....,, P;;nk:
" Deoemb;,; 1 1. 2020
F"ir l?ctit.:.al Prl>l:lice• l\[l. 1234 Ettriio:o Teinfng . Li;;..- Gillmer:

COnr'lrtli!:i!Slarn " Sep1 .. 1rrlber 1 • 21114 :!Is
C-oorn.ihrnernbe_r
" Sep1;,1nber 27 , 21)16
" Augu!I-'. 24, 21)18
" U..Gdi 22, 202 1
. K,,• )' w..-1..-n:!lbe:
" OC"l<lli"'l . ~HI
" ""mb;,; 23. 20 1 B
" U..Gdi 15, 202 1
. RajChiltl:!11:
" .lonui!ory 23, ~ 11 "" Pl.!Jooin,q1
Commi5:5ior'1ei
" .l;,nu;,r1 111,. ~ 19
" Fi!llrlilar'/ 28, 202
. K,m,r,Hi!ord:,:
" ""mb;,;g , 211 19
" .!1""1 u..-r1 5, 2022
. K"w, P:!lnk:
" .lonu;!ory 3, 2021
. Sud,1-J;m:
" .!1""1 u..-r1 S, 2021
. An_:h.ony 81!<:ko.,:
" .Sepl,.1rrlber 13, 21)19 :!I•
Pl.!Jooin,q1
Commi5:5ior'1ei
" Sep1 .. 1n'ller 7, 2021
List d Col.Int.ill Tnlilalrl• Rl!!l.ti!IQ lo lhe
Pr«>edlll'l!O& of Otded)' COndllet al P'llblic M!!!l!!ings and lelhieal Bl!flall'ior • ~em ~ y:
o J..,u;;,ry 111-UI, 211 19
• R:!lj Chi!tli!II:
o .i1""1 u..-r1 111•1!I,, 211 19
• K"'olin P:!liilc
o ,11..,u;;,ry 22. 2ll • ..-nd
29, 202

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 6: Councilmembers’ Orientation Packet – Section 2 (excerpt)
Proce,dures
Section - Pag:e
Roles and Responsibili'ies 2-11
Council Visi:on. 1Prior1iity, Strat,egic Pil
1an
and Objiectiives 2-3
Mee ing1 Agendas .2-4
Miinutes 2 8
Other Pollici:es. and Protoool for Council Members 2..!9 Council Conduct 2-111
Financial Matters .2-119
Paliliamentary Procedure 2 .21
Policy Conference and Business Travell
Expense· Reimbursemeni' 2-.23

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Roles and Responsibilities
"L,eadership is an action, not a word."
-- Richard Cooley
Other resources that are helpful in defining the roles and responsibitities of e ected officials can be found in the Santa Clara City Charter and in the Leadership Guide for Mayors and Council Members published by the Lea,gue of Catifomia Cities, Newly-elected Counccl Members are encouraged to attend the League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy Leadership Academy" held each year in Januaiy in Sacramento.

Mayor
The Mayor is directly elected by voters in the City of Santa Clara for a four-year term. Briefly, the 11esponsibilities and roles of the Mayor inctude:
• Acts as the official head ofthe City for all ceremonial purposes • Chairs City Council, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports & Open Space Authority and Housing Authority meetings
• Calls for special meetings
• Recognized as spokesperson for the City
• Has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings • Makes recommendations to the Council on matters of policy and programs which require decisions
• Leads the Council to be an effective, cohesive working team • Serves as official delegate of the City at ,events and conferences Vice Mayor
Council
As specified in the City Charter, the Vice Mayor is selected by the City Council each year in December and serves at the pleasure of the Council. Per Council policy; first priority for Vice Mayor wrll be the City Council Member with the highest seniority in cons,eoutive years on the Council who has not previously served as Vice Mayor. If two or more Council Members have an equal number of years; th en the Vice Mayor is the individual with seniority who received the most votes in the most recent Council election. No Council Member may serve more than once as Vice Mayor unless all Council Members have served in that position, If a Council Member would tike to exchange places in the rotation to allow another Council Member to serve as Vice Mayor in his or her plaoe; a majority vote of the Council is required to make the change,
Briefly, the responsibilities and roles of the Vice Mayor include:
• Performs the duties of the Mayor if the Mayor is absent or unable to attend • Chairs Council meetings at the request of the Mayor
• Represents the City at ce11emonial functions in the absence of the Mayor

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
All Council M,embers
All members of the City Council including those serving as Mayor and Vice Mayor, have equal votes. No one has more power than another, and all should be treated with equal respect. • ully participate in City Council meetings and other public forums wh ile demonstrating respect kindness, consideration, and oourtesy to others
• Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community • Inspire public confidence in Santa Clara government
• Observe the City's Code of Ethics & Values and demonstrate ethics, honesty and integrity in every acfon and statement
• Be respectful of other people's time. Stay focused and act efficiently during public meetings • Prepare in advance of Council meetings and be fa miliar with issues on the agenda • Attend c-eremonial funcfons
• Provide contact information to the City Manager or City Clerk in case an emergency or urgent situation arises while the Council Member is out oftown. !Meeting Chair
The Mayor will chair official meetings of the City Council, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the Sports &.

Open Space Authority or the Housing Authority unless the Vice Mayor or another Council Member is designated as Chair of a specific meeting.
• Maintains order,. deoorum and the fair and equitable treatment of all spea~ers • Keeps discussion and questions focused on specific agenda item under consideration • Makes parliamentary rulings with advice if requested, from the City Attorney who acts as an advisory parliamentarian .

Chaplain
A Chaplain is selected in Dec-ember of each year by a majority vote of the Council. By Council policy, the Chaplain is the most recent outgoing Vice Mayor. The role of the Chaplain is to read the established invocation prayer atthe beginning of each Council meeting.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Council Vision, Priority, Strategic Plan and Objectives Vision
Superb, affordable services in a ca11ing community that values our rich history and nurrures technologies that build the future.

Strategic Plan and Obj.ectives 2015 2017 (Adopted A,pril 7, 2015) Listed below are the City Council Goals for 2015-2017. Regular, timely monitoring of progress on the goals and obj,ectiv,es includes new objectiv,es every six months, When completed monthly status reports on the accomplishment of these objectives may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, In addition to these .2015-2017 adopted goals, there are many other projects and programs that oontinue to be pursued by the City,
The City Council priority is to focus on suocessful completion of existing City projects, and ope1:ate within Council adopted budget prcnciples and prio11ities, with the goal of placing, the City strategically to take advantage of the improving economic olimate.

T'WO-YEAR GOALS 2015-2017
• Balance the emerging ,economic opportunities "th the needs of our community • Promote and enhance econom·c and hous·ng development
• Ensure fi scal responsibilil.y
• Enhance community sports and recreafonal assets
• Deliver and enhance hi,ah aualitv efficient services and infrastructure Meeting Agendas
The Council agenda pack,et is gener-ally prepared on Friday en the City Clerk's Office for the meeting on the followrng Tuesday. The exoeptton would be when a holiday falls on a Friday in which case the agenda packet is prepared on Thursday. Agenda packets are on iPads. If requested, agenda packets are available in har-d copy fOlim,
Agenda packets are available for public viewing in the City Clerk's Office and in all three libraries, he entire agenda packet is scanned and the Council reports are made available th rough the City's website.

Agendas for regular meetings must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (See legal section for more details.] IPublic Submittal of Written and Audiovi:sual Material,s for City Council !Meetings (PoUcy and !Procedure 041)
l~ems from Council Members and the public related to an agenda item must be submitted to the City Cleli<'s Office by 12 noon on the Wednesday prior to the City Council meeting for inclusion in the agenda packets. After Wednesday at 2 noon and until 5:00 p.m, on the day of the Council meeting member-s of the public may still bring, materials related to a specific Agenda item to the City Clerk's Office. Those materials will be copied and distributed to the City Council and City Staff for the Council meeting.

Public members who wish to• uti ize audiovisual materials as part of their public comment on an Agenda item, must present the material to the City Clerk's Offioe no later than 10:00 a.m, on the day of the meeting, along, with a contact telephone number where they may be reached.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Written Petition t\o Address the City Council
Written petitions from the public are aooepted by the City Clerk's Office and forwarded to ttie City Manager's Office fair review and placement on ttie agenda, typically two weeks after submittal to allow time for staff to prepare a report responding to ttie petition. The staff report is included i11 the agenda packet

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Age•nda Items
farch agimda item is handled wilh a hm st€ip rocwure.

11. Mayor ·ntroduc0s aggnda1 if€m

2. R€port by Qjty Manag1n or s1aff. No q estioos, romm€flts or editorials allowed by Council until staff report is oompMe.

3. Questions of sta rnport by Council Membllf"s am asked Hirough Hie Mayor. o oomme:nfis or ed··oria'ls by Council M.8moo:rs a lowed a this · €1 .

4. Ap,plicantfap,p0Dant pre stmta ion when Pub ic Hearil'ilg1 (typica'lly lin il.ed to 10 m· utes}. ot all agenda iitems viill have ~PP ical'il presentalic:ms. Cou noil Members may ask quesfiol'ils o · Ille applicantfappellarnt through the ayor.. No comrrw;mts ,or €id. oria1s by Council Memoo:rs a this ·me ..

5. Public tei;.tlmony (typically lin i ed fo 2 min es fur each person who wishes to s,peak). Council Members ma,y ask QUes ·ons at thiiii €fld ,of the presentation. o oomme:nls or ediforia'ls by Council 1'.embers a this film@.

6. Ap,plicantf.Appellarrl.- Closing Statemerrl. in Public Hearing and Appeal Pr-0c:e0d iflg1.

7. Motion to close he pu!)lic lhearingf public il'ilput.

8. Council molic:m for aciiol'il .

9. Council delibllf"al!ionL
110. Council a ·on, A. votfi on the rno ·on. follo ·ng Ro'biiiirl.'s Ruliiiis of Or,der.

G,avc ll moans stop and listen.

The use of the gavel means a: I ronwrsa · ol'ils ooa!>e and everyone in attendance comes to or,der and a enfion. Only the M'ayor or isislil'ilg1 Ghai r can use the gawl.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
IMinutes
M- Liles of each meetir19 ,of the Cify Q:mnci l are kept by the Cily C lerk. The m in es serve as a pem.anen recon:I of fhe grol.lp's aci!ions.

