Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, September 3, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

City of Santa Clara
Meeting Agenda
Call and Notice of Special Meeting of the
City Council and
Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board
Hybrid Meeting
City Hall Council Chambers/Virtual
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
5:00 PMTuesday, September 3, 2024
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://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1(669) 900-6833
How to Submit Written Public Comment Before City Council Meeting:

1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate 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 forwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supplemental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff time up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email.

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

Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk at Sana Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that the public records 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 the Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by the City Council. For the final document, you many contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 615-2220 or [email protected].

Page 1 of 4 ends

Call and Notice of Special Meeting of the City
Council and Stadium Authority Board
Meeting Agenda September 3, 2024
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code §54956 (“The Brown Act”) and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the Mayor calls for a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara and the Governing Board of the Stadium Authority to commence and convene on September 3, 2024, at 5:00 pm for a Special Meeting to be held virtually and in the City Hall Council Chambers located in the East Wing of City Hall at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, to consider the following matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them.
5:00 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING Call to Order in the Council Chambers
Pledge of Allegiance and Statement of Values
Roll Call

GENERAL BUSINESS
Any agenda business not considered or completed, will be continued and considered at the next Special City/Stadium Authority meeting scheduled on September 4, 2024.

1. Action on the City Council’s Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council”
24-877

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil
Grand Jury Report entitled “Irreconcilable
Differences: Santa Clara City Council” and direct
the City Attorney/Authority Counsel to prepare the
formal response consistent with City
Council/Stadium Authority direction.

1. Authorize the Stadium Authority Chair to submit
the City/Stadium Authority’s response to the Civil
Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject
only to finalization of response language, as
directed, and any technical, conforming,
non-substantive modifications approved by the
City Attorney/Authority Counsel, to the Honorable
Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than
September 10, 2024.

Recommendation:

Page 2 of 4 ends

Call and Notice of Special Meeting of the City
Council and Stadium Authority Board
Meeting Agenda September 3, 2024

2. Action on a Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled
“Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa
Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers”
24-878

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil
Grand Jury Report entitled “Outplayed: Measure J,
the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco
49ers” and direct the City Attorney/Authority
Counsel to prepare the formal response consistent
with City Council/Stadium Authority direction.

2. Authorize the Stadium Authority Chair to submit
the City/Stadium Authority’s response to the Civil
Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject
only to finalization of response language, as
directed, and any technical, conforming,
non-substantive modifications approved by the
City Attorney/Authority Counsel, to the Honorable
Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than
September 11, 2024.

Recommendation:

ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled special meeting is on Wednesday, September 4, 2024 in the City Hall Council Chambers.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Call and Notice of Special Meeting of the City
Council and Stadium Authority Board
Meeting Agenda September 3, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

STREAMING SERVICES: As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15 or AT&T U-verse channel 99), or the livestream on the City’s YouTube channel or Facebook page.

Note: The public cannot participate in the meeting through these livestreaming methods; livestreaming capabilities may be disrupted at times, viewers may always view and participate in meetings in-person and via Zoom as noted on the agenda.

AB23 ANNOUNCEMENT: Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting.

Note: The City Council and its associated Authorities meet as separate agencies but in a concurrent manner. Actions taken should be considered actions of only the identified policy body.

LEGEND: City Council (CC); Stadium Authority (SA); Sports and Open Space Authority (SOSA); Housing Authority (HA); Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency (SARDA); Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority (BNPEA); Public Facilities Financing Corporation (PFFC) Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

If a member of the public submits a speaker card for any agenda items, their name will appear in the Minutes. If no speaker card is submitted, the Minutes will reflect "Public Speaker." In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities.

Agendas and other written materials distributed during a public meeting that are public record will be made available by the City in an appropriate alternative format. Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 1 408-615-2220 with your request for an alternative format copy of the agenda or other written materials.

Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

MEETING DISCLOSURES
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on the City Council’s Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council”

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2024, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” (Civil Grand Jury report) (Attachment 1). The Civil Grand Jury report includes various findings and recommendations. California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days on the specified findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.

On July 9, 2024, the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations were presented to the City Council and staff requested input from the Council on the desired process for providing the City’s response. The Council directed staff to prepare draft responses to the Civil Grand Jury report, including a process and options for developing an ethics program for further Council input and direction at a meeting to be scheduled as soon as possible but no later than in time for a timely response to the Civil Grand Jury.

The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:

Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury finding:

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.

Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024

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 cannot 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.

Consistent with the Council’s July 9, 2024 action and Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council’s consideration and approval.

The City Council’s final responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 10, 2024. Individual Councilmembers who also received the Civil Grand Jury report with request for their response to certain findings and recommendations were provided a deadline to submit their responses by August 12, 2024.

DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only specific findings and recommendations require the City’s response. The report included a total of nine (9) findings and twenty-two (22) recommendations. Of these, the City, as an agency, has been directed to respond to eight (8) of the findings and nine (9) of the recommendations.

Individual Councilmember(s) were directed to respond to Findings 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 and 5 and Recommendations 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h, 2a, 2b, 2c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 5e. The findings and recommendations that do not require the City’s response as an agency are not included below.

A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” report can be found on pages 35-39 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website:
<https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/irreconcilable-differences-santa-clara-city-council- final.pdf>.

Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings that the City was directed to respond to:

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

Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. However, it is important to note that at every regular meeting of the City Council, most items that come before the body are approved unanimously and without contentious debate. Further, members of the City Council routinely attend ceremonial events and community celebrations at the same time and professionally represent the City.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that working relationships are broken and that long-standing grievances do impede the City Council’s ability to conduct business professionally in a number of areas.

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

Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding.

The City Council acknowledges that, on occasion, the behavior of the City Council (both collectively and individually) does not adhere to the behavioral standards outlined in the City’s policies.

Finding 1c
Councilmembers Becker and Park air petty grievances and engage in squabbles with other elected officials and constituents from the dais. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.

The City Council as a whole does not think it appropriate to call out specific Councilmembers as several members of the City Council have expressed grievances towards one another and constituents from the dais. Through their individual responses, some Council members have addressed this practice and their beliefs on how widespread it is. However, at this juncture and collectively, the City Council desires to simply state that such behavior is not appropriate.

Finding 2
Councilmembers Becker, Park, and Chahal do not understand and/or do not follow established parliamentary and meeting procedures. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees with the finding.

Through their individual responses, some Council members have addressed this finding. The City Council as a whole declines to comment on the extent to what individual Councilmembers may or may not “understand” parliamentary procedures. However, at this juncture and collectively, the City Council desires to state that compliance with parliamentary procedures is an important part of their collective and individual responsibilities.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, it is important to note that a request to override a decision of the Mayor as presiding officer of a meeting is provided for in Robert’s Rules of Order (See Robert’s Rules of Order sections 23 and 24).

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Finding 3
Some Councilmembers do not uphold their responsibility to conduct the City’s business professionally and efficiently.

Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.

The City Council acknowledges that, on occasion, the behavior of the City Council (both collectively and individually) does not adhere to best practices for conducting City business in a professional and efficient manner.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.

As a body, the City Council does not believe that it is appropriate to provide an opinion on the motivations for individual Council members' actions. We agree that verbal attacks, mocking, and disparaging remarks have been made by several Councilmembers, and that this is not appropriate behavior.

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

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the finding.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the finding.

Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations that the City was directed to respond to:

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
The City is working to identify an appropriate conflict resolution professional or firm that has experience with elected bodies. The City intends to structure the training in two parts: First, a one-on- one session that will be offered to each Council member, followed by a group session with the entire City Council.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council can benefit from conflict resolution training.

As noted in the response to Recommendation 1a, “the City is working to identify an appropriate conflict resolution professional or firm that has experience with elected bodies. The City intends to structure the training in two parts: First, a one-on-one session that will be offered to each Council member, followed by a group session with the entire City Council.

Implementation of this resolution may not be feasible by October 1, given the City’s procurement and contracting timelines. Further, with the impending City Council election that will occur on November 5, 2024, it will be appropriate and cost-efficient for this training to occur in early 2025.” 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.

Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council should attend training in parliamentary procedures. This is especially true given that the Governance and Ethics Committee is recommending that the Council amend its Meeting Management Protocols and transition from a system based on Robert’s Rules of Order to a system based on Rosenburg’s Rules of Order, with modifications tailored to confirm with other City Council adopted and desired policies. See response to Recommendation 3.

Given the City Council election occurring on November 5, 2024, the training will be timed to coincide with the new Council member onboarding process in early 2025 but will be offered to all Council members.

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 City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

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.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.

At their July 2, 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee, the Committee heard an item entitled “Review Meeting Management Protocol Options and Rosenberg's Rules of Order and Provide Direction to Staff”. At the meeting, direction was provided to return to the committee with a Meeting Management Protocol based on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

The item is currently scheduled to go before the Governance Committee for discussion and adoption City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
on September 16, 2024.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.

However, as noted in the Civil Grand Jury’s report, there are several models for how to structure and appoint members to an Independent Ethics Commission. The City will release an RFP by October 1, 2024, to solicit assistance from a qualified consultant to identify options and best practices for the structure, powers and duties for such commissions, with a goal of establishing this body in 2025.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.

In March 2024, the City conducted a solicitation for a vendor to perform a review of the City’s ethics documents per Council direction. The law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore was selected, and their work is ongoing. The scope of work was based on the City Council direction to hire consultant for the review of existing City Ethics documents (e.g., Behavioral Standards of City Councilmembers and Code of Ethics and Values). In addition, the scope includes developing recommendations for improvements based on review and benchmarking; a presentation and engagement with Governance and Ethics Committee on recommended changes; (and); a presentation to City Council based on Governance and Ethics Committee review.

The City anticipates Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to present its work/ findings to the Governance Committee in October 2024. Any amendments will require City Council approval. Training on new/amended ethics policies will occur following their implementation, which is anticipated to occur in Spring 2025.

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 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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation and it will be implemented.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Implementation of this resolution may not be feasible by October 1, given the City’s procurement and contracting timelines. Further, with the impending City Council election that will occur on November 5, 2024, it will be appropriate and cost-efficient for this training to occur in early 2025.

Historically, the City has covered the cost for a few members of the City Council to attend the Cal Cities “Mayors and Council Members Academy.” The academy is held annually, but the City has not allocated sufficient funds for all Councilmembers to attend if they desire to do so. Going forward, the staff will include sufficient funds in the proposed budget for all Council members to attend the annual academy. The next sessions are scheduled for January 22-24, 2025, and January 29-31, 2025.

According to Cal Cities, “Whether you’re a new mayor or city council member, or you’ve been serving your community for years, this academy is for you. The academy covers the legal, financial, and practical fundamentals to your job as an elected city official. Just as vital, you’ll have opportunities to foster relationships with your peers.” Specific to this recommendation, prior Cal Cities Mayors and Council Members Academies have included sessions on:
• Understanding Public Service Ethics Laws and Principles: AB 1234 Training • Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors and Officials (AB 1661) • Developing an Effective City Council and Manager Team - Key to Good Governance and City Success
• Your Legal Powers and Obligations
• Open Government and Conflicts of Interest
Note: In the fall of 2023, the City Attorney’s office conducted a 3-hour, in person AB 1234 training with the City Council. In addition to a majority of Councilmembers, more than 80 City staff members and members of the public attended. Topics included: ethics generally, local City ethics policies, conflicts of interest, gift limitations, disclosure requirements, Open Meeting laws (Brown Act) and Public Records Act laws. An updated version of this training will again be provided by the City Attorney’s office sometime in the fall of 2024.

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.

Draft Response
The City Council agrees with this recommendation. The City conducted a procurement process and hired a third party to do an Employee Survey in 2018/2019 and agrees another Employee Survey is timely. Staff will conduct a procurement process with the goal of having an employee survey completed by late fall/early winter 2024.

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

Draft Response
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
24-877 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented in September 2025 via a resolution that is placed before the City Council for adoption and then subsequently conveyed to all City staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense. However, implementation of certain contemplated recommendations may result in increased expense for the City, which will be addressed by budget action, if necessary.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” and direct the City Attorney/Authority Counsel to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council/Stadium Authority direction.

1. Authorize the Stadium Authority Chair to submit the City/Stadium Authority’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney/Authority Counsel, to the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 10, 2024.

Reviewed and approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager and Glen R. Googins, City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civil Grand Jury Report: “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y

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

June 12, 2024

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

Sent via email: [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.

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

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 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 Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than September 10, 2024. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

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

Sincerely,

Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
2023-24 Civil Grand Jury

Enclosures
cc: 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

Page 1 of 91 ends

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

Page 2 of 91 ends

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

Page 3 of 91 ends

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.

Page 4 of 91 ends

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 s ection 54952), that local
agency's officials must receive two hours of
training in ethics every two years.

At-Large Election A type of elect ion 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.

Page 5 of 91 ends

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.

Page 6 of 91 ends

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 t he 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.

Page 7 of 91 ends

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 c ouncilmembers’ behaviors reflect deep divisions, rivalry, and routine disrespect among the Mayor and C ouncilmembers and towards other City of Santa Clara (City) elected officials. In addition, several C ouncilmembers have turned public meetings into spectacles by displaying abusive and belittli ng 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).

Page 8 of 91 ends

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 c enter, a u niversity, 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 C ity 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 C ity Clerk, and it is the last in California to have an elected P olice 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
,.,,.;;i;;1fr1•11i•

Page 9 of 91 ends

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 C ouncil 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 J in 2010. According to its website, the Stadium Authority “exists as a public body, separate and distinc t fr om 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 deb ts or obligations of the Stadium Authority” (City of Santa Clara, January 29, 2024). The Mayor and C ouncilmembers 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

Page 10 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City Manager , who serves as its executive director ; the City A ttorney, 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, c ontributions 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 R eport “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Counci l” (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 C ouncilmembers (City Council Voting

Page 11 of 91 ends

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 the y 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 comm ittee had not met for an entire year and no enforcement mechanism of the C ity’s ethics guidelines existed other than sel f-policing.

Additionally, the Report stated that Councilmembers had voted in a closed session to end a third- party 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, Co uncilmember Anthony Becker was indicted by a Santa Clara County C riminal 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 pr ovided 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

Page 12 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Values code and a list of Behavioral Standards for City Council members. 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 gover nment 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 transparenc y, 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 collaborati on. The

Page 13 of 91 ends

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, t wo 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.

Page 14 of 91 ends

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.

Page 15 of 91 ends

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 beh avior 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

Page 16 of 91 ends

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 S anta 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 C ity, a C ity-owned
utility and a C ity-owned stadium is similar to managing three large cor porations, 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 C ouncilmembers laughing at the antics and rude behavior of some of their colle agues. 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

Page 17 of 91 ends

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 C ivil 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 M ayor stopped the proceedings and instructed the Assistant City Clerk to read aloud the C ity’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

Page 18 of 91 ends

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 C ity 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 C ouncilmembers 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 referenc ed 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

Page 19 of 91 ends

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 C ommissioner’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 C ommissioner 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 A ttorney. 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 this is correct, but frequent abstentions are not an ethical or recommended best practice for elected officials. As stated by ILG:

Page 20 of 91 ends

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 C ouncilmembers explicitly state that removal of C ommissioners 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 w ork 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 t he 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 , i ncluding
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

Page 21 of 91 ends

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 C ouncilmember 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, deli berate, 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, C ouncilmembers, 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 appli cant 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

Page 22 of 91 ends

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 C ouncilmembers 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 date s 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

Page 23 of 91 ends

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 questi onable 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 C ouncilmembers 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 Chi ef 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

Page 24 of 91 ends

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 Char ter 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 at- large. 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 Polic e 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 t he 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 one s 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

Page 25 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
to appointed and 72% voted against M easure 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 C ommittee 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 consult ed 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 e ntire 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).

