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
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFLICTS ................................................................................................................................. 3 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 8 City of Santa Clara ....................................................................................................................... 8 Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Measure J ........................................................................ 9 Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council ............................................................ 10 Ethics, Public Trust, and Good Governance ............................................................................ 11 California Public Records Act ................................................................................................... 13 California Fair Political Practices Commission ....................................................................... 13 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 14 INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 15 Behavior on the Dais ................................................................................................................... 16 March 2024 Primary Election .................................................................................................... 23 Fiduciary Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 26 Public Records Act Requests ..................................................................................................... 29 Ineffective Governance and Ethics Committee ........................................................................ 31 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 35 REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX 1: Statement Of Behavioral Standards................................................................ 41 APPENDIX 2: Councilmembers’ Inappropriate Behavior .................................................... 42 APPENDIX 3: League Of California Cities: Your Role As An Elected Official [excerpt from Randy Hamilton article] ............................................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX 4: Review Of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions ...... 46 APPENDIX 5: Councilmember Training List As Of June 29, 2023 ...................................... 49 APPENDIX 6: Councilmembers’ Orientation Packet – Section 2 (excerpt) ......................... 50 APPENDIX 7: July 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes Item 5..................................... 69 APPENDIX 8: Purpose And Overview Of The 2023 Charter Review Committee .............. 71 APPENDIX 9: Ethics Committee Presentation, December 4, 2023 ....................................... 73
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 10: Understanding The Role Of Ethics Commissions ........................................ 74 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 85
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
CONFLICTS
Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. Two jurors recused themselves from this matter.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB 1234 Enabling legislation enacting California
Government Code section 53235 requiring that
if a local agency gives any type of
compensation, salary, or stipend to, or
reimburses the expenses of a member of its
“legislative body” (as defined in California
Government Code 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.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Commissions Bodies made up of appointed members who are usually qualified electors in the City of Santa
Clara, but do not hold any paid office or
employment in City government, unless
otherwise noted in the City Charter. They act in
an advisory capacity to the City Council,
providing a conduit for community input on a
variety of issues and matters affecting City
residents.
Committees Bodies typically comprised of appointed
Councilmembers, City staff , and partners that
serve as an advisory body to the Santa Clara
City Council.
Institute for Local Government (ILG) A nonprofit organization that promotes cooperation among local cities and counties,
and provides education and support for local
government leaders.
Joint Powers Agreement
A contract between two or more public
agencies, such as a city, county, school district,
or special district (e.g., a municipal utility
authority), which allows the agencies to
cooperatively provide services or exercise
shared powers outside each agency’s normal
jurisdiction. In the case of the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority this agreement created a
separate governmental entity.
League of California Cities (League of
Cities)
An advocacy group for local government that
offers education and training programs
designed to provide California city officials
with the information, training, and resources
necessary to effectively run a municipality.
ManCo
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company
LLC, an affiliate of the Forty Niners Santa
Clara Stadium Company LLC; manages
Stadium operations and books non-NFL events.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Measure J
Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and
Economic Progress Act, passed by the voters of
the City of Santa Clara in June 2010. The
measure altered the City of Santa Clara charter
and created the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
Performance Rent
The City’s portion of 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.
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).
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
■ 41.;/11 1 %1•11;•
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
A current list of City Councilmembers, their districts, and their terms, is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Current Councilmember Terms
The City Manager serves as “the chief administrative officer and the head of the administrative branch of the City government” (Santa Clara City Code § 2.15.020). The City Manager prepares and administers the annual budget , and prepares and submits an end- of-fiscal-year report on the finances and administrative activities of the City. The City Manager’s powers and duties include having executive direction over the heads of all departments and the power to appoint and remove department heads. Additionally, the City Manager has the power to initiate investigations into the affairs of the City. The City Manager does not have oversight over elected officeholders or Council appointees, although they may hire a third party to investigate alleged illegal behaviors (Santa Clara City Code § 2.15.020).
The City Attorney is appointed by the 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
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
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
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
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.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury conducted more than 40 interviews and watched over 400 hours of Council, committee, and commission meetings from January 2020 to May 2024, via video and in person.
Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury read and reviewed:
• The City Charter and Ordinance Code.
• The City’s Ethics and Values Program.
• The Council Policy Manual.
• Measure J.
• Testimony from the Criminal Grand Jury proceedings conducted in 2023. • City Council meeting agenda packets.
• Audit reports.
• City and Stadium Authority budgets.
• Stadium contracts.
• Litigation documents.
• City emails.
• City staff reports.
• Various documents supplied by the City.
The Civil Grand Jury used these sources of information to analyze facts, and develop findings and recommendations for this report.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
INVESTIGATION
In April 2024, the City commissioned a survey of 400 likely voters to determine residents’ appetite for a future bond ballot measure. One of the questions asked was whether the City was moving in the right or wrong direction. Figure 3 shows the results of that survey and the results of a similar survey that asked the identical question in June 2018. Both surveys had the same methodology. In 2018, 63% of individuals surveyed believed the City was moving in the right direction. A few years later, in 2024, only 40% of those surveyed indicated satisfaction with the direction that the City has taken, representing a 23% drop.
Figure 3: June 2018 and April 2024 Survey Responses of Likely Voters in the City As Reported by the City of Santa Clara
Much has occurred between those years, including a worldwide pandemic and political upheaval on the national level. Civil discourse has deteriorated on all levels , and it is demoralizing .
Therefore, it is more important than ever that local elected officials set a positive example and comport themselves with dignity, professionalism, and mutual respect. Since the first survey was conducted in June 2018, the makeup of the Council also changed with the addition of five new members. The investigation portion of this report details the 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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
Performa nce Rent
Senior and Youth Fee
Sales Tax
Total Net General Fund Impact s
69,313
306,234
870,547
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Mayor Gillmor questioned the accuracy of the revenue
numbers and the way the revenues are documented. She asked how the financial information in the reports is verified. Three Councilmembers attacked Mayor Gillmor for questioning the financial information presented. From the dais,
Councilmember Park attempted to controvert the 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recommendation 2b
Councilmember Park should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Recommendation 2c
Councilmember Chahal should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures , so he can demonstrate a better working knowledge of the parliamentary process. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Finding 3
Some Councilmembers do not uphold their responsibility to conduct the 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.
Finding 4
Some Councilmembers have become preoccupied by personal and political vendettas resulting in verbal attacks, mocking, and disparaging members of the public and community volunteers from the dais without consequence. Councilmembers have ignored the public’s request to address their behaviors.
Recommendation 4a
The City should establish 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.
Recommendation 4b
The City should hire an Independent Ethics professional and adopt robust ethics training strategies supported by policy. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Recommendation 4c
All Councilmembers should participate in regular training and counseling with an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics to implement training seminars and workshops for Councilmembers to learn how to maintain collegiality on the dais by using proven techniques
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
and best practices to avoid tense exchanges, bad behavior, misconduct, and incivility, and how the rest of the Council can positively influence the behaviors effectively. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.
Finding 5
Councilmembers Becker and Park have engaged in unethical behavior on the dais by insulting, humiliating, and intimidating constituents and volunteers. Councilmembers Becker and Hardy explicitly encourage this behavior by laughing, snickering, or eye -rolling. 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.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Recommendation 6
The City should conduct an annual employee satisfaction survey, administered by a third party, which can be answered anonymously. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.
Finding 7
City staff is exceptionally professional, well prepared, and consistently maintains their composure regardless of behaviors exhibited by the Council. Staff’s behavior is a model for the Council.
Recommendation 7
The City should commend City staff for their exemplary work ethic and professionalism. This recommendation should be implemented by August 1, 2024.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses 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
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 1: Statement Of Behavioral Standards
AB23 AN
1 NOUNCEMIENT:
"Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Spaoe Authority and Housing Authority are entitl,ed to receive $30 for each attended meeti ng."
STAT'EMEN
1 T OF BEHAVIORAL. STANDARDS
The City of Santa Clara has adopted a Code of Ethics
and Values, and Behavioral Standards for PubUc
Meetings to promote and m1ainta'in the highest
l
1 evels of conduct.. This includes ni1utual1 _respect,
robu_st djscuss_ion, and a11owing City busines·s to be
done in an effic ie·nt and consistent 1manner. Please
note that, as the presiding officer, the Mayor1 s
directiion in matters of process and decorum should
be followed, and that use of the gavel indicates all
conve ·rsat ions m1ust condude and ,everyone in .
attendance should com·e to order and attent ion ..
We1lcome, and thank you for your participation.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 2: Councilmembers’ Inappropriate Behavior
Item
#
Behavioral Observation Meeting
Date
City of Santa Clara
Legislative Meeting Site Link
Timestamp
1 Councilmember Park is encouraged
to apologize; he attempts to
apologize for insulting the public at a
July Council Meeting comparing
homeowners to “Toddlers.”
8/24/2021 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1580
2:30:49
2 Councilmember Park accuses Mayor
Gillmor and Councilmember
Watanabe of lying in support of a
staff recommendation to provide
additional funds for ManCo staffing
changes.
8/24/2021 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1580
4:34:36
3 The Council is unable to decide on
any of the four financial options
presented by staff and residents.
8/30/2022 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1789view_157532
2:37:40
4 Councilmembers spend almost two
hours deliberating the authority of
Mayor Gillmor to send a letter on
City letterhead.
10/4/2022 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1804_id158946&
0:45:46
5 Councilmember Park, leading the
meeting, reads aloud from a satirical
cartoon book and dedicates it to the
Special Advisor to the Mayor.
2/7/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1864?meta_id=165
428
4:43:35
6 Public presentations receive ridicule
from the dais.
2/21/2023 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/1873
33:27:00
7 Councilmember Park begins an
extended discussion during public
presentation and 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
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
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Item
#
Behavioral Observation Meeting
Date
City of Santa Clara
Legislative Meeting Site Link
Timestamp
16 Councilmembers struggle to make
motions and understand what they
are voting on.
04/23/2024 https://santaclara.granicus.com/
player/clip/2107?view_id=1&
meta_id=187126&redirect=tru
e
4:56:04
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 3: League Of California Cities: Your Role As An Elected Official [excerpt from Randy Hamilton article]
Cooncl I Conduot Wirth Boards, Cmlllmlssions and Comm ,itl!ees M Wa ra.t(>Jy fi'11d thatpoopl a havl! good Sl!IJSl! unll·. thl:J' agro wilh us.. " - !Francois, Dur de La Rodiefourauld
The City has estnb 1shoo several Boarck, Comm1s. ion and Committees { wl lecllve referr-ed to a. Cily Commi S:i.ons:) as: a. me.ans: of ,gathering more cmnmuni 111put. Ciu.zens who serve on City Cammi . i.QJ:lrs: become more involve<! i.n government and serve a advisors 10 the City Council. They are a lua.bl e resource 10 lhe City'. leadership and should l,e treated with appred atlon and respect
Jif attll:lldlng a C:lty Con1m:l§ltl[o11 nieetlng, ~ress . pirsonal oplnlollS o:nly.
Coundl Memhers may altend any Ch1• Comm.iS:S1on. meeting, which are ah.Ya}'- open IO any member of Ille puhl ic.. However, the should l,e sensitive to 1he y their paruc1pa1mn - e!.pecially if 1t i advoc~1111g a certrun position - could he viewed as wfair l a:ffectins the l)l'OCes. .. Any puhl.ic oo,mment. by a. Cmmci.l 11,t:eml,er al. a City · ommiss:ion m~lmg should be clearly made as indli. idual op111ion and not a representation of 1he feelings oJth e e.nnre · -ity Council, unles. the ouncil hai; taken. a poS:illon. on the topic.. ouncil Membel'$ should n.ot appear befor-e a commi. 10n. on behalf of an ind1 idual, bu~ines:s a developer.