Cormctio:ns t o, 1m t11 11Jtos,
It is ·mportanl for Gol.lncil Members to clos!i!ly review minl.lres and make coJTections if needed so that th!il appr,oved minutes accl.lrnml y reflect Hle work of Hle ,gmllp. Corrections to m in es ma,y be requested IP · or to the ni.eeti119 but must oo made prim to ,or at the meefi ng wl:um tlley a re bmug'trt forwa rd for Gol.lncil approval. Co.lirecfuns rffl:IL.lire a motion,, second and a majorify vote, and ,, if a ppmved, are noted and filed in Hle minl.lres of the current mee ·ng .

Srummary of Actions
A Sllmmary or Aciiorns is prepared by Ille C ity Clerk's Office o lowi11g1 eaoh Cou ncil mee ·ng .

This Summary is rusually 1poste d 011rne by l'iiday. follow·ng Hle meeting. The SL.In mary is also available ·n tile City Clerk's Office and a ll 11:Jree C ity ibrnries .

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
0 heir Polilc es .and Protocoll fo·r Coui'licH IMembe1rs Common lal Ev on1ts
Re:q oost s far a City rnpmsootafive at ceremonial 1a:vents will lt:1 1a: handled by Cny staff. The Mayor~ ·11 rerv1a: as Ille ,designated City rnpres1a:ntative. If the Mayor is unavailable,, lhe:n City sta · will ,dete.limine if event organizers would like arm tiher re prnsentative mom the Co l'lcil. H yes , th1a:n th© Vic© Mayor will be as!k1a:d to serve as a sul:lstitute. If th© Vic© Mayor is ot ava ilabl,;i, hel'l Co: l'ilDil M,;in 't:1,;irs by sooiority are ask ed to rnprnsen t e Cny .. H Co:ul'lail is l'lol:
&vai'labl1a: , he City M,mager re pre sernls the Oily ordesignares an appropriate staff mmlilber. lrnvitations received a Ciily Hall are presu med to b1a: · or official Oily re prnsernla ion lmi.itatioos addressed to Council Members a the"r homes are wesumed to be for personal considera ion T he Executive As sistant to 111.e Ma()!'Or and City Council is available to fake care ,of RSV Ps for ,o aial City rnprllSentatio:n.

Cormspo11d'c n,oo S lg na.t uros
Council 'e mbers do -l'lo need to acknow ledge the rnceipt ,of corres,Ix mdence, or copies of corre,spondenre. ul'iing Council meerngs .. City staff w i I pre;pare o ffiaial letters il'l l"llSponse to publ ic inquil'iillS and oonooms. T ese letf1a:rs win carry Ille signalurn of the: M'ayar a l'ld City Ma nager .

E1ndorsemo111t of Ca nd id a.ros
As ·ndivicluals, C ouncil Members ha,ve the righHo endorse cal'ldida es fo r all Council sea.ts or olller elected ,o , ces .. It is ·nappro:p~·a1:e to me ntion endorsements duril'lg Coul'lcil meetings , olller o Icial Oily meetings, or vihile col'ld uctin91 Oily business .

Non,-.agonda iwms
Ul'lder Pub'lic Presentaticms ,on the agel'lda, citizens may lt:ll'iil'lg1 fo rth issues ,or ques 'ions lllat art1:
!'lot ol'l Ille meeting's age:nda,. Tqpics mary be llegis a ive i ems re qu·ring action by the Co nail, st dy issues for Jutu re considt1:rn · on , a l'ld re,q ests fo r inforrnatic:m assigned to tht1: Cily Ma nager . Each speaker I bt1: limi ed to lllre.e m· ures .

Public Hoa11t11 g1 Protocol
T he Co1mcil ha-s es!ablished a put:llic tm aring protocol and · ollOVis Rdt:lerl's Ru'les of Oi;der {Newly Revised 10th edi ·om, 2000). Tile Mayor o,pens the 1public hearil'l91 ,md re,q t1:st s a staff re port. The applicant or appellant shal l have the i-,igh to s,peak first. Te.:n mil'lures is tht1: lern gth o f time a l owed or this 1presenlalicm.. Speakers re prnsel'l ·l'lg eilher 1pro ,or con points o f view will be allow"t1:d to follO'IN. Thrnt1: m inutes is the standard ime lrmit for each speaker . Whe:n thll're are more than 10 s:pea ers Ol'l an item, Ille Ma,yor will as!k Ille speakers to I out a, Speakers Card prior to the discussion o f an agenda il.El'm. The time allo•o'll'tid or 1a:a ch speaker may lt:le rnduced at the discretio l'l of the Mayor.. Tille ap,p1ica nt or appellan wi be a lowed !o m ake a1os ing comments. The C!hair has tht1: rns,pons ibi ily to ru n al'l efficie nt pub lic rneg il'lg1 a l'ld has tht1:
discre tion to m odify tht1: p t:llic heari ng pr,oct1:ss nn order to make the meel"ng rum smoothly .

Council e mbers ·11 not speak during the 1public he.aning1 portion o f he meeting e:xcepl to ask pertint1:n que,sfiol'ls of Ille speaker ,or staff. I hin'k:" and II ft1:el" comments by Coul'lcil Memb ers am not appropl'iial:e u nlil a.fter the close ,of llhe public hearing. Cou ncil Members shoo d re.frnin from a rg ing or d e't:lafi ng w· h Ille public duril'lg a, 1publ ic heal'iing1 .:md sha'II a lw.:i,ys show rns,p1a:ct or d" ernnt 1poims o · lliew .

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Maim motions rnay be followed y ame:nclme:nts, follmved by su'llstilu emotions. Any Council M@mb@r can ca I ror a11Po·111 oJ ord@r ,or a motion tio reoon.sicl@r a any time,, pM Robmt's Rul@s o Order.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Coui'lic!ill Conduct. w irUil O.ne .Anothe1r
"In lif, courtesy and seff-possesslon, and In the, arts, S'iyle, am the senslbte iinpnJSslons of the, free mind, for bcJ<tb arise oat ,of a deliberate, shaping of .all :tbJngs and from mwe.r bel119 SWi¥Jt aw:ay, whatever the, emotion, into cor1faslon ordallness. "· Wlllliam B11tler Yeats
Councils are con posed of individuals with a wide varietiy o backgrounds, 1p0rsona ities values. opinions, and goals. Des,pite fhis iversny,, all have chosen to serve in 1pub ic ,o ce in ord er lo preserve and 1protect fhe 1prese<nt and the fure of the oommunitiy .. In all cases, lflis common ,gool should oo ackm:iv.~edged even as Council may agre e to disagree~ Ol'l oonrenfio s issues.

The Citiy's Code ,o Ethics & Va ues s!houkl be 1refenred to for 1posiilive stateme<nts of elflical behavior_
In Pu'bHc Memh1gs.

Uso fo1111111al tiiM s
It is 1preforred tihat Council rnrer to ,one ano41her orma ly ,during public rneeting.s as Mayor.. Vice Mayor or Council Memb er o lffi'1ed by tihe in 1vidual's last name ..

Practice, ,civil ify an:dl dii:tcorum In discus,slon,s and debate Difficult questiiol'ls, tough cha gnges to, a 1partirular poil'l of view. an d cl'iitiicism ,o ideas and infomia ·on are l1i9ilima e €lemoots of a frne democracy il'l aciiol'l . However, maki ng persona'!, s!landerous threaterf g, abus,ive, or dis,para g·ng oommerds is not aApro,pria e. No shouting or phyS:ical actions lflat could be cons1nled as thre atening will loo permitted.

Hon01r tlu1 ro o, ,o,f tho Chalir In maintal1nlng order It is the res,ponsi'llility ,of the Chair to lkeep fhe comments of all pa' ·cipants ol'l lrack riing1 pub ic meetings. Council 'embers s!hould honor efforts by tihe Chair to focus discussiorn on ounrent agtmda · .ems. If the re is disagreement about the agenda or lfle Chair's actions, those objections should l:le voicoo o 1tely arnd wltih1 1reason, following1 [procedures ou 'lined ·n Robert's Rules of Order.

Domon,stratc, offectivo problem-solvh1g a,p·proachos
Council Members have a public: sl.age lo show how il'ldividuals willh disparate points of view cam mcl common grou nd and understanding, negotiiafi ng solutions thal. benefit the commun ity as a whale ..

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
lln Pr;vate Encounters
Con.Unuo ll'espcctful boha/Vior l1n rivato
Th€: same leve:l ,of espe.cl and cornsideration ,of ditte:ring points of \!1i€:W that is de€:moo appropriiate for pub.l ie discussions shoo'ld be mai111tain@d in priival.e conv@rsalions.

Be awa11e of'tlll in,securfity of wr;iitl:cn notes, volcemal 11111essagos, and c~maill T €:e:lmology a lows words writt€:l'il or said without much ror!lthoug'ht o bl!! distribu @d wid€: and ar. Would you feel comfortable to have th·s n ol.e faxed to oth€:rs? How would yo feel if this voi@mail rnll!ssage was pfayll!d on a speakll'f pho111 e ·n a fuD office? What would happen if llhis e•mail message was foP,vardoo lo ofhers? Wril:lm n otllS, voicllmai'I messages and ~mail sh ould be treated as polentia'lly "public" oommu111ication.

Even p:riva.to ,conversations, can have a public presence, Elected officials are always om dis,pla,y - their actiorns, manrnerisms, and larn guage are rnon·tored by people around 1ihem tha they m ay or may not kn ow.. Lurnch table ronvll'l"Salicm s can be earv@sdropped upon, parking lol. ,de.baf@s may be watch@d ,, arnd casual oommernls b@twe@n in ividuals before and after 1public meetings noled ..

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
CouncH Conduct with City Staff
" Wh1:rmvc1 thorn is a human being, tlhem is an oppol'liu n!ty for klndn.ess .• " Saneca
Governarioo of a City reties on th€ coo,perativ© efforts or cl©ct©d officials, who set 1po icy .. arid tile Oily Ma11ager imd sta . w· o, ·mplement and administer · e Co 11oil's policies .. Therefore, every effort should tJ.e made to tJ.e cooperntive and sllow mutual respect for the cootriibutions ma e by each iridi\11idua'I fo.r he ,good oJ the commun · y .

Trca.t a I staff as professionals
Clear, honest co:mmurncafiori lilat respects ,he abilities. expt}rien.ce. arid dignity of each indivi al is €Xp€cfed . Poor b©ha,vior tow.ir.ds sta is ool. acceplable.

Direct staff &ssucs. an.ell assignments to tho City Manager Assignments klr Citiy staff andfor requests for additional baol<groulld ill ormation should be d·rectoo only to 1he City ·· ~magm-.