Page 26 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
The 2022 Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “If You Only Read the Ba llot 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 C ouncilmembers who promoted placing Measures A and B on the ballot wer e either out of touch with their constituents , or were uninterested in public sentiment.

Furthermore, the C ouncilmembers 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 m ature discussions to successfully advocate for the City’s financial interest and well - being. 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.

Page 27 of 91 ends

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-t icketed events) would provide revenue to the City’s G eneral 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, t hese 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

Page 28 of 91 ends

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 C ity 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

Page 29 of 91 ends

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 M ayor’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 M ayor, 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 Gil lmor 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 C ouncilmembers 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

Page 30 of 91 ends

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 l ocal 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 a lthough 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, t racking 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

Page 31 of 91 ends

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 I ndependent Ethics Commission, positing that the Council cannot police it self. 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 present ed a list of guidelines and a suggested work plan with new G overnance 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. F ew of the work plans have been agreed

Page 32 of 91 ends

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 ha s 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 C ensure 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 C ouncilmembers 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 councilmem bers 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 var ying 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.

Page 33 of 91 ends

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, a s 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.

Page 34 of 91 ends

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 m orale of the C ity. 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 C ity government and divisi ve 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 C ity’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 C ouncilmembers change their behavior, move beyond unprofessional conduct , and commit to a dhering to the principles defined in the City’s Ethics and Values Code.

Page 35 of 91 ends

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 tr aining 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.

Page 36 of 91 ends

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 flo w. 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 training s 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.

Page 37 of 91 ends

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 C ity’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 C ouncil and public focused on C ity business. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.

Recommendation 4a
The City should establish a n 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.

Page 38 of 91 ends

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. Councilmember s Becker, Park, Hardy, Jain, and Chahal implicitly encourage these behavior s 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 tra in 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.

Page 39 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

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

Page 40 of 91 ends

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 f rom 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 f rom 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

Page 41 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 1: Statement Of Behavioral Standards

AB23 ANNOUNCEMIENT:
"Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Spaoe Authority and Housing Authority are entitlied to receive $30 for each attended meeting."

STAT'EMEN
1 T OF BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS
The City of Santa Clara has adopte·d 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 effic ie-nt and consistent manner. Please
note that, as t he presiding off icer, the Mayor1 s
directiion in matters of process and decorum should
be fo llowed, and that use of the gavel indicates aH
conve,rsations m1ust condude and ,everyone in .
attenda nce should com·e to order and attent ion.

We1lcome, and thank you for your participation.

Page 42 of 91 ends

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 M ayor 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

Page 43 of 91 ends

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 S pecial
Assistant to the Mayor, W orker-
Owned 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 C ouncil
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

Page 44 of 91 ends

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

Page 45 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 3: League Of California Cities: Your Role As An Elected Official [excerpt from Randy Hamilton article]

Cooncl I Condu ot Wirth Boards , Cmlllmls sions al'ilid Com m,itl!ees M Wa ra.ti>ly fi'11d tha.t poop la havl! good SMSl! unl£•ss they agro wiJh us.. " - iFra.ncois:, Dur de La Romefourauld
The City has esmb 1shoo several Boards, Commission and Committees { col lec11 e refened to a. Ci1y Cammi . ions:) as: a. me.ans: of s,athering more cmnm.uni input. Ciu.zens who serve on City Cammi s:i()J:lrs: become more involve<! i.n government and serve a advisors 10 the City Council. They are a luahl e resource 10 lhe • ity'. leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect
1if attending a City Co:ntnli§ltll:on niet tlng, ~rass. ptrsooal oplnlollS o:nly.

Coundl Memhers may altend any Citv Comrnis:s1on. meeting, which ar,e alwa:i•s: open 10 any member of Ille puhl ic.. However, the shou d be sensitive to 1he way their paruc1parllon - e!.pei::ially if 1t i advocaitmg a certrun position - ooll!ld he viewed as unfair! affec11n~ the proces. .. Any puhl.ic comm.el:'lt. by a. Council Member al. a Ci1y Commiss:ion mee1111g should be clearly made ~ indi. iduru opinion and not a represel:'l.talion of 1he feelings of the e.nure City Coundl, unles. the ouncil hai; tal:el:'I a pos:illon. on the topic.. oundl Member. should n.ot appear befor,e a commi. 101:1 on behalf of an ind1 idual, b~ines,s o developer.

Rmm:uuoor diat City Contnli:!l'lfo.ns ttnre d ro ,rommimnity, n.ot htdl idual Comx:U Moml,~ The -i , Council appoinl 1nd1 id11als to serve on City Commissions, and. it 1s the .respons.ihill~ of City Commissions to follo pol.icy estahli:shed by the Council_ But City omm1ssion member .. do not ~eport to ind.i idual Council Memhe.f'S, nor sholl!ld Coundl Member .. feel th ltave ffi.e pov.-er or nght to threaren ity Commission m.emhers wilh removal if !hey dlis:a •ree aooul an issue. Appointment and re-appointment to a Ci Commi ,ion should be base<! on such critena as e pmi e, ahiluy 10 work with staff and the pubJ1c, and commitment to fulfillin,g official duties. A Clty Commis. ion Bppoin.tment !.hould nol. he used as pohtical "reward.'" Concerns about an 111d.i id1.m.l • ity om1n1ssion m.embe should. be discu. ed wilh the Ma •m. • Be rnspertful of d!lve.™-1 ,op:lrtior1S.

A primary role of City Commission i. lo represent. m,an poinrs of view in lhe co1mnuni1y and to provide the Council with advice base<! on a full speclrum. of oo.ncems Md p,er!.pecti es.

Coun.c1I I\•1emhers may have a dose working relation hip with some individual. serving on the Ci.1y Cammi . Jons, b1111 mu. I be fair and .respectful of al.I citizens se ins 011 City Commissions.

K,tep, poli:tiral suppo t mvay rrom puhUc foru,ns.

Ci.ty -ommi . ion member. may offer poLitical !.upport In a Coun.cll Memb . , but not in a public forum while conducting official dh.Jt11es. onvers:e , Co1.mdl Member. may support boru-d and comrnis:s1on. members who are running for office, but not in an 0Jfic1al forum in !heir capac1 Ill a. Counc.i.l Member.

Page 46 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 4: Review Of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions

Oty of Santa a ara
Policy and Proce,c!l:Ul'\e Manual

REVIIEW OF CONCERNS/COMPLA INTS REGARIDINIG CITY

BOARD/COMM ISSIONS
POUCY
PROCfOURf
The Ciily of Santa Clara believes that ~deci.5io11-makers musil be indepen dent, impartial, and account.able to th.e people they se!Ve."1 The City's Code of Ethics and Values lists the eithi.cs and values-based standards the City h.as agree d will ,gu"de e decisio11S and oondu t of everyone wh.o participates i11 the City's ,gmi1emment Beca.use we seek publ'.i oonfide:noe in the City's se:IVices and public lrust of' its decision-makers we hoid ourse:llves [email protected] to ilmeet the most demandi ng ethical standards and demonslJrate the highest !evels of a.chievemenlt in fo owing this rode.~ Al't:hough th.e City Charter allows e Council to remove a. Commissioner with no cause, the Council has created l!he following process, which provides g1.f dehnes l!he Council may choose to use to resolve a prob!e:m/oomplamt. The policy is based on a r;e,commendation from lhe Ethi.cs Oroinanoe Committee. U is consisten t wi e Code of El!hics and Values, in tenns of fairness and respect towards lhe ifldividuai. U prese!Ves t!he Coun-c,il!0 gra11ted Charte r aulh.mity of' removal hut afso prov:ides optional 001..1Ises of a.ction.

The C arter of th.e Ci of' Santa Clara provides for lhe removal of a City Commissioner b _ a vote of four City Council members . No cause has to be given. The acli.on to r,emove a Commissioner would be a n agendized City Counci acliion item_
W en a concem/oo mp!aint is Feceived mgardiflg a Ci . oard Member/Corn.missioner iJt is r;eferred to ili.e Ci . Manager for review and follow-up. If possible it is preferable to resolve a concern l!hro111gh. open corr1munication channe.l:s at the st.aff level. Cornplainanlts ar;e encouraged to solve the problem informail~1 prior to registeling a form.al compfaint The City Manager as severai o;ptio11S for handling a conce ml'comp.!aint:

1. The tirs,t step is to verify the information.. If not verified, the comp lainant is informed and 110 furtt!er action taken . U ini!i~ • verified, ili.e City Manager conducts an inveslii.gatio: · r;eview of situaliion in oon.suLtati.on v.ifu the Cil:!,• Attorney, where appropriate . Th:e individual who is l!he subject of the comp!aint l,,lljJ.I be not:m.ed unless criminal or legal natur;e precludes notification. !Issues that relaJte to the julisdiction of t!he air 1 Fro111. Prll!amble of Th" QJdtJ oJ'E'fhia and Va~ , City of anta Cbira, _001 P&:P 032 Pa~ I ofJ

Page 47 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Jul'f 200-1
dty of Santa OJara
Policy and Prooedur,e Manua
REVIEW OF CO NCERNS/COMP LAINn-S REGARDING CIITY
BOARID/COMM ISSIONS (con t.)
.

Pol'.i:tical Practices Commission (FPPC) are not covered by this policy_ Cil:y Attome!i' as existing procedures to nan.die FPPC and Electi.on Code issues_

2. 'fhe following opllions are availablie for resokmtg oomplaml::i:
♦ The City Manager can clio~ to handlle oonoem/co!lil!J)laint diFectt , or oonsult: with the Mayor.
♦ The Ci~, Manager can choose to conduct fwih er rese,arch; provide infolTI!lation and discussion of al.temaliives \l.1ifu Ma:i,•or. ♦ Consult with San ta CJara Uni.versi . Marklmla Cen te-r for Applied Elliie5, or olllts:i.de ethics expert; .
♦ Rele-r the issu comp[iaint to lihe Ma_ or and/or City Council. ♦• Refe-r the oonoe.mloomplrunt to the C airperson of the specdl Board/Comm ·ssion with e Chair reporting back to lhe City Manage:r.
♦ Rele-r th.e isSll complaint to the City Coun •• Commis:s,ion Revi.ew Committee.
♦• If legal issues are involved, th,e oonoemlcomplaint is referred to City Attorney.

3. De-pending on natu re of concem/oomplajnt and faotual infolTI!la ·on range of aotiom;/optiol15 are available including any one (or oombination of) th.ese aotions:
♦ 'o action based on unstiootantiated/Unfounded co!lil!J)lain~ ♦ Oisrussi.on beb.lleen Mayor and Commissioner· City Manager and Commissioner or disrussi.on betiween Commissi.on Cnair and Commissioner;
♦ Vefbal counse ling by Mayor wifu Commissioner:
♦• 1..eitter to Commissioner from Ma:i;mr;
♦ Refer issue to Commission Review Committee· Committee meel:s and reviews facts; may make advisory recommendation to Council or rcler to Qily Manager and Ci _ Attome.l,' for follow0 up- and P&P03 2 Pa.gel ofJ

Page 48 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

dty of Santai Glara
Policy and Prooed ).11'\e Manual
IREVIIEW O F CO N OEHNS/COMIIPLAINrTS REGAIRDING CITY
BOARD/COMMISS IONIS (cont.)
♦ Refer to Mavor and/or City Counci l.
♦ City Council mai;.1 take aciion, ranging from note and Ille to wmoval from Commissi.on. (See attached memorandum to e Commission Re'll!iew CoTlil.mittee from lhe Ci:ty Attorney dated ea1mber 15, 1999.l

4. Follb.v-up response to complainant indicalmg Ciity ha.s taken appropriate a.ction.

Re(e,ence : t) Memo, dated Decembe r r 5,. I 999 from City Attorney, "tevel.s of Exp.re.ssfons o( Di.sap-provai of a· Pub.!k Offici al's A.ctiom " (a~m::fiedJ 2') Cound l-ap-proved policy July 16, 20('2
}uty.2001 P&P 032 P<1ge 3 of 3,

Page 49 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 5: Councilmember Training List As Of June 29, 2023

List d Collntil Tnii..,115 Rl!!lati111110 lhe
Prttiedlll'l!O& of Otdr!d)' Condllet at P'llbli<: Ml!!l!!ing• and Elhical B!!tmll'ior Agency Tral11ln11 AR911d'89[ B] anr:I Dete[B]
Ci':)' cf Sam'!a Ciao;; Govema,no;; . U ;;;o Gillmar;
0 DeO<!mbo., 3. 20 18
. K,,• )' w .. 1 .. nabe:
0 DeO<!mb;,, 3. 20 18
. Raj Cli~a l:
0 DeO<!mbo., 3. 20 18
. l<,inm 1-fardy
0 DeO<!mb;,, 13. 20 18
Ci,y cf ,s;,m,,. c1..., New Couocilrrilernib~_r . An~ny Bec ki.,:
orentalic rii 0 DeO<!mb;,, 1. 2021)
. S11diJilim :
0 DeO<!mbo., 1. 20 211
. Ke-wn P;,iik:
0 DeO<!mb;,, 11. 2021)
f., ;, l?ctit.:.a l Pri,,clice• A[l. 1234 E1t,ic;;. ieinflilJ . U ;;;o Gillma r; COnr'lrtli!:i!Slarn 0 Sep'le'Jn'ber 1 • 21114 ...
~r'H:. il~rnbe_r
0 Sepli,rn'be r 27 . 21l16
0 Au11us-: 24, 21l18
0 U.,rcl', 22, 2112 1
. K"" y Wa,la,nabe:
0 Del<lti"1:!o . 20 11!
0 ""mb;,, 23. 20 18
0 U.,,d; 16, 2112 1
. Raj Ct;~;, I:
0 .l"'1 uary 23, 2017 ,,-;;
Pla'"" il>ll
C!Mi'nmiHiolio.i
0 .!""1uaor1 111,. 2019
0 Fr!l!irlil<lr'/' 28, 202
. K,,,.,,. hl..rct:,:
0 ""mb.,, 9, 211 19
0 .!1,,-.,ui>r/ 6, 2002
. Kewn P;,iik:
0 .l"'1ua,ry 3, 21)21
. Sud ~J:;;., :
0 .!li>'1uaor1 S, 21)21
. An:h.ony Bec k,.,:
0 .Sep·h,rnhe r 13, 21l19 " "
Pla'"" il>ll
C!Mi'nmiHiolio.i
0 Sep'le'Jn'ber 7, 202 1
List d Collntil Tnlilalrl• Rl!!lati1111 lo lhe
Pr«>edlll'l!O& of Otdr!d)' COndllet at P'llbic M!!!l!!ings and Elllieal B-ll'ior T ra l11ln
ew: Ms,:,'Ors & CoulllGi
MembeB ,\c.i,di,11>'1'
A : eml'ee[e anr:1 De re
• K""'" hla,rd:,:
0 .il "'1 Ui>ry t lJ.1.8, 211 19
• Raj Ct;~;, I:
o .lli>'1uaor1 Ul-1.8,, 211 19
• K"-.irt P;,iik :

O .il "'1 Ui!r')' 22. 2.8, i>OO
29, 202

Page 50 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 6 : Councilmembers’ Orientation Packet – Section 2 (excerpt)

Procedures
Section - Pag:e
Roles and Responsibili'ies 2-11
Council Visi'on. IPrioriity, Strat,egic Pillan
a~O*d~~ N
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
Paliliamenlary Procedure 2 .21
Policy ConfeIrence and Bus.iness Travelll
Expense· Reimburseme11i" 2-.23

Page 51 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Roles and Responsi bilities
"L,eadersh ip is an action, not a word. "
-- Richard Cooley
Other resources that are helpful in defining the roles and responsibitities of elected officials can be found in the Santa Clara City Charter and in the Leadersh ip Guide for Mayors and Council Members published by the League of Catifomia Cities, Newly-elected Counccl Members are encouraged to attend the League of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy Leadership Academ~ 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 officia l head ofth e City for all oeremonial purposes • Chairs City Council, Santa Clara Stadium Authority , Sports & Open Space Authority and Housing Authority meetings
• Calls for special meetings
• Recognize d as spokesperso n for the City
• Has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings • Makes recommenda tions to the Council on matters of policy and programs whioh require decisions
• Leads the Council to be an effective, cohesive working team • Serves as official delega te of the City at ,events and conferences Vice Mayor
Council
As specified in the City Charte r, the Vice Mayor is selected by the City Council each year in Deoember and serves at the pleasure of the Council. Per Council policy, first priority for Vice Mayor will 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, then 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 plaoes in the rotation to allow another Council Member to serve as Vioe Mayor in his or her plaoe, a majority vote of the Council is requimd to ma~e the change,
Briefly, the respons ibilities and roles of the Vice Mayor include:
• Perfonn s 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 ce11emon i al fu notions in the absen ae of the Mayor

Page 52 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

All Counci l M-embe rs
All members of the City Council i ncluding 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 while 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 publiG meetings • Prepare in advance of Council meetings and be familiar 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 anoth er 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.