Rmm:uuoor diat C:lty Com:mJ5l'lfo.llll ~nre tlrn -rommuruty n.ot htdlividual CoutxH MMn&~ The · 1. Council appoinl 1nd1 id11als to serve on City Commissions, and it 1s the responsihill . o.f City Commissions to follo pol.i.cy established by the Council_ But City omm1s. ion member .. d.o not ~eport to indi idulll Council Memhe-tS, nor sh.oul.d Coundl Member. feel th ltave the ov.-er or nght to threaten City Commission m.emhers wilh removal if !hey dlis:agree aooul an issue. Appointment and re-appmntment to a i Commission should be base<! on such critena as e pmi e, ahih • 10 work with slaff and the pubJ1c, and commitment to fulfil iii£; official duties. A Clty Commis. ion Bppoin.tment !.hould .nol. he ~ed a political "rev.-'.lrrd.'" Concerns about an mdi id1.m.l City Commission m.ember should be di.scussed with the Ma •or. • Be rnsportful of dllve.™-l ,op:ln:ior!S-.
A primary role of City Comm1s. ion i. ro represent man poinrs of view in lhe community and to provide the Council with advice based. on a full speclrum. of oo.ncems and p,ers.pectives.
Coun.c1I I\•1emhers may have a close working relation hip with some individual. eM ng on the Ci.1y Cammi . Jon!., hllil must. he fair and .respectf'ul of al.I -citizens se ins on City Commissions.
K,t@p• poli:tlral suppo t mvay rrom puhUc foruins..
Ci.ty · ommi . ion member. may offer political !.u:pport to a Coun.cll Members, hut not in a public forum while cond11ctlng offida.l duties. onverse , Cm.mdl Member. may support hoard ood comrnis:s1on. members who are running for office, l,ut not in an 0Jric1al forum in !heir capac1 as a. Cound.l Member.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 4: Review Of Concerns/Complaints Regarding City Board/Commissions
dty of Santai a ara
Policy and Proce,cl:Ur,e Manual
REVIIEW OF CONICER.NIS/ COMPLA INTS REGARIDIINIG CHY
BOARID/CO MM ISSIONS
POUCY
PROCfOURf
Th e Ciily of Santa Clara bel'.ieves th.at ~decision -makers mus:!: be independen t, impartial., and accountable to th.e people: thei.,• se;rve: .. "1 The Ciily's Code of Ethics and Values lists the e:tru.cs and values -based stan dards the City h.as agn?ed will! ,gu·de the dec isions an d oondu t of eve-iyone wh.o participates i11 the City's ,government 8€cause we see k publ'.ic oonfidenoe in the City's selVices and public trust of' its decis ion.-m.akers we hold ourse llves a.coo11mtab le: to umeet the mos t de:m.andi11g ethical standards and demonslJrate the highest lwels of a.chieveme:nil in following this rode .~ Although the City Ciharter allows e Council to remo ve a. Commissione r with no cause, lne: Council has crea ted tihe: followin g process., w ioh provides gtf dehnes tihe: Council may choose to use to reso &ve a prob !e:m/oornplain t. The pohcy is base d on a r;e,oomme:ndation from lhe Ethi.cs Oitlinanoe Comm ittee:. Ft is oonsi.5te:nt wi , e Code of E ics and Values, in te:nns of fairness and respect towards lhe individual.. n pre:senre:s t!he Coun ~grante d Charter authority of' removal hut also provides optional. oow-se:s of a.ctiarn..
The C arter of' the: Ci of' Santa Clara provides for lhe removal of a Qty Commissioner b_ a vote of four City Council members . No cause has to be given. The acli.on to r,e:move a Commissioner v.•ould be an agen dized City Council acliion item.
W en a conce m/oomp laint is i;ecei.ved Fega;rding a Ci . oard Member /Commiss ion.er ill is r;eferre-d to th.e Ci Manager for review and follow-up. If posslb le it is prefera ble to reso &ve a concern lhrougn open commun ication channe.ls at the staff level.. Complainants ar;e enooWaged to solve the prob lem infomilaili,, prior to registe:fing a forma l comp faint The City Manager as several options for handling a conce rn/compla int:
1. The firs,t step is to verify the information . If not verified, the comp lainant is informe d and 110 further action taken. H inili~ • verified, the Q tv Manager oond ucts an inves lii.gatia · r;evie:w of situaliion i.n oonsulta lion v.ith . the Cit!,• Attorney , whe:r;e appropriate: . The individual who is the subje-ci: of the comp!a int will be notified unless criminal or legal naluFe preclu des notification. !Issues that relate to the jufisdiction of lhe Fair 1 Fro111. Prll!amble of Th11 OJdtJ ofE fhia and Va~ , City of mta CIM:!, _001 P&P032 Pa~ I ofJ
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Jul'f 200-1
dty of Santa aara
Policy and Prooedur,e Manua
REVIEW OF CO NCERNS/COMPLAINTS REGARDING CIITY
BOARID/COMIMISSIONS (con t.)
Pol'.i:tical Pract ices Commiss ion (FPPC) are not covered by tlus policy_ Cil:y Attome:i;.1 has existing procedures to h.andle: FPPC and E eclion Code issues_
2. 'fhe following opllions are availab l\e for re:soMng oornplamls :
♦ The City Manage r can choose to handle oonoem/ cornplaint diFectt or oonsu lt with the Mayor.
♦ The Ci:ti;.1 Manager can choose: to conduc t further rese:,arch.; proviide infofil!lation and discussion of alte:maliives v.•ifu Ma:i,•or. ♦ Consu lt with Santa a ara Uni.versi . Marklmla Center for Applied ElliiC5, or oUJts:ide ethics experts.
♦ Refer the issu comp@int to , e Ma_ or and/or Cil:l,,I Counc il. ♦· Refer the oonoe.m/oomplaint to the Chairperson of the specdi Board/Commi ssion with e Cha:iI reportin g bac k to l:!he City Man.ag2:r.
♦ Reier th.e is5U compla int to the Cil:l,,I Counoil Commiss,ion Revtew Comm ittee.
♦· If legal issues are involved , the oonoe.m/complain is referred to City Attorney .
3 . Depending on nature of concem foomplajnt and f.aatual infomration range of aations/op tions are available including an one (or oombin ation of) th.ese aations :
♦ o action based on unsuootantiated/Unfo unded comp laint; ♦ Oiscussi.on betu,een Mayor and Commissioner · Cit,;., Manager and Commissioner or discussi.on betu.•een Commissi.on Chair and Commissioner ;
♦ Verbal counse ling by Mayor w~th. Colil.lffiissione:r; ♦· Letter to Com.missioner from Mai;.•or;
♦ Refer issue to Commiss ion Revsiew Committee ; Committee meel:s and reviews fa.els; ma:i;.i rn.ake advsisorv recommendation to Counci l or re.fer to City Manager and Ci _ Attorney for follow0 up- and P&P032 F'a.ge 2 ofJ
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
dty of S.antai a ara
Policy and Procedur,e Manual
IREV IIEW O F CONO EHNS/COMIPLAINITS RIEGAIRDING CITY
BOARD/COMMISS IONIS (cont.)
♦ Refer to M:a~•or a.ndfor City Council.
♦ Ciq.1 Coun.cil ma~• take adion ra.ngj.ng from note a.nd f.ile to removal from Commission . (See attached memora ndum to e Commiss ion Revii.ew Committee from lhe Ci:ty Aftomey da:ted ecernber 15, 1999 .}
4. Follow-up response to comp lainant indicalin g City as taken app ropriate action .
Re(e,ence : i) Memo , dated Decembe r r 5,. I 999 from City Atto rney, "levels of Exp.ressfons o( Disapprovu i of a P,ubJk O(fida Ps A.ctiorisS" (attm: lledJ 2') Courici l-a})#)roved policy July 16, 2·002
}uty.2001 P&:P 032
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 5: Councilmember Training List As Of June 29, 2023
List d Col.Int.ill Tnii..,(15 Rl!!l.tillQ 10 lhl!!
Prttiedlll'l!O& of Otded)' Condllet al P'llbli<: Mi!!l!!ing• and lelhical Bl!flall'ior Agency ira l11m11 Anend 'e9[Bl am! Det9[BJ
Ci':)' cf Sam'!;!, Ciao;; Go\'em;;1m:.e . Li;;..- Gillmer:
"
Deoembo., 3. 20 18
. K,,• )' w..-1 .. nabe:
"
Deoemb;,1 3. 20 18
. Raj Chiltlal :
"
Deoembo., 3. 20 18
. l<,inm l,l;!ord:(
"
Deoembi!'i 13. 20 18
Ci,y cf .Sam'!a c1..., N'ew ,C,o._aocilrrnernib~_r . An_~oliy Bec ki!'r. orentaticra "
Deoemb;,1 1. 2020
. S11d!1-Ji!im:
"
Deoembo., 1. 2020
. K., . ....,, P;;nk:
"
Deoemb;,; 1 1. 2020
F"ir l?ctit.:.a l Prl>l:lice• l\[l. 1234 Ettriio:o Tein fng . Li;;..- Gillmer:
COnr'lrtli!:i!Slarn
"
Sep1 .. 1rrlber 1 • 21114 :!Is
C-oorn.ihrnernbe_r
"
Sep1;,1nber 27 , 21)16
"
Augu!I-'. 24, 21)18
"
U..Gdi 22, 202 1
. K,,• )' w..-1..-n:!lbe:
" OC"l<lli"'l . ~HI
"
""mb;,; 23. 20 1 B
"
U..Gdi 15, 202 1
. RajChiltl:!11:
" .lon ui!ory 23, ~ 11 ""
Pl.!Jooin,q1
Commi5:5ior'1ei
"
.l;,n u;, r1 111,. ~ 19
"
Fi!ll rlilar'/ 28, 202
. K,m,r,Hi!ord:,:
"
""mb;,;g , 211 19
"
.!1""1u..-r1 5, 2022
. K"w, P:!lnk:
"
.lon u;!ory 3, 2021
. Sud,1-J;m:
"
.!1""1u..-r1 S, 2021
. An_:h.ony 81!<:ko.,:
"
.Sepl,.1rrlber 13, 21)19 :!I•
Pl.!Jooin,q1
Commi5:5ior'1ei
"
Sep1 .. 1n'ller 7, 202 1
List d Col.Int.ill Tnlilalrl• Rl!!l.ti!IQ lo lhe
Pr«>edlll'l!O& of Otded)' COndllet al P'llblic M!!!l!!ings and lelhieal Bl!flall'ior • ~em ~ y:
o J.., u;;,ry 111-UI, 211 19
• R:!lj Chi!tli!II:
o .i1""1u..-r1 111•1!I,, 211 19
• K"'olin P:!liilc
o ,11..,u;;,ry 22. 2ll • ..-nd
29 , 202
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 6 : Councilmembers’ Orientation Packet – Section 2 (excerpt)
Proce ,dures
Section - Pag:e
Roles and Responsibili 'ies 2-11
Council Visi:on. 1Prior1iity, Strat,egic Pil1an
and Objiectiives 2-3
Mee ing1 Agendas .2-4
Miinutes 2 8
Other Pollici:es. and Protoool for Council Members 2..!9 Council Conduct 2-111
Financial Matters .2-119
Paliliamentary Procedure 2 .21
Policy Conference and Business Travelll
Expense· Reimbursemeni' 2-.23
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Roles and Responsibilities
"L,eadersh ip is an action, not a word."
-- Richard Cooley
Other resources that are helpful in defining the roles and responsibitities of e ected officials can be found in the Santa Clara City Charter and in the Leadership Guide for Mayors and Council Members published by the Lea,gue of Catifomia Cities, Newly-elected Counccl Members are encouraged to attend the Leagu e of California Cities New Mayors and Council Members Academy Leadership Academy" held each year in Januaiy in Sacramento.