Requests · or fol ow-up or directio11s to sta sho Id orily be made through the City M'a11age:r or tile Oily Attorney when1 approprial.e. Materials supplied to a CoullCil ember in respollSe to, a reques wiill be ade available o all members o · lfle Council so lilal all have equal access o information.

Nevar pu1bllcly ,critidzo an tndivid11al ,em1ployoe
CoullCil sho d 111©ver ex1Pre ss ooricems about the performance or a Cil:y employee in public, to tile employee dire ctly, orto the em,ployee·s supervisor. Comments about stiff performance slhouk:l ,only b€ made to the City Ma11ager , ro ghi private oorresporid1mce or co11versa ·on.

Comments a'oou staff in the o.ffioo of th€ City Attorney should € mad€ directly to the City Attome-y .
. Allow staff to handllo admtnis11rativo, f,unctions
CoullCil :embers mus no attempt to i11flu©nce City sta,ff ,on the making1 of appointm©nts. ,.i;vardirig1 of oornlrncts. selecting of o:msultmts . processing1 or devclopment applicaficms, or ,gran irn g or City licenses and permitis.

Check wltti tho City Ma111agor 011 co·rrcspondenco, boforo 'taking action Before sending1 oorresporndernce, Coo 11oil Members sho d ched with the Oily Mimage.r or Executive Assistant to th€ Ma-yor arnd Ory Council o see if arn official c· y respollS@ ti .. s .. lread-y been sent or is in progress.

Limit requests, for staff s u p;port
Routirn e seaetia rial sup,pol1. wi II ll:le provided o all Co 11oil Members. Al I mail or Cou 11cil Me:mb0rs is ope11ed by the Executive Assistant to the Mayor arnd City Coullcil. 1 11less oliler .. mmgemen s are requ©st©d by a1 Council embe:r. Ma"I mariked p€rsorial or cornfldern ·a1 is not opened .

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Reqoos,ts for add·-·omil staff support - ewm ·m high priority ,or emergemcy sitU1a ·oms -- should be ma.de to the Cny Mana.gerwl'lo is respcmsible ror allocating City resoU1rces im order to maintain a prroressional. well-ru m City g,ovmnmen .

Do mot S'O l'lcit po ltlcal support. from staff
Council 'embers should not soliail. any tyJ]@ of pol itic..! sul)pon (iirnmcia'I oornbibulicms,, display of posters or lawn sigms, mame ,on support list,, etc.) from Ciily sta . Cily staff may. as private ailiz.ens 1Niilh oonstiturlicma l'iights , supporl po itical cam:lidal.es but all such acti\iflies rnursl. be ,don.e a1.vay mom tl'le worikplace. Cny employees are prohibiled from usiflg City resou rces, City fi me or al)pea ·ng ·n uniform in rnlalicm to 1polilical activities.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Councill C,ondluct w i h the Publ i C
"If a man be gracious and courloous :to strangers, It shows he ls a cJtJ'zen· of ttw world,, and ,that hfs- heaJt Is no island ,cut off from other lands, but a conti'aent that/ ol.ns to them,."
Frands Ba.con
In P11'blk Medi 111gs
M,:i'king the pub ic fool welcome is an importamt part of the democratic process. o sigms of partialily, prnj dice or disrespect should be eviden om the part of individ al Council Members !ow-a rd am ·ndiviclual pa ·cipa ·mgI ·n a, public ·orum. Evmy e o:rt should be made to be fair and impa ·ial in 1s!@ning to public testimony.

Be weloo'lil1 f111 g to spea'l!.ers an:d ·t 11eat them w ith ,care, and gontilo111css Most residemls ,do ool speak before !he City Co ncil very ,often and they ma,y be mervous, uncomfortable, and emotional. Pl.itting s:peakers at ease will a low them to ll'xpress their vie',',IJ)Oints more efifective'ly, ma e Council meetings ru n more e 1ciently, and help the ,democratic pmcess be fulfi loo ..

Be fal ir and ,eqllltable in al ocatlng1 p ublk hoarr111g1 time, to l1ndMdual spcakc:rs The Chair will ,determ ine and amno moo limits om speake:rs at ttle start of ttle pu'blic hearing praocess, per Counci l policy. Gimerally, each speaker will be a loca ed three min lliS with applicants and a~pe !ants or thtl°r designated representatives allowed 10 m·nunes_ llf any s:peak@rs are amticipated, the Chair ma,y ask for s::peaker cards to be fill@d 01.11. and may shorten the time lim· and/or as<'k speake.-s fo limit hemselves to new ·n ormation amd Ipoints of V1iew ool a ready cove:roo by Iprevious sp,11a'kers.
o speaker wiill be t med away iumless he or slhe exhibits ·nappro,priiare behavior. Each, speaker ma,y on1y s·peak omce d ~-mgI the p t:llic lh@aring un'less the Coumcil requesls add]!iomal clarification laf@r in the process. After the close o the public hearing mo more public testimony wi11 be accepted uriless ttle Ch~ir re opens th@ p bile hearing for a, lrmited and speci c purpos@_ Give the appearance, ,o,f a.ctlve listtl rng
II. is isconoortimgI to S!peakers to ha,v@ Coumcil Mem bers no look at them w em hey are speaking. lit is fine to look down al docu men s or to make notes,, but mac:ling or a long period of time, gazing around he r,oom,, or en eringI imto prolonged dialogue with adjacent Q mmcil Mtimb@rs or staff ,gives ttle appearance of disir1lernst. Be aware of facial expressions, especia'lly those tha could be interprnl oo as smirilf ng," disbeli@l, anger or boredom.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
.Ask for c lariiifi.cat on, lb111t a,votdl debato and ar,gume:nt wittil the, public Only U1e Chi:iir - mot ind i\l\idual C-01.mcil Memb€:rs - can irn eJT1Jpt a s,p€:a €:r durirng a prnsernm.tion. However, a Oo11ndl 'ember can ask Ille Cha·r for a pain of order if Ille speaker is off th€: opic or exhibiting lb€:h.s1,vior or langua,ge the Council Memoor finds disturbing.

If sp€:akers b€:come flustered or ,de!ensive by Coundl q @tions , ii. is th€: rnsponsi'bility of th€:

Chair 'fo ca m and ocus the spe,aker and o rnairnlairn Ille order and decorum of'lhe m€:eting1, Questions by Council Mernb€:rs to members of till€: pu'blic testifying sihcmld se€:k to clarify or €:l4ipi:ind information . It is never a~propriate to lbelligerernlly challenge or b €:liltle lhe speaker, Cou ncil M'emoors' €:rsonal opinions or inclin.s1tions ab out upcom·ng 1101:es shou'ld not be revealed until after Ille pub ic hearing1 is closed.

Undortak no, pe sonal attaclks or an;y lctnd_ 11:ndor any cb cumstanco Cou ncil M'emoors shou'ld oo aware that heir body language and fone of voice, as well i:iS the worads they us€:., can appear to be in im·d,.tirng1 or aggrnssive.

Follow pa·rllamcrntary proccdum in co1ndu:ctr ,91 public 1mootin,9s Th€: Oily A omey Sfil\1€:S as a dvisory parUamenlarian or Ille City and is a,vail,ible to ans"Ner ques · oms or i nl€:rprnt situatiorns accordirng to Roberts Rules of Order., Firnal rulings on parliamentary pmcedure are made by the C!h,i"r, subjed to th€: ap p€:a'I of th€: ru'II Counci l.

D11 U'11,offlcla I Settings
Ma'ko no 1nomisos 011 lbollaGf ,o,f tlho Council
Council M'emoors ·11 frequently oo as-1<.ed to expl1fn a Cou rn cil a ction or to give the:ir op·nion about an issue as they meet and talk viilll1 cons ··uents iirn he comm nity. It is ap,prnpria e lo ,give a brief overview of C!ity policy arid to re er to C!ity sta for furth€:r in ormation or appropriale action. llt is in~ppr,opriaf€: to overtly or inll)licilly promis€: Co: ncil a ction, or fo pro: is€: C!ily staff will do something sp€:cii c ,( x: a pothole:, remov€: a1 l"brary book, plant nowflow€:rs ·rn €: median, €:le.) ..

Ma'k no pors·onall ,commonits about 0th.or 1Co1mcll Mombers II is acc€:ptable to publicly disag ree: abo an issue:, bu ii. is I nacceplabl €: to m ak€: derogatory co me:nls about olll.e:r Council Mtlm bers, their opiniorns arid actions.

Romcmbmrthat iC'o1mcll Members am allways o:n diisp ay
Cou ncil Me:moors are coost.mtly being1 observed by the coinm1m ily €:very day that llhey serv€: ·n ,office, Their b€:haiviors an d commernts serve as m ode:ls for prope:r deportment ·n lhe C ity of Sanla Clara , t-fo n€:sfy arid 1respect for th€: dignity of each ind i\l\idual should b €: rn· €:cied irn e;11€:ry worrd and adiorn taken1 by Counci l Membern, 2 ours a ,da,y., s€:11€:rn days a1 we€:k. n is a serious and contin ous r€:S!pornsibi il:y.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Counc!ill C,o:nduct. w ith Other PubHc A,genci,e,s
Bo clear abo ut. mp osen1iing tho c ·ty or ixirsonal rntc:J11osts If a, Ommci'I Mernb8f a~pears before ;;mollher ,govemme:nlal ii9@:nCY or,or,ga· izaool'il to give a, stat11::mel'ilI on am issue the Coul'lcil Me:mber must clearly stale if his or her stal.emen refilecls p8rsol'ilal opinion or is the officia'I stal'ilce of the Ciily.

If Ille Council M'emoor ·s re presel'ilf ng Ille City. he Council Memoor must su pport and advocate the o cial Oily position Ol'il an issue, not a pe:rsonal viewpoint If Ille Cou ncil Memoor ·s re presel'lling anofhe'I organiza ion whose positioo, is ,a· ernrd from the City. thi;: Co nail Men 'l:ler s!hcmk:I withdraw from voting on the issue if it signilicantly im;pacfs or is detrimental to the City's ·merest. Cou ncil Members shou'ld be dlear a'l:lout which orgal'iliza ions they rnpres11::n al'ld inform thi;: 'ayor and Coul'lc:il o lheir ·nvohJ11::menl Correspond'cn,oo sh ould also, be, oq1.1 ally c'toar ab01.1t rop:11ose11ta,tio1n City lelterhead may 11:111:: used when the Co nail Member is rnprnsentil'ilg1 thi;: Cily al'ild thi;: City's o oioil posi ion A copy of official oorres:pondenoo s!houk:I be given to the Executive Assis1.ant to the Mayor al'ld Oily Council to be filed · lhe Oounci l O ace as part of llhe pu'l:llic reoor,d.