Chapla in
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.

Page 53 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Counci l Vision, Priority, Strategic Plan and Objectiv,es Vision
Superb, affordable servioes in a ca11ing community that values our rich istmy and nurrures technologies that build the future.

Strategic Plan and Objectives 2015 2017 (Adopted April '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 month,s, When completed monthly status reports on the aocomplishment of thes,e object ives may be reviewed at the City C erk's Office, In addition to these .2015-2017 adopted goals, ttiere are many other projects and programs that continue to be pursued by ttie City.

The City Council priority is to focus on suocessful completion of existing City projects, and opes;ate within Council adopted budget principles and priorities, with the goal of placing, the City strategically to take advantage of the improving economic olimate.

TWO-YEAR GOAL S 2015-20 17
• Balance the emerging ,eoormmic opportun ities with the needs of our community • Promote and enhance eoonomic and hous·ng development
• Ensure fisca l responsibilil.y
• Enhance community sports and recrnafona l assets
• Deliver and enhance hi,ah auatitv efficient services and infrastructu re Meeting Agendas
The Counci l 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 pack,ets a re available in h ar-d copy fo11m,
Agenda packets are available for public viewing in the City Clerk's Offioe and in all thme libi;aries. The entire agenda packet is scanned and the Council reports are made available through the City's webs ite.

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.sua'I Material.s for Ciity Council Meetings (Policy and !Procedure 041)
l~em.s from Council Members and the pub[ic related to an agenda item must be submitted to the City Clerk's Office by 12 noon on the Wednesday prior to the City Council meeting for inclusion en the agenda packets. After Wednesday at 2 noon and until 5:.00 p.m,. on the day of the Counc il meeting, members 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 Counc il 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 Office no later than 10:00 a.m, on the day of the meeting, along, witti a oontaot telephone number where they may be reached.

Page 54 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Written Petition t!o Address the City Counci l
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 ilil the agenda packet

Page 55 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Age-nda Items
Each agimda item is harnd !ild wilh a tliln stlilp roetidure.

11. Mayor ·ntroduces agenda, iiflilm

2. Rlilport by Qjty Managllr or staff. lllo q lilstions, comml'lflts or editorials allowlild by Counci l until staff report is compllllre.

3. Q lilstions of sta rnport by Co1.mcil Members am asked ttrrough lhe Mayor. o comments or lildiforiajls by Counci l ~mbe:rs a lowed a this • Ill ..

4. ApjplicantfapjplilDant prestmta ion when Pub ic HearirngI (typicajlly limil.oo to 10 m· ures}. ot all agernda iilems Ylill haw ~PP icarn presentatiic:ms. Cooncil Mliln oors may ask questio ns o • Ille applicantfappellarnt through the ayor. No commrml:s ,or !ild-·oria1s by Council Membe:rs a this ·mill ..

5. Public te1>timony {typically lin ired fo 2 in es fur e,ach person who wishe,s to s,peak). Council Membe-rs ma,y ask QUes ·oms at th!il l'lfld ,of th!il pre,slilntation. o oomme:ntis or ediforiajls by Counci l Membe:rs a this time.

6. Apjplicantf.Appellanl.- Closing Statemerrl. in Public H'earing arid Appeal Pmceed irng1. 7 _ Motion to close he pu!)lic lhearingf public irnput.

8. Counci l motiic:m for aciio rn .

9. Counci l deliberal!ionL
110. Council a • on, A voti.e on the mo • on, follo · ·ng Rol:lerl's Rul€ls ,of Or,dlilr.

G,avcll means stop and listen.

The use of the gavel means a: I conw rsa • oms cea!>e and everyone in attendance comes to or,der and a ention. Only th!il M'ayor or lillillingI Ghai r can use thlil gavel.

Page 56 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

IM1inutes
M- Liles of each meetir19 ,of the City Col.lncil are kept by the Cily Clerk. The min tis serve as a pem.a nen recon:I of fhe gro l.lp's actions.

Cormctions t o, 1m t11 11Jtos,
It is ·mportarnl ror Col.lrncil Mem bers to closely review mirnl.ltes and make correct ions if needed so that the appr,oved minutes accL1rarely rntled ttle work of ttle ,gmllp . Corre ctions to min tis ma,y be reques ted IP • or to the meet i119 but must oo made prior to ,or &t the meefi ng wtum tlley a re bmug'trt forwa rd for Gol.lnd l approv al . Co.lirecfio ns reQLlire a mot ion,, seco nd and a majority vote, and,, if appmved, are rnoted and filed irn e mirnl.ltes of the cumm t mee ·1119 .

Srummary of Actions
A Sll mmary of Aclio rns is prepa red by Ille City Clerk's O , oo • o lowiirng1 eaoh Cou nci1 mee • ng .

This Summary is rusually 1posted or1rne by riiday. fol ow·ng ttle meeting. The Sl.lmmary is also available ·n tile City Clerk's Offioo and all lllree City ibraries .

Page 57 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

0 heir Polilc es .and Protocoll for Coui'lic!il IMembe:rs Comm on ,.a1 Evon1ts
R1a:quests far a City rnp~oo tafive at ceremonial 1a:wmts will I1::1@ handled by Cny staff. n u~ Mayor~ ·11 oorv@ as Ille ,designated City rnp res@ntativ@ .. If the Mayo r is unava ilable,, !hen City sta • will ,dete.limine if eve nt orrganiz@rs wou ld like arnoth@r re prnse rnl:ative mom th@ Courncil .. H yes , th@n th@ Vic@ Mayo:r wil I be as!k1a:d to serve as a sul::lstitute. If the Vic@ Mayor is 110 available. hen Co: l'lDil Men 'tiers by seniority are aslk.ed to rnprnsen t e Cny .. If Co:urnail is rnot &vai'labl@., he City Marnage r re presernls the Oily ,ordes ignam-s an appro:priial:e staff mem ber. lrnvitations rec@ivecl a Oily Hall are presum1a:d to b@ • or officia l Oily re prnsernla ion lrnv.itations add~sed to Counci l Members a th@"r homes are I11resum@d to be for [email protected] cons idera ion T he Execu tive Assislan t to Ille Ma()lor and City Cou ncil is ava i lab e to take care ,of RSVPs for ,o aial City rnprnsenta tion.

Corm spond' c 11,00 S lg na.t uros
Counci l M~mbe rs do -rno ne@d to aclmow ledge th@ rece i¢ ,of corres,pcmdence , ,or copies of oorr&spondence . uriing Counci l meerngs .. City 81aff w i I prepa re ,offi aial letters iirn response to public inquiriies and concems. T ese letters win carry Ille signalure of th1a: M'ayar arnd City Manager ..

E1ndorsemo111t of Ca ndid!a.tos
As ·ndivicluals, C oun cil Members ha,ve the rightlo endorse carndida es for all Cou ncil seats or ollle r ele.cted o , oos .. It is ·nappmprial:e, to ment ion endo rsements durirng Cou rncil me.etings . ollle r o 1cia l Oily meetings , or v;;hile cornductirn91 Oily business .

Non,-agonda Gtoms
Urnder Pub'lic Presentat iorns ,on the age rnda, citizens may ll::lriirngI forth issues ,or ques ions Ill.at are mot orn Ille me.eting·s agen da,. Tqpics may be llegisla ive i ems re qu·rin9I aciiion by • e Ca nail st dy issues for lutu re cons idern • on, arnd re,q @sts for infonmatiicm a,ssigne d o the Cil:y Manager .. Each sp1a:ahr I be lin i ed to, lflrn.e m· utes .

Public Hoa 11t11 g 1 Protocol
T h@ Cou rncil ha-s es1ablished a pul::llic lh1a:aring protoco l and · ollows Robert 's Ru'l1a:s of Order {Newly Revis ed 10th edition, 2000). Thi} Ma,yor o,perns the Ipublic hearirng1 arnd re,q ests a staff re port. The applican t or appella rlt shall have the Irigh to s,peak frrst. Ten mirnutes is the lerngth of time al oWllld or fll is I11resenra tio11 . Speakers re prnse n ·rng eilher I11ro ,or con po:irnts of view wil l be allowe d to fol lO'tN. T him@ min 1a:s is the stan dard ime lrmit for each speaker . VVhen the,e are more than 10 s:pea ers on an item , Ille Ma,yor will as!k Ille s:peake rs to II out a, Spea kers Card prior to the discuss ion of an agen da, iil.&m. The time allo•.ved or@ach speaker may 11::1@ rnduced at the discretiorn of th1a: ayor. Tille ap,p1ica nt or ap,pellan '1M be a lowed to make a1osing comme nts. The C!hair has the rns,ponsibi ity to run arn efficient pub lic rneg ·rng arnd has 1ih1a:
disc retion to m odify th@ p l::llic h@aring pr,oc1a:ss in order to ma'ke the meel"n g run smoo thly ..

Counci l embe rs will not spea k during the Ipublic heaningI portion of he meeting 1a:xce11t to as,k pertin1a:n que,sfiorns of Ille s,peaker ,or staff . I hin'k:" and II f@1a:I" commen ts by Caurncil Members are not appropriial:e urntil a.ft1a:r fil e close of llhe pu'lllic hearing. Counci l Membe rs should refrnirn from arg ing or de'l::lafing w· hi Ille pub'lic duri rng a, Ipub'lic heariingI arnd sha'II always s,how rnsp1a:ct or d" ernn t Ipoims o • lliew.

Page 58 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Maim motions rnay be followed y ame:nclmesnts, followed by su'bsfilu e motions. Arny Council M@mber can ca I ror a, 1Po·n1 of ord@r ,or a motion to rreoonsider a any time,, per Ro't:lert's Rul@s of Order.

Page 59 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Counc !ill Conduct wiiUil One .Anothe 1r
"In lifi courtesy and seff•possession , and In :the, arl.s, s<iyle, am the sensibte linpRJsslons of the, free mind, for bcJ<th arise out ,of a deliberate , shaping of ,all thJngs and from ne,ver be'in9 swept away, wha ,tmver the, emotion , int o coJJfaslon or dullness ."·
'Willliam B11tler Yeats
Councils are con po~d of indiViiduals ittil a wide variely o b.adcigrounds, [p€lrsona ioos values. opinions, and goals. D€ls,pite fhis iversny,, all have chosen to S€lrv@ in Ipub ic ,o ce in ord€lr fo prnserve and Iprotect Uile IpresesnI and the turn of the com un:ily .. In all cases, lflis common ,gool should oo acknov.~tidg€ld eve:n as Council may agre€l to disagree• on oonten fio s issues.

The Cily's Code o Etl'lics & Va ues s!houkl be 1refenred to for Iposiilive statements of elflical behavior_
In Pu'bHc Me'Cti11gs,
Uso fo1111111al tit! s
It is Ipreforred tillat Council rnrer to ,one anofuer orma ly ,during public rn@eting:s as Mayor .. Vice Mayor or Council M@mb@r o lffi',ed by Ille in 1vidual's last name ..

Practice, ,civl ify an:dl dlc-corum In discus ,sion,s and debate Difficult questiions, tougl'l cl'la eng@s to a Ipartirular poin of ·view. and cmicism ,o id@as and infomia ·on are legitima e @lements of a frne democracy in action. How@ver, ma'ki ng persona'!, s!landerous ttilrnater-i" g, abus,ive, or dis,parag·ng comm@nts is not aApro,pria e. No shouting or phys,ical actions lflat could b€l cons1nled as tl'lreate:ning will loo permitted.

Hon0 1rtlu1 ro o, ,o,f tho Cha'lir In mainta l1nlng order It is th€l rns,ponsi'llility ,of th€l Chair to lk€lep fhe commeJnts of all pa' ·oipants orn lrack riingI public meetings. Council Members s!hould honor efforts by title Chair to focus -discussion on current agtmda • .©ms. If there is disagre.e:m@nt about Uile ageJnda or lfle Ctilair's actio.ns, those obj@ciions should 1:1@ voiced po 1tgly and wltih reason, followingI Iprocedurns ,ou 'lined ·n Robert's Rules of Order.

Dcmon,stratc, offectivo problem-solvh1g a,p;pro,achcs
Council Members have a public: slage !o show how indi'rlidua'ls wi h disparate poil'lts of view can mcl common ground and understanding, negotiating solutions th.it ben@ffi tile co mu ity as a whale ..

Page 60 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Con.Unuo 11'osp cctiiul boha/Vior l1n pri vato
The same leve:I ,of l!'spe.ct and cornsideration of dik ring points of \!iew that is deemed appropriiatei for pub.lie diSCtJssions shou'ld be maintained in priivate cooversatiorns.

Bo awa110 of t lll insecurity of wr;iitro 11 notes vo f.comal l 1messag os , and c,-maill T eotmology a lows words writtern or said without mlllch rorethoug'ht to be distriblll ed wide and ar. Would yolll feel comfortable to ave th·s nol.e faxed to others? How wolllld yo fre.1 if this voicemail message was played on a speaker phorne ·n a fu I office? What wolllld happen if his e•mail message was fol",vardoo lo others? WriHm no es. voice:mai'I messages and e,-mail should be treated as polootia'lly "public" oommurnication.

Even p:riva.to ,conversat ions, ,can have a public prosencc, Elected officials are always om dis,pla,y - their actions, mannerisms, and language are rnon·tored by peqple around them that they may or may not know.. Ltmch table ronvers alicms can be eavesdropped upon, parking lol. ,de.bates may be watched,, arid casual oomrrwmls between individuals be ore and after 1public meetings noted.

Page 61 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Cou ncH Conduct with City Staff
''Wh1:rmvmr thorn rs a hiuma·n being , tlhem is an oppol'li u nity fo r klndn .ess,.'" SO"n ca
Governarioo of a City reties on the coo,perative efforts or elected officials, who set 1po icy .. arid tile Oily Ma11ager a11d sta . w. o ·mplemellt and administer • e Co 11oil's po icies. Therefore, every effort should tJ.e made to tJ.e cooperative ;;ind sllow mutual respe ct for the cootriibutions ma e by each iridi\11iduaJI fo.r he ,good of the commun • y.

Trca.t a I staff as professionals
Clear,, honest co:mmu icafiori lhat reS!pects he ab.ilifies. experience, arid dignity of each indivi al is expected . Poor beha,vior tow.ird s sta is nol. acoeplable.

Direct staff &ssues, an:cll assignments to tho City Manager Assignments ror City staff andfor requests for additional bac'kgroulld ill ormation should be d·roctoo only to 1he City •• ~~magm-.

Requests • or fol ow-up or direcfio11s to sta sho Id orily be made through the City M'a11age:r or tile Oily Attorney when appropriale. Ma erials supplied to a Couocil ember iin respo.llSe to a reques wiill be ade available o all members o • Ille Council so lhal all have 11:qual acc:11:ss o informati on.