Mayor
The Mayor is directly elected by voters in the City of Santa Clara for a four-year term. Briefly, the 11espons ibilities and roles of the Mayor inctude:
• Acts as the official head ofth e City for all ceremonial purposes • Chairs City Council, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports & Open Space Authority and Housing Authority meetings
• Calls for special meetings
• Recognized as spokesperson for the City
• Has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings • Makes recommendations to the Council on matters of policy and programs which require decisions
• Leads the Council to be an effective, cohesive working team • Serves as official delegate of the City at ,events and conferences Vice Mayor
Council
As specified in the City Charter, the Vice M ayor is selected by the City Council each year in December and serves at the pleasure of the Council. Per Council policy; first priority for Vice Mayor wrll be the City Council Member with the highest seniority in cons,eoutive years on the Council who has not previously served as Vice Mayor. If two or more Council Members have an equal number of years; th en the Vice Mayor is the individual with seniority who received the most votes in the most recent Council election. No Council Member may serve more than once as Vice Mayor unless all Council Members have served in that position, If a Council Member would tike to exchange places in the rotation to allow another Council Member to serve as Vice Mayor in his or her plaoe; a majority vote of the Council is required to make the change,
Briefly, the responsibilities and roles of the Vice Mayor include:
• Perform 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 ce11emonial functions in the absence of the Mayor
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
All Counci l M,embe rs
All members of the City Council including those serving as Mayor and Vice Mayor, have equal votes. No one has more power than another, and all should be treated with equal respect. • ully participate in City Council meetings and other public forums while demonstrating respect kindness, consideration, and oourtesy to others
• Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community • Inspire public confide nce in Santa Clara government
• Observe the City's Code of Ethics & Values and demonstrate ethics, honesty and integrity in every acfon and statement
• Be respectful of other people's time. Stay focused and act efficiently during public meetings • Prepare in advance of Council meetings and be familiar with issues on the agenda • Attend c-eremonial funcfons
• Provide cont act information to the City Manager or City Clerk in case an emergency or urgent situation arises while the Council Member is out oftown . !Meeting Chair
The Mayor will chair official meetings of the City Council, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, the Sports &.
Open Space Authority or the Housing Authority unless the Vice Mayor or another Council Member is designated as Chair of a specific meeting.
• Maintains order,. deoorum and the fair and equitable treatment of all spea~ers • Keeps discussion and questions focused on specific agenda item under consideration • Makes parliamentary rulings with advice if requested, from the City Attorney who acts as an advisory parliamentarian.
Chaplain
A Chaplain is selected in Dec-ember of each year by a majority vote of the Council. By Council policy, the Chaplain is the most recent outgoing Vice Mayor. The role of the Chaplain is to read the established invocation prayer atthe beginning of each Council meeting.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Council Vision, Priority, Strategi c Plan and Objectives Vision
Superb , affordable services in a ca11ing community that values our rich history and nurrures technologies that build the future.
Stra tegic Plan and Obj.ectives 2015 2017 (Adopt ed A,pril 7, 2015) Listed below are the City Council Goals for 2015-2017. Regular, timely monitoring of progress on the goals and obj,ectiv,es includes new objectiv,es every six months , When comp leted monthly status reports on th e accomplishment of these object ives may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, In addition to these .2015-2017 adopted goals, there are many other projects and programs that oontinue to be pursued by the City,
The City Council priority is to focu s on suocessfu l comp letion of existing City projects, and ope1:ate within Counci l adop ted budget prcnciples and prio11ities, with the goal of placing, the City strategically to take advantage of the improving economic olimate.
T'WO-YEAR GOAL S 2015-2017
• Balance the emerging ,economic opportun ities "th the needs of our community • Promote and enhance econom·c and hous·ng development
• Ensure fiscal respons ibilil.y
• Enhance community sports and recreafona l assets
• Deliver and enhance hi,ah aualitv efficient serv ices and infrastructure Meeting Agendas
The Counc il agenda pack,et is gener-ally prepared on Friday en the City Clerk's Office for the meeting on the followrng Tuesday. The exoeptton wou ld be when a holiday falls on a Friday in which case the agenda packet is prepared on Thursday . Agenda packets are on iPads. If requested , agenda packets are available in har-d copy fOlim,
Agenda packets are available for public viewing in the City Clerk's Office and in all three libraries, he entire agenda packet is scanned and the Council reports are made available 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 Subm ittal of Written and Audiovi:sual Mate rial,s for City Council !Meetings (PoUcy and !Procedure 041)
l~ems from Coun cil Members and the public related to an agenda item must be submitted to the City Cleli<'s Office by 12 noon on the Wednesday prior to the City Counci l meeting for inclusion in the agenda packets. After Wednesday at 2 noon and until 5:00 p.m, on the day of the Counc il meeting member-s of the public may still bring, materials related to a specific Agenda item to the City Clerk's Office. Those materials will be copied and distributed to the City Council and City Staff for the Council meeting.
Pub lic members who wish to• uti ize audiovisual materials as part of their public comment on an Agenda item, must present the material to the City Clerk's Offioe no later than 10:00 a.m, on the day of the meeting , along, with a contac t telephone number whe re they may be reached.
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 i11 the agenda packet
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Age•nda Items
farch agimda item is handled wilh a hm st€ip rocwu re.
11. Mayor ·ntroduc0s aggnda1 iif€m
2. R€port by Qjty Manag1n or s1aff. No q estioos , romm€fl ts or editorials allowed by Counci l until staff report is oompMe .
3. Questions of sta rnport by Counc il Membllf"s am asked Hirough Hie Mayor. o oomme:nfis or ed··oria'ls by Council M.8moo:rs a lowe d a this · €1.
4. Ap,plicantfap,p0Dant pre stmta ion when Pub ic Hearil'ilg1 (typica'lly lin il.ed to 10 m· utes}. ot all agenda iitems viill have ~PP ical'il prese ntalic:ms. Cou noil Members may ask quesfio l'ils o · Ille applicantfappellarnt thro ugh the ayor.. No comrrw;mts ,or €id. oria1s by Council Memoo:rs a this ·me ..
5. Public tei;.tlmony (typically lin i ed fo 2 min es fur each person who wishes to s,peak). Council Membe rs ma,y ask QUes ·ons at thiiii €fld ,of the presenta tion. o oomme:nls or ediforia'ls by Council 1'.embers a this film@.
6. Ap,plicantf.Appellarrl.- Closing Statemerrl. in Public Hearing and Appea l Pr-0c:e0diflg1.
7. Motion to close he pu!)lic lhearingf public il'ilput.
8. Counci l molic:m for aciiol'il.
9. Counci l delibllf"al!ionL
110. Counci l a ·on, A. votfi on the rno ·on. follo ·ng Ro'biiiirl.'s Ruliiiis of Or,der.
G,avc ll moans stop and listen.
The use of the gav el means a: I ronwrsa · ol'ils ooa!>e and everyone in attendance comes to or,der and a enfion. Only the M'ayor or isislil'ilg1 Ghai r can use the gawl .
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
IMiinutes
M- Liles of each meetir19 ,of the Cify Q:mnci l are kept by the Cily C lerk. The m in es serve as a pem.anen recon:I of fhe gro l.lp's aci!ions.
Cormctio:ns t o, 1m t11 11Jtos,
It is ·mporta nl for Gol.lncil Members to clos !i!ly review minl.lres and make coJTections if nee ded so that th!il appr,oved minutes accl.lrnm l y reflect Hle work of Hle ,gmllp . Corrections to m in es ma,y be reques ted IP · or to the ni.eeti119 but must oo made prim to ,or at the meefi ng wl:um tlley a re bmug'trt forwa rd for Gol.lncil approval. Co.lirecfuns rffl:IL.lire a motion,, seco nd and a majorify vote, and ,, if a ppmved, are noted and filed in Hle minl.lres of the curren t mee ·ng .
Srummary of Actions
A Sll mmary or Aciio rns is prepa red by Ille C ity Clerk's Office o lowi 11g1 eaoh Cou ncil mee ·ng .
This Summary is rusually 1poste d 011rne by l'iiday. follow·ng Hle meeting. The SL.In mary is also available ·n til e City Clerk's Office and a ll 11:Jree C ity ibrnries .
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
0 heir Polilc es .and Protocol l fo·r Coui'licH IMembe1rs Commo n lal Ev on1ts
Re:qoosts far a City rnp msoo tafive at ceremonial 1a:vents will lt:11a: handled by Cny staff. The Mayor~ ·11 rerv 1a: as Ill e ,designated City rnp res1a:ntative.. If the Mayor is unava ilable,, lhe:n City sta · will ,dete.limine if event org anizers would like arm tiher re prnse ntative mom the Co l'lcil. H yes, th1a:n th© Vic© Mayor will be as!k1a:d to serve as a sul:lstitute. If th© Vic© Mayor is o t ava ilabl,;i, hel'l Co: l'ilDil M,;in 't:1,;irs by sooiority are ask ed to rnprn sen t e Cny .. H Co:ul'lail is l'lol:
&vai'labl1a: , he City M,mage r re pre sernls the Oily ordesig nares an appropri ate staff mmlilber. lrnvitations rec eived a Ciily Hall are presu med to b1a: · or officia l Oily re prnsernla ion lmi.itatioos addres sed to Coun cil Members a the "r homes are wes umed to be for personal considera ion T he Execu tive As sistant to 111.e Ma()!'Or and City Council is available to fa ke care ,of RSV Ps for ,o aial City rnprllS entatio:n.
Cormspo11d'c n,oo S lg na.t uros
Counci l 'e mbers do -l'lo need to acknow ledge the rnce ipt ,of corre s,Ix mdence, or copies of corre,spondenre. ul'iing Counci l meerngs .. City staff w i I pre;pare o ffiaial lette rs iil'l l"llSponse to public inquil'iillS and oonooms. T ese letf1a:rs win carry Ille signalurn of the: M'aya r a l'ld City Ma nager ..
E1ndorsemo 111t of Ca nd id a.ros
As ·ndivicluals, C oun cil Members ha,ve the righHo endors e cal'ldida es for all Counci l sea.ts or ollle r elected ,o , ces .. It is ·nappro:p~·a1:e to me ntion endo rsements du ril'lg Coul'lcil meetings , ollle r o Icia l Oily meetings , o r vihile col'lducti n91 Oily business .
Non,-.agonda iwms
Ul'lder Pub'lic Pres entaticms ,on the agel'lda, citizens may lt:ll'iil'lg1 forth iss ues ,or ques 'ions lllat art1:
!'lot ol'l Ille meeting' s age:nda,. Tqpics mary be llegis a ive i ems re qu·ring acti on by the Co nail, st dy issues for Jutu re cons idt1:rn · on , a l'ld re,q ests for inforrnatic:m assigned to tht1: Cily Ma nager .. Each speaker I bt1: limi ed to lll re.e m· ures .
Public Hoa11t11 g1 Protocol
T he Co1mci l ha-s es!ablished a put:llic tm aring protocol and · ollOVis Rdt:lerl's Ru'les of Oi;der {Newl y Revised 10th edi ·om, 2000). Tile Mayor o,pens the 1public hearil'l91 ,md re,q t1:sts a staff re port. The applican t or appell ant shall have the i-,igh to s,peak first. Te.:n mil'lures is tht1: lerngth o f time a l owed or this 1presenlalic m.. Speakers re prnse l'l ·l'lg eilher 1pro ,or con points o f view wil l be allow"t1:d to fol lO'IN. Thrnt1: m inutes is the stan dard ime lrmit for each speaker .. Whe:n thll're are more tha n 10 s:pea ers Ol'l an item , Ille Ma,yor will as!k Ille spea kers to I out a, Spea kers Card prior to the d iscussion o f an agenda iil.El'm. The time allo•o'll'tid or 1a:ach speaker may lt:le rnduced at the d iscretio l'l of the Mayo r.. Tille ap,p1ica nt or appe llan wi be a lowed !o m ake a1osing comments. The C!hair has tht1: rns,ponsibi ily to ru n al'l efficie nt pub lic rneg il'lg1 a l'ld has tht1:
discre tion to m odify tht1: p t:llic heari ng pr,oct1:ss nn order to make the meel"ng rum smoothly ..
Counci l e mbers ·11 not spea k d uring the 1public he.aning1 portion o f he meeting e:xcepl to ask pertint1:n que,sfiol'ls of Ille spe aker ,or staff . I hin'k:" and II ft1:el" com ments by Coul'lcil Memb ers am not appro pl'iial:e u nlil a.ft er the close ,of llhe public hearing. Cou ncil Members shoo d re.frnin from a rg ing o r d e't:lafing w· h Ille public du ril'lg a, 1public heal'iing1 .:md sha 'II a lw.:i,ys show rns,p1a:ct or d" ernn t 1poims o · lliew .