Corres-p ol'ildenoo of Council Members re presenting a, ptlrsonal 1point ,of view on a City issue,, or a dissel'il ·ng11point of view from an o ,1oial Council position, should make i clear that the 11ie'l'1s e~pressed represent oo'ly the ·l'ildi\i·dua'I Coul'lc:il Member.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
C,ouncil Conduct wiitlil Bo.a.rd,, Commissions and Committee "We r are!¥ ·find fha.t people, ha.vo goodl sonse, 1mloss they· a.91100 with u.s."' F ancols, D11c do La IRoc'he.foucauld
The Ci ly has established several Boards, Oommissioms and Cammi ee (collectively referred to as City Commissions) iJiS i;i, eans of ,galtlerin91 more commLmily inpul c· izeniS who seNe an City Commissions become ore imvolved in government amd serve as advisors lo he City Council. They are a va uable resource to he City's !leadership and shoo1d he !reared witlh appreciation and respect.

If attcn.cltng1 a, City Commiss lo:n meetrn g1 oxprcss porsiona opinions, ,o:nly Council Members may atlend any City Co missiom meeting, whioh are always open lo a.ny me:mber of th€: p 1::11 ic. However, tlhey should 11::1€: sensitive lo the way 111.mr pa · cipa ion, - es,pecia11y if it is advocal"ng a cerufm pos· ion - could loo viewed as unfairly affecting1 the pmcess . Arly public comm1a1nts by a Council Mem'l::ler at a City Commission meeting sh ould be o1earty made as ·rnd ividua1 opinion, arnd nol. a representatiom of the feelimgs ,of the entire Cil:y Council. unless lhe Council has take:n a position ,on the to;pic. It the City Ooumcil will a er ll::le oonsiide ·ng an i em lflat llie Oommlssion, is discussing, Ille Council ember should o address the Commissiom on that item, and reooNe his or her oommenls or the Council eefog on the i em. Council Me:mbers sh.ould mot appear be ore a oommissiom on l:lehalt of an imdiviiduat busi ness or devek1per.

Romembcr'that 10lty Commlrsslo1ns, siorvo ·tltlo communi:ty not lndiv lduall iC'o11ncl Members The Oily Council a~po·ms in 1viduals to seNe on City Commissions,, and ii. is he responsillility of Ciify Commissions to fol ow policy estab'lished by the Coumcil. But City Oommissiorn members ,do oot report to individual Council Members, nor shauld Counci l Mmnbers eel lfley have the poorer or right to lhrea.tem City Commission members with removal if they disagree about an isS!l.10. AppoJmlmem and re-appointment to a, aty Commission, should b0 based on such crite:ria as tilCil)tirtise, ability to work with staff and th0 public,, and comm· ment lo rulfilring ,official dulies.

A Oily Commission appoinlinrlemt should no be used aiS a, po ilical "reward ." Conrems about an indivi al City Commission memb1a1 r should be ,discussed wi h fhe Mayor.

Bo m spocttu1I of"<Hvors,o opinions
A IPfiimary role o Cil:y Commissions is to irepresenI many po·ms o view in, th0 comn m· y and o pmvide the Ooumcil with advice based on a Iull spectrum o · oorncems amd perspectives. Council Memb0rs may have a, closer working11refatiomship with some imdiviiduals serving on Oily Com issions, b roos loo fair and respectt, of all ai ·z:ens serViing on C11y Commissions.

Koep, politica l! support away from publlic forums
City Commission membe:rs ma,y offer po ilioa1 support to, a Ooumcil Member, but mot ·n a public orum w. i'l0 condudiing1 official ties. Conversely, Council Members ma,y support board and commission members who .are rumning1 for o 1Ce,, but noti. ·n an, official fofi m ·n their capacity as a Co mail Mem:l::ler.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
ParHame:nrtary Prooedlu1r-e
'The ,obfed ,of Rules of Older is to ass:1:St an ,as:sem.f>Jy to accomplish• 1the 'Wark for which· tt was: designed, tn the be.st possible manner: To do Uil:S iUs necessary to res~ala the, tadlvidaa'I somewhat, as the, right of the l ndJ1dduat la any communUy, :to do what he pleases:, is Jn,compatibte, with the lnt91!9s-ts- of the, whole. " Honry Mal'lll 11 Robert
PlJblic rneeliirn g.s ·rn lho C ity of S1mta Clara - ·no1t1dirn g1 the City Cot1ncil, Co nail subcommittees, and all City boarads,, commissions arid committees - follow Robert's Rules or Order in order to ensllrn lllat bus·ness is colldL1cted urn an or.deny alld ,democratic manner. Rob erts Rules o Order are acc:e;pted throt1ghourl Ille U.S. as the standarad authority on parl iamentary law and pr,ooodure. Cop· s of Ille co plete text of Robert's Rules o Order are availa't:Jle at Ille Oily brary a:lld may be purchased at bookstores .. S ma.ries can be follnd ornline.

Th u1so of panl'lamontary p11ocodum:
• romotes coqperatio and h.:irmony so that l)tlople earn ,,vori( together more etteciiwl y l.o aocom,plish their goals;,
• 9t1arnntees each ·ndMdL1a an e qual rig'hHo 11Jrqpose motions , speak, asik. questions a'lld vote;
• rotects the rights o · m irnorit y 1points o V1iew arid gjves the minority the same considern ·011 and res,pecl as those in ~ majority:
• ernoot1rnges Ille · 1.dl a.nd free discussion ,of eve:ry motion p resernted ;, • ernsures thaUhe me,eting is ra ir and conducted ·rn good failh.

Wllo 'Was R.obort andl w'hy 1,s h, mak!tng tlho ru tos? Robert's Rllles of Order are based om parliamentary p~ure origi11a ly used in the B:rifish Pm1ia· en . Early colonists a llowed llhe Brnish model in the first New Eingla rn d owrn mootings.

Woori he was Presi em , Thomas Jefferson publish ed he first American book ,on parliamenlary pr,ooodure in 1801 ON: ich served as fhe rules or Congre ss. lin 1876, an erng"nee:r alld genera l irn the U.S. Army,, Henry Ma ·n Robert, modified hese pr,ooedures to m eet the ne€ds ,o ",or,d·nary sociel.y." His version, Roberrs Rules of Orde:r, has b ecome the a: horitative g ide for ,govemme11ls, ,or,ganizations, dubs and schools thmug'hou the lll.S.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Quomm1
A quorum is the m inimum number of ,m 'b@rs th .. t must b@ pres@nt for ,. gm~ to coodlllci busiooss. or he San1a 0 1 .. rn Cily Colllncil, ·s means that a m·nimum of our Co nail Mernb@rs or thrne Colllncil Me:[email protected] and th@ Mayor loo prns@nt for th@ Council meet ing to take .. ction.

Motions
A rnooon is th@ wa,y lllal busin@ss is cooduci@d by ai groLJp I nder pariliam@ntary proced re. llt is ,. proposal hat an in ividual woLJld like the group to consider and .. ct upon.

S ep s in m .. l<!ing,, discL11ssin9 and vof ng on ,. motion:

1. The rnak@r of he motion as!ks · or rnrognition by Hie Cha·r ..

2. Aff@r Hie in ivid ual iis recogniz.eo , he or she v1ill s .. y "II mov@ that 1,ve . . . "

3. The Cha·r will ask if th@rn is a, se.cood. Anolller rn@m'oor ,o Ille ,gmup rnLJsl second he motio.n in orad@rior it to iscuss@d .. A. second is made by sa,ying "I second the motion."

4.. The Cha·r th@n msta es @ motion "Ill. has ootm moved and se,co,ncled tha .... and o,pens Ille floor to discussion.

5. The Cha·r wm rncognize members who wislh to oomrn@nt on Ille motion. On1y one mo ion may be discLJssed a a fime. lit is i portant that all members ofthe groLJp are clear on wh.:i Ille motion is and wha ns e ect ·11 be. Spirited disrussiori helps to answer qLJestioris and explorn diff@rnnt interpretalions and/or impacts of the mo ·on ..

6. At the end of the disoussion period, the Chair will "call for the question~ and ask how- any members am in slllpport o · tt,e mooon, how many am oppose d .:ind if ·ther@ are any abs enfions. A majonity w t@ is needed for the mo · on to pass. Th@ motion may be noted .. s passing or a"ling1 lby verba "ayes" and "nays• of members,, by oo nting ai show of hands, or by using Ille eledirooic vot@ board for meetings held in Council Chambers.

Other common 1motio1ns.:

Amending1 a motion ii rnove to a end the motion by . . . ~ D@lay,ing1 consid@ra · on 11 rnove l.o table the motion until ... " Closing deba e I rnove the prev;ious question .... •
Requesting1 morn sludy "ii rnove lo efer this o __ (staff or su'boomm· @e) ror f rtherntLJdy ... ."
Objflciing to prooodlllrn Point of order.~

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 7: July 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes Item 5 City of Santa Clara
Minutes
Call and Not ice of Special Counc il Meet ing &
Counciil and Authoritiies Concurrent Meet ing
0711812023 6:00 PM Hybrid Meet ing
City Ha ll Council Cham bersJVirtua l
1500 Wa rburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in~person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely). • Via Zoom:
o https:/lsantadarnca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1 (669) 900-6833
How to Subm it Wrrtten Public Com ment Before City Counci l Meeting1:

1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page httpsJ/santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. eComme-nts are directly sent to the il egislate application used by City Council and staff, and become part of the public record. eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.

2. By email to [email protected] by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be foiwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supp!emental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff lime up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject tine of your email.

NOTE: Please note eComme i ts and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council ii.ems may be viewed on lhe I ntemet at https://santaclara .legistar .com/Calendar. aspx All public records felaling to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to lhe Califomia Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of lhe legislative body \',~II be available for public inspection at the Office of ttie City a e-rk at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that ttie pLibtic re-cords are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts, ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site or distributed in advance of fue Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by ttie City Council. For the final docu ment, you many contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 6 15-2220 or [email protected]. cny o-r Sama Ctara Pnmecr"" OIIIINl/2073

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Special Council Meeting & Mee,ting Minutes 07111812023
Counc i·I and .Autllorities Concu rrent Meeting
23-824 Action 011 Appointments Related to a Charter Review Committee and Direction to Study Charter Amendment Alternatives Related to the Positions of Police Chief and City Qerk for Possible Placement on a March 2024 ballot.

