RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTION
RE: January 13, 2026 AGENDA
Item 3.E 26-1652: Action on Appointments to City Committees and Outside Agency Committees for the 2026 Calendar Year
Comment: Looks like there are some typos in the following council item: 3.E 26-1652 Action on Appointments to City Committees and Outside Agency Committees for the 2026 Calendar Year
Couple of assignments are typo/wrong in staff report but correct in the attached list in the agenda item.
Also the total # of assignments are wrong in staff report, unless you have added some other additional assignments. Can you please look into this and if need be please get it corrected with city clerk.
Response: Due to an administrative error, the assignment count is inaccurate and has been corrected.
The corrected attachment for the item is attached and is labeled as Attachment A.
The revised committee counts are as follows:
Member Total
Committee
Assignments
Total Alternate
Assignments
Total
Assignments
(Committee &
Alternate
Combined)
Mayor Lisa Gillmor 4 3 7
Councilmember Albert
Gonzalez
6 3 9
Councilmember Raj
Chahal
9 4 13
Councilmember Karen
Hardy
10 4 14
Councilmember Kevin
Park
7 5 12
Councilmember Suds
Jain
6 6 12
Councilmember Kelly G.
Cox
5 1 6
Item 5.A 26-1756: Action on Recommendations from Governance and Ethics Committee for Updates to Council Policy 043 ("Official Travel by City Councilmembers") DEFERRED FROM DECEMBER 16, 2025 MEETING
Question 1: For Item 3M, please describe how the Council travel policy review originated and advanced.
Specifically, who initiated the review, what prompted examination of councilmember travel allowances, and how the item was selected for committee and Council agendas.
Response: As part of the Governance and Ethics workplan, staff routinely reviews all City Council policies for any updates. Staff has been directed to conduct a comprehensive review of all City Council policies. In prioritizing this work, staff considered both urgency and recurring questions arising from the application of existing policies, particularly where language is vague or ambiguous. The Travel Policies were identified as a priority, for both the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
During the review of travel reimbursement requests, the Auditor’s Office has raised multiple questions due to a lack of clarity in the current policy.
2 The Travel Policy has been identified as such, primarily for Boards, Commissions and Committees. As travel receipts are submitted to the Auditor’s Office for review, the Auditor’s staff has come back to staff with several questions in different instances because the existing policy is not clear. In reviewing this policy, we also took a closer look at the Council policy and identified similarities, so we decided to update both policies.
Additionally, as part of the 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee workplan, Councilmember Jain noted the Travel Policy be reviewed and updated to address the receipt of frequent flyer miles or other travel rewards (such as airline, hotel, or vendor loyalty points).
Because there is overlap and similarities between the two policies, staff elected to update both policies concurrently.
Both draft policies were presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee on September 8, 2025.
Question 2: I would like staff to provide a detailed breakdown of councilmember travel expenditures for the last full fiscal year (July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025), itemized by councilmember? Please include the conference or event name, location, dates, total cost, cost categories, and funding source. Based on this information, was the existing policy followed, and if not, how was any variance addressed? How many times did more than 2 council members attend the same conferences?
Response: The following table summarizes the travel conducted by Council member during Fiscal Year 24/25.
Question 3: Based on this spending data, how does staff assess the return on investment of councilmember travel? Specifically, how is public benefit evaluated, documented, and weighed against the costs borne by taxpayers?
Response: The City Council has approved the Bi-Annual Operating Budget, which includes Mayor and Council Travel funding.
Conference, Training, Event Dates Location Councilmember Total Expenses Account Reference 2024 NCPA Commission Meeting 7/23 - 7/25/2024 Murphys, CA Suds Jain 242.47$ SVP funded 2024 NCPA Annual Conference 9/25 - 9/27/2024 Napa, CA Suds Jain 2,574.51$ SVP funded 2024 Calcities Annual Conference 10/15 - 10/18/2024 Long Beach, CA Kevin Park $ 2,077.41 Mayor & Council 2024 NLC City Summit 11/12 - 11/16/2024 Tampa, FL Kevin Park 2,444.98$ Mayor & Council 2025 NCPA Strategic Issues
Conference
1/21 - 1/23/2025 Sacramento, CA Suds Jain 664.00$ SVP funded 2025 Conference of Mayors 1/16 - 1/20/2025 Washington, D.C. Lisa Gillmor $ 5,835.62 Mayor & Council 2025 Mayors & Councilmembers
Academy
1/22 - 1/24/2025 Sacramento, CA Kelly Cox $ 1,486.78 Mayor & Council 2025 Mayors & Councilmembers
Academy
1/22 - 1/24/2025 Sacramento, CA Kevin Park $ 1,306.72 Mayor & Council 2025 Mayors & Councilmembers
Academy
1/22 - 1/24/2025 Sacramento, CA Albert Gonzalez $ 1,414.77 Mayor & Council 2025 NLC Congressional City
Conference
3/10 - 3/12/2025 Washington, D.C. Kevin Park $ 2,504.00 Mayor & Council 2025 CivicWell Policymakers
Conference
3/13 - 3/16/2025 Yosemite Valley Suds Jain $ 2,142.71 Mayor & Council 39th Icheon Ceramic Festival 4/22 - 4/28/2025 Icheon, Republic of Korea
Kevin Park $ 1,649.64 Mayor & Council 2025 NCPA/NWPPA Federal Policy
Conference
4/27 - 5/1/2025 Washington, D.C. Suds Jain 1,085.00$ SVP funded 2025 NCPA/NWPPA Federal Policy
Conference
4/27 - 5/1/2025 Washington, D.C. Raj Chahal $ 1,085.00 SVP funded 3 A summary of the funding for the last five years, including the budget for FY 26/27 is referenced below:
Fiscal Year Mayor and Council Travel
Budget
FY 21/22 $56,390
FY 22/23 $64,765
FY 23/24 $58,442
FY 24/25 $66,743
FY 25/26 $60,633
FY 26/27 $69,293
The City does not conduct a formal return-on-investment assessment for travel undertaken by a Councilmember. Instead, staff reviews travel requests to confirm that the proposed travel provides a benefit to the City and is directly related to matters within the City’s jurisdiction.