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Maim motions rnay be followed y ame:nclme:nts, follmved by su'llstilu emotions. Any Council M@mb@r can ca I ror a11Po·111 oJ ord@r ,or a motion tio reoon.sicl@r a any time,, pM Robmt's Rul@s o Order.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Coui'lic!ill Conduct . w irUil O.ne .Anothe 1r
" In lif, courtesy and seff-possesslon , and In the , arts, S'iyle, am the senslbte iinpnJSslons of the, free mind, for bcJ<tb arise oat ,of a deliberate , shaping of .all :tbJngs and from mwe.r bel119 SWi¥Jt aw:ay, whatever the , emotion , into cor1faslon or dallness . "·
Wlllliam B11tler Yeats
Counci ls are con posed of individuals with a wide va rietiy o back grounds , 1p0rso na ities values . opi nions, and goals . Des,pite fhis iversny ,, all have chosen to serve in 1pub ic ,o ce in ord er lo preserve and 1protect fhe 1prese<nt and the fure of the oommunitiy .. In all cases , lflis commo n ,gool should oo ackm:iv.~edge d even as Council may agre e to disagree ~ Ol'l oonrenfio s issues.
The Citiy's Code ,o Ethics & Va ues s!houkl be 1refenred to for 1posiilive stateme<nts of elfl ical behavior_
In Pu'bHc Memh1gs.
Uso fo1111111al tiiM s
It is 1preforred tihat Council rnrer to ,one ano41her orma ly ,duri ng public rneeting.s as Mayor.. Vice Mayor or Council Memb er o lffi'1ed by tihe in 1vidual's last name ..
Practice , ,civil ify an:dl dii:tcorum In discus ,slon ,s and debate Difficult questiiol'ls, toug h cha gnges to, a 1partirular poil'l of view . an d cl'iitiicism ,o ideas and infomia ·on are l1i9ilima e €lemoots of a frne democracy il'l acii ol'l. Howeve r, maki ng persona'!, s!landero us threaterf g, abus,ive, or dis,para g·ng oommerds is not aApro,pria e. No shouting or phyS:ical acti ons lflat could be cons1nled as thre ate ning will loo permitted.
Hon0 1r tlu1 ro o, ,o,f tho Chalir In mainta l1nlng order It is the res,ponsi'llility ,of the Chair to lkeep fhe comm ents of all pa' ·cipants ol'l lrack riing1 pub ic meetings. Council 'embers s!hould honor efforts by tihe Cha ir to focus dis cussi orn on ounrent agtmda · .ems. If the re is disagreement about the agenda or lfle Chair's actions, those obje ctions should l:le voicoo o 1tely arnd wltih1 1reaso n, fol lowing1 [procedures ou 'lined ·n Robert's Rules of Order.
Domon,stratc, offectivo problem-solvh1g a,p·proachos
Counci l Members have a public: sl.age lo show how il'ldividuals willh dispa rate points of view cam mcl common grou nd and understand ing, negotiiafing solutions thal. ben efit the com mun ity as a whale ..
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
lln Pr;vate Encounters
Con.Unuo ll'espcctful boha/Vior l1n rivato
Th€: same leve:l ,of espe.cl and cornsideratio n ,of ditte:ring points of \!1i€:W that is de€:moo appropriiate for pub.lie discussions shoo'ld be mai111tain@d in priival.e conv@rsalions.
Be awa 11e of'tlll in,secur fity of wr;iitl:cn notes , volcemal 11111essagos, and c~maill T €:e:lmology a lows words writt €:l'il or said without much ror!l thoug'ht o bl!! distribu @d wid€: and ar. Wou ld you fee l comfortable to have th·s n ol.e faxed to oth€:rs? How wou ld yo feel if this voi@ma il rnll!ssage was pfayll!d on a speakll'f pho111e ·n a fuD office? Wha t wou ld happen if llhis e•mail message was foP,vardoo lo ofhers? Wril:lm n otllS, voicllma i'I messages and ~mail sh ould be treated as polentia'lly "public" oommu111ication.
Even p:riva.to ,conversations , can have a public presence , Electe d offic ials are always om dis,pla,y - their actiorns, manrnerisms , and larnguage are rnon·tored by people arou nd 1ihem tha the y m ay or may not kn ow.. Lurnch tab le ronvll'l"Salicm s can be earv@sdropped upon , parking lol. ,de.baf@s may be watc h@d ,, arnd cas ual oommernls b@twe@n in ividuals before and afte r 1public meetings noled ..
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
CouncH Conduct with City Staff
" Wh1:rmvc1 thorn is a human being , tlhem is an oppol'li u n!ty for klndn.ess .• " Saneca
Governarioo of a City reties on th€ coo,perativ© efforts or cl©ct©d officials, who set 1po icy .. arid tile Oily Ma11ager imd sta . w· o, ·mplement and administe r · e Co 11oil's policies .. Therefore, every effort should tJ.e made to tJ.e cooperntive and sllow mutual respe ct for the cootriibutions ma e by each iridi\11idua'I fo.r he ,good oJ the commu n · y ..
Trca .t a I staff as professionals
Clear, honest co:mmurncafiori lilat respe cts ,he abilities. expt}rien.ce. arid dignity of each indivi al is €Xp€cfed . Poor b©ha,vior tow.i r.ds sta is ool. acce plable .
Direct staff &ssucs. an.ell assignments to tho City Manager Assignments klr Citiy staff andfor requests for add itiona l baol<groulld ill ormation should be d·rectoo only to 1he City ·· ~~magm-.
Requests · or fol ow-up or directio11s to sta sho Id orily be made through the City M'a11age:r or til e Oily Attorney when1 approprial .e. Materials supplied to a CoullCil ember iin res pollSe to, a reques wiill be ade availa ble o all membe rs o · lfle Coun cil so lilal all have equa l access o information .
Neva r pu1bllcly ,critidzo an tndivid11al ,em1ployoe
CoullCil sho d 111©ver ex1Pre ss ooricems about the performance or a Cil:y employee in public, to tile empl oyee dire ctly, orto the em,ployee·s superviso r. Comments abou t stiff performance slhouk:l ,only b€ made to the City Ma11ager , ro ghi private oorrespo rid1mce or co11versa ·on.
Comments a'oou staff in the o.ffioo of th€ City Attorney shou ld € mad€ directly to the City Attome-y .
. Allow staff to hand llo admtnis11rativo, f,unctions
CoullCil :embers mus no attempt to i11flu©nce City sta,ff ,on the maki ng1 of appo intm©nts. ,.i;vardirig1 of oornlrncts . selecting of o:msu ltmts . process ing1 or devclopme nt applicaficms, or ,gran irng or City licenses and permitis.
Check wltti tho City Ma111agor 011 co·rrcspondenco , boforo 'taking action Before sending1 oorresp orndernce, Coo 11oil Membe rs sho d ched with the Oily Mimage.r or Executive Assistant to th€ Ma-yor arnd Ory Council o see if arn official c· y respollS@ ti .. s .. lread-y been sent or is in prog ress .
Limit requests , for staff s u p;port
Routirne seaetia rial sup,pol1. wi II ll:le provided o all Co 11oil Members . Al I mail or Cou 11cil Me:mb0rs is ope 11ed by the Executive Assis tant to the Mayo r arnd City Cou llci l. 1 11less olile r .. mmgemen s are requ©st©d by a1 Coun cil embe:r. Ma"I mariked p€rso rial or cornfldern ·a1 is not opened .
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Reqoos,ts for add·-·omil staff support - ewm ·m high priority ,or eme rgemcy sitU1a ·oms -- shou ld be ma.de to the Cny Mana.gerw l'lo is respcmsible ror allocating City resoU1rces im orde r to maintain a prroressional. well-rum City g,ovmn men .
Do mot S'Ol'lcit po ltlcal support . fro m staff
Counci l 'embe rs should not soliail. any tyJ]@ of politic..! sul)pon (iirnmc ia'I oornbibulicms,, display of posters or lawn sigms, mame ,on support list,, etc.) from Ciily sta . Cily staff may. as priva te ailiz.ens 1Niilh oonstiturlicma l'iights, supporl po itical cam:lidal.es but all such acti\iflies rnursl. be ,don.e a1.vay mom tl'le worikplace. Cny employees are prohibiled from usiflg City resou rces, City fi me or al)pea ·ng ·n uniform iin rnlalicm to 1polilical activities.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Counc ill C,ondluct w i h the Publ i C
"If a man be gracious and courloous :to strangers , It shows he ls a cJtJ'zen· of ttw world, , and ,that hfs- heaJt Is no island ,cut off from other lands, but a conti'aent that / ol.ns to them,."
Frands Ba.con
In P11'blk Medi 111gs
M,:i'king the pub ic fool welcome is an importamt part of the democratic process . o sigms of partia lily, prnj dice or disrespect should be evid en om the part of indiv id al Cou ncil Members !ow-ard am ·ndiviclual pa ·cipa ·mgI ·n a, public ·orum. Evmy e o:rt should be made to be fair and impa ·ial in 1s!@ning to public testimony.
Be weloo'lil1 f111g to spea 'l!.ers an:d ·t11eat them w ith ,care, and gontilo111css Most residemls ,do ool speak before !he City Co ncil very ,often and they ma,y be mervous, uncomfortable, and emotional. Pl.itting s:peakers at ease will a low them to ll'xpress thei r vie',',IJ)Oints more efifective'ly, ma e Cou ncil meetings ru n more e 1cie ntly, and help the ,democratic pmcess be fulfi loo ..
Be fal ir and ,eqllltable in al ocatlng 1 p ublk hoar r111g1 time, to l1ndMdual spcakc :rs The Chair will ,determ ine and amno moo limits om speake:rs at ttle start of ttle pu'blic hearing praocess , per Council policy. Gim erally, each speaker will be a loca ed three min lliS with applicants and a~pe !ants or thtl°r designated representatives allowe d 10 m·nunes_ llf any s:peak@rs are amticipated, the Chair ma,y ask for s::peaker cards to be fill@d 01.11. and may shorten the time lim· and/or as<'k speake.-s fo limit hemselves to new ·n ormation amd Ipoints of V1iew ool a ready cove:roo by Iprevious sp,11a'kers.
o speaker wiill be t med away iumless he or slhe exhibits ·nappro,priiare behavio r. Each, spe aker ma,y on1y s·peak omce d ~-mgI the p t:llic lh@aring un'less the Coumcil requesls add]!iomal clarification laf@r in the process. After the close o the public hearing mo more public testimony wi11 be accepted uriless ttle Ch~ir re open s th@ p bile hearing for a, lrmited and speci c purpos@_ Give the appearance , ,o,f a.ctlve listtl rng
II. is isconoortimgI to S!peakers to ha,v@ Coumcil Mem bers no look at them w em hey are speaking. lit is fine to look down al docu men s or to make notes,, but mac:ling or a llong period of time, gazing around he r,oom,, or en eringI iimto prolonged dialogue with adjacent Q mmcil Mtim b@rs or staff ,gives ttle appea ranc e of disir1lernst. Be aware of facial express ions , especia'lly those tha could be interprnl oo as smirilf ng," disbeli@l, anger or boredom.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
.Ask for c lariiifi.cat on , lb111t a,vo tdl debato and ar,gume:nt wittil the, public Only U1e Chi:iir - mot ind i\l\idual C-01.mcil Memb€:rs - can irn eJT1Jpt a s,p€:a €:r du rirng a prnsernm.tion. However, a Oo11ndl 'ember can ask Ille Cha·r for a pain of order if Ille speake r is off th €: opic or exh ibiting lb€:h.s1,vio r or langua ,ge the Counci l Memoor finds disturbing.
If sp€:akers b€:come flustered or ,de!ens ive by Cou ndl q @tions , ii. is th €: rns ponsi'bility of th€:
Cha ir 'fo ca m and ocus the spe,aker and o rnairnlairn Ille order and decorum of'lhe m€:eting1, Questions by Council Mern b€:rs to mem bers of till€: pu'blic testifying sihcmld se€:k to clarify or €:l4ipi:ind information . It is never a~propriate to lbelligerernlly cha llenge or b €:liltle lhe speake r, Cou ncil M'emoo rs' €:rsonal opinions or inclin.s1tions ab out upcom ·ng 1101:es shou 'ld not be revea led until after Ille pub ic hearing 1 is close d.