Recommendation: Alternative : Staff makes no recommendation cay or San,~ Clara
City Manager Grogan introduced the item and turned it over to Assistant City Manager Bojocquez who gave a Powerpoint presentation on appointments related to a Charter Review Committee and direction to study Oharter amendment alternatives related to the positions of Chief of Police and City Cleric
Council comments and questions followed.

A motion was l'liilade by Counci l'member Jain seconded by Councilmember Hardy, to a:p,point the seven nominees to the Ch.arter Review Committee.

Aye: 7 - Councilmember Watanabe, Councitmember Chahal, Council member Hardy, Vice Mayor Park, Councilmember Jain, Councilmember Becker, and Mayor Grllmor
A. motion was l'liilade by Vice Mayor Park, seconded by Councilmember Becke.r, to direct that the Charteir Review Committee, in the their sco,pe of wo It, cletennine if the positions of Chief of Polke and City Clerk sltould be appointed positions by eithetr the City Coundl/City Manager or continue to be elected; look into the specifications and qualifications of each irole comparable to other cities; and recommend additiona qualifications as it relates to the positions.

Aye: 5 - Councilmember Chahal, Councilmember Hardy, Vice Mayor Park, Councilmember Jain, and Councilmember Becker
Nay: 2 - Councilmember Watanabe, and Mayor Gillmor
Prim ed OJI 08',<1)!!12013

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 8: Purpose And Overview Of The 2023 Charter Review Committee
Cityof . Santa Clara
CHARTER REV EW COMMITTEE N:OMINATION FORM
Cify of Sant Clara
City Clerk's Office 1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Phone: 408-615-2220 E-mail : [email protected]
PURPOSE ANID OVERVilEW OF THE 2023 CHARTER REVIEW COMM TTEE At the June 6, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the creation of a 2023 Charter Review Committee (Comm ittee). The primary function of the Committee is to review and recommend to the City Council whether the provisions in the City Charter that provide for an elected Police Chief and/or City Cterk shall remain the same or whether an amendment to change the positions from elected to appointed positions and/or other changes to the currently stated qualifications for those positions should be placed on the March 2024 ballot. This scope of work is subject to final approval at the July 18, 2023 City Council meeting. The Coundl may accept, amend, or reject the Committee's recommendations and for those recommendations that are approved, determine the best method to structure the ballot measure(s). Discussions related to other portions of the City of Santa Clara. Charter are not part of the scope of this Committee.

The Committee must be impartial, unbiased and free of any perceived political gain. The Committee must adhere to public meeting requirements and strive to include and educate the community about the process and purpose of a Charter Review, the import.moo of a City Charter and to solicit community input on proposed changes prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.

Membership
The Charter Review Committee will consist of seven (7) voting members that are appointed by the City Council, including one member from each Council District and a member nom inated at large by the Mayor. City staff will be provided to support the Committee in an advisory role.

Meetings
Meeting dates will be set as determined by the majority of the Committee in consultation w ith City staff. All meetings shall be open to the public. The Committee shall hold at least two publicly advertised pubtic hearings and will consider written and oral testimony offore-d during the review process, best practices as well as any other information the Committee shall solicit regarding how other cities approach the selection and/or qualifications for these positions. At the first meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chair and a vice-chair who will serve as Chair in the absence of the Chair. A quorum must be present to conduct business and is necessary to adopt a motion.

Duration
The Committee shall terminate at the time its recommendations are presented to the City Council. The Committee's recommendations, together with the related staff report, must be presented to the City Council no later than November 14, 2023.

The City Coulilci l wishes to sincerely thank the nom ·rnees for their interest iin serving and outstanding commitmeri t to the Cy of Santa Clam.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
THE DEAIJLINIE TO SUBMIT NOMINA HONS IS 12:00 PM, JULY 12, 2023 I, -,-------,,,,..------,,,----,,--• hereby nomirate the following individual to serve on the 2023 Charter Review Committee:

MeyodCouncilmember
Nominee Information:

Name: --------------------------------------
Address: -------------------------------------
City:

State:

E-mail Address:

Primary Phone Number:

Secondary Phone !Number:

Are you a resident of the City of Santa. Clara?
(Musi be a residen' at time cl appl icalion - P<rNide 2 proofs of residency: i.e. License.'1 D, Utility Bill or passport) Zip Code: ________ _
Are you a registered voter of the City of Santa Clara?
(Must be a registered \'O'.er at time of a:pplicaili:011} D Yes 0 No,
City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on matters where there exists a potential confl ict of interest
Are you aware of any potential conflict that would prevent you from voting on matters to be considered by the Charter Review Committee? O Yes D No
Would you be willing to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises? D Yes D No By signing below, you ar,e affirming that if appointed, you have sufficienttime to devote to this responsrbility and attend meetings. Please note that the information provided on this form is a public record that may be subject to disclosure upon request.

Signature:

Date Signed:

You may submit the com pleted nomination form in person at: City Clerik's Office, 11500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Cllara, California 9·505<1 or email completed form to: [email protected] THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT NOMIN!ATIONI IS 12:00 PM, JULY 12,,.2023

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 9: Ethics Committee Presentation, December 4, 2023 Options to Consider
-
• .
(
Establish Time
L1m1ts
D1scuss1on Pnor
to Making a
Motion
\
-
- -
Robert's Rules
vs. Rosenberg
Rules of Order
I

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 10: Understanding The Role Of Ethics Commissions INSTITUTE FOR 1111 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ,.._,.,.

PUBILIC 5ERVl:cE ETH l:C5
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Under.standing the Role of IEthks Commissions
Orx:{!mblt 2007
QUESTtON
We ha .e a cir.izer,s • grot1µ hi aur ca;:am11r1iry consid ril¥J wheth r ro propose ~lablishing air ethics cammi:ssioti. We have laol«.·d for iliformaUar1 abmJl etbics cmmnissians lYut Ira 11ot real~ J:o11:tu1 much. Cati yau .lwlp?
ANSWER
Them am a, nu.mher of qu12 lions to ask In evaluating whether an ethics commission ropmsenm a, use:fu] 1.001 for .· OW' oommu11rlty. includJng:
l. What I.ls yot11' o o.raU goal?
.2. \NI/tat do you want an 11:tllllcs commission lo do?

3. How \ oull:I comml. Jon m mhers he sel@ct@d?

5. What oosouoc:12S are avaflabl@ to support th@ ,cornmisslon?

6. What decision-making prooe!'.1 . should ou use to demrmlrm wlmth a oomml!sslo.n, lls right fo th@ ,comm1.mity?
Ler s look at 1!:acll issue_
What Is Y,our Overall Goal?
The intefll:!it 111 creating an ,entity with on:w kind o.f rnsponslblm for pub]lc Ice @lilies can be 111~irnd by any number of goa~ . One goal may he symbolic: to ,convey the message that etllll Is Important to a, jurisdiction -- so Important that the juril'i:Cl.icticm has a bod rn.~.l'.lfilbfo for It_ Unfortunately .. symbolic g l1l1'@S raml accomplish much In terms of etMcs...
1"100 K Slreet, 5ulte 5 • Sacramento, 95814 • 9 115,.fiSB.8200 , F 9 15,_;1!144.753.S , www.ca-,11g .. OIJ9

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
f'oli!l)'day fdrlcs for Loca Officials
Understimd g lhe Role of'flhlc:s Comm s;s FIS December :WD7 Oth@r goals may rrilat.@ to !Im typi;t of rol@ Um @11 t:ity \. Ill play. An ethics task fore@ ca:l'.l d@!. min@ v.•h ther additional ethics m@asu~es .and a.ell m would oo help:rul In a jurisdiction. Th@ City of Long Beach US@d this approach in 2-001 whcrn ut. created an ethl task for that cutill oac:k a y,ear later \. Ith a sl'.!1'.!es of m. omm ndaU.ons on how lo enhance die @lhical clln1al.6 In Ill@ dty. This kl:l'.ld of e:11U.ty is an lnfonm!io.1:1,-,gad1 inQ and advl ory oody. However, llm city cou11 ii mad@ lh ulltl.mal.6 de · fo11011 \.h@thl'.tl' to .adopl the rn.@asums recommrmd@dl l:)y lh@ task fo~@.

One advantage of Im 111g an ethics tas:k fo:rc,e is that. lt orlngs th@ commul'.lll}' · s vole:@ to the taol@ aoout t M. In publics fee. D penciling on th@ ,compo.sitlon ofth@ tasik. fore@, the rnspcrct. tool. rask fo:oce rMmb . enjoy in th@ rnm.mu11ily can translate into, c,omm.m1Hy pect for tile l:al.k fooce·s proposals.

Types of Ethics Entities
The t:onowlng nomenclature may be helpful to ondc ore the d1fforbi.g roles that cthics-rel,ated posirlio.ns or bodies can play in an organization. allhough dift:c~re11t organirzations may us@ diffr~rent terminology.

Elblcs Task Fore@
A oodly ,cm1\•enedl oy a local agen .. to accompli'!!l:1 a p cUk msk. mlatins lo cthl ., typically iooking policy rooomrne11dlatlo11s on ways to, e:11han . !he ctilturc of ethics 111 an age:11cy. T he ta k for is us.ually disbanded after It has made Its recommendations or ac:complisih cl ils task.

Ethics Cornrnlttee
A tandl:l'.lg body de.,;igned lo be a source of advice on poUcy irnplemenlation and uppor1 for elllics within the ag@:tlCy. An el.hies c,omrnrittee can also play an cducattonal role withirn Ille ageu and! out. In the community.

Elbics Hotliot/Ornlmds-pc.rso:n
A soundirng ooard for public officials on publi rec ethic<: d lemmas. In lh@ pl'l\l'at.@ ect.o • many large ,companies pro Ide such a sour,cc of aclvi. e for their people. Thie<: kirndl of position can also pfay an edlucatlmml and training role.