Never puibllcly ,critid:zo, an rndivid11al ,em1ployo
Couocil sho d never ex1Pre ss ooricerns about the performance of a Cil:y employee in public, to tile employe@ directly, orto th@ emp loyee's supervisor. Comments about sraff p@rformance slhouk:I ,only be made to the City Manager , rough private correspo rid1rnce or 0011versation1.

Comments a'bciu sraff in the o.ffioo of the Cny A.ttomt}}' sho Id be made directly to the City Attorney .
. Allow staff to hand llo adminis1!rativo , f,unctions
Couocil :emb-ers nus no attempt to ·1111 uernce Cny staff ,on the makirng1 of appointments. ai;vardirig1 of cornlracts . solecting of oonsulrants. processing1 or devclopmerit appllcaficms, or ,gran irig or City licenses and permitis.

Check wltti tho City M'anagor ,on c,o·rrospo:ndenco , boforo faking action Before sernding1 oorres,poridernoe, Cou11oil Meml)ers sho d check with the Oily Ma11age:r or Execulive Assastarnt to the Mayor arid Oily Council o see if am officia City respollSo tias already bee'll sent or is in progress.

Limit requests , for staff s u p;port
Routirie se.aela rial sup,pol1. wi II lbe provided o all Co nail Men 'bers. Al I mail or Cou 11cil Mem bers is OJJ4llled by Ille E:xec:L1tivtl Assistarnt to the Mayor arid City Couocil. 1 11less olhe r ammgements are requested by a, Gol.lnd l Membe:r .. Mail mariked p@rsorial or cornfldern ·a1 is riot ope11ed.

Page 62 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Reqoosts • OF add·-·ornil staff support - evern ·n high priority ,or emergerncy situa ·oms -- should be ma.de to the Cny Mana.gerwho is respcmsible klF allocating City resources irn order to maintain a prroressional. well-run City g,ovem men ..

Do not S'Ol'lcit political s11p;port. from staff
Council 'embers should not soliail. any typ@of politic .. ! sul)pon. (iinarnciaJI oorn1Jib1.11i1ms,, displ .. y of posters or lawn sigrns, rname ,on support list,, etc.) from Ciil.y sta . Ciify staff may. as private ailiz.ens 1Niilh oonstiturliorna rights, support po itical candidales but all such acti\iflies rnursl. be ,don.e a1.vay mom the worikpb1ce. Cny employees are pro ibil.ed from using City 1resou rces, City fi me OF al)pea ·ng ·n uniform iirn rnlalion to 1polilical activities.

Page 63 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Counc !ill C,o:nduct. Wirth th e Pu bli c
"If a man be gracious and courteous :to strangers , l t shows he ls a cJti'zen of Um world, , and ,that hfs- heart is no island ,cut off from otl'ler lands, but a c,on.tiaent that / oJ.ns to tl'lem•."
Fran-cis Ba.con
In P11'blk Mcd l 111gs
M,:i'king the public fe,el welcome is an important part of the democra tic Iprocess . o sigrns ,of partia lily, prnj dice or disrespect shou ld be eviden on the part of in 1vidual Counc il Mem bers !o"Nard am ·ndiviclual pa· ·cipa ·rng·n a,public ·mum. Every e ort shlould be made to be fairand impa ·ial in 1s!@nirng to public testimony .

Bo wolo0'1111 fng to spea 'l!.ors and ·trroat them with ,care, and gentleness Most rnsidernls ,do ool speak before lhe City Co ncil very ,offe:n and they ma,y be rnervous, uncom fortable, and emotional. Pl.ltting s:peakers at ease will a low them to, tl'xpress thei r vie',\IJ)Oints more efifeciively, make Counc il meeUr19s ru n more e 1cierntly, and help the ,democra tic pmcess be fulti loo ..

Bo fal ir and ,equitable in al ocatlng1 public heari 'ng1 time, to l1ndM d'ual speakers Thie Chair will ,determ ine and anno: rice lim· ,son spooke:rs at the start ,of the pu'blic hearing praocess , per Counci l policy. Gern€1rally, each speake r will be a loca ed three min @s with - applican ts and a~pe lants or thil°r designa ted repre-sentatives allowe d 10 m·nmes_ llf rnany s:peak@rs are arnticipated, the Chair ma,y ask for s:peak@r cards to be filled oul. and may shorten the time lim· and/or ask speake.-s fo limit hems@lves to n@w ·n ormation and Ipoints of \lli@w ool a ready cove:roo by Iprevious speakers .
o spooke r wiill bet m@d away iurnless he or slhe exh bi s ·nappro,priiare b@havior. Each, speake r ma,y ollly speak ornci;i d ring th@ p t:llic hi;iaring un'l@ss the Co:urncil requesls addl!iornal clarification lafi;ir in the process. After the close o the public hearing, r;io rnori;i public testimony wi11 be acce pted uril@ss he Chair reopens th@ p bile @aring for a, r mited and s,p@ci c purposi;i_ Give tho appearance , ,o,f a.ctlvo listc tng
II. is isconcertirngI to s:pi;iaki;irs to hla,v@ Coorncil Memb@rs no look at th@m w. em hey are speak ing. lit is fine lo look down al documen s or to make notes,, but read ing or aI llongI period of ti m@, gazing arournd he r,oom,, or @n e ·rngI iirnto prolongi;id dialogue with adjac@rnt Courncil Mem bi;irs or staff ,gives ttle appearnnci;i of disinl.i;irnst. Se aware of facial express-ions . espizci.;i'lly those thla could loo intizrprntoo as smiril( ng," ,disbeliizl, anger or boredom .

Page 64 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

.Ask for claniifi.catlon, lb111t a,voIcll d~bato arnd ar,gumcrnt w ith ttlc , pub lic Only U1e Ch;;iir - not individual C-01.mcil Memb€:rs - can in em.1pt ;;i s,p€:a €:r during a prnsenm.tion. However, a Ootmcil '.ember can ask Ille Cha·r for a poin or order if Ille speaker is off th€: opic or exhibiting lb€:hl!l,vior or l,mguage the Council Member finds dist rbing.

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

Chair to ca m and ocus the specaker and o mainlairn Ille olider and ,decorum of'lhe m€:etin91.

Questions by Council Members to, members of th€: pu'blic testifying sihcmkl Sie€:k to clarify or €:l4!pand information . It is never a~propriate to lbelligerernlly challenge or b€:liltle !he speaker.

Council Members' €:rsonal opirnions or inclinations about upcom·ng votes shou'ld not be revealed until after Ille pub ic hearing1 is closed.

Undortako no, po: sonal attaclks or an;y kilnd_ undor any ci1_,rcumsta 1nco Council Members shou'ld be aware that heir body !language and tone of voice, as well as the worads they us€:, can appecar to be in imidatimg1 or aggrnssive.

FolDow pa·rllamcrntary proccclum i1n cornductrn,91 public 1moo:tings Th€: Oily A omey serves as advisory 1parliame:n!arian or Ille City and is a,vailajble to answ-er ques ·oms or inl€:rprnt situations accordimg to Roberts Rul€:s of Order. Fimal rulings on parfiamerntary pmcedure are made by the Ciha·r, subjed to th€: app€:ajl of th€: ru'II Counci'I. 111 U'n,offic la I Sctt ir19s
Ma'ko no p,omisos on lbolla f ,o,f tlho Coiuncill
Council Members ·11 frequently be as .ed to, expla· a Co ncil action or to give the:ir op"nion about an issue as they meet and talk \liilll1 cons • uents iin he comm ity. It is apprqpria e lo ,give a brief overview of City policy arnd to rn er to City sta for further in ormation or appropriate action. llt is in~ppr,opriaf€: to overtly or illiP l1cilJy p,romis€: Co moil action, or lo pm is€: C!ily staff will do something sp€:ciilic ,( x: a pothole, remov€: a1 ll"brary book, plarnt newflov.•ers ·m €: median, €:le.) ..

Majk no pors•onall ,common.ts about 0th.or 1Co1mcl l Mombcrs II. is acc€:ptable to publicly disagree abo an issue, bu ii. is I nacce;plabl€: to rnak€: derogatory co menls about olll.er Council Members, their opinioms amd actions.

Romcmbmrth at iC01mclll Members am always on display
Council Members are constantly bein91 observed by the communily €:very day that llhey Stl'J\1'€: ·n ,office. Their b€:haviors and oommemts s,erve as mode:ls for proper deportment ·n lhe City of Sanla Clara. t-f.on€:sfy amd irespect for th€: dignify of each individual should b€: re €:cied im ev€:ry worrd and adiorn taken1 by Council Membtl'rs, 2 ours a ,da,y., s€:v€:m days a1 week. II. is a serious and contin ous rnsponsibi il.y _

Page 65 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Counc!ill C,o:nd uct. with Oth:er PubHc A,genci,e,s
Bo cle ar abo ut. mp os,ontiing tho C ty or p,orso nal rnnno sts If a, Ommci'I Mem ber a~pisars before anollher ,govismme:ntial agfillCy or ,oraga izalicm to give a, statismernI on arn issue the Gourncil Member must cle arly stal.e if his or h@r staleme rn refil@cls perso rnal opinion or is th@ officia'I starnce of this Ciily.

If Ille Counci l M'emoor ·s re pre s-ernr ng Ille City., he Cou ncil [email protected] must su pport arnd advocate the o cia l Oily position orn an iissue , not a personal viewpoint..

If Ill e Counci l Member ·s re prns-ernting anoth eer org·aniza ion, w os-e position is d" isrnnt from Ihe City. th@ Co: nail M@n 'l:l@r s!houk:I withdraw tram voting ,on th@ issu@ i it signili cantly im;pacls or is dtimmental to fhe City 's ·nternst. Coun cil M@n 'l:lers shou'ld be a1ear about which orgarniza ions they rnpres en arnd irntorm the Mayo r arnd Coum::il o lhe ir ·nvo1vement..

Corw spo'l!d'cn,oo shoul d also, be, oq1.1ally c'toar ab0 1.1t rop:110s,011ta.tio1n City leltllrh ead may 11:1@ us@d when th@ Co: nail M@mber is rnprns @ntl111gI th@ Cily arnd th@ City"s o aial posi ion A copy of officia l rorre s,porndence s!houk:I be given to the Execufive Assis1ant to the Mayor arnd Oity Coun cil to be filed · ihe Oouncil O ace as part ,of 'he pu'l:llic reoorad.

Corres-pol'ildence of Coul'ilcil Mllm b@rs represent ing a, personal Ipoin ,of view on a City is:sue,, or a dissern ·ngIIpoint ,of view from an o ,1oial Counci l pos!ition, shou'ld make i cle ar that the 11iev1s e~pre s:sed represent oo'ly the ·rnd i~·dual Coul'ilcil Mllfllb er.

Page 66 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

C,ouncil Conduct wiitlil Bo.a.rd,, Commiissions and Committee "We rare I¥ ·find f ha.t people , ha.vo goodl sense , 1mloss they a.91100 with us."' Franco is, D11c do La IRoche.foucauld
The Cily has established several Boards, Commissioms and Con mi ee (collectively referred to as City Commissions) aiS a, eallS of ,galtlel'iing1 more comnmnily inpul c· izeniS who serv0 on City Commissions b0come ore imvolv0d in government and serve as advisors fo oo City Council. They are a va uable resource to oo City's !leadership and shoold oo lrea @d witlh appreciation and respect.

If attcn .cltng1 a, City Commission meettng_ oxpross pers,onal oplnlo:ns, ,on y Council Memoors may atl0nd any City Co mission meeting, which are a'lways open fa a.ny mernber of the p 1::11 ic. However, tlhey should ll::le s0nsitive to th0 way lheir pa • cipa ion - es,pecia11y if it is advocal"ng a, ceruiim pos· ion - could loo viewed as unfairly affecting1 the pmcess . Arly pub'Jic comm0nts by a Council Meml::ler at a City Commission mming should be clearly made as ·ndivicJua1 opinion amd not a represeritatiom of the feelings ,of the eritire Cil:y Council. unless lhe Counci l has take:n a position ,on the topic. It the City Coumcil will a er 11::10 oonside: ·ng an i em ltlaHhe Gommlssion is discussing, the Council ember sho Id no address the Commissiom on that item, and rese:rve his or her oommernfa for U1e Counci l eel"ng oo the i em. Couiic il Me:mbers sh.ould mot appear be ore a oommissiom on ll::lehalt of am imdMdu at busi ness or developer.

Remember-that 10 ity Commissions, ,sorvo tho communily, not l1ndivlcluall 1C'o11ncl Members The Cily Council a~po·nts in 1viduals to serve on City Commiss ions,, arnd iiI is he responsil::lility of Ciify Commissions to follow policy 0stab'lish@d by the Courncil. BuI City Commissiom membe:rs ,do not report to individual Council Members, nor should Counci l Membe:rs eel lhey have the poorer or right to tihrea.tern City Commissiorn members 1 -th removal if they disagree a'l::lout an isS!Ue. AppoJmtmem and re-appointment to, a, Qty Commiss,ion, should b0 b.asw on such crite:ria as e:MiJ)ertise:, ability to work wilh staff and the public,, and co m- merit to rulfilring ,official duoos.

A Oily Commission appoin m0mt should not oo used aiS a poliucal "rewa rd." Coocems about an indivi al City Commission mem ber should be ,discussed wi h the Mayor.

Be m spoc.ttu1I of'ir:Hvors,o oplnftons
A IIJfiima:ry role o Cil:y Commissiorns is to irepresenl many po-nts o view in the comn urn· y and o pr,mnde the Coumcil with advice based on a Iull spe-ctrum o • oonc0ms amd perspect ives. Counci l Me:mbers may have a closer working1 nitatiornship with some irndivliduals serving on Oily Com issioos, b mus loo fair arnd respectt, of all cilizens serViing om City CommissioniS.

Keep, politica ll support away from pub lic forums
City Commission membe:rs ma,y offer po i "ca'l support to a, Coumcil Me:mber, bm mot ·n a public orum w. i'le condudiirng1 official fies. Conversttly, Council 1'embti,rs may support board arncJ commission membe:rs who are runnirng1 for o ace, but nol. ·n an, official fo~ m -n the:ir ~ pacity as a Co mail Meml::l0r.

Page 67 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Parlli!amenrtary Pro0edu 1r-e
'The ,obfed ,of Rules of O/lder is to assist· an ,assem .bly to accomp lish• the ,work for which tt was: designe d, tn the be.st poss ible manner. To do this it is necessary to res~ala the, tadlvidaal som ewhat, as the, right of the lndJvidua t la a·ny communl.ly, ;to do what he pleases, is Jn.compa tib.te, with the lnt81l9sts of th& whole. " Honry Mal'lllri Robert
PlJblic rneeliirngs ·rn lhe City of S1mta Clara - ·rna1t1dirngi the c· y Cot1ncil, Co moil subcomm · ees, and all City boarads,, commissions arid committees - fo11ow Robert's Rules or Order in order to ensllre lhal. bus·ness is rondt1cted il'll an ord erly and ,de:mooratic manner. Rober-rs Rules o Order an1 ac~le d throt1gh.ourl Ille U.S .. as the sl.andarad authority on partiamernl.ary law and pr,ooodure. Cop· s of Ille co plete text of Robert's Rules o Order are a,vailab'le at the Oity brary a:nd may be purchased at bookstores .. S mmaries can be folln d om ine.