Undortak no, pe sonal attaclks or an;y lctnd _ 11:ndor any cb cumstanco Cou ncil M'emoo rs shou 'ld oo aware that heir body language and fone of voice, as well i:iS the worads they us€:., can appea r to be in im·d,.tirng1 or aggrnssive .
Follow pa·rllamcrntary proccdum in co1ndu:ctr ,91 public 1mootin ,9s Th€: Oily A omey Sfil\1€:S as a dvisory parUamenlarian or Ille City and is a,vail,ible to ans"Ner ques · oms or i nl€:rprnt situat iorns accord irng to Roberts Rules of Order., Firnal rulings on parliame ntary pmcedure are made by the C!h,i"r, subjed to th€: ap p€:a'I of th €: ru'II Counci l.
D11 U'11,offlc la I Settings
Ma'ko no 1nomisos 011 lbolla Gf ,o,f tlho Counc ill
Counci l M'emoo rs ·11 frequent ly oo as-1<.ed to expl1fn a Cou rncil action or to give the:ir op·nion about an issue as they meet and talk viilll1 cons ··uents iirn he comm nity. It is ap,prnpria e lo ,give a brief overview of C!ity policy arid to re er to C!ity sta for furth€:r in orma tion or appropriale action. llt is in~ppr,opriaf€: to overtly or inll) licilly prom is€: Co: ncil action, or fo pro: is€: C!ily staff w ill do someth ing sp€:cii c ,( x: a potho le:, remov€: a1 l"brary book , plant nowflow€:rs ·rn €: med ian, €:le.) ..
Ma'k no pors ·onal l ,commonits abou t 0th.or 1Co1mcll Mombers II is acc€:ptab le to pub licly disag ree: abo an issue:, bu ii. is I nacceplab l €: to m ak€: derogatory co me:nls about olll.e:r Counc il Mtlm bers, their opiniorns arid acti ons.
Romcmbm rthat iC'o1mcll Members am allways o:n diisp ay Cou ncil Me:moors are coost.mtly be ing1 observed by the coinm 1m ily €:very day that llhey serv€: ·n ,office, Their b€:haiviors an d commernts serve as m ode:ls for prope:r deportme nt ·n lhe C ity of Sanla Clara , t-fo n€:sfy arid 1respect for th€: dignity of each ind i\l\idual should b €: rn· €:cied irn e;11€:ry worrd and adiorn taken1 by Counci l Me mbern , 2 ours a ,da,y., s€:11€:rn days a1 we€:k. n is a serious and contin ous r€:S!pornsibi il:y.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Counc !ill C,o:nduct. w ith Othe r Pu bHc A,genc i,e,s
Bo clear abo ut. mp osen1iing tho c ·ty or ixirsona l rntc:J11osts If a, Ommc i'I Mern b8f a~pears before ;;mollher ,govemme:nlal ii9@:nCY or ,or,ga· izaool'il to give a, stat11::mel'ilI on am issue the Cou l'lcil Me:mber must clearly stale if his or her stal.eme n refilecls p8rsol'ilal opinion or is the o fficia'I stal'ilce of the Ciily.
If Ille Counci l M'emoo r ·s re prese l'ilf ng Ill e City. he Counci l Memoor must su pport and advocate the o cia l Oily position Ol'il an iissue , not a pe:rsonal viewpoint If Ill e Cou ncil Memoo r ·s re prese l'lling anofhe'I orga niza ion whose positioo, is ,a· ernrd from the City. thi;: Co nail Men 'l:ler s!hcmk:I withdraw from voting on the issue if it signilicantly im;pacfs or is detrimental to the City's ·merest. Cou ncil Members shou'ld be dlear a'l:lout which orga l'iliza ions they rnpres11::n al'ld inform thi;: 'ayor and Cou l'lc:il o lheir ·nvohJ11::menl Correspond'cn ,oo sh ould also, be, oq1.1ally c'toar ab01.1t rop:11ose11ta,tio1n City lelterhead may 11:111:: used when the Co nail Member is rnprnsen til'ilg1 thi;: Cily al'ild thi;: City 's o oioil pos i ion A copy of officia l oorres:pondenoo s!hou k:I be given to the Executive Ass is1.ant to the Mayor al'ld Oily Counci l to be filed · lhe Oounci l O ace as part of llhe pu'l:llic reoo r,d.
Corres-p ol'ildenoo of Council Members re present ing a, ptlrsona l 1point ,of view on a City issue ,, or a dissel'il ·ng11point of view from an o ,1oial Council posit ion, should make i clea r that the 11ie'l'1s e~pressed represent oo'ly the ·l'ildi\i·dua'I Coul'lc:il Membe r.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
C,ounc il Conduct wiitlil Bo.a.rd,, Comm iissions and Committee "We r are!¥ ·find fha.t people , ha.vo good l sonse , 1mlloss they· a.91100 with u.s."' F anco ls, D11c do La IRoc'he.foucauld
The Cily has establ ished several Boards, Oommissioms and Camm i ee (collectively referred to as City Commiss ions ) iJiS i;i, eans of ,galtlerin9 1 more commLmily inpul c· izeniS who seNe an City Comm issions become ore imvolved in governmen t amd serve as advisors lo he City Counci l. They are a va uable resource to he City's !leadership and shoo1d he !reared witlh apprecia tion and respect.
If attcn.cltng1 a, City Comm iss lo:n meetrng1 oxprcss porsiona opi nions, ,o:nly Counci l Members may atlend any City Co missiom meeting, whioh are always open lo a.ny me:mber of th€: p 1::11 ic. However , tlhey should 11::1€: sens itive lo the way 111.mr pa · cipa ion, - es,pecia11y if it is advoca l"ng a cerufm pos· ion - could loo viewed as unfa irly affecting1 the pmcess . Arly public comm1a1nts by a Council Mem'l::ler at a City Commiss ion meeting sh ould be o1earty made as ·rnd ividua1 opinion, arnd nol. a representa tiom of the feelimgs ,of the entire Cil:y Counci l. unless lhe Counci l has take:n a posi tion ,on the to;pic. It the City Ooumcil will a er ll::le oonsiide ·ng an i em lflat llie Oommlssio n, is discuss ing, Ille Counci l embe r shou ld o address the Comm issiom on that item, and reooNe his or her oommenls or the Counci l eefog on the i em. Counc il Me:mbers sh.ould mot appear be ore a oommissiom on l:lehalt of an imdiviiduat busi ness or devek1per.
Romembcr'that 10lty Commlrsslo1ns, siorvo ·tltlo communi:ty not lndivlduall iC'o11ncl Members The Oily Council a~po·ms in 1viduals to seNe on City Commiss ions ,, and iii. is he responsillility of Ciify Comm issions to fol ow policy estab'lished by the Coumcil. But City Oommissiorn membe rs ,do oot report to individual Council Members , nor shau ld Counci l Mmn bers eel lfley have the poorer or right to lhrea.tem City Commission members with remova l if they disagree about an isS!l.10. AppoJmlme m and re-appointment to a, aty Comm ission, should b0 based on such crite:ria as tilCil)tirtise, ability to work with staff and th0 public,, and comm · ment lo rulfilring ,officia l dulies.
A Oily Comm ission appoinlinrlemt should no be used aiS a, po ilical "reward ." Conrems abou t an indivi al City Comm ission mem b1a1r should be ,discussed wi h fhe Mayo r.
Bo m spocttu1I of"<Hvors,o opinions
A IPfiimary role o Cil:y Commissions is to irepresenI many po·ms o view in, th0 comn m· y and o pmvide the Ooumcil with advice based on a Iul l spectrum o · oorncems amd perspect ives. Counci l Memb0rs may have a, closer working11refatiomship with some imdiviiduals serving on Oily Com issions, b roos loo fair and respectt , of all ai ·z:ens serViing on C11y Comm issions.
Koep, polit ica l! support away from publ lic forums
City Comm ission mem be:rs ma,y offer po ilioa1 support to, a Ooumcil Member, but mot ·n a public orum w. i'l0 condudiing1 officia l ties. Conversely, Council Members ma,y suppo rt board and commission mem bers who .are rumning1 for o 1Ce ,, but noti. ·n an, officia l fofi m ·n their capac ity as a Co mail Mem:l::ler.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
ParHame:nrtary Prooedlu1r-e
'The ,obfed ,of Rules of Older is to ass:1:St an ,as:sem.f>Jy to accomplish • 1the 'Wark for which · tt was: designed, tn the be.st possible manner: To do Uil:S iUs necessary to res~ala the, tadlvidaa'I somewhat , as the, right of the l ndJ1dduat la any communUy , :to do what he pleases:, is Jn,compatibte , with the lnt91!9s-ts-of the, whole . " Honry Mal'lll11 Robert
PlJblic rneeliirng.s ·rn lho C ity of S1mta Clara - ·no1t1dirng1 the City Cot1ncil, Co nail subcom mittees , and all City boarads,, commissio ns arid committees - follow Robe rt's Rules or Order in order to ensllrn lllat bus·ness is colld L1cted urn an or.deny alld ,democra tic manne r. Rob erts Rules o Order are acc:e;pted throt1ghourl Ille U.S. as the standarad authority on parl iamenta ry law and pr,ooodure. Cop· s of Ille co plete text of Robe rt's Rules o Order are ava ila't:Jle at Ille Oily brary a:lld may be purch ased at bookstores .. S ma.ries ca n be folln d ornline .
Th u1so of panl'lamontary p11ocodum :
• romotes coqpe ratio and h.:irmony so that l)tl ople earn ,,vori( togethe r more etteciiwl y l.o aocom,plish their goals;,
• 9t1arnnte es eac h ·ndMdL1a an e qual rig'hHo 11Jrqpose motions , spea k, asik. questions a'lld vote;
• rotects the rights o · m irnority 1points o V1iew arid gjves the minority the same considern ·011 and res,pecl as those in ~ majority:
• ernoot1rnges Ille · 1.dl a.nd free discussion ,of eve:ry motion p rese rnted ;, • ernsures thaUhe me,eting is rair and con ducte d ·rn good failh.
Wllo 'Was R.obort andl w'hy 1,s h, mak!tng tlho ru tos? Robert's Rllles of Order are based om parl iamentary p~ure orig i11a ly used in the B:rifish Pm1ia· en . Early colonists a llowe d llhe Brnish model in the first New Eingla rnd owrn mootings .
Woori he was Pres i em , Thomas Jefferso n publish ed he first American boo k ,on parliamenlary pr,ooodure in 1801 ON: ich served as fhe rules or Cong re ss. llin 1876 , an erng"nee:r alld ge nera l irn the U.S. Army ,, Henry Ma ·n Robe rt, modifie d hese pr,ooedures to m eet the ne€ ds ,o ",or,d·nary sociel.y. " His version, Roberrs Rules of Orde:r, has b ecome the a: horita tive g ide for ,govemme 11ls, ,or,ganizations , dubs and schoo ls thmug'hou the lll .S.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Quomm1
A quorum iis the minimum number of ,m 'b@rs th .. t must b@ pres@nt for ,. gm~ to coodlllci busiooss . or he San1a 0 1 .. rn Cily Colllncil, ·s means that a m·nimum of our Co nail Mernb@rs or thrne Colllncil Me:[email protected] and th@ Mayor loo prns@nt for th@ Counc il meet ing to take .. ction.
Motions
A rnooon is th@ wa,y lllal busin@ss is cooduci@d by ai groLJp I nder pariliam@ntary proced re. llt is ,. proposa l hat an iin ividual woLJld like the group to consider and .. ct upo n.
S ep s in m .. l<!ing,, discL11ssin9 and vof ng on ,. motion:
1. The rnak@r of he motion as!ks · or rnrognit ion by Hie Cha·r ..
2. Aff@r Hie in ivid ual iis recog niz.eo, he or she v1ill s .. y "II mov@ that 1,ve . . . "
3. The Cha ·r will ask if th@rn is a, se.cood. Anollle r rn@m'oor ,o Ille ,gmup rnLJsl second he motio.n in orad@rior it to iscuss@d .. A. seco nd is made by sa,ying "I seco nd the motion."
4.. The Cha ·r th@n msta es @ motion "Ill. has ootm moved and se,co,ncled tha .... and o,pens Ille floor to discussion.