Ethics Cornrnlss:ioo
A standl:ng bod w'ltl'I delegated! audiority lo irnterpret and enfo11c the juricw.1cl.io11·s et!hic<: regulatlm1s. An ethics commi~lon can alw pl,ay a role In training and ,ed1.1calio.11.
nstlrute fur L.ocal Government

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
l: . ...eiryday Elhks for Loca Offldials
Understimdlng !he Aole offiihlcs OITRlll 5.Slo ns December 2007 Oitho.r ,communitlf!s I/lave an ,gfulcs commltt,f!e. 1'1/lg oommltloo is a group of lndivithm ti/lat pro df!s advice and f@f!dback on hm to pr,omot@ aud fillhanc thf! c:il.y's ,mthlcs program. ll can comprisf! m.emb . of th@ puDlic, local official\s; or a cot1:tbinalion of bolh. 1'hfl City of .Sanla C]ara's. ethics conuu:ftloo, for examplf!, its composgd of th@ mayor and t\ o council rnembm. lille city mauag@r. city a.ttornf!y. cll.y df!l'ik. cl1i1f!f of pol 1cf! and lhf! city" . ethics advi:sor. Olh@r taff r-egu.]arl aU@nd. The mg tings ar12- O.fl@ll lo Ill!@ puollc, and !.Im city posts m@f!ting noticris and mails tlillm to those , ho vl"i h to be 11011:llf!d.

An ethics commission is usuall~ an 1Ji-oop1mdcmt body that p1rovld f!, tf!ma] ,ov,grslght and ,muorc@mf!nt of ,gfulcs laws.1
In Califo:rnlla., th@ tat@·. Farir PO:litlcal Practices Cmnml. !on (FPPC) pmf"om:1s lill role for stat and local officlaL subject to lh Political Reform Act 1'he FPPC rngu]ams:
• Can:ipallgn tlriancing and spri nding at thf! slatf! and local I @Is; • Fit1Jandal oorufl!I o:f hnl. t at thf! s!atf! and local levels:
• Lohoyisl. rngii. traHon and mporting at Um stale fgvel; • Post-go,Vfil'ntnf!Dtal mplo¥f.ruml. at lhe stal.e and local l@vels:
• Mass mamngs at puDlic e pense al. th@ · tat@ and local fovet..<::. and • Gifts and honorarJa given to public oft1dals and. candidates at Um stale and local fovers.

A lui: goal of a111 @!Irle ooirunirl ,ion I to enllanGf! publi trust ln 1ille @lhics @nlior,cetnf!flt procgs b assigning It to a quasi-incfgpfilld.@nl cmtit .

Locail agencies can lilavf! @thlcs comm ,lo.ns. that aro ,charg@d , Hh .ruforclng a:nd taking othf!r aclions with s~ct to loc:al f!thlcs. la\. • Such oomml siorts ma also pr,ovlde advico regarding local ethics la.. as weU as otl'.gr training on uc-h 111n!l .

One qoostlon to po.nd@r Is ,. h@tmi . yo1l1' city or county nf!@ds acfdlt!onal @Ihle. regulations (soo "Th oo Ought 10 B a La · at th bouom of fulls arlicle). California ailrQ<a.d has a fair!. compl arra of @thlcs llaw . For al'.I! ov@rvlew of exiistlng slate and focfgra] efu!cs llaw , . oo A Local Off'rcial"s Ethics Law R:f!f@~gnco at ™ .Gi-lli;: .. orgl till. la.

Common local @thics law includ@ laws !hat go b11yond th@ minimum standards @Stabll!s]:lld in va: .lous stal. law •. 1'hf!sf! l:nclude llaw •. that . late to campaign fd:t1Janc (contribution l.iml and puolic tiuanclng of campalgll ). llaw rngulating lobb)'ltSts, op n go rnm nt ,or "Simshlno" ordinancos and mo strunggnt gift rul@s.

Institute for acal Government

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethi cs for Local Offi cials
Understanding the Role of Et hics Co mmissions
Table 1. Ethics Commission Duties and Responsibilities
San Francisco
Ethics
Commi,,ion
Upon a four-fifths
vote of its members,
commission may
submit directly to
voters any ordinance
relating to conflict of
interest.campaign
finance, lobbying.
campaign consultants or governmenta l ethics
Commission serves
as filing officer for
state campaign
statements
Commission may
adopt administrative regulations;
regulations become
effective within 60
days unless vetoed
by a two-thirds
vote of the board of
supervisors
Ethics commission authorized to
hold hearings to
determine whether
an elective or appointed city officer
warrants suspension
or removal for acts of
official misconduct
Los Angeles
Ethics
Commission
Administers and implements laws concerning campaign
finance. lobbying,
conflict of interest
and governmental
ethics
Commission a lso
serves as filing officer for campaign
statements and is
required to conduct
audits of those state·
ments
Commission may
investigate alleged
violations of local
and state law pertaining to campaign
finance. lobbying,
ethics and conflict of
interest and report
to appropriate au·
thorities
Commission must
maintain a whistleblower hotline
Commission authorized to adopt
administrative
regulationssub_iect
to council approval
without moclifica·
tion
Commission may is-,
sue written opinions
and advice, the good
faith reliance on
which can provide
immunity from ora
defense to subsequent enforcement
proceedings
San Diego
Ethics
Commission
Administers,. monitors and enforces
city-enacted laws
concerning campaign finance. statements of economic
interests, conflict of
interest and gifts,
lobbyist registration
and other matters
proposed by the
commission and
adopted by the city
council
Commission may
investigate allegations of violations of
city campaign and
ethics laws
Tables prouidcd courtesrJ of Oakland Ethics Commission
Institute for Local Government
San Jose
Elections
Commission
Monitors compliance with all city
campaign and
ethics laws
Investigates allegations of violations of
city campaign and
ethics laws
Makes recommendations to the
city council on city
campaign and
ethics laws
Berkeley Fair
Campaign
Proctices
Commission
Administers and enforces the Berkeley
Election Reform Act
Prescribes forms,
publishes manuals
and assists other
city agencies in
connection with the
Berkeley Election
Reform Act
Commisslon may
issue opinions. the
good faith reliance
on which can provide immunity from
subsequent enforcement proceedings
December 2007
Oakland Ethics
Commission
Oversees compliance with all city
campaign and
ethics laws. including local•sunshine"'
ordinance, lobbyist
registration act public financing of campaigns. campaign finance act etc.

Makes recommendations to the
city council on city
campaign and
ethics laws
Imposes penalties
and fines as provided for by ordinance
Prescribes forms
forrelX)rts.statements.noticesand
other documents
related to campaign
finandng,conflict
of interest, lobbying
and ethics
Sets compensation for the office
of city council
member,which is
re'Jiewed and adjusted annually
Conducts investlgations,audits and
public hearings
4

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
[ye;iyday EINcs for l..oc.-il Offkl.als
Understandb)g !he Role off.lillh::s Comm s.slons December 2007 What Do You Want an Ethics C,o.mmission to IDo?
If c:r,f!atlng an indt::!pend@nt. rngullatory entity \. ould m~I. your community' !'i goal, th@ spoclflc dutJm . assigood to 1.itthlcs oomndsslons tend to fa]] Imo ooo ,or mor of thr,f!fit carogorlcs:
l. Ov oolng and @nfordng locail ethics laws and/or oodf!s;

2. Providing advicf!t to ]oral officials on ethics and @thles Jaw. : aud

3. Training local official\! on @!hies and ,f!thics laws.

Most ethics commissions tlmd to focus on mthks lalli\'S as oppo: d lo ethics (valt.ms-hasf!d conduct that goo.<; al:mve and ~yond the minimum roqu1rerrumls of lh Jaw). S@f! Tahl!'.!' l for a list of resp,onsib!litlcs. of various @lilies commb! iom;. 111 Cautornla,
1-lo,V.'f!Vllf, Oil@ California commUl'.l!ity expetlm@ntoo with ha\1ng an ,f!tllrlcs c:om mission that @nfor,coo Its valoos-il:ias@d e(brlcs ,codf!t. Thf! code had f!tx:amples of what ,conduct :ootloc!ing rnrtaln vailuf!s -- such as fal:rooss, lrustv;mrtbrinf!s.<;, rn.,;;poJ'.l8ibllity and r poct -- did and did not look li!lm. Th@ !ask asslgnoo to the @lilies commdsslon in chat situation was to assess whf!ther a given conduct foU Into thfl "do@S not foot like" carogory.

How Slhoul1d Members Be Select:ed?
For fill @!hies commb...sloo to achlf!Vfit thfl gpal of promoting puhllc ,contld@nrn 1n Its d@cisiol'.l-ma!king procf!SSM, it nood!. falr-m1ndf!d and diligent. memblit . . who are cone 11@d , ith l'!([U1talbly enfor 1ng Its adopt,f!d thl. Im. . and rnqulrfitmmts. Thi lflads to th@ question of who ajppoints th!'.!' mer11h of thf! ,f!l:hics c:om mis. Ion. Tablf! :2 illustral.1!8 how a m.mroor of Jm1sdict:ions Ila @ lr.l@d lo achieve !Im goal of appo1nling fair d@cisiol'.l-makllfS.

Public oollifldf!f:lce In th@ ,commls.~ron'. decisions is also @nhanC11:d lflhe commis.,;;lonf!rs are not particlpan ln dm pontlcail pro s lihat th@- are c:ruirgf!d with regulating. For that reason, a numoor ofjurl.sdictloM impose l\f!strlcliom;. on com missioners" pa.rtlclpatlon In @loctiot'.18. (sf!e Table 2).
lnstlrute ror Local Government .5

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 Table 2. Ethics Commission Composition and Restrictions on Commissioner Activities San Francisco Los Angelos San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair Oakland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Commission
Commission Five members. Flve members, Seven members. Five members, Nine members; Seven members, Composition each serving one each serving a each serving up each serving up each serving a each serving a slx·year term five-year term to two four-year to two four-year si ngle four-year three-year term Ter.ms staggered Terms staggered terms terms term Terms staggered annually annually Terms staggered Terms staggered Terms staggered Appointment Appointed by Ap pointed by Appointed by Appointed by The mayor and Three members mayor, board of mayor.city at- mayor from a two-thirds vote each city council appointed by supervisors, city tomey, contro l- poolofcandi- of city council member appoint mayor attorney, district ler, president dates a commissioner Four members attorney and as- CX council, and Each council Commission appointed by sessor president pro member and terms run con- the entire com- tern of counc il city attorney currently with missio n nominates seven the elected
candidates official's term
Mayor's appointments subject to
confirmation by
city council
Qualifications Mayor'sappoin- Must be a regis- At lea st one Must be a reg is- Must be a regis- Must be an tee must have tered voter member must tered voter with teredvoter Oakland resident back.ground in have held elec- some familiar- and registered to public records/ tive public office; ity with cam- vote
public meetings;: two must be paign laws: one
city attorney's lawyers; no more member must
appointee must than three can be a California
have background be from the same atto rney
in public ethics political party
law; assessor's Must be a regis· appointee must
have background tered voter
in campaign
finance law; remaining two
appointees must
represent general
public
Table 2 continued
Institute for Local Government 6