Th. u,so of panl'!amointary 1nocodurn :
• romotes coqpe ratio and harmony so that 1J60ple cam work togethe r more elfuciiw ly to accomp lish their goals ;,
• 9t1arnntees each ·ndMdL1a an eqL1a1I rig'hHo 111rqpose motions. speak, asik. questions and vote;
• rotects the rights o • mirnority 1points o \!Jew arid gjves the m:inorily the same considern ·ol'll and res,pecl as those in l:loo majority; • ernoot1rnges Ille · ull and free discussion ,of eve:ry motion prese rnted ; • ernsures that ttle meeting is rair and conducted ·n good failh.

Wllo was Robe rt andl wh y Is h. mak!tng tlho rufos ?
Robert's Rll les of Order are based om parliamentary procedure origil'lla ly used in the B: ·fish Pm1ia· en . Early colcmists followed ttle B•ritish model in the first New Einglarnd owrn nlOO'!ings.

Woori he was Presi em . Thomas Jefferso n published he first American book on parliamentary pr,ooodure in 1801 which served as fhe rules or Congress. llin 1876 , an erng"neer a'nd general irn the U.S. Army,, Henry Ma ·n Robert, modified hese pr,ocedures to eet e needs o "or,d·nary sociel.y." His version. Roberr s Rules of Orde:r, has become the a: horitative g ide for ,govemme11ls, oraganizafions, dubs and schools thmug out the ll.S.

Page 68 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Quo11um1
A quorum iis the minimum l'ilumber of rntm 'bers th,1l must be pre-sent for a gro p lo coodlllci busiooss. or he Sal'ilia Olara Cily Col.lncil. is means that a m·nimum of · our Co l'iloil Members or three Col.ll'ilcil Me:mbe·rs al'ild the Mayor lbe. present for the Coul'ilcil mee.ting to take action.

Motions
A rnotic:m is the wa,y lllal . business is C011ducted by a grol.lp I nder parilia entary proced re. llt is a proposal hat an iin ividual wol.lld like the group o oons.ider and act upon.

S eps in mal<!ing,, discl.lssil'ilg and vor ng on a motion:

1. The maker of he motion as!ks • or rero gnifiol'il by 1lhe Cha·r.

2. After lhe in ivid ual iis recog l'ilized, he or she will say "II move that •.ve .... •

3. The Cha·r will ask if there is a, se.cood. Aflolll er rnem'be.r ,o Ille ,gmup ml.1st seool'ild he motion in oraderior it to iscussed .. A second is made by sa,ying "I seool'ild the motion."

4.. The Cha·r then rnsla es emot ion "Ill has be.tm moved and se.canded tha .... and qpel'ils Ille floor to discussion.

5. The Cha·r wm recognize members who wis to comment Ol'il Ille motion. Only one mo ion may be discl.lssed at a time. lit is im,portant that all members of the grol.lp are clear on wha Ille motion is and wha tts e ect ·11 be. Spirited disrussiofl helps to al'ilswer qL.1es1liorns al'ild explore different interpretalicms al'ild/or im,pacts of the mo • Ol'il.

6. At the ernd of the disoussio period. the Ct,,air ·11 "call for the question• and ask hOW' any members are in sl.lpport o • tt,e motion, how m,my am o,pposed and ifth ere are al'ily abs e11fions. A majonity vote is needed or the rno • on to pass. The motion may be mlted as passing or a·1irng1 lby verba •ayes" and "flays• of members, y oo nting a show of hands, or by using Ille eledironic vote board for meetings held in Council Chambe:rs.

Other common 1motio 1ns,:

Arrw;mdiflg1 a motiion 11 rnove to a end the rno1lion by .. _ .~ Delay1il'ilg1 considera • on d rnove l.o table the moliol'il until , ... " Closing deba e I move the prev;ious question .... "
Requesting1 rnore study d rnove lo e.fer this o __ (staff or su'boomm· ·ee) for f rtherstl.ldy ... ."
Objeciing to procedl.lre Point of order.~

Page 69 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

APPENDIX 7: July 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes Item 5

City of Santa Clara
Minutes
Call and Notice of Specia l Counc il Meet ing &
Cou nciil and Authorities Concu rrent Meet ing
0711812023 6:00 PM Hyb ri d M"et ing
City Ha ll Council Cha m bers/Virtua l
1500 Wa rbu rt on 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 partidpate remotely). •Via Zoom:
o https:/lsantadarnca. zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1 (669) 900-6833
How to Submit Writt en Pub lic 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. eComments 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 eComme11ts and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on lhe I ntemet at https://santaclara .legistar .com/Calendar. aspx All public records felarling 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 inspeclioo at the Office of the City a e-rk at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that the pLlbtic re-cords are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts, ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site o r distributed in advance of the Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by the City Council. For the final document, you many contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 615-2220 or [email protected] . cny o-r Sama Ctara Pnmecton Oll.<INl/2073

Page 70 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Specia l Council Meeting& . Mee,ting Minutes 0711181202'3 Counc i·I and .Autllo rities Concu rrent Meeting
Action on Appointments Related to a Charter Review Committee and Direction to Study Charter Amendment Altematives Related to the Positions of Police Chief and City Q erk for Possible Placement on a March 2024 ballot.

Recommendation: Altemative : Staff makes no recommendation cay or San,~ Clara
City Manager Grogan introduced the item and turned ii: over to Ass istant City Manager Bojorquez who gave a Powerpoint presentation on appointments related to a Charter Heview Committee and direction to study Charter amendment altematives related to the positions of Chief of Police and Cil:y Cleric
Council comments and questions followed.

A m.otion was l1ilade by Council'lnember Jain seconded by Councihnember Hardy, to a:p,point the seven nominees to the Charter Review Committee .

Aye: 7 - Councilmember Watanabe, Councitmember Chahal, Councilmember Hardy, Vice Mayor Park, Councilmember Jain, Courtcilmember Becker, and Mayor Grllmor
A. motion was l1ilade by Vice Mayo.- Park, seconde d by Councihnember Becker, to direct that the Cha1rtetr Review Committee, in the theiir sco,pe of wo k. detennine if the positions of Chief of Pol:ke and City Clerk sltould be appointed posit ions by eithetr the City Coundl /City Manager or contin ue to be elected ; look into the specifications and qualificat ions of each irole comparable to other cities· and recommend additiona qual ifications as i·t 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
.Pago15 Prtmed on 08'.0ll/2013

Page 71 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 8: Purpose And Overview Of The 2023 Charter Review Committee

Cityof .

Santa Clara
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE N:OMINATION FORM
Cify of Sant Clara
City Clerk.'s Offioe 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 (Committee). 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 importanoe of a City Charter and to solicit community input on proposed changes prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.

Member ship
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 nominated 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 with 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 Counci l wishes to sincerely thank the nom ·nees for their interest iin serving and outstanding commitmer i t to the City of Santa Clam.

Page 72 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

THE DEAIJLINIE TO SUBMIIT NOMIINA HONS IS 12:00 PM. JULY 12, 20.23 I, -,-------,,,,..------,,,----,,--• hereby nomirate the following individual to serve on the 2023 Charter Review Committee:

MeyodCounci lmember
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 icanon - PfO\lide 2 proofs, of res idency : i.e. LicenseJI D, Utility Bill or passport) Zip Code : ________ _
Are you a registered voter of the City of Santa Clara?
(Must be a registered \'o'.er a.\ time of ~plicauon }
D Yes O No
City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on matters where there exists a potential conflict 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 fonn is a pu:blic record that may be subject to disclosure upon request.

Signature:

Date Signed:

You may submit the completed nomination form in person at: City Cled<'s Office , 11500 Warburton Avenue , Santa Cllara, California 95050 or emaill completed form to: [email protected] THE DEADLIN E TO SUBMIT NOMltlAT IONI IS 12:00 PM, JULY 12,,.2023

Page 73 of 91 ends

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

Page 74 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 10: Understanding The Role Of Ethics Commissions

IN STITUTE FOR
1111 LOCAL GOVERN MEN T .,._ ,.,.

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 CMrun11r1/ry consid ril¥J wheth r to propose C!SlabJisiling air ethics cammi:ssion. We have laol«.·d for ifi{ormaUan abmJl etb/cs cmmnissiam but ha 11ot real~ J:outu1 much. Cati you l1elp?
ANSWER
Them am a nu.mher of qu llons to ask in evaluating whethill' an f!Cthics commission ropmsenm a use:l'u] 1.001 for .· OW' oommu11rlty. includ l.ng:
l. What I.ls your o o.raU goal?
.2. \NI/tat do you want an @ti/tics commission lo do?

3. How ,; ouli:I co1:nml. Jon m mhers he sf!Cl@ct@d?

5. What resourc are avafl abl@ to support th@ ,cornmisslon?

6. What decision-making prooess should you usf!C to demrmlrm ,vlm thM a oomml!sslo.n lls right for th@ ,community?
Lers look at 1!:acll issue_
What Is Y,our Ove rall Goal?
The intefll:!it 111 ,creating an ,entity with O!M kind o.f rnsponsibmt for pub]lc Ice @!hies can be 111~irnd by any number of goa~ . One goal may he symbolic: to ,convey the message that 12thl Is Impor tant to a juriscliction -- so important that the j w,llsdicllon has a bod rn.~.nsibfo for It_ Unfortunately ., symbolic g lll1'@S raml . accomplish much in terms of 12tMcs...
1"100 K Slreet, 5ulte 2 □ 5 • Sacramento, 95B14 • 915,.fi5B.810!l , F 915,_;1!14'11.753.S , www.ca-llg .. 01Jg

Page 75 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

f'olel)'day fdwks for Loca Offidals
Understimd g lhe A:o!e of'flh lc:s Comm s;s FIS December XID7 Oth@r goals may rrilat.@ to the typi:t of rol@ the @11tlty \ . Ill pEay. An ethics task fore@ ca:l'.l d@!. min@ v.•h ther addulional hies m@asu~es .and actl. m would oo helprul In a j urisdiction . Th@ City of Long Beach used this approach in 2-001 v.rhetn irt. croa.t@d .an ethl task for tha.t cutm oae:k a y,ear later \ . .Ith a sM.!es of m. ommoodaUons on how to @11hanco dm @lll:ical clln1aw In fit@ dty. This kl.nd of entity is .an lnfonnation-,gad1 inQ and advl ory oody. However, Um cl com1 ii mad@ lh ultlmaw de • fo11011 \ . h@thfl1' to .adopl the nIBasums reoommrmd@d oy lhe task fo~e .

One advanitage of Ila ir11g an ethics tas:k fo:rc,e is th:at. lt orlngs tile commul'.luty • s vole@ !o the tao.le aoout tM In public S(t . tee. D p,@llCling on th@ ,composition of th@ tasik. {ore@, the respetct toot rask foroe rn@mb . enj oy in tlill ,com.numlly can translate into, comn11mHy p,@Ct for the rask fooce·s proposals.

Types of Ethics Entities
The t:onowlng nomenclature may be helpful to 1.mdc ore the d1fforbi.g roles that cthics-rel,ated posirtions or bodies can play in an organization. allhough dit)'.ercflt organirzations ma use ditforen t terminology.

Elblcs Task Fore@
A oocly rnnv d oy a local agen. to .ac-compli'!!l:1 a p clik rask. mlatins lo cthl ., typically iooking policy rnoomrne11datlo11s on ways to e11han !he ruMur of ethics 111 .an agency. The ta k for is us.ually disbanded after It has made Its recommendations or .accomplisih cl ils ta_tj(_ Ethics Cornrnllfn
A tandlng body de.,;igned lo be .a source of advice on policy irnplemenlatlon and uppor1 for eU!ic.,; within the .ag@:llCy. An elhlcs comrndttee ean also play .an cducattonal role withirn Ille ageu and out. In the oommm1lty.

Elbics H otliot/Ornlm ds-pc.rso:n
A soundirng ooard for p11blic offici als on publi c rec ethic.-: d I mmas. In lh@ pl'l\l'ate ecto . many large ,companies provide such .a sour,cc of aclvi. e for thcirr people. Thie-: kirm1 of posirtion can also pl,ay an educational aud traini ng role.

Ethics Cornrnlssioo
A s.tandl:ng bod v.r1th delegated audmrity lo interpret and e11fo11c the juricw.1cU011·s el!hic.c: regulatlo'.!ls. An ethics commic:slon can alw pl,ay a role In training and ,ed1.1calio11.
nstlrute fur L.ocal Government

Page 76 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

E...eiryday Elhks for Loca Offldials
Understimdlng mile Role offihlcs OITRlll 5.Slcns December :N)()7 Oiloor ,communities Illa\'@ an ,ethics commltt,ee. 'File oommlttoo is a group of l:ruiividuaill.! that pro des advice and f@edback on hm to pmmnt@ aud 1mhanrn the ity·s ,ethics program. U can oomprise m.emb of 1M puDlic, local officiaills or a cmttbi naUon of l:mlh. 'File City of .San la Dara 's ethics oomm:!tloo, t:or exampl12, t! . composed of th@ mayor and t\ o council rnwnbm. lh@ city mam1g@r. d ty attorney, dly del'ik. dliief of pol le and 1h12- city" . ethics advi:s:or. 01.h@r taff regularl attend. Tlm me12-ti11gs ar12- o_f:)(ln lo 1M publlc , and !.Im city posts 1Meti11g notic12s and rn:ail th@m lo thoso , ho w'i h to oo noll:lled.

An ethics oommission is usuall'.Y an ln-dopendc:mt body that pmvid 12-xt,emal oversight and ,enforcem12-nt of ,ethics laws.1
I n Califo:rnlla., th@ tat@·. Farir PO:litlcail Practices Cmnml. Ion (FPPC) performs lih role for stat and local offi cial. . subj @ct to lh Polill.cal Reform Acl. 'File FPPC regulates:
• Can:ipalgn tlriancing and sp ruiing at the slate and local I .Is; • Fi t1Janctal OOl'.lifl!I o:f hnl. t at th12- slat12- and loc-ail I @Is:
• Lobbyist. rnglt. trafo:m and ri2-JXlrting at !Im sral.e revel; • P'ost-gover.t11meutal emplO¥f.Mlll. at lhe stal.e and local l@ els:
• Mass mamngs at puDlic e peJ:1Se at. th@ • tam and local levruL'>: aud • Gi fts and honorarla given to public oft1clals and candid.ales at lhe state and local levers.

A lui: goal of an @Ihle 001rm 1rt! -ion t, t,o enllan()e publl trust 111 11l1e @lh:l.c @nfor,rnment prooes b assignin g it to a quasi-indeplllldmll enUt .

Local agencli!S can lilav12-@!hies commlssloru:: tbal am ,charged , ilh nforcing and taking oilier ac:1.i.o.l'.ls with ffi! ~ct to local 12-thics la. . Such oomml- slons ma also provide advico regarding local ethics la. as weU as ,offer 1ralnlng on su h ll;n!l .

One question to po.nd@r Is v h@lll your city or oounty nf!-l?ds addllt!onal @!Ille regulations (soo "Th oo Ought In B a LaVi.r"' at lh bounm of this article). CaHfo:rnla ailrf!-ad h:as a fair!. comp!@ arra of @lhlcs llaw . For an ovo.rviow of e,xi;s;ting slate and fodera:I ethics llaw , . oo A Locail Off'rcial"s Ethics Law R~fer@co al WW\ . . ca-Hg.orglethi la.

Commo n local @thics law Lnclud@ laws !hat go beyond 1M minimum standards es:tabll!shed in va: .lous st.al. Jaw . l'he se l:ncluae llaw that oolate to campaign fi:t1Janc (contribution l.iml and public fin ancing of campaign ) , llaw rngulating lobbyi;s; , op n go rnm nt ,or "·sunshine" ordin ancos and n:10 strLngeru gift rul@s.