5. The Cha·r wm rncogn ize mem bers who wislh to oomrn@nt on Ille motion. On1y one mo ion may be discLJssed a a fime. lit is i portant that all members ofthe groLJp are clear on wh.:i Ille motion is and w ha ns e ect ·11 be. Spirited disrussiori helps to answer qLJestioris and explorn diff@rnnt interpretalions and/or impacts of the mo ·on ..
6. At the end of the disoussion period, the Chair will "call for the question ~ and ask how- any members am in slllpport o · tt,e mooon, how many am oppose d .:ind if ·ther@ are any abs enfions . A majonity w t@ is needed for the mo · on to pass. Th@ motion may be noted .. s passing or a"ling1 lby verba "ayes" and "nays• of members,, by oo nting ai show of hands, or by using Ille eledirooic vot@ board for meetings held in Counci l Chambers.
Other common 1motio 1ns.:
Amend ing1 a motion ii rnove to a end the motion by .. . . ~ D@lay,ing1 cons id@ra · on 11 rnove l.o table the motio n until .... " Closing deba e I rnove the prev;ious question .... •
Reques ting1 morn sludy "ii rnove lo efer this o __ (staff or su'boomm· @e) ror f rtherntLJdy ... ."
Objflcii ng to prooodlllrn Point of order.~
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 7: July 18, 2023, City Council Meeting Minutes Item 5
City of Santa Clara
Minutes
Call and Not ice of Specia l Counc il Meet ing &
Cou nciil and Authoritiies Concu rrent Meet ing
0711812023 6:00 PM Hybr id Mee t ing
City Ha ll Council Cha m bersJVirtua l
1500 Wa rbu rt on Avenu e
Santa Clara , CA 95050
The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Counc il meetings in a hybrid manner (in~person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remote ly). •Via Zoom:
o https:/lsantadarnca.zoom .us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1 (669) 900-6833
How to Subm it Wrrtt en Pub lic Com ment Before City Counci l Meeti ng1:
1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page httpsJ/santaclara .legistar.co m/Calendar.aspx. eCom me-nts are directly sent to the il egislate application used by City Council and staff, and become part of the public record . eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.
2. By email to clerk@santa claraca.gov by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be foiwarded to the Council and will be upload ed to the City Counc il Agenda as supp!ementa l meeting material. Email s received after the 12 p.m. cutoff lim e 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 you r ema il.
NOTE: Please note eCom me i ts and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meetin g.
Agendas , Staff Reports and some assoc iated documents for City Council ii.ems may be viewed on lhe I ntemet at https://santaclara .legistar .com/Calendar. aspx All public records felaling to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to lhe Califomia Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of lhe legislative body \',~II be available for public inspec tion at the Office of ttie City a e-rk at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburto n Avenue , Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that ttie pLibtic re-cords are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts , ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site o r distributed in advance of fue Counc il meeting may not be the final documents approved by ttie City Council. For the final docu ment, you many contac t the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 6 15-2220 or [email protected]. cny o-r Sama Ctara Pnmecr"" OIIIINl/2073
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Spec ial Counc il Meeting & Mee,ting Minutes 07111812023 Counc i·I and .Autllo rities Concu rrent Mee ting
23-824 Action 011 Appointments Related to a Charter Review Committee and Direction to Study Charter Amendment Alternatives Related to the Positions of Police Chief and City Qerk for Possible Placement on a March 2024 ballot.
Recommendation : Alternative : Staff makes no recommendation cay or San,~ Clara
City Manager Grogan introduced the item and turned it over to Assistant City Manager Bojocquez who gave a Powerpoint presentation on appointments related to a Charter Review Committee and direction to study Oharter amendment alternatives related to the positions of Chief of Police and City Cleric
Council comments and questions followed.
A motion was l'liilade by Cou ncil'member Jain seconded by Councilmember Hardy, to a:p,point the seven nominees to the Ch.arter Review Committee.
Aye: 7 - Councilmember Watanabe, Councitmember Chahal, Council member Hardy, Vice Mayor Park, Councilmember Jain, Councilmember Becker, and Mayor Grllmor
A. motion was l'liilade by Vice Mayor Park, seconded by Councilmember Becke.r, to direct that the Charteir Review Committee, in the their sco,pe of wo It, cletennine if the positions of Chief of Polke and City Clerk sltould be appointed posit ions by eithetr the City Coundl /City Manager or continue to be elected; look into the specifications and qualifications of each irole comparable to other cities ; and recommend additiona qual ifications as it relates to the positions .
Aye: 5 - Councilmember Chahal, Councilmember Hardy, Vice Mayor Park, Councilmember Jain, and Councilmember Becker
Nay: 2 - Councilmember Watanabe, and Mayor Gillmor
Prim ed OJI 08',<1)!!12013
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 8: Purpose And Overview Of The 2023 Charter Review Committee
Cityof .
Santa Clara
CHARTER REV EW COMMITTEE N:OMINATION FORM
Cify of Sant Clara
City Clerk 's Office 1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Phone: 408-615-2220 E-ma il: Clerk@santaclaraca .gov
PURPOSE ANID OVERV ilEW OF THE 2023 CHARTER REVIEW COMM TTEE At the June 6, 2023 City Council meet ing, the City Council directed the creation of a 2023 Charter Review Committe e (Comm ittee). The primary funct ion of the Committee is to review and recomme nd to the City Cou ncil whether the provisions in the City Charter that provide for an elected Police Chie f and/o r City Cterk sha ll rema in the same or wh ether an amendment to change the position s from elected to appointed positions and/or other changes to the currently stated qualification s for those positions should be placed on the March 2024 ballot. This scope of work is subject to fina l approva l at the July 18, 2023 City Counc il meeting . The Coundl may accept, amend, or reject the Committee's recomme ndat ions and for those recomme ndat ions that are approved, determine the best method to structur e the ballot measure (s). Discussions related to other portions of the City of Santa Clara. Charte r are not part of the scope of this Committee .
The Committee must be impartial, unbiased and free of any perceived politica l gain. The Com mittee must adhere to public meeting require ments and strive to include and educate the community about the process and purpos e of a Charter Review, the import.moo of a City Charter and to solic it community input on proposed changes prior to making a reco mmendat ion to the City Council.
Membership
The Charte r Review Committe e w ill consist of seven (7) voting members that are appoin ted by the City Counc il, including one member from each Counc il District and a member nom inated at large by the Mayor. City staff will be provided to support the Committee in an advisory role.
Meetings
Meeting dates will be set as determined by the majority of the Committee in consul tation w ith City staff. All meetings shall be open to the public. The Com mittee shall hold at least two publicly advertised pub tic hearing s 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 regard ing how oth er cities approach the selectio n and/o r qualificat ions for these position s. 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 sha ll terminate at the tim e its recommendatio ns are presen ted to the City Council . The Committee's recommendation s, toge ther with the related staff report, must be presented to the City Council no later than November 14, 2023.
The City Coulilci l wishes to sincerely thank the nom·rnees for their interest iin serving and outstanding commitmer i t to the Cy of Santa Clam.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
THE DEAIJLINIE TO SUBMIIT NOMIINA HONS IS 12:00 PM, JULY 12, 2023 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 applicali on - P<rNide 2 proofs of res idency : i.e. License.'1 D, Utility Bill or passport) Zip Code : ________ _
Are you a registered voter of the City of Santa Clara?
(Must be a registe red \'O'.er at time of a:pplicaili:011} D Yes 0 No,
City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on matters where there exists a potential 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 sufficientt ime to devote to this responsrbility and attend meetings. Please note that the information provided on this form is a public record that may be subject to disclosure upon request.
Signature:
Date Signed:
You may submit the completed nomination form in person at: City Clerik's Office, 11500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Cllara, Californ ia 9·505<1 or emaill completed form to: [email protected] THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT NOMIN!ATIONI IS 12:00 PM, JULY 12,,.2023
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 9: Ethics Committee Presentation, December 4, 2023
Options to Consider
-
• .
(
Establish Time
L1m1ts
D1scuss1on Pnor
to Making a
Motion
-\
-
-
Robert's Rules
vs. Rosenberg
Rules of Order
I
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
APPENDIX 10: Understanding The Role Of Ethics Commissions
INSTITUTE FOR
1111 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ,.._ ,.,.
PUBILIC 5ERVl:cE ETH l:C5
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Under .standing the Role of IEthks Commissions
Orx:{!mblt 2007
QUESTtON
We ha .e a cir.izer,s • grot1µ hi aur ca;:am11r1iry consid ril¥J wheth r ro propose ~lablis hing air ethics cammi:ssioti. We have laol«.·d for iliformaUar1 abmJl etbics cmmnissian s lYut Ira 11ot real~ J:o11:tu1 much. Cati yau .lwlp?
ANSWER
Them am a, nu.mher of qu12 lions to ask In evaluating whether an ethics commission ropmsenm a, use:fu] 1.001 for .· OW' oommu11rlty. includJng:
l. What I.ls yot11' o o.raU goal?
.2. \NI/tat do you want an 11:tllllcs commission lo do?
3. How \ oull:I comml. Jon m mhers he sel@ct@d?
5. What oosouoc:12S are avaflabl@ to support th@ ,cornmisslon?
6. What decision-making prooe!'.1. should ou use to demrmlrm wlmth a oomml!sslo.n, lls right fo th@ ,comm1.mity?
Ler s look at 1!:acll issue_
What Is Y,our Overall Goal?
The intefll:!it 111 creating an ,entity with on:w kind o.f rnsponslblm for pub]lc Ice @lilies can be 111~irnd by any number of goa~ . One goal may he symbolic: to ,convey the message that etllll Is Important to a, jurisdiction -- so Important that the juril'i:Cl.icticm has a bod rn.~ .l'.lfilbfo for It_ Unfortunately .. symbolic g l1l1'@S raml accomplish much In terms of etMcs...
1"100 K Slreet, 5ulte 2 □ 5 • Sacramento , 95814 • 9 115,.fiSB.8200 , F 9 15,_;1!144.753.S , www.ca-,11g .. OIJ9
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
f'oli!l)'day fdrlcs for Loca Officials
Understimd g lhe Role of'flh lc:s Comm s;s FIS December :WD7 Oth@r goals may rrilat.@ to !Im typi;t of rol@ Um @11t:ity \. Ill play. An ethics task fore@ ca:l'.l d@!. min@ v.•h ther additional ethics m@asu~es .and a.ell m would oo help:rul In a jurisdiction. Th@ City of Long Beach US@d this approach in 2-001 whcrn ut. created an ethl task for that cutill oac:k a y,ear later \. Ith a sl'.!1'.!es of m. omm ndaU.ons on how lo enhance die @lhical clln1al.6 In Ill@ dty. This kl:l'.ld of e:11U.ty is an lnfonm !io.1:1,-,gad1 inQ and advl ory oody. However, llm city cou11 ii mad@ lh ulltl.mal.6 de · fo11011 \.h@thl'.tl' to .adopl the rn.@asums recommrmd@dl l:)y lh@ task fo~@.
One advantage of Im 111g an ethics tas:k fo:rc,e is that. lt orlngs th@ commul'.lll}' · s vole:@ to the taol@ aoout t M. In publics fee. D penciling on th@ ,compo.sitlon ofth@ tasik. fore@, the rnspcrct. tool. rask fo:oce rMmb . enjoy in th@ rnm.mu11ily can translat e into, c,omm.m1Hy pect for tile l:al.k fooce·s proposals.
Types of Ethics Entities
The t:onowlng nomenclature may be helpful to ondc ore the d1fforbi.g roles that cthics-rel,ated posirlio.ns or bodies can play in an organization. allhough dift:c~re11t organirzations may us@ diffr~rent terminology.
Elblcs Task Fore@
A oodly ,cm1\•enedl oy a local agen .. to accompli'!!l:1 a p cUk msk. mlatins lo cthl ., typically iooking policy rooomrne11dlatlo11s on ways to, e:11han . !he ctilturc of ethics 111 an age:11cy. T he ta k for is us.ually disbanded after It has made Its recommendations or ac:complisih cl ils task.
Ethics Cornrnlttee
A tandl:l'.lg body de.,;igned lo be a source of advice on poUcy irnplemenlation and uppor1 for elllics within the ag@:tlCy. An el.hies c,omrnrittee can also play an cducattonal role withirn Ille ageu and! out. In the community.