Question 4: Did the committee discuss how to measure or demonstrate public value from councilmember travel as part of the Item 3M review? If so, what standards or criteria were considered. If not, why was public benefit not a central element of the policy discussion?
Response: The existing and proposed Travel Policies were presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee for review and consideration, with the primary purpose of clarifying policy language and improving the administrative process.
As part of the City’s biannual operating budget process, the City Council has already approved funding for Councilmember travel; therefore, budgetary matters were not discussed.
The Committee did not discuss methods for measuring or demonstrating public value from Councilmember travel, as the scope of the discussion was limited to policy clarification and procedural consistency rather than evaluation of outcomes or public benefit metrics.
Question 5: What ethical issue or risk does staff believe the proposed policy changes are intended to address, and what specific concern elevated this item to an ethics-related review?
Response: The proposed policy changes were not made to address any ethical issues. The intent of the proposed revisions is to address accountability and compliance when traveling on City business.
The proposed policy changes were not initiated in response to a specific ethical issue or identified risk.
Rather, the intent of the revisions is to strengthen accountability and ensure consistent compliance with established requirements when traveling on City business. The item was presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee for review, consistent with other Council policies, and not as a result of any identified ethical concern or violation.
Question 6: What documented problem or limitation under the current policy led to removing numerical limits on councilmember travel, and are there examples where existing caps impeded a legitimate City purpose?
Response: The proposed policy revisions remove the limitation on the number of Councilmembers who may attend in-state, out-of-state, or international events. Staff reviewed other policies for neighboring jurisdictions, including Fremont, San Jose, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale and some of these agencies did not include a limitation and provided more flexibility.
Instead of a numerical limit, the revised policy establishes clear criteria to guide approval when multiple Councilmembers request attendance at the same event. These criteria include relevance to committee or legislative assignments, the order in which requests are submitted, budget availability, and 4 compliance with Brown Act quorum requirements. This approach allows staff to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis while maintaining operational and legal safeguards.
For example, if multiple Councilmembers request travel to an event that conflicts with a scheduled Council meeting, staff would not approve all requests in order to ensure that a quorum is maintained and the meeting can proceed as scheduled.
Additionally, the City has received invitations from its Sister Cities, including Icheon and Izumo. Under the prior policy, participation was limited to three Councilmembers regardless of interest or circumstance. The revised policy provides greater flexibility to allow additional Councilmembers to attend when appropriate and when doing so serves a legitimate City purpose, subject to the established approval criteria.
Question 7: How does staff define “ethical guardrails” for policies governing elected officials, and how do the proposed changes strengthen those guardrails while maintaining public trust?
Response: In developing or revising policies applicable to City employees or elected officials, staff defines “ethical guardrails” as clear, enforceable standards that promote transparency, accountability, legal compliance, and responsible use of public resources. This includes evaluating best practices, reviewing comparable policies from neighboring jurisdictions, and ensuring consistency with applicable laws and regulations.
The proposed policy revisions strengthen these ethical guardrails by clarifying administrative procedures related to travel, further defining types of travel, lodging, meals, and transportation. By improving clarity and accountability in the approval and reimbursement process, the revisions help safeguard public trust while ensuring that travel conducted on City business is appropriately reviewed and administered.
Question 8: Why does the proposed policy allow councilmembers to retain travel rewards earned through City-funded travel, and how is this aligned with principles intended to avoid personal benefit from public spending? Would staff recommend the same approach for non-elected employees, and if not, why different standards apply?
Response: The proposed policy allows Councilmembers to retain travel rewards earned through City travel in order to maintain consistency with existing City practices applicable to employees. The City currently permits employees to retain airline miles, hotel points, and similar travel rewards earned in the course of authorized City travel, and staff recommended applying the same standard to elected officials and members of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
The City previously prohibited the retention of such rewards; however, that approach was administratively difficult to manage on a citywide basis. In practice, the City had limited ability to control or track when travel rewards were automatically issued by airlines, hotels, or vendors at the time of booking or hotel check-in.
Allowing retention of travel rewards is not intended to create a personal benefit from public spending but rather reflects the practical limitations of administering and enforcing a prohibition. The policy continues to require that travel itself be pre-approved, related to a legitimate City purpose, and conducted in compliance with all applicable requirements.
Question 9: Does staff view the proposed changes in Item 3M as administrative clarifications or as substantive ethical policy changes, and how was the level of public deliberation determined?
Response: Staff views the proposed changes as administrative clarifications rather than substantive ethical policy changes. The revisions are intended to improve clarity regarding travel procedures and 5 approval requirements, and to strengthen accountability for expenses incurred during City business travel, without altering underlying ethical standards or expectations.
Consistent with the City’s established policy development process, the proposed revisions were first presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee for review and consideration. The item is subsequently scheduled for consideration by the City Council on January 13, providing an additional level of public deliberation and transparency prior to any final action.
Question 10: How has staff considered the public trust implications of loosening restrictions on councilmember travel while the City is exercising restraint in other areas, including employee compensation and utility rate increases?
Response: While the changes provide additional flexibility, they do not diminish oversight. The revised policy maintains clear approval, documentation, and compliance requirements to ensure that travel is undertaken for legitimate City business and subject to appropriate administrative review. The intent of the revisions is to improve clarity and consistency in how travel is managed and reviewed, while continuing to uphold transparency and accountability in the use of City resources.