Institute for acal Government

Page 77 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Everyday Ethics for Lo cal Official s
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commi ssions
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 consul
tants or governmen
ta l ethics
Commission serves
as filing officer for
state campaign
statements
Commission may
adopt administra
tive regulations;
regulations become
effective within 60
days unless vetoed
by a two-thirds
vote of the board of
supervisors
Ethics commis-
sion authorized to
hold hearings to
determine whether
an elective or ap
pointed city officer
warrants suspension
or removal for acts of
official misconduct
Los Ang eles
Ethics
Commi ssio n
Administers and im
plements la'WS con
cerning campaign
finance. lobbying ,
conflict of interest
and governmental
ethics
Commission also
serves as filing of
ficer for campaign
statements and is
ments
Commission may
investigate alleged
violations of local
and state law per
taining to campaign
finance. lobbying,
ethics and conflict of
interest and report
to appropriate au·
thorities
Commission must
maintain a whistle
blower hotline
Commission auth
orized to adopt
administrative
regulations subject
to council approval
without modifica·
tion
Commission may is
sue written opinions
and advice, the good
faith reliance on
which can provide
immunity from ora
defense to subse
quent enforcement
proceedings
San Diego
Ethics
Commission
Administers,. moni
tors and enforces
city-enacted laws
concerning cam
paign finance. state
ments of economic
interests.conflict of
interest and gifts,
lobbyist registra tion
and other matters
proposed by the
Commission may
investigate allega
tions of violations of
city campaign and
ethics laws
Tables prouidcd cou rtesrJ of Oakland Ethics Commission Institute for Local Government
San Jose
Elect ions
Comm issio n
Monitors compli
ance with all city
campaign and
ethics laws
Investigates allega
tions of violations of
city campaign and
ethics laws
Makes recom
mendations to the
city council on city
campaign and
ethics laws
Berkeley Fair
Campaign
Proctices
Commission
Administers and en
forces the Berkeley
Election Reform Act
Prescribes forms,
publishes manua ls
and assists other
city agencies in
connection with the
Berkeley Election
Reform Act
Commission may
issue opinions. the
good faith reliance
on which can pro
vide immunity from
subsequent enforce
ment proceedings
December 2007
Oakland Ethics
Commission
Oversees compli
ance with all city
campaign and
ethics laws. includ
ing local•sunshine "'
ordinance , lobbyist
registration act pub
lic financing of cam
paigns. campaign
finance act etc.

Makes recom
mendations to the
city council on city
campaign and
ethics laws
Imposes penalties
and fines as provid
ed for by ordinance
Prescribes forms
for reports. state
ments.notices and
other documents
related to campaign
finandng ,conflict
of interest, lobbying
and ethics
Sets compensa
tion for the office
of city counci l
member,which is
reviewed and ad·
justed annually
Conducts investiga
tions ,audits and
public hearings
4

Page 78 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

[ye;iyday EINcs for l..oc.-il Officials
Understandb)g !he Role offJillh::s Comm 5S«)n5 December 2007 What Do You Want an Ethics C,o:mmission to Do?
If c:r,f!atlng an ,ndt::!pend@nt. rngullatory @ntity \ . oulcl m.oot your CTJmmunlty' s goal, lh@ spoclflc dul:im assignod to 1.itthlcs commissions tend to t:au Into ooo or morf!t ohh~flfit carogorlcs:
l. Ov oolng and @nfordng locail ethics laws and/or oocff!s; 2 . Providing advicf!t to local officials . on ethics and @thies ]aw : and

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

Most ethics commissions tend to focus on r!t:hks lai!i'i'S as oppo: d lo ethics (valuf!s-basf!d conduct that goo.<; above and beyond the minimum roqu1rerrumls of lhlit Jaw}. S@f! Tabllit I. for a list of respo.t1Slb!litl11S. of various @ltlJ.es con:1ml'1-Sions. 111 Cautornla ,
1-lo,v.'if!Vllf, on@ California community OXfi@rinillntoo with ha\1ng an ethics com ml: Ion that @nfor,coo Its v.al~d e(brlcs -cod . Thf! code had fit:\.'.amples of what conduct :ootloc!ing rnrtaln valuf!s -- such .as fal:rooss, t.ruslworlh1nf!s.<;, ro.<;po.n&b!lity and r!!Spocl - did and did not look lllm . Th@ task asslgnoo to the @!hies commL"8lon i n !hat situation 'Vas to asse..'1-S whf!ther a gi @11 c:omluct foll Into thfl "do nollook Ilk@" carogory.

How Slhoul1d Members Be Select:ed?
For an @Ihle! commil'I-Sloo to achlf!Vfit thf! gpal of" promoting publlc ,confid@nce 111 Its [email protected]'.l-ma!king p:roc~. ht nood!. falr -m1nc:ff!d and dillg @nt. membtl-, . who am cone ood , 1th tl([U1talbly enfor 111g Us adopted thl. Im. . and rnqulr mmts. Toils !f!ads to th@ question of who ajppoints thfit tMmh ofthf! ,f!thics com ml Ion. Tablf! 2 illustral.1!8 how a m.mroor of Jurisdictioru; Ila lrl.@d lo achieve the goal of appo,nling fair d@cisiol'.l-makllfS.

Public 0011il'idf!f:IC@ In th@ ,commls.~ron's d@cisions is also @nhanced lfLh@,commls.~ronf!rs are not particlpan ln 11:m pontlcal process 11hat th@. aro chargf!d with regulating:. For tllat mason, .a numoor ofjurl.sdict:ion& impoS@ mstrlc!J.oru; on com missioners · partldpatl on in @loctio.ru;. (sf!@ Tabl@ 2).
lnstlrute ror Local Government 5

Page 79 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Everyday Ethics for Local Official s
Under standing the Role of Ethics Commi ssions 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 single four-year th~)"'arterm Ter.ms staggered Terms stag gered terms term s term Terms staggered annually annual ly Terms staggered Terms staggered Terms staggered Appointment Appointed by Appointed by Appointed by Appointed by The mayor and Three members mayor, board of mayor.city at- mayor from a two-third s vote each city counci l app ointed by supervisors, city torney,control- poolofcandi- of clty council member appoint mayor attorney, district ler,president dates a commissioner Four member s attorney and as- CX cou ncil. and Each cou ncil Commission appointed by sessor president pro member and terms run con - the e ntire com-tern of council city attorney currently with mission nominate s seven the elected
cand idates official's term
Mayor's appoint-
ments subject to
confirmat ion by
city council
Qualifications Mayor'sappoin- Must be a regis- At least one Must be a regis- Must be a regis- Must be an tee must have tered voter member must tere d voter with tered vote r Oakland resident background in have held elec- some familiar- and registered to publfc 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 att orney
in public ethics political party
law; assessor's Must be a regis· appointee must
have background tered voter
in campaign
fin a nee law; re-
maining two
appointees must
represent general
public
Table 2 continued
Institute for Local Government

Page 80 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair 0akland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practices
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 em- office or be an of- office or partici- fimncial con- direct and sub- election to public ployed by the ficerof a political pate in an elec- tributlon to,or stantial financial office or serve as city or have any party tion campaign publicly support interest In any an office r of any direct and sub- Can't be a city Can't run for pub- or oppose, a can- business, work or political part y 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 Berkeley by the city consultant sion concerning to run for elec· while: a commis· election cam- Can't participate that office tive office for sioner paign Can't seek elec- in a campaign 12 month s after May not run for tion to any other serving as a public office or for city office, a commissioner eective office participate in or ba llot measure o r for one year contribute to an publicly endorse before or after Oakland munici· a candidate or serving on the pal campaign ba llot measure commission May not endorse Can't endorse ,
or work on behalf support, oppose ,
of any candidate orworkon behalf
of any candidate while serving on or measure in an the commis sion Oakland election Vacancies Vacancies filled Appointments Vacancies fi lled App:ointments Appointment s A vacancy must by the app:iint· made within bythe mayor must be made must be made be filled no ing authority for 30 days by the frcrn a pool within 60 days by within 30 days by sooner than the remainderof appointing a1.r of i:andidate s the city council to the appointing 30 days and no the term thority to fill the submitted by fill the unexpired auth ority 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
app:iintee may
serve a new six-
yearterm
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

Page 81 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commiss ions 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
Sa n Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fa ir oakland Ethics Ethics Ethic.s Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Commission
Enforcement A comprehensive A comprehensive A comp rehen sive Citycoundl The commissio n A comprehensive Procedures set of comp laint set of complaint set of comp laint 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 sk>n's complaint lngs to determine Changes to and preliminary and preliminary and pre liminary procedures violations of the commission rules consideration of consideration of consideration of Berkeley Election and procedures complafnts are complaints are complaints are Reform Act become effective confidentia l 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 en-
forcement if the
city attorney ls
conflk.ted
Conflict With Ethics charter
Other Laws provisions prevail
against conflict-
ing local laws
Subpoen a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laws over Campaign Fi- Campaign Fi- Bection Cam- Citywide Ethics Berkeley Election Campalgn 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- iOCRA); Ethics Has Jurisdic - public matching matching funds): Ethics Ordinance ; nance. lobbying, Code tforcity tion funds);Campaign Governmental Municipal Lobby- revolving door council); Lobbyist and Government Ethics Ordinance; ing Ordinance and gift limita· Registration Act; Conduct Code; Municipal Lob- tions ) Conflict of Inter- Prohibition of bying Ordinance ; est Code; Sun-
False Endorse- Post-Employ- shine Ordinan ce;
ment in Cam- ment Ordinance Limited Public
paign Literature Financing Act;
Ordinance: Lob- False Endorse-
byist Registration mentlnCam·
Ordlnance:Sun- paign Literature
shine Ordinance kt
{partiaO
( -
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.

Institut e for Local Governm ent 8

Page 82 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

Everyday Ethics for Local Offi cials
Und erstanding the Role of Ethics Commi ssions Decemb er 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 Be1keley, 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, Ethics Ethics Ethics Elect ions Campaign Commission
Com mission Commissio n Commiss ion Commissio n Practices Commission
Number of 12 31 6 Nostaff (city No!t aff (city 20
Staff (full-time clerk's office pro· clerk's office pro- equiva lents ) vides administra· v1des administra·
trve assistance as tiveassistance as
needed) needed)
Annual $1,382,441 $2.60),000 $1,021,106 No separate No !eparate $279,644 Budget budget budget
Com mission & Commission Commis.s1on CommissKm Committee meet · City provides Gty manager, Staff Relations appoints and appointsand appoints the ings staffed by the :ommission or his or her may remove the may remove the executive direc- the office of the with staff who designee( s), exec utive direc- executM' di rec- tor.subject to city clerk act in accordance provides the tor at will toratwrn confirmation by City council with co mm is- commission with 6:ecutive direc- Executive di rec- the city council has author- sion policies 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 fu lfill remove-othe r remove other pleasure of the neutra l evalua- its function s and com mission commisson commission tor.selected by dutie s employees employees the commission, City attorney 1 s City attorney is to review and
the commission 's the commission's investigate com-
legal advisor lega l advisor; plaints filed with
the commission . however.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 atto rney, provide s lega l
his or her office, advice but does
or his or her elec- not participate in
tion camoaign investigations or
revfewofcom-
plaint>
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 shou ld 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 Government

Page 83 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

l:.1,1eiyday l:Jhks fur Loc.i Officials
Understandtng !he Role of l:J!hlc; LOl!lllll u ns December ~07 vot,f!rs as a c:lulrlJ . ame:ndmf!nt. Vowrs can a:&so us thf! l11ritialiv@ pmcess to propos a malt,f!r for th@ ballol
Anotlillr option I!! . for commut1rity groups 10, colilabo:rate with a local agm1cy on a ballot .t111f!a url'.!'. l'hls hybrid approach h l p cmalif! a p:roposa1 that mnects community concerns as we:H as. th@ tocl'mlcal l'.!'Xp@rtl ohhf! puhl ic agency about hm.. to ,craft a measliir,f! that addres, such cone J'.I&
C,ondusion
Loca1 agencies Im @ a 111!1.mb@r of t.ools al\-ail.able t,o tllem to pr nm ,f! a culll!lre of ,f!thlcs and compHance with @tlllc law in their jl!lr lsdlcllorus. An ,f!l.h!cs ,comml: · .. Ion Is onf! such tool. U~m an tool\! . thf!rn are las tbat ethics commissions can p@rform wdl , 'i.. Mle othf!r @thics-oolatf!d functi ons may b bf!tt,f!r achil'.!'l\red by other mf!a ur . For morn Information aboul th@ range o:hools avar'lablf! lo local ag nci . to promo!!! @thlc in publlc smrvlce, ksit th@ [nstUut for ILocal G0Wi.nmf!r1fs Ethi cs Resol!lrce Centor at Vl'W'i .ca-llg.org/erc.

Ther,e Ought to Be a Law a- Wait, There Is On,e!
Som times a juri diction wrn find its-el f evaluating wihethff to form ,an ethics romml sion or other ethics-rdate<l entity ,;. 1en ll is.~ experiencing a scandal.. Leaders may foe! tmdcr pr sure lO "do something" to prevent futur scandals. To respond ei'feclivcl . , it can be helpful lo idcnt.ify ,cxacl what ,caused the s-candal lO oc,cur and tailor the r ponsc accordingly.

Som times the scandal will be that som one Is charged 1th vloiatl ng an ethics law.

Under such d11cunistance'S. lhe solution may not be more la\ll or even more law CJ'l!forccn.mnt T he solutloo may h stepped-up tralnl.ng. Su h training may b help.fut If the pricvaillng seMe: i,s thal . om.eonc made fill igooranl mistake: (either nol lmowlng som thing was against the Iaw or not r@alizlng the ,consequences of getting caugl'ltJ.

Gr,cater attentim1 to cr,cati11g a cull11re of etll!ics v lthl11 the Jurisdiction and s-cnslti:2,l11g the vm. to the n d for ,considering ,ethics as a ri!e1 ~a In electlon& niay al o he solutions ( c:e "Santa Clara i nfuses Ethic.~ Into Campaigns" regarding the dty's "Vote Ethics'' efforts) .

In other ,cases., ther.c niay not have been a perceived iolatlon of the law but a pcroclved lack of ,c11forcement. U- lhls I . the H11atioo. k~p In mind !hat there may be m.U:ltiplc enforc,cni.ent mechan.l~ms. Fo ©:ample. the Politica l Reform Act allows for private enfomnn cnl if the Fair Political Pracl.lc . Commission docs not tak,c action on a complalnl . Morool\ r, under the fodcrnl Im. thal prot,c s the public's right t,o "honest scr Ices" fmm It.~ pl!lbll officials , many violations ,of state: ethics laws ,can also be prosccut,c<l by l he U.S. Attorney· Offl c,c as a .form ,of mall or wire fraud (or If rnon was i 1voll\ d, ,even inconi.e lax evasion).
lnstlw te tor ac.al Government 10

Page 84 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

IE.~day • s for Local Offldals
Understanding n1e Jto1e ofahlcs Corn:m s;slons December Xi07 Alternal1 ,cl . the candal tnay be lhal som Ofl did Ill l ngag ill condu. !hat should lllff.lC!ssaliil. .nd them. io Jail r • ,I.Jl! !hem t pay a fln : th j t • rdsed v ry poo judgment Or It ,c uld ibe a forrn of wnducl tllal bs ry difficult to regulat • (f o ex.ample, is.iw.es lated lo . c speech). Tb, , . \ her an aspirationa]. alue-tllascd code ,of ,cfuics ,can help. partiralarily ,f 1l ~ acrotnpanlcdl by a \1,,dl -d •fmfl di . . o. • tently ,mplcm ntcd program t highlight the impo1ita11ec of lhe ,cod as. a guid for rcrydlay oonduct by pobl ic ff1c1al . tllal fle<:ts lh c,ommt111r1t. · • s ,c p lations.