Elbics Hotliot/Ornlmds-pc.rso:n
A soundirng ooard for public officials on publi rec ethic<: d lemmas. In lh@ pl'l\l'at.@ ect.o • many large ,companies pro Ide such a sour,cc of aclvi. e for their people. Thie<: kirndl of position can also pfay an edlucatlmml and training role.
Ethics Cornrnlss:ioo
A standl:ng bod w'ltl'I delegated! audiority lo irnterpret and enfo11c the juricw.1cl.io11·s et!hic<: regulatlm1s. An ethics commi~lon can alw pl,ay a role In training and ,ed1.1calio.11.
nstlrute fur L.ocal Government
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
l: . ...eiryday Elhks for Loca Offldials
Understimdlng !he Aole offiihlcs OITRlll 5.Slons December 2007 Oitho.r ,communitlf!s I/lave an ,gfulcs commltt,f!e. 1'1/lg oommltloo is a group of lndivithm ti/lat pro df!s advice and f@f!dback on hm to pr,omot@ aud fillhanc thf! c:il.y's ,mthlcs program. ll can comprisf! m.emb . of th@ puDlic, local official\s; or a cot1:tbinalion of bolh. 1'hfl City of .Sanla C]ara's. ethics conuu:ftloo, for examplf!, its composgd of th@ mayor and t\ o council rnembm. lille city mauag@r. city a.ttornf!y. cll.y df!l'ik. cl1i1f!f of pol 1cf! and lhf! city" . ethics advi:sor. Olh@r taff r-egu.]arl aU@nd. The mg tings ar12- O.fl@ll lo Ill!@ puollc, and !.Im city posts m@f!ting noticris and mails tlillm to those , ho vl"i h to be 11011:llf!d.
An ethics commission is usuall~ an 1Ji-oop1mdcmt body that p1rovld f!, tf!ma] ,ov,grslght and ,muorc@mf!nt of ,gfulcs laws.1
In Califo:rnlla., th@ tat@·. Farir PO:litlcal Practices Cmnml. !on (FPPC) pmf"om:1s lill role for stat and local officlaL subject to lh Political Reform Act 1'he FPPC rngu]ams:
• Can:ipallgn tlriancing and sprinding at thf! slatf! and local I @Is; • Fit1Jandal oorufl!I o:f hnl. t at thf! s!atf! and local levels:
• Lohoyisl. rngii. traHon and mporting at Um stale fgvel; • Post-go,Vfil'ntnf!Dtal mplo¥f.ruml. at lhe stal.e and local l@vels :
• Mass mamngs at puDlic e pense al. th@ · tat@ and local fovet..<::. and • Gifts and honorarJa given to public oft1dals and. candidates at Um stale and local fovers.
A lui: goal of a111 @!Irle ooirunirl ,ion I to enllanGf! publi trust ln 1ille @lhics @nlior,cetnf!flt procgs b assigning It to a quasi-incfgpfilld.@nl cmtit .
Locail agencies can lilavf! @thlcs comm ,lo.ns. that aro ,charg@d , Hh .ruforclng a:nd taking othf!r aclions with s~c t to loc:al f!thlcs. la\ . • Such oomml siorts ma also pr,ovlde advico regarding local ethics la.. as weU as otl'.gr training on uc-h 111n!l .
One qoostlon to po.nd@r Is ,. h@tmi . yo1l1' city or county nf!@ds acfdlt!onal @Ihle . regulations (soo "Th oo Ought 10 B a La · at th bouom of fulls arlicle). California ailrQ<a.d has a fair!. compl arra of @thlcs llaw . For al'.I! ov@rvlew of exiistlng slate and focfgra] efu!cs llaw , . oo A Local Off'rcial"s Ethics Law R:f!f@~gnco at ™ .Gi-lli;: .. orgl till. la.
Common local @thics law includ@ laws !hat go b11yond th@ minimum standards @Stabll!s]:lld in va: .lous stal. law •. 1'hf!sf! l:nclude llaw •. that . late to campaign fd:t1Janc (contribution l.iml and puolic tiuanclng of campalgll ). llaw rngulating lobb)'ltSts, op n go rnm nt ,or "Simshlno" ordinancos and mo strunggnt gift rul@s.
Institute for acal Governmen t
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics for Local Official s
Understanding the Role of Ethics Co mmissions
Table 1. Ethics Commission Duties and Responsibilities
San Francisco
Ethics
Commi,,ion
Upon a four-fifths
vote of its members,
commission may
submit directly to
voters any ordinance
relating to conflict of
interest.campaign
finance, lobbying.
campaign 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 Ange les
Ethics
Commiss ion
Administers and im
plements laws con
cerning campaign
finance. lobbying,
conflict of interest
and governmental
ethics
Commission also
serves as filing of
ficer for campaign
statements and is
required to conduct
audits of those state·
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
regulationssub_iect
to council approval
without moclifica·
tion
Commission may is-,
sue written opinions
and advice, the good
faith reliance on
which can provide
immunity from ora
defense to 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 registration
and other matters
proposed by the
commission and
adopted by the city
council
Commission may
investigate allega
tions of violations of
city campaign and
ethics laws
Tables prouidcd court esrJ of Oakland Ethics Commission Institut e for Local Government
San Jose
Electio ns
Commi ssion
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
Commisslon may
issue opinions. the
good faith reliance
on which can pro
vide immunity from
subsequent enforce
ment proceedings
Decem ber 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
forrelX)rts.state
ments.noticesand
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
re'Jiewed and ad
justed annually
Conducts investlga
tions ,audits and
public hearings
4
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
[ye;iyday EINcs for l..oc.-il Offkl.als
Understandb)g !he Role off.lillh::s Comm s.slons December 2007 What Do You Want an Ethics C,o.mmission to IDo?
If c:r,f!atlng an indt::!pend@nt. rngullatory entity \. ould m~I. your community' !'i goal, th@ spoclflc dutJm. assigood to 1.itthlcs oomndsslons tend to fa]] Imo ooo ,or mor of thr,f!fit carogorlcs:
l. Ov oolng and @nfordng locail ethics laws and/or oodf!s;
2. Providing advicf!t to ]oral officials on ethics and @thles Jaw. : aud
3. Training local official\! on @!hies and ,f!thics laws.
Most ethics commissions tlmd to focus on mthks lalli\'S as oppo: d lo ethics (valt.ms-hasf!d conduct that goo.<; al:mve and ~yond the minimum roqu1rerrumls of lh Jaw). S@f! Tahl!'.!' l for a list of resp,onsib!litlcs. of various @lilies commb! iom;. 111 Cautornla ,
1-lo,V.'f!Vllf, Oil@ California commUl'.l!ity expetlm@ntoo with ha\1ng an ,f!tllrlcs c:om mission that @nfor,coo Its valoos-il:ias@d e(brlcs ,codf!t. Thf! code had f!tx:amples of what ,conduct :ootloc!ing rnrtaln vailuf!s -- such as fal:rooss, lrustv;mrtbrinf!s.<;, rn.,;;poJ'.l8ibllity and r poct - did and did not look li!lm. Th@ !ask asslgnoo to the @lilies commdsslon in chat situation was to assess whf!ther a given conduct foU Into thfl "do@S not foot like" carogory.
How Slhoul1d Members Be Select:ed?
For fill @!hies commb...sloo to achlf!Vfit thfl gpal of promoting puhllc ,contld@nrn 1n Its d@cisiol'.l-ma!king procf!SSM, it nood!. falr-m1ndf!d and diligent. memblit . . who are cone 11@d , ith l'!([U1talbly enfor 1ng Its adopt,f!d thl. Im. . and rnqulrfitmmts. Thi lflads to th@ question of who ajppoints th!'.!' mer11h of thf! ,f!l:hics c:om mis. Ion. Tablf! :2 illustral.1!8 how a m.mroor of Jm1sdict:ions Ila @ lr.l@d lo achieve !Im goal of appo1nling fair d@cisiol'.l-makllfS.
Public oollifldf!f:lce In th@ ,commls.~ron'. decisions is also @nhanC11:d lflhe commis.,;;lonf! rs are not particlpan ln dm pontlcail pro s lihat th@- are c:ruirgf!d with regulating. For that reason, a numoor of jurl.sdictloM impose l\f!strlcliom;. on com missioners" pa.rtlclpatlon In @loctiot'.18. (sf!e Table 2).
lnstlrute ror Loca l Government .5
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 Table 2. Ethics Commission Composition and Restrictions on Commissioner Activities San Francisco Los Angelos San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair Oakland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Comm ission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Commiss ion
Commi ssion Five members. Flve members, Seven members. Five members, Nine members; Seven members, Compo sition 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 three-year term Ter.ms staggered Terms staggered terms terms term Terms staggered annually annually Terms staggered Terms staggered Terms staggered Appointment Appointed by Appointed by Appointed by Appointed by The mayor and Three members mayor, board of mayor.cit y at- mayor from a two-third s vote each city cou ncil appointed by supervisors, city tomey ,co nt rol- poolofcandi- of city council member appoint mayor attorney , district ler, president dates a commissioner Four member s attorney and as- CX coun cil, and Each counci l Commission app ointed by sessor president pro member and terms run con- the entire com-tern of council city attorney currently with missio n nominates seve n the elected
candidates official's term
Mayor's appoint-
ments subject to
confir mati on by
city council
Qualifications Mayor'sappoin- Must be a regis- At least one Must be a reg is- Must be a regi s- Must be an tee must have tered voter member must tered vot er with teredvoter Oakland resident back.ground in have held elec- some familiar- and reg istered to public records/ tive public office ; ity with cam- vote public meeting s;: two must be paign laws: one
city att orney 's lawyers; no more member mu st
appoin tee must than three can be a California
have background be from the sa me att o rney
in public ethics political party
law; assessor 's Must be a regis· appointee must
have background tered voter
in campaign
finance law; re-
maining two
appointees must
represent general
public
Table 2 continued
Institute for Local Government 6
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics f or Local Officials
Under standing the Role of Ethics Commi ssions Decembe r 2007 San Fran cisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair 0akland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections camp aign Commission
Comm ission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Comm ission
Restriction s 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- finmcial con- direct and sub- election to public ployed by the fleer of a political pate in an elec- tributlon to, or stantial financial office or serve as city or have any party tion campaign publidy suppo rt interest in any an officer of any direct and sub- Can't be a city Can't run for pub- or oppose., a can- business, work or political party stantial financial employee, reg- lie office within didate for public action by the city Can't participate interest in any office work or business istered lobbyist two years of a May not hold in or contribute or official action or campaign commission deci• Must agree not public office to a Berke 1ey by the city consultant sion concerning to run for elec· while a comm is· election cam- Can't participate that office tive office for stOOer paign Can't seek elec- in a campaign 12 months aher May not run for tion to any other serving as a public office or for city office, a commissioner etective office participate in or ballot measure or for one year contribute to an publicly endorse before or after Oakland munici· a candidate or servlng on the pal campaM)n ballot measure commission May not endorse Can't endorse,
or work on behatf support, oppose,
of anycand.date orworkoo behalf
of any candidate while serving on or measure in an the commission Oakland election Vacancies Vacancies filled Appointments Vacancies filled Appointments Appointments A vacancy must by the api::oint- made within bythe mayor must be made must be made be filled no ing authority for 30 days by the fran a pool within 60 days by within 30 days by sooner than the remainder of appointing a1.r of i:andidates the city council to the appointing 30 days and no the term thority to fill the submitted by fill the unexpired authority to fill laterthan60days If less than three unexpired term each city council term the unexpired from the date years remaining member and the term that the vacancy
on the term, the cit·{ attorney occurs
api::ointee may
serve a new 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
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethics for Local Officials
Und erstanding the Role of Ethics Commiss ions Decembe r 2007 If the corrunission 's primary function is to enforce ethics requirements, the corrunission will typically be given the power to impose penalties (usually fines) for violations of laws within its jurisdiction. It may also be given the power to issue orders compelling compliance with ethics laws or enjoining violations . Table 3 explains how various jurisdictions answer these questions .