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics f or Local Offi cials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commi ssions December 2007 San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair 0akland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practi ces
Commission
Restrictions Can't hold public Can't hold public Can't make a Can't have a Can't hold or seek Can't be emoffice or be an of- office or partici- finmcial con- direct and sub- election to public ployed by the fleer of a political pate in an elec- tributlon to, or stantial financial office or serve as city or have any party tion campaign publidy support interest in any an officer of any direct and subCan't be a city Can't run for pub- or oppose., a can- business, work or political party stantial financial employee, reg- lie office within didate for public action by the city Can't participate interest in any office work or business istered lobbyist two years of a May not hold in or contribute or official action or campaign commission deci• Must agree not public office to a Berke 1ey by the city consultant sion concerning to run for elec· while a comm is· election camCan't participate that office tive office for stOOer paign Can't seek elecin a campaign 12 months aher May not run for tion to any other serving as a public office or for city office, a commissioner etective office participate in or ba llot measure or for one year contribute to an publicly endorse before or after Oakland munici· a candidate or servlng on the pal campaM)n ba llot measure commission May not endorse Can't endorse,
or work on behatf support, oppose,
of anycand.date orworkoo behalf
of any candidate while serving on or measure in an the commission Oakland election Vacancies Vacancies filled Appointments Vacancies filled Appointments Appointments A vacancy must by the api::oint- made within bythe mayor must be made must be made be filled no ing authority for 30 days by the fran a pool within 60 days by within 30 days by sooner than the remainderof appointing a1.r of i:andidates the city council to the appointing 30 days and no the term thority to fill the submitted by fill the unexpired authority to fill laterthan60days If less than three unexpired term each city council term the unexpired from the date years remaining member and the term that the vacancy
on the term, the cit·{ attorney occurs
api::ointee may
serve a new sixyearterm
What Powers Should the Ethics Commission Have?
Other key decisions that will have to be made in the process of creating an ethics commission are:
• What kind of power should the commission have?
• Will the commission have the power to investigate claims of violations? And • Can it subpoena records and compel people to testify before the commission? lnstitutefor Local Government 7

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics for Local Offi cials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 If the corrunission's primary function is to enforce ethics requirements, the corrunission will typically be given the power to impose penalties (usually fines) for violations of laws within its jurisdiction. It may also be given the power to issue orders compelling compliance with ethics laws or enjoining violations. Table 3 explains how various jurisdictions answer these questions.

Table 3. Ethics Commission Powers
San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair oakland Ethics Ethics Ethiu Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Commission
Enforcement A comprehensive A comprehensive A comprehensive Citycouncil The commissio n A comprehensive Procedures set of complaint set of complaint set of complaint adopts by resolu- may investigate set of complaint procedures exists; procedures exists; procedures exists; tion the commis- and hold hear- procedures exists investigations Investigations investigations sion's complaint ings to determine Changes to and preliminary and preliminary and preliminary procedures violations of the commission rules consideration of consideration of consideration of Berkeley Election and procedures complaints are complaints are complaints are Reform Act become effective confidential confidential confidential Hearings are within 60 days Commission can open to all inter- unless vetoed by
request appoint- ested persons two-thirds vote
ment of a special of the city council
prosecutor for
criminal enforcement if the
city attorney is
conflfcted
Conflict With Ethics charter
Other Laws provisions prevail
against confllCting loca l laws
Subpoena Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laws over Campaign Fi- Campaign Fi- Bection Cam- Citywide Ethics Berkeley Election Campaign Which the nance Reform Or- nance Ordinance paign Control Or- Code (includes Reform Act Finance Act Commission dinance (includes (includes public dinance;Citywide campaign fi- (O::RA); Ethics Has Jurisdic- public matching matching funds); Eth ics Ordinance; nance. lobbying, Code (for city tion funds);Campaign Governmental Municipal Lobby- revolving door counci0; Lobbyist and Government Ethics Ordinance; ing Ordinance and gift limita- Registratton Act; Conduct Code; Municipal Lob- tions) Conflict of InterProhibition of bying Ordinance; estCode;SunFalse Endorse- Post-Employ- shine Ordinance; ment in Cam- ment Ordinance Limited Public
paign Literature Financing Act;
Ordina nce: Lob- False Endorsebyist Registration mentinCamOrdinance:Sun- paign Literature shine Ordinance Act
(partial)
( -
What Resources Are Available To Support an Ethics Commission? The commission will typically need staff to assist with its work. The Los Angeles Ethics Corrunission employs 31 people, but staffing levels vary. Table 4 shows how various ethics corrunissions are staffed and their associated budgets.

Institute for Local Gove rnm ent 8

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethi cs for Loca l Offi cials
Understanding the Role of Eth ics Commissions December 2007 It 's also important to understand that indirect costs will be associated with supporting an ethics commission. Ethics commission staff will likely work closely with the agency counsel's office and possibly with the agency auditor. For example, in Berl<:eley, the city clerk's office also provides administrative support to the ethics commission.

Table 4. Ethics Commission Staffing and Resources
San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair oakland Ethic s Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections Campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practi ces
Commission
Number of 12 31 6 Nostaff{city No!taff(city 20
Staff (full-time clerk's office p ro· clerk's office proequiva lents) vides administra· v1des administra· trve assistance as tiveassistance as
needed) needed)
Annual $1,382,44 1 $2.60),000 $1,021,106 No separate No ieparate $279,644 Budget budget budget
Commission & Commission Commis.s1on CommissKm Committee meet· City provides City manager, Staff Relations appoints and appointsa nd appoints the ings staffed by the :ommission or his o r her may remove the may remove the executive direc- the offi ce of the with staff who designee(s), executive direc- executM' di rec- tor. subject to city clerk act in accordance provides the tor at will torat wrn confi rmation by City council with commis- commission with 6:ecutive direc- Executive di rec- the city council ha s author- sion poltcles and staff assistance tor has power tor has pov,,,er Executive di rec- ity to retain an regulations as necessary to PE-rmit the com· to appoint and to appoint and tor serves at the independent and mission to fulfill remove- othe r remove other pleasure of the neutra l evalua- its fu nc tions and commission commisson commission tor,selected by duties employees employees the commission, City attorney ls City attorney is to revi ew and
the commission's the commission's investigate comlegal advisor lega l advisor; pla ints filed with the commission. howeve r.com- The city council mission may em- must appropri- ploy or contract ate funds for this staff counsel on matters involving purpose
the conduct of City attorney
the city attorney, provides legal
his o r her offi ce, advice but does
or his or her elec- not participate in
tion camoaign investigations or
review of complaint>
Is an Ethics Commission Right For Your Jurisdiction?
A variety of decision-making processes are used to decide whether a community needs an ethics commission. Some jurisdictions assign the task of making recommendations on these issues to an ethics committee or task force. The task force's recommendations are presented to the city council or board of supeivisors, who then evaluate whether these recommendations should be adopted, adopted with modifications or subjected to further study and analysis. In charter cities and counties, the proposal may be put before the Institu te for Local Gove rnment 9

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
l:.1,1eiyday l:d\ks for L.oc.i Officials
Understandtng !he Role ofl:J!hlc:s LOl!lllll u ns December 2007 vot,f!rs as a dulrlJ . ar1t1e:ndmf!nl. V w.rs can a:&so us thf! lnitialiv@ pmcess lo prnposrt a malt,f!r for th@ Dalio I
Anotlillr option I!! . for commun,ity groups 10, colilabo:rate with a local agf!n on a oaUot .t111f!a url'.!'. l'hls hyorld approach h lp Cl'if!alif! a p:roposa1 that r,f!fl cts communLty coneerru as we:H as. th@ tochnlcal l'.!'Xpcrtl . ohhf! puhl ic agency about hm.. to ,cral't a meastu,f! 11ha1. addres, such c,onc 11s.

C,ondusion
Loca1 agencies Im @ a numoor of tools al\-allaole to !hem In promo ,f! a cull.Ure ,of ,f!lhics and compHance with @!Ille . law in !heir jur dl.cllorus. An ethics comntl: .Ion Is onf! such tool. U~m an tool!! . thf!rn ar,f! tasks tool mhlcs commissions Cfil11 p@rform w,f!U , 'i.. hlle othf!r @lhics-oolatf!d functions may b Df!tt,f!r achll'.!'l\r@d by other mf!asur!J!S . For m rn Information aoou1 th@ range of tools avarllablf! to local ag ncl . to p:romotf! @thlc in puDllc rule@. ksit th@ [nstUuw for l!...ocal Gove.rnmf!r1fs Ethics R1JSot.1rc@ Centill' a.t Vl'W\ . . ca-U .or ere .

Ther,e Ought t o Be a Law a- W.ait, There Is On,e!
Som times a juri diction wiH find its-elf evaluating w1hmhff to form .a11 ethics romml slon or other cthics-rdate<l entity 'i.. 1en ll l~ experiencing a scandal Leaders may foe! t.mdcr pr sure lO "<lo sommhlng" to prev nt futur scan.dais. To reslPoud ei'f eclivcl. , II. can DC helpful lo idcnlify exacl y what ,caused the s-candal lO oc-cur and tailor the r ponsc accordingly.

Som times the scandal wm Ile lhat som on@ Is charg d 'i.. 1th vloJatlng an ethics laiw.

Under sucll ci11c111n1Stanc . I.he solution may not be more laws or even morn law enforccn.mnt The solulloo .may he stepped-op lralnl.ng. Such training may b hclpf\J:l If lhe pricvaillng sense i,s thal . omeonc made an ignorant mistake (either nol lmnwlng som thing was against tile Iaw or not. realizing the consequences of getting caught).

Gr,catcr attentlor1 to cr,cat111g a cull11re of ellhics \. lth!11 the jurlsdictlon and scnsili2°l11g lhe vm. to the n d for considering ,ethics as a rite-r~a In elections niay al o be solutions ( c:e "Santa Clara infuses Ethic.,;, Into Campaigns" regarding the city's "Vot,c Ethics'' efforts).