Vi it M"I. . . ca-ils.org/ hi cod . Jor .mo1J1c information r011 lh . approaclL In shorn. Ifs. irmporta111. \ hen facing dctnands that r011c d!o son1 thhng" about an ,ethics I sue lO choo a ro oJ aclion r,ca nab1'y tamlored to fi ing the pr blcm lhat. gave ra. to lh ~ . u •. Olhel'\ ~ . r011c faecs lh p • t of :further ] 'O Ion f llh pubUc • s. lft.lSl and ,confidcnc If a r med '. whU ,vel -lilt ud di. prov,cs in ffi cliv,c hi prnvc1uing a • peat 0CC"UffCllC .
'f hi ploc,e Of'lg1nall~ Ii.an Jn We, lt:!:J.'11 Cil Mag.azirllG and ' . a • . rvl of lh l . lhtum toli Loe ,] Gowrnm nt ([LG) Elhlcs Pro JG ct . .. hlch off r our ~ oo ptibll . rlc clhlc . :for foca] offmc.ials .. F r morn .hnf nnatloft, v' it \VVl,l _,ca-Us. rs I!'~ t.

ILG 1 g:ral fit.I] 10 tlillsc indi idua.m for lhcir assisM11£rG in poopari.ng this articl@: Dan :Pl!lmrnfl., mrecuHv,G d:l.ooctor, Oaklland Ethl C0111im1S.!~011; HeathGr ah od. s1stant dty altorooy. Long B~ch: J .tll'.l!~for Sparacino. d t.y ma nag .. Cirt.y of Santa . Iara; and Ca1J1ol McCarlhy. deputy d.ty maoogm·. G of Santa Cllara. C riero - . :fiu.t1cU11g for lh d@v,GlopmGnt oJ this ,column \V'a! . pro idGd by th@ [nt naU.011al City-County Management Association (]CMA) R@lioom nt Co1ipoli'atlo11 (\VVlr .lc.marc.o:r:g). . who G m • fon .i!s. to ibuild rntirnt-nGni ocurrity :for thG ptibU s ct r.
1:ndnote:
1 Natlmtal Ccmfi rai:,c of -S.a: • gls]at ees, l!ilnlc. Comml1il!rf.!. aoo ti C:'i. CmrimlH:IOOl'S.! Win i'i tli!e' Dlil'f e11J ? AvaLJahle at lutp://\li .,•.n L.org/progr; ms.letltlc. 111!1 1s. ili!e' H'f.erenic:e.him.

Page 85 of 91 ends

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/NS-
Documents/AgendaDocuments/General%20Items/2023/january/15.1-draft-enforcement- policy-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.

Page 86 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City of Santa Clara. “2023 Charter Review Committee.” n.d. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/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-santa-
clara#:~: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/2E- FyVKpLYI?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-s- office#:~: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.

Page 87 of 91 ends

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/our- city/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/our- city/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-of- ethics-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/departments- a-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.

Page 88 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
City of Santa Clara. “Santa Clara Stadium Authority.” January 29, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadium- authority#:~: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/wp- content/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-and- council-members-academy-session-materials/09.-your-role-as-an-elected- official.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-clara- has-624-million-in-infrastructure-needs-but-doesnt-have-the-money-to-fund- it/#:~:text=But%20Santa%20Clara%20historically%20hasn,year%20when%20the%20G eorge%20F). Accessed April 27, 2024.

Page 89 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Institute for Local Government. “Codes of Conduct for Elected Boards.” 2015. (https://www.ca- ilg.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/file-
attachments/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/file- attachments/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-ethics- laws). 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-california- cities-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-and- commissions#:~: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.

Page 90 of 91 ends

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.

Page 91 of 91 ends

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES

This report was ADOPTED by the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2024.

______________________________
Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson

p
f
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on a Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Outplayed:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers”

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

BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2024, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled “Outplayed:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” (Civil Grand Jury report). The Civil Grand Jury report includes various findings and recommendations. California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days on the specified findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.

On July 16, 2024, the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations were presented to the City Council/Stadium Authority Board and staff requested input on the desired process for providing the City/Stadium Authority’s response. No formal Council/Board action was taken; however, it was decided that staff would develop responses based on the Council/Board’s general discussion.

The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:

Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury finding:

1. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:

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, City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 1 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
with a timeframe for implementation.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Consistent with the Council/Board’s July 16, 2024 discussion and Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council and Stadium Authority Board’s consideration and approval.

The City and Stadium Authority’s responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 11, 2024.

DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only specific findings and recommendations require City/Stadium Authority response. The report included a total of twenty (20) findings and thirteen (13) recommendations. Of these, the City and Stadium Authority have been directed to respond to all of the findings and 13 recommendations. It should be noted that 1) some findings/recommendations may require a City or Stadium Authority specific response, 2) the Civil Grand Jury identified Recommendations 7a and 7b for City/Stadium Authority response; however, neither of these Recommendations exist whereas Recommendation 7 does exist and appears to be relevant for Stadium Authority response, and 3) three of the 13 recommendations identified for City/Stadium Authority response provide no recommendation (# 4, 5, and 11).

A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” report can be found on pages 70-74 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website:
<https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/outplayed-measure-j-city-santa-clara-and-san- francisco-49ers.pdf>
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings
For the Council/Board’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings that the City/Stadium Authority was directed to respond to:

Finding 1
From the beginning, the City was impatient and overmatched in its negotiation posture with the 49ers to the long-term detriment of the City/Stadium Authority.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority disagrees with this finding.

Both the Forty-Niners and the City/Stadium Authority engaged highly qualified professionals to assist City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 2 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
with negotiations for the development and operations of the Stadium. One primary objective of the City/Stadium Authority in this was to minimize the contribution of public funds and to protect the City’s general fund from liability to the maximum extent possible. This objective was achieved, as noted in the Civil Grand Jury’s Finding 3. Also achieved was the inclusion of contract terms that entitle the City/Stadium Authority to share in various income streams from both NFL and Non-NFL events held at the Stadium. Clearly tradeoffs were made in these negotiations. At this point in time, however, debating who “won” these negotiations almost 15 years ago does not seem like a constructive exercise. The City prefers to continue to work with the 49ers to interpret and apply contract obligations fairly, and to operate the Stadium in a manner that is mutually beneficial, all in a manner that advances and protects the City and Stadium Authority’s legitimate public interests, and the interests of Santa Clara residents. The terms of the recent settlement agreement with the 49ers are an example of how this can be done effectively, with substantial additional monies now secured for the benefit of the City’s General Fund well beyond the terms of the original agreements.

It should also be noted that by comparison to a number of other Stadium deals, negotiated at or around the time of Santa Clara’s stadium deal and since, a substantially greater contribution of public funds was involved. For example, in April 2018 Clark County sold $645 million in bonds to go toward the $750 million total public contribution provided to finance Allegiant Stadium, a $2 billion total project cost, in Las Vegas, with the balance accounted for in room tax revenue before the bond sale.

Because of a shortfall in room tax revenue, Clark County ended up needing to withdraw $11.55 million from a debt reserve fund to make its December 2020 scheduled $16.06 million bond payment.

In 2017, Little Caesar’s Area (Detroit) opened using $324 million in public funding for a $863 million total project cost.

In 2020, Globe Life Field (Arlington, Texas) opened using $500 million in public funding for a $1.2 billion total project cost.

There are at least a dozen other publicly funded deals with similar public subsidies.

Finding 2
The City has not studied the actual economic impact of the Stadium. The 49ers have produced their own studies, which they use to tout long-term unverified benefits and frame all discussions surrounding the success of the Stadium.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees that it has not conducted a comprehensive study of the full (direct and indirect) economic impact of the Stadium.

The City/Stadium Authority does have detailed information on “direct” revenues generated by Stadium operations to the City and the Stadium Authority. This information is presented to the Stadium Authority Board quarterly in the form of Stadium Authority Quarterly Financial Reports.

These documents outline revenues and expenses from stadium events. Specific to revenues, the Quarterly Financial Reports outline the following revenues:
· Stadium Revenues
o Rent
o NFL and Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 3 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
o Stadium Builder License (SBL) Proceeds
o Non-NFL Event Net Revenue
o Naming Rights
o STR sponsorship revenue
o Interest
· General Fund
o senior and youth fees
o base rent
o performance rent
o sales tax
All such reports have been provided to the Grand Jury and are available to the public on the Stadium Authority’s website.

To-date, the City/Stadium Authority has not invested public dollars to conduct an economic impact study that examines revenues and expenses outside of the comprehensive study of the actual economic impact of the Stadium. While there are other “indirect” economic impacts that benefit the City (e.g., hotel tax), this information has not historically been tracked and reported as “Stadium related” because it is difficult to ascribe to Stadium Authority operations based on the data the City and Stadium Authority receive.

Regarding the most recent economic impact study conducted and released by the Forty-Niners, the City/Stadium Authority has no comment as we were not consulted on any aspect of such study.

Finding 3
Measure J’s promise to protect the City’s General Fund has been realized. The funding structure from the Stadium Lease has successfully allowed the Stadium Authority to pay off Stadium construction loans and fund required Waterfall reserves faster than originally planned.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding.

Finding 4
The City/Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo, an affiliate of the 49ers, with an inherent conflict of interest to handle the Stadium Authority’s financial interests in non-NFL events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding that there are inherent conflicts of interest; however also notes that there are material advantages and efficiencies to having one entity manage the Stadium for both NFL and non-NFL events, and that this arrangement is not atypical for similar venues throughout the country. Of course, care must be taken to provide proper oversight and accountability where such an arrangement exists, and City/Stadium authority is committed to provide such oversight, with critical self-assessment and improvements where needed, going forward.

Finding 5
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the Management Agreement included a fair termination clause.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 4 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority is unable to definitively agree or disagree with this finding due to a lack of any clear definition of what would constitute a “fair termination clause.” Further, as pointed out in the City’s response to Finding 1, above, debating the “fairness” of contract terms negotiated years ago does not seem like a useful exercise today.

Current professional staff and outside legal counsel were not involved in the negotiations of such provisions. However, as is typical for such negotiations, one would expect that the professional staff involved at the time negotiated the terms for the Management Agreement termination language with substantial interest and effort, with typical tradeoffs between the parties occurring based on competing interests and objectives, before agreement was reached on final language and terms.

Finding 6a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure the Management Agreement provided the Stadium Authority with full access to financial records.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority partially disagrees with this finding. The Management Agreement does contain substantial terms for access to Stadium financial records. The challenge has been with historic disagreements over the extent and implementation of such access. Using existing contract language, such access has substantially improved, particularly with the advent of the new financial Management System implemented in 2022.

Finding 6b
ManCo’s financial transparency with the Stadium Authority has improved with the implementation in 2022 of a new financial management system.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding.

Finding 6c
Transaction-level testing generally supports ManCo’s reporting of financial results for non-NFL events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding.

Finding 7a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the original Management Agreement and the 2022 settlement agreement contained sufficient language requiring specific items or methods and performance metrics to prioritize Stadium Authority revenue generation. This has resulted in a failure to hold ManCo accountable for the success of non-NFL events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority partially disagrees with this finding.

The March 28, 2012 Management Agreement includes Standards of Care and Duties terms in regard City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 5 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
to ManCo’s obligations to exercise prudent, commercially reasonable good faith efforts to maximize Stadium Authority’s revenues (sections 2.9 and 2.10). The Stadium Authority agrees that the Management Agreement does not otherwise include specific methods or performance metrics in regard to generating those Stadium Authority’s revenues. Further, the Stadium Authority made multiple efforts from and after 2017 to try to implement more specific methods and metrics in the Marketing Plans. The parties could not agree to the level of specificity, with ManCo ultimately relying on the operative Management Agreement terms in place. The 2022 Settlement Agreement further warrants and confirms ManCo’s duty of care obligations and the prioritization to maximize Stadium Authority’s revenues. By the time of the 2022 Settlement Agreement, the agreements for earlier money-losing events (like the College Football games) had ended or were ending, and ManCo prioritized booking more profitable events that Stadium Authority has held on and after 2023.

Finding 7b
The Stadium Authority failed to use the prescribed Marketing Correction Plan per Article 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement process to hold ManCo accountable for unsuccessful non-NFL event bookings.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority disagrees with this finding.

On December 13, 2018, Stadium Authority served ManCo a Notice to provide a Management Correction Plan, pursuant to Article 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement. That Correction Plan Notice concerned ManCo’s communications and reports to Stadium Authority regarding non-NFL Event bookings, and ManCo’s procurement practices. ManCo’s non-substantive response to that Correction Plan Notice and ManCo’s booking of money losing non-NFL Events became one of the bases of Stadium Authority’s actions to terminate ManCo as the Stadium manager in 2019 and 2020, and claims in Stadium Authority’s February 2022 Amended Cross-Complaint for Breach of Contract. The parties settled those claims with their August 31, 2022 Settlement Agreement, which included Stadium Manager’s express warranties regarding booking non-NFL Events and maximizing Stadium revenues [See Settlement Agreement Section 8(c)].

In addition to the December 2018 Notice of Correction Plan, Stadium Authority has made multiple efforts to hold ManCo accountable for unsuccessful non-NFL event bookings throughout the years, as exemplified by public discussions of the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Marketing Plan, and Stadium Authority’s hiring an independent consultant to review the 2019 and 2020 Marketing Plans. These efforts will continue.

Finding 8a
There is no evidence showing that ManCo is negotiating to maximize Stadium Authority profits for non-NFL events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority disagrees with this finding.

The Management Agreement provides for a Stadium Marketing and Booking Fee that is performance based. This structure is purposely designed to incentivize ManCo to maximize Stadium Authority profits. As a Forty-Niner entity affiliate, ManCo is also inherently motived to ensure that the Stadium Authority is successful so that adequate funds will be available to contribute towards needed capital City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 6 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
improvements to the venue shared with the Forty-Niners, and that Stadium Authority monies will be available, as necessary, to timely pay the Forty-Niners any entitlement they may have to reimbursement of public safety costs above the public safety cost threshold.

Also, it should be noted that Stadium Authority net revenues have increased substantially in recent years. Accordingly, City/Stadium Authority believes it is inaccurate to say that there is “no evidence” showing ManCo is negotiating to maximize Stadium Authority profits. That being said, City/Stadium Authority agree that ManCo’s obligation and commitment under the Management Agreement to maximize revenues and minimize costs in accordance with industry standards is at the core of their responsibilities and warrants ongoing and enhanced oversight by Stadium Authority staff and Board.

Finding 8b
The Stadium Authority has failed to ensure the Management Agreement requires ManCo to incentivize its staff to prioritize the Stadium Authority's success. There is no evidence that there are employee sales goals, metrics, or consequences related to unprofitable non-NFL events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority disagrees with this finding.

The City/Stadium Authority contract and relationship is with ManCo, not its employees. It would not be typical, or we believe appropriate, for such a contract to include or require terms for how ManCo incentivizes or compensates its employees.

The contract based (and other) financial incentives for ManCo to maximize profits for Non-NFL events is discussed in the City/Stadium Authority response to Finding 8.a, above.

Finding 9a
StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to require non-NFL ticket surcharges be applied to tickets associated with Rental and Trophy Luxury Suites, but failed to remit all corresponding surcharges to the Stadium Authority.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees that this is the correct interpretation of the application of the ticket surcharge; however, we disagree in part that StadCo/ManCo failed to remit all corresponding surcharges to the Stadium Authority.

The Stadium Authority staff was able to confirm that surcharges were applied to tickets associated with Rental and Trophy Luxury Suites. This conformation was possible for the last two fiscal years through the Financial Management System; however, we are not able to verify payment of such amounts for prior years before the Financial Management System was implemented.

The Stadium Authority makes no assessment of ManCo’s interpretation of the Stadium Lease.

Finding 9b
StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to not require non-NFL ticket surcharges to be applied to Seating Bowl complimentary tickets and Owners Club Luxury Suite tickets.

