REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Discussion, Consideration, and Direction to Staff Regarding Actions to be Taken in Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council”
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2024, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” (Civil Grand Jury report) (Attachment 1). The Civil Grand Jury report includes various findings and recommendations. California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days on the specified findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.
On June 18, 2024, the City Clerk’s Office received a Council Written Petition (Council Policy 030) from Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe requesting an item be placed on a future Council agenda regarding the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” for a public discussion on the Civil Grand Jury report, the findings, and possible Council actions (Attachment 2). That item was agendized to be heard at the June 25, 2024 Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council unanimously approved the matter to be agendized for the July 9, 2024 City Council meeting.
This report presents the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations and solicits Council input on the desired process for providing the City’s response. The City’s responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 10, 2024. Individual Councilmembers also received the Civil Grand Jury report with request for their response to certain findings and recommendations by August 12, 2024.
DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only specific findings and recommendations require the City’s response. The report included a total of nine (9) findings and twenty-two (22) recommendations. Of these, the City, as an agency, has been directed to respond to eight (8) of the findings and nine (9) of the recommendations. Staff is currently seeking clarification from the Civil Grand Jury on whether Findings 1c and 2 and Recommendations 1b, 2a, 2b, and 2c are intended to be matters requiring City response as an agency, or if such findings and recommendations are more appropriate for individual responses by the individuals named therein.
A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” report can be found on pages 35-39 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website: <https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/irreconcilable-differences-santa-clara-city-council-final.pdf>.
Civil Grand Jury Findings
The Civil Grand Jury report findings requiring a City response are as follows:
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. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Finding 2
Councilmembers Becker, Park, and Chahal do not understand and/or do not follow established parliamentary and meeting procedures. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Finding 3
Some Councilmembers do not uphold their responsibility to conduct the City’s business professionally and efficiently.
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.
Finding 6
There has not been an employee satisfaction survey since 2019.
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.
Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury finding:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
The Civil Grand Jury recommendations requiring a City response are as follows:
Recommendation 1a
The City should hire a conflict resolution professional and adopt robust conflict resolution training strategies. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Recommendation 1b
Councilmember Park should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training so he can learn to behave in a manner reflective of an elected official. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmember that is referenced.)
Recommendation 2a
Councilmember Becker should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmember that is referenced.)
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. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmember that is referenced.)
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. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmember that is referenced.)
Recommendation 3
The City should adopt the formal resolution for Meeting Management Procedures developed and presented by staff to the Governance and Ethics Committee meeting on December 4, 2023. This resolution would tie meeting procedures to the City Code of Ethics and Values, and Behavioral Standards for Public Meetings, codify rules regarding respectful and professional language on the dais, and initiate more productive meetings to keep the Council and public focused on City business. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Recommendation 4a
The City should establish an Independent Ethics Commission to oversee the behavior of Councilmembers and to ensure they model positive engagement with the public and reclaim the public’s trust. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.
Recommendation 4b
The City should hire an Independent Ethics professional and adopt robust ethics training strategies supported by policy. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Recommendation 4c
All Councilmembers should participate in regular training and counseling with an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics to implement training