In other ,cases., theli\c niay not ha\l'e Ileen a perceived iolatlon of the law but a peroclved lack of ,mforcement. U- lhls Is the H11atlon. keep In mind that !here may b mu:itiplc enforc,cn1.en1 mechanl~ms. Fo example. the Polilical Reform Aicl allows tor private enfor,cemcnl if the Fair Political Pracllc . Commls.<tlon docs not take actlou mi a complalnl. Moroo\ r, under I.he tcdcrnl Im. that prot,c the public's right t,o "honest scr Ices" fmm It.,;, puhll officials. many violaitlons ,of state clhics laws ,can also be prosccut,cd by the U.S. Allor.ney· Office as a .form ,of mail or I/Ire fraud (or If nmu was I 1vol\ d, ,even incmne tax evasion).
lnstlwte tor ac.al Government 10

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
IE.~day · s for Local Offldals
Understand!Dg ·the Jto\e ofahlcs Corrn:m s;s ns Decerrnber 2007 Alternalm ,ct .. the candal tnay be than som 011 did n l ngag in con du. nhat hould nff.lcssaliil . ·.nd them io Jail or • · rn nh m t pay a fln : th j t e rdsed v ry poo judgment Or It ,c uld ibe a forrn of oonducl thal ts ry di lieu It to l\cgulat (f o ex.amp!e, is.iw.es lated lo . c speech). Tfl, . , . 11hcr an asplrationa]. .ah.1.e-bascd code ,of ,cfuics ,can help. partic-ularil 1f 1l ts ac. ompanled by .a \1,,dl-dcfmn d . . o. · tently ,mplem ntcd program t hlgh1ighl the impolifaru::,c f lhe ,cod as a gu1d for rerydlay conduct b pobl ic officials thal · fle<:ts nh c,ommtu:1t1t · s ,c pectations.

Vi it M"t. . . c:a-ilg.org/ethi cod . for .mo1J1c it1iformation on U1 . approoclL In shon. Ifs important \. hen facing d 1nands that one do S0:111 thmng .about an ,ethics I sue lO c:hoa a ro of action r,ca nabI tahlor d to f I l:ng the pr blem rhat ga ra. to nh ~ . u ·. Olhel'\ ~ . one fac,cs nh pect or .fwthcr ro loJl. · f rlh public·. lrl.lSl and ,confidenc 11' a r med '. whU \\ II-int n:d d. prov,cs in fli cliv,c lfi preventing a · peat ocC'l.lffence.
'f hi ploc,e o ig1nall~ lian in We, lt;j:J:'11 Cit Maga hne and Its a · .. rvl of' t.h l . thtum foli Loe ,] Gowrnm nt ([LG) Ethics Project. \Vhlch off . r our. oo puhU @l.hlc . :for focai] offmc.ials. F r morn .,nf rmatlou. v' H. \\l\'1.1 . • rn-Us. rs{tli· t.

ILG 1 g:ran fiu.] no~ indl idua.m for tlillir a sisM1we In pooparhig this articl@: llim :Pl!lmclfl . mrecut,v,e diooctor. Oaklland Ethics Cmnmi 1on; Heather h od. s1stant dty antorooy. Long B~ch: J .tll'.l!mfor Sparacino. tit.y ma nag . Cht.y of Santa . Iara: and Ca , ol Mc:Carnhy. deputy d.ty manager. City of· Santa C:llara. C nfilo . :fut1(Hng for nh d@v,elopment o:f this ,coh.1m11 was pro ided by tlill [nt 1tat.l.onal City- ounty Management Ass.ociatio:n (]CMA) R@tlr@ment mpoiratlon (\\l\'i. • Jc.marc.o:r:g). who · f! m a.on ' to ibuild retirnt-nefii ocurrlty :for the IP bU . s t r.
1:ndnote:
1 Natlmtal Ccmfi rai:ic of cS.a: · Leg~lat ~'i. l!'.ilnlc. C001ml1jl!rf!_ aoo 11 C:'i. Co:mmlHIO'.ll"i.! Win i'i tme D liff e11J ? Ava LJahle at hJt p: //WW!.\'. llC!lil. o rg/ p roe,; ms.le tli . 11 In 1s. lme Hf.ere m::e. him.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

REFERENCES
Bibliography
2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/If%20You%20Only%20Read% 20the%20Ballot%20You%20Are%20Being%20Duped.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2023. 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Unsportsmanlike%20Conduct% 20-%20Santa%20Clara%20City%20Council.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2023.

California Fair Political Practices Commission. “About the FPPC.” 2024. (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/about-fppc.html). Accessed March 16, 2024.

California Fair Political Practices Commission. “Complaint and Case Information Portal.” Case numbers 2021-00559, 2021-00558. 2024.
(https://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/complaint-and-case-information-portal.html).

Accessed March 28, 2024.

California Fair Political Practices Commission. “Enforcement policy goals.” 2022. (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NSDocuments/AgendaDocuments/General%20Items/2023/january/15.1-draft-enforcementpolicy-goals-Nov22-LP.pdf ). Accessed March 13, 2024.

Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6250-6270.

Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54950-54963.

Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7920.000-7931.000.

California Legislature. “California Legislative Information. Bill Information: AB 1234: Local Agencies Compensation and Ethics.” 2005-2006.
(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB1234).

Accessed March 13, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City of Santa Clara. “2023 Charter Review Committee.” n.d. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/government/city-committees/2023-charter-review-committee). Accessed March 30, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “About Santa Clara; Not Your Typical Bay Area City.” September 18, 2021. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/about-santaclara#:~:text=Santa%20Clara%20is%20a%20Charter,Council%2FManager%20form%20 of%20government). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Adopted Operating Budget.” September 18, 2023.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/81751/6383099755312000 00). Accessed May 16, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget.” April 29, 2024.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83797/6385008933234700 00). Accessed May 16, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Agenda Report: Report to Stadium Authority Board.” February 6, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83198/6384333082707700 00). Accessed March 28, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Call & Notice of Special Meetings – City Council & Santa Clara Stadium Authority – Sept. 26, 2023.” September 26, 2023. (https://www.youtube.com/live/2EFyVKpLYI?si=YUWM2ubTrhe2q_gX). Accessed March 30, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Charter of the City of Santa Clara California.” October 10, 2023. (https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/SantaClaraCH.html). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “City Attorney’s Office.” October 10, 2023. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-soffice#:~:text=Under%20the%20Charter%20of%20the,law%20pertaining%20to%20their %20offices). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “City of Santa Clara Council Policy and Procedure Manual: Review of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions.” July 2002. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/52964/6363600278485300 00). Accessed March 13, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City of Santa Clara. “City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual: Adding an Item to the Agenda.” October 24, 2023.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/82368/6383549057821300 00). Accessed March 28, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual: Admonition and Censure Policy.” May 2018.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57775/6366207653881000 00). Accessed March 28, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Mayor and Council.” April 27, 2023. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/government/mayor-and-council). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Boards and Commissions.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/boards-commissions.) Accessed May 16, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Ethics and Values.” July 12, 2023. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/government/governance/ethics-values). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Code of Ethics & Values.” March 22, 2019. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/governance/ethics-values/code-ofethics-values). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Legislative Public Meetings.” n.d. (https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “March 5, 2024 Special Election: Charter Amendment Measure B Official Ballot Language.” January 8, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departmentsa-f/city-clerk-s-office/election-information/march-5-2024-special-election). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Welcome to the City of Santa Clara Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings.” 2024. (https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=CSC).

Accessed March 30, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City of Santa Clara. “Santa Clara Stadium Authority.” January 29, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadiumauthority#:~:text=The%20Santa%20Clara%20Stadium%20Authority,and%20operation% 20of%20Levi%27s%20Stadium). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Survey Finds More Than 75% of Employees Are Satisfied With the City as an Employer.” October 7, 2019.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/39304/95). Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara Program in Ethics & Values. “Behavioral Standards for City Council Members.” May 20, 2008.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/278/635713044859030000).

Accessed March 13, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “City of Santa Clara Ethics & Values Program Highlights of Accomplishments.” December 19, 2011.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6721/63571304485903000 0). Accessed May 16, 2024.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Registrar of Voters. “Complete text of Measure J.” 2010. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/78490/6380064732314000 00). Accessed March 13, 2024.

Courthouse News Service. “Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The People of the State of California v. Anthony Becker.” 2023. (https://www.courthousenews.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/04/INDICTMENT-Anthony-Becker-Filed-Copy.pdf). Accessed March 28, 2024.

Hamilton, Randy. “How Well-Informed Public Officials Promote the Public Interest.” League of California Cities. 2024. (https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/new-mayors-andcouncil-members-academy-session-materials/09.-your-role-as-an-electedofficial.pdf?sfvrsn=ba177a_3). Accessed March 28, 2024.

Hase, Grace. “Santa Clara Has no Money to Meet $624 Million in Infrastructure Needs.” Mercury News. March 30, 2024. (https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/03/30/santa-clarahas-624-million-in-infrastructure-needs-but-doesnt-have-the-money-to-fundit/#:~:text=But%20Santa%20Clara%20historically%20hasn,year%20when%20the%20G eorge%20F). Accessed April 27, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Institute for Local Government. “Codes of Conduct for Elected Boards.” 2015. (https://www.cailg.org/conduct). Accessed March 13, 2024.

Institute for Local Government. “Everyday Ethics for Local Officials; Deciding When Not to Participate in an Agency Decision: Abstentions and Disqualifications.” December 2002. (https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/resources__Everyday_Ethics_Dec02_0.pdf). Accessed March 17, 2024.

Institute for Local Government. “Everyday Ethics for Local Officials: Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions.” December 2007. (https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/resources__Everyday_Ethics_Dec07_0.pdf?1405446847) Accessed March 13, 2024.

Institute for Local Government. “Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics Laws.” 2016. (https://www.ca-ilg.org/document/understanding-basics-public-service-ethicslaws). Accessed March 13, 2024.

International City/County Management Association (ICMA). “Council-Manager Form of Government.” n.d. (https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:fe6df5d8-d9da-4f38- ae8b-77ca27ad8366). Accessed March 13, 2024.

League of California Cities. “Powering Up For California’s Cities: Strategic Growth Plan: 2018- 2021.” n.d. (https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/league-of-californiacities-strategic-growth-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=add98a2e_3). Accessed March 13, 2024.

Levi’s Stadium website, Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, Home. n.d. (https://www.levisstadium.com/seats/). Accessed May 17, 2024.

National Conference of State Legislatures. “Committees and Commissions: What’s the Difference?” January 7, 2023. (https://www.ncsl.org/ethics/committees-andcommissions#:~:text=The%20most%20clearly%20distinguishable%20feature,on%20co mmissions%20in%20most%20states). Accessed March 13, 2024.

Santa Clara City Code §§ 2.10.020, 2.15.020.

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 March 30, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. “Response from the City of Santa Clara.” January 4, 2023.
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Unsportsmanlike%20Conduct% 20response%20-%20City%20of%20Santa%20Clara.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2024.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
This report was ADOPTED by the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day Foreperson
Karen Enzensperger
______________________________
of June, 2024.
p
f