Table 3. Ethics Commission Powers
San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair oakland Ethics Ethics Ethiu Ethics Elections campaign Commission
Commission Commission Commission Commission Practices
Commission
Enforcement A com prehen sive A comprehe nsive A comprehensive Citycouncil The com mission 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 sion's complaint ings to determine Changes to and preliminary and preliminary and preliminary procedures violations of the commission rules consideration of consideration of consideration of Berkeley Election and procedures complaints are complaints are complaints are Reform Act become effective confidential confidential confidential Hearings are within 60 days Commission can open to all inter- unless vetoed by
request appoint- ested persons two-thirds vote
ment of a special of the city council
prosecutor for
criminal en-
forcement if the
city attorney is
conflfcted
Conflict With Ethics charter
Other Laws provisions prevail
against confllCt-
ing local laws
Subpoena Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laws over Campaign Fi- Campaign Fi- Bection Cam- Citywide Ethics Berkeley Election Campaign Which the nance Reform Or- nance Ordinance paign Control Or- Code (includes Reform Act Finance Act Commission dinance (includes (includes public dinance;Citywide campaign fi- (O::RA); Ethics Has Jurisdic - public matching matching funds); Ethics Ordinance; nance. lobbying, Code (for city tion funds);Campaign Governmental Municipal Lobby- revolving door counci0; Lobbyist and Government Ethics Ordinance; ing Ordinance and gift limita- Registratton Act; Conduct Code; Municipal Lob- tions) Conflict of Inter-
Prohibition of bying Ordinance; estCode ;Sun-
False Endorse- Post-Employ- shine Ordinance;
ment in Cam- ment Ordinance Limited Public
paign Literature Financing Act;
Ordinance: Lob- False Endorse-
byist Registration mentinCam-
Ordinance:Sun- paign Literature
shine Ordinance Act
(partial)
( -
What Resources Are Available To Support an Ethics Commission? The commission will typically need staff to assist with its work. The Los Angeles Ethics Corrunission employs 31 people , but staffing levels vary. Table 4 shows how various ethics corrunissions are staffed and their associated budgets.
Institut e for Local Governm ent 8
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Everyday Ethi cs for Local Offi cial s
Understanding the Role of Ethics Commissions December 2007 It ' s also important to understand that indirect costs will be associated with supporting an ethics commission. Ethics commission staff will likely work closely with the agency counsel's office and possibly with the agency auditor . For example , in Berl<:eley, the city clerk's office also provides administrative support to the ethics commission .
Table 4 . Ethics Commission Staffing and Resources
San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San Jose Berkeley Fair oakland Ethics Ethics Ethics Ethics Elections Campaign Commissio n
Commission Commissio n Commiss ion Commission Practi ces Commission
Number of 12 31 6 Nostaff{city No!taff(city 20
Staff (full-time clerk's office p ro· clerk's office pro- equiva lents ) vides adm inistra · v1des administra·
trve assistance as tiveassista nce as
needed) needed)
Annual $1,382,44 1 $2.60),000 $1,02 1,106 No separate No iepa rate $279,644 Budget budget budget
Com mission & Commission Commis.s1on CommissKm Comm ittee meet· City provides City manager , Staff Relations appoints and appointsand appoin ts the ings staffed by the :ommissio n or his o r her may remove the may remove the executive direc- the office of the with staff who designee (s), executive direc- executM' di rec- tor.subject to city clerk act in accordance provides the tor at will torat wrn confi rmation by City council with commis- commission with 6:ecutive direc- Executive di rec- the city council has author- sion poltcles and staff assistance tor has power tor has pov,,,er Executive di rec- ity to retain an regulations as necessary to PE-rmit the com· to appoint and to appoint and tor serves at the independent and mission to fulfill remove-othe r remove other pleasure of the neutral evalua- its fu nc tions and com mission commisso n commission tor,selected by duties emp loyees employees the commission, City attorney ls City attorney is to review and
the commission's the commission's investigate com-
legal advisor legal 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 attorn ey
the city attorney, provides legal
his o r her office, advice but does
or his or her elec- not participate in
tion camoaign investigations or
review of com-
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 ethic s committee or task force. The task force' s recommendation s are presented to the city council or board of supeivisors , who then evaluate whether these recommendations should be adopted , adopted with modifications or subjected to further study and analysis. In charter citie s and countie s, the proposal may be put before the Institute for Local Governmen t 9
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
l:.1,1eiyday l:d\ks for L.oc.i Officials
Understandtng !he Role ofl:J!hlc:s LOl!lllll u ns December 2007 vot,f!rs as a dulrlJ . ar1t1e:ndmf!nl. V w.rs can a:&so us thf! lnitialiv@ pmcess lo prnposrt a malt,f!r for th@ Dalio I
Anotlillr option I!! . for commun,ity groups 10, colilabo:rate with a local agf!n on a oaUot .t111f!a url'.!'. l'hls hyorld approach h lp Cl'if!alif! a p:roposa1 that r,f!fl cts communLty coneerru as we:H as. th@ tochnlcal l'.!'Xpcrtl . ohhf! puhl ic agency about hm.. to ,cral't a meastu,f! 11ha1. addres, such c,onc 11s.
C,ondusion
Loca1 agencies Im @ a numoor of tools al\-allaole to !hem In promo ,f! a cull.Ure ,of ,f!lhics and compHance with @!Ille. law in !heir jur dl.cllorus. An ethics comntl: .Ion Is onf! such tool. U~m an tool!! . thf!rn ar,f! tasks tool mhlcs commissions Cfil11 p@rform w,f!U, 'i.. hlle othf!r @lhics-oolatf!d functions may b Df!tt,f!r achll'.!'l\r@d by other mf!asur!J!S .. For m rn Information aoou1 th@ range of tools avarllablf! to local ag ncl . to p:romotf! @thlc in puDllc rule@. ksit th@ [nstUuw for l!...ocal Gove.rnmf!r1fs Ethics R1JSot.1rc@ Centill' a.t Vl'W\ . . ca-U .or ere ..
Ther,e Ought t o Be a Law a- W.ait, There Is On,e!
Som times a juri diction wiH find its-elf evaluating w1hmhff to form .a11 ethics romml slon or other cthics-rdate<l entity 'i.. 1en ll l~ experiencing a scandal Leaders may foe! t.mdcr pr sure lO "<lo sommhlng" to prev nt futur scan.dais. To reslPoud ei'f eclivcl. , II. can DC helpful lo idcnlify exacl y what ,caused the s-candal lO oc-cur and tailor the r ponsc accordingly.
Som times the scandal wm Ile lhat som on@ Is charg d 'i.. 1th vloJatlng an ethics laiw.
Under sucll ci11c111n1Stanc . I.he solution may not be more laws or even morn law enforccn.mnt The solulloo .may he stepped-op lralnl.ng. Such training may b hclpf\J:l If lhe pricvaillng sense i,s thal . omeonc made an ignorant mistake (either nol lmnwlng som thing was against tile Iaw or not. realizing the consequences of getting caught).
Gr,catcr attentlor1 to cr,cat111g a cull11re of ellhics \. lth!11 the jurlsdictlon and scnsili2°l11g lhe vm. to the n d for considering ,ethics as a rite-r~a In elections niay al o be solutions ( c:e "Santa Clara infuses Ethic.,;, Into Campaigns" regarding the city's "Vot,c Ethics'' efforts) .
In other ,cases., theli\c niay not ha\l'e Ileen a perceived iolatlon of the law but a peroclved lack of ,mfo rcement. U- lhls Is the H11atlon. keep In mind that !here may b mu:itiplc enforc,cn1.en1 mechanl~ms. Fo example. the Polilical Reform Aicl allows tor private enfor,cemcnl if the Fair Political Pracllc . Commls.<tlon docs not take actlou mi a complalnl. Moroo\ r, under I.he tcdcrnl Im. that prot,c the public's right t,o "honest scr Ices" fmm It.,;, puhll officials. many violaitlons ,of state clhics laws ,can also be prosccut,cd by the U.S. Allor.ney· Office as a .form ,of mail or I/Ire fraud (or If nmu was I 1vol\ d, ,even incmne tax evasion).
lnstlwte tor ac.al Government 10
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
IE.~day · s for Local Offldals
Understand!Dg ·the Jto\e ofahlcs Corrn:m s;s ns Decerrnber 2007 Alternalm ,ct .. the candal tnay be than som 011 did n l ngag in con du. nhat hould nff.lcssaliil. ·.nd them io Jail or • · rn nh m t pay a fln : th j t e rdsed v ry poo judgment Or It ,c uld ibe a forrn of oonducl thal ts ry di lieu It to l\cgulat (f o ex.amp!e, is.iw.es lated lo . c speech). Tfl , . , . 11hcr an asplrationa]. .ah.1.e-bascd code ,of ,cfuics ,can help. partic-ularil 1f 1l ts ac. ompanled by .a \1,,dl-dcfmn d . . o. · tently ,mplem ntcd program t hlgh1ighl the impolifaru::,c f lhe ,cod as a gu1d for rerydlay conduct b pobl ic officials thal · fle<:ts nh c,ommtu:1t1t · s ,c pectations.
Vi it M"t. . . c:a-ilg.org/ethi cod . for .mo1J1c it1iformation on U1 . approoclL In shon. Ifs important \. hen facing d 1nands that one do S0:111 thmng .about an ,ethics I sue lO c:hoa a ro of action r,ca nabI tahlor d to f I l:ng the pr blem rhat ga ra. to nh ~ . u ·. Olhel'\ ~ . one fac,cs nh pect or .fwthcr ro loJl. · f rlh public·. lrl.lSl and ,confidenc 11' a r med '. whU \\ II-int n:d d. prov,cs in fli cliv,c lfi preventing a · peat ocC'l.lffence.
'f hi ploc,e o ig1nall~ lian in We, lt;j:J:'11 Cit Maga hne and Its a · .. rvl of' t.h l . thtum foli Loe ,] Gowrnm nt ([LG) Ethics Project. \Vhlch off . r our. oo puhU @l.hlc. :for focai] offmc.ials. F r morn .,nf rmatlou. v' H. \\l\'1.1 . • rn-Us. rs{tli· t.
ILG 1 g:ran fiu.] no~ indl idua.m for tlillir a sisM1we In pooparhig this articl@: llim :Pl!lmclfl .. mrecut,v,e diooctor. Oaklland Ethics Cmnmi 1on; Heather h od. s1stant dty antorooy. Long B~ch: J .tll'.l!mfor Sparacino. tit.y ma nag . Cht.y of Santa . Iara: and Ca , ol Mc:Carnhy. deputy d.ty manager. City of· Santa C:llara. C nfilo . :fut1(Hng for nh d@v,elopment o:f this ,coh.1m11 was pro ided by tlill [nt 1tat.l.onal City- ounty Management Ass.ociatio:n (]CMA) R@tlr@ment mpoiratlon (\\l\'i. • Jc.marc.o:r:g) . who · f! m a.on ' to ibuild retirnt-nefii ocurrlty :for the IP bU . s t r.
1:ndnote:
1 Natlmtal Ccmfi rai:ic of cS.a: · Leg~lat ~'i. l!'.ilnlc. C001ml1jl!rf!_ aoo 11 C:'i. Co:mmlHIO'.ll"i.! Win i'i tme D liff e11J ? Ava LJahle at hJt p: //WW!.\'. llC!lil. o rg/ p roe,; ms.le tli . 11 In 1s. lme Hf.ere m::e. him.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
REFERENCES
Bibliography
2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/If%20You%20Only%20Read% 20the%20Ballot%20You%20Are%20Being%20Duped.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2023.
2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Unsportsmanlike%20Conduct% 20-%20Santa%20Clara%20City%20Council.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2023.
California Fair Political Practices Commission. “About the FPPC.” 2024. (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/about-fppc.html). Accessed March 16, 2024.
California Fair Political Practices Commission. “Complaint and Case Information Portal.” Case numbers 2021-00559, 2021-00558. 2024.
(https://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/complaint-and-case-information-portal.html).
Accessed March 28, 2024.
California Fair Political Practices Commission. “Enforcement policy goals.” 2022. (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. “Response from the City of Santa Clara.” January 4, 2023.
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Unsportsmanlike%20Conduct% 20response%20-%20City%20of%20Santa%20Clara.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2024.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
This report was ADOPTED by the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2024.
______________________________
Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
p
f