Draft Response
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 7 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
The City/Stadium Authority agrees that this is how StadCo/ManCo interprets the existing agreements with respect to the application of the non-NFL event ticket surcharge. This matter is currently under review with Stadium Authority legal counsel to confirm, in all respects, whether or not this is the correct interpretation.

Finding 9c
Suite ticket revenue submitted to the Stadium Authority does not account for suite ticket revenue for certain suite attendees.

Draft Response
The Stadium Authority partially disagrees with this finding.

As noted in Finding 9a, Stadium Authority staff was able to confirm that surcharges were applied to tickets associated with Rental and Trophy Luxury Suites. This conformation was possible for the last two fiscal years through the Financial Management System; however, we are not able to verify payment of such amounts for prior years before the Financial Management System was implemented.

Finding 10a
Most revenue from non-NFL events goes to the promoter, which is typical. StadCo can make money on luxury suites regardless of the event's profitability for the Stadium Authority.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority generally agrees with this finding in that event promoters and performers generally receive most non-NFL event revenues, and that StadCo revenues from luxury suites are not contingent on the profitability of the event to the Stadium Authority.

Finding 10b
The Stadium Authority is unaware of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium.

The Stadium Authority does not know what net revenues should be expected for non-NFL, ticketed and non-ticketed, events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority partially disagrees with this finding. The Stadium Authority released a Request for Proposals and has awarded a contract to an independent consultant to study the market potential trends and financial performance for stadium events and concerts at publicly owned venues.

The City/Stadium Authority will attempt to obtain market-based revenue information. It is important to note that information for public facilities will be easier to attain, and while we solicit information from privately-owned stadiums, it will be up to the discretion of those facilities to release such information.

Further, it is important to note that the City/Stadium authority now has 10 years of experience with operations at the Stadium and has accumulated substantial knowledge over this time period on the large stadium market generally, and the market revenue potential for Levi’s Stadium. That being said, this is an important issue, and City/Stadium Authority is committed to developing a deeper understanding of such matters, augmented by the input of industry professionals.

Finding 11
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 8 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Per the Stadium Lease, the Stadium Authority failed to negotiate pertinent details about buffet costs in the contract, such as parameters on cost thresholds and alcohol. The Stadium Authority accepted responsibility for buffet costs but failed to follow up when the expense was omitted from ManCo’s budgets.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority partially disagrees with this finding. Although the buffet costs language in the Stadium Lease is not extensive the understanding of the City/Stadium Authority staff at the time of negotiations for the original Stadium agreements was that buffet costs would be covered by Facility Rent paid by StadCo to the Stadium Authority. In hindsight, particularly since current City/Stadium Authority staff was not involved, it would not be fair, or useful, to now characterize this as a failure in City/Stadium Authority negotiations or “follow-up.” It should be noted that any contract term ambiguity on buffet costs was addressed under the terms of the May 2024 Settlement Agreement with revisions to the Stadium leases that now impose clear limits on buffet cost reimbursements and add provisions for Stadium Authority audits of such costs.

Finding 12
A Multi-Use Community Facility at the Stadium was one of Measure J’s original promises and was memorialized in the Stadium Lease. The current designated space for the Community Room at the Stadium is not easily accessible nor is it pragmatic for most civic events.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding.

Finding 13
The FIFA World Cup commitments for the City and the Stadium Authority were made without consultation with the City/Stadium Authority.

Draft Response
The City/Stadium Authority agrees with this finding. Current staff were not involved at the time; however, the Stadium Authority does not have a record of substantive communications between staff and StadCo/ManCo regarding terms for the FIFA World Cup event.

Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
For the Council/Board’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations that the City/Stadium Authority was directed to respond to:

Recommendation 1
Given the long-term nature of the various agreements, the 49ers' sophistication, and the history of past disputes, the City/Stadium Authority should engage advisors with specialized knowledge to determine options to level the playing field.

Draft Response
The recommendation has been implemented.

The Stadium Authority has and will continue to hire consultants with specialized expertise including the following areas: legal, marketing, audit and financials, systems implementation, and security.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 9 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Recommendation 2
The City should commission its own report to determine the Stadium's actual economic impact over the last decade. This recommendation should be implemented by July 1, 2025.

Draft Response
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.

The recommendation will not be implemented because it would be extremely difficult to effectively implement and would not be particularly useful going forward. There are clearly “indirect” economic impacts from Stadium operations that benefit the City of Santa Clara and the greater region, (likely increases in City transit occupancy taxes and sales taxes being the most obvious). However, looking at such information in hindsight and determining the amount of such revenues that should be ascribed to Stadium Authority operations would be extremely difficult. (See also, City/Stadium Authority response to Finding 2, above.) Instead, City/Stadium Authority recommends that such a study be conducted after the major events scheduled to occur at the Stadium in 2026 (Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup). This will give City/Stadium Authority, the opportunity to develop an appropriate methodology for measuring economic impact, and to develop and implement revenue tracking mechanisms, as needed and practically available, to facilitate an accurate measurement of “indirect” Stadium operations related revenues. This should be done in consultation with qualified experts and the Forty-Niners entities.

Recommendation 3
The May 2024 settlement agreement gives the Board/City Council new flexibility to divert Excess Revenue from the Stadium Authority to the City’s General Fund. When diverting Excess Revenue, the Board/City Council should be mindful of the long-term financial health of the Stadium Authority and request the Treasurer to produce a long-term plan for funding all required Stadium reserves, including reserves for capital improvements. This recommendation should be implemented by October 31, 2024.

Draft Response
The City Council/Stadium Authority Board agrees with this recommendation, and it will be implemented.

The Treasurer plans will provide a report to the Stadium Authority Board showing a current projection of the long-term plan. In addition, a Facilities Condition Assessment is currently underway which will help to inform the Board and staff of the appropriate level of capital improvement reserves necessary to maintain the Stadium. A recommendation will be brought forward upon completion of the Facilities Condition Assessment and for presentation to the Board during the next Budget Study Session in early 2025.

Recommendation 4
None
No Recommendation Included for Response
Recommendation 5
None
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 10 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
No Recommendation Included for Response
Recommendation 7 (Per the note above, Recommendations 7a and 7b are identified for Stadium Authority response; however, neither of these Recommendations exist whereas Recommendation 7 does exist and appears to be relevant for Stadium Authority response)
The Stadium Authority should retain the expertise needed to meaningfully weigh in on ManCo’s Marketing Plan to ensure that the Stadium Authority’s profitability is maximized. The Stadium Authority should also establish a yearly audit procedure to measure and analyze each season's Marketing Plan against its outcomes, updating future plans based on this analysis. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Draft Response
The recommendation has been partially implemented. The Stadium Authority retained the services of an outside expert to review ManCo’s Marketing Plan in 2021 and will do so in the future.

As noted in our response to Finding 10b, above, the Stadium Authority released a Request for Proposals and has awarded a contract to an independent consultant to study the market potential trends and financial performance for stadium events and concerts at publicly-owned venues.

The Stadium Authority will attempt to obtain market-based revenue information. It is important to note that information for public facilities will be easier to attain; while we solicit information from privately- owned stadiums, it will be up to the discretion of those facilities to release such information.

The Stadium Authority also plans to hire consultants in the future to assist with review an input for each year’s Marketing Plan. Stadium Authority staff will also review the annual Marketing Plan against performance and industry baselines.

Recommendation 8
As part of the Marketing Plan, Stadium Authority should require that ManCo produce a marketing plan that maximizes profits for the Stadium Authority and incentivizes ManCo marketing staff to prioritize the profitability of the Stadium Authority. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Draft Response
The recommendation has been partially implemented, and additional efforts will be taken to provide oversight of ManCo’s marketing plan. Please see our aforementioned responses to Findings 8b and 10b, as well as Recommendation 7.

It is also important to note that the sole objective of the marketing plan is not to maximize profits.

There are other considerations, such as the impact on the City’s reputation and booking of events that pose significant public safety and community impact challenges.

Notwithstanding, the Stadium Authority believes that maximizing profits is an important issue and this will continue to be an ongoing matter that we address through oversight of ManCo’s activities.

Recommendation 9
The Stadium Authority should review and ensure that it receives all a) non-NFL event ticket surcharges for all event attendees, and b) ticket revenue for all suite attendees owed to the Stadium City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 11 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
Authority. This recommendation should be implemented by October 31, 2024.

Draft Response
The recommendation has been implemented to the extent possible and the Stadium Authority’s ability to provide oversight and confirm receipt of appropriate revenue has greatly improved in the last two years since the implementation of a Financial Management System.

Stadium Authority staff has access to ManCo’s Financial Management System (FMS) and currently reviews non-NFL event ticket surcharge and ticket revenue for suite tickets sold to ensure that SCSA is receiving these revenues that are owed. Stadium Authority staff will continue to review this annually as part of the year end close and review of quarterly revenue information.

Recommendation 10
The Stadium Authority should hire a professional third-party consultant, not affiliated with the 49ers, to analyze the reasonable expectations for non-NFL events such as:
· An analysis of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium. · An analysis of ManCo's Marketing Plans, comparing successful (FY 2022-23) and unsuccessful (FY 2017-18) bookings to potential market revenue. · A plan with measurable objectives and incentives for ManCo to achieve these results.

This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Draft Response
A portion of this recommendation has been implemented and will continue to be a part of ongoing Stadium Authority operations and oversight; one portion of this recommendation is not warranted or reasonable, as explained below.

As noted above, the Stadium Authority has and will continue to take efforts to enhance oversight of ManCo’s marketing plan. Please see our aforementioned responses to Findings 8b and 10b, as well as Recommendations 7 and 8.

In regard to attempting to conduct a comparative analysis of ManCo's Marketing Plans with regard to the successful FY 2022-23 and unsuccessful (FY 2017-18) bookings and revenue, we believe that such an effort will detract from needed ongoing oversight and Stadium Authority operations.

Significant resources and time have already been spent by staff, legal counsel, and the Civil Grand Jury attempting to discern the rationales for prior year’s performance with limited to no success.

Given that revenues are at an all-time high and major enhancements have been made in the areas of data accessibility and oversight, we believe that future time is best spent on efforts are ongoing oversight and Stadium Authority operational issues.

Recommendation 11
None
No Recommendation Included for Response
Recommendation 12
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 12 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
The Stadium is not an appropriate location for a Community Facility. The Stadium Authority should work with the 49ers to identify and procure an alternative space for community needs. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2025.

Draft Response
The recommendation has not yet been implemented.

Stadium Authority staff will aim to discuss with StadCo/ManCo and identify alternatives by June 30, 2025. However, it is important to note that if the agreed-upon alternative includes relocation and/or facility modifications, it is unlikely that such changes can be made (implemented) by June 30, 2025.

Recommendation 13
The Stadium Authority should insist on consultation and prior notice before any major Stadium event commitments are made. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Draft Response
This is a matter of ongoing discussions between Stadium Authority and ManCo., with improved communications and opportunities for input already implemented. Within the next two Non-NFL Event booking cycles Stadium Authority staff’s intent is to formalizes this process, including Stadium Authority opportunities to approve certain major events in advance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense. However, implementation of certain contemplated recommendations may result in increased expense for the City or Stadium Authority, which will be addressed by budget action, if necessary.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney/Stadium Authority Counsel and City Manager/Executive Director’s Offices.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Outplayed:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” and direct the City Attorney/Authority Counsel to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council/Stadium Authority direction.

2. Authorize the Stadium Authority Chair to submit the City/Stadium Authority’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney/Authority Counsel, to the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 13 of 14
powered by Legistar™
24-878 Agenda Date: 9/3/2024
California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 11, 2024.

Reviewed and approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager/Executive Director and Glen R.

Googins, City Attorney/Stadium Authority Counsel

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civil Grand Jury Report: “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers”
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/30/2024Page 14 of 14
powered by Legistar™
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

June 13, 2024

Stadium Authority
c/o Ms. Nora Pimentel, Acting Secretary to the Stadium Authority 1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

Sent via email: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Pimentel:

The 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers.

California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final r eport shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings an d recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of th e governing body. California Pe nal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendat i o n s a n d i s a t t a c h e d t o t h i s transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are re quired to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 9c, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, and 13. 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 re quired to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowen, 2023-24 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than September 11, 2024. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882‐2721 • FAX (408) 882‐2795

Stadium Authority

Page 2 ends

June 13, 2024

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

Sincerely,

Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
2023-24 Civil Grand Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023-24 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
June 13, 2024

OUTPLAYED:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the
San Francisco 49ers

Page 1 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................3 CONFLICTS ...............................................................................................................................5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................6 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................8 History ..........................................................................................................................................8 Measure J – The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act .9 Measure J Promise ......................................................................................................................9 The City and the 49ers Establish New Entities to Carry Out Measure J ............................10 The Agreements Anticipated by Measure J ...........................................................................12 Stadium Authority Revenue Potential Under Measure J .....................................................15 History of Audits and 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report about Measure J ....................16 Good Neighbor or Litigious Partner .......................................................................................19 A Politicized Partner.................................................................................................................20 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................22 INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................24 Major Tenets of Measure J ......................................................................................................24 The Climate of Deal-Making and Contract Negotiation .......................................................25 Property Tax Reassessment .....................................................................................................26 Measure J – New Jobs ..............................................................................................................29 Measure J – Taxpayer Protections ..........................................................................................30 Measure J Promise on City Revenue: Missed Opportunities, Unfavorable Contracts ......30 How the Money Flows and Does Not Flow to the Stadium Authority .................................32 The Problem with PSCs............................................................................................................37 The Problem with the Management Agreement ....................................................................40 Lack of Financial Transparency..............................................................................................42 Stadium Authority’s Lack of Input on Non-NFL Bookings .................................................44 The Stadium Authority Does Not Hold ManCo Accountable for Successful Non -NFL Events .........................................................................................................................................46

Page 2 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority Failed to Ensure ManCo Staff is Incentivized to Prioritize Stadium Authority Success ......................................................................................................................49 The Stadium Authority Fails to Exercise the Remaining Power it Has in the Management of the Stadium ...........................................................................................................................50 Management Agreement Termination, Litigation, and Settlements....................................51 Measure J Promise for City Revenue: The Problems with the Luxury Suites, Stadium Exclusive Areas, and Non-NFL Events ...................................................................................55 The Stadium Authority Receipt of Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge “Exemptions” ..................59 Measure J Promise to Generate City Revenue: The Problem with Buffet Costs ...............63 Community Promises Not Fulfilled .........................................................................................65 FIFA – World Cup Soccer 2026 ..............................................................................................66 Stadium Authority Staff ...........................................................................................................67 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................69 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................70 REQUIRED RESPONSES .......................................................................................................75 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................76

Page 3 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Fixed Base Rent As stated in Measure J , the Ground Lease shall require the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to pay into the City of Santa Clara’s General Fund a fixed base rent totaling $40.875 million over 40 years.

Ground Lease The agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to lease the Stadium Site. The lease has an initial term of 40 years, with an extension option that could extend the term up to another 20 years.

Ground Rent The fixed base rent and performance-based rent are payable by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to the City of Santa Clara under the Ground Lease.

JAMS United States –based for -profit organization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services, including mediation and arbitration.

ManCo Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, an
affiliate of the Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC;
manages the Stadium ’s operations and books non- NFL
events.

Measure J

The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act passed by the voters of Santa Cl ara in June 2010. This measure modified the City of Santa Clara
Municipal Code, adopted a term sheet for the development and operations of the Stadium upon which future agreements would be based, and contemplated the creation of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

Naming Rights Agreement

A sponsorship agreement that gives Levi Strauss & Co. the right to name the stadium Levi’s Stadium and sets the terms of the agreement.

Non-NFL Events Events such as concerts and sporting events that are held at the Stadium.

Page 4 of 83 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentSeptember 3, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
September 3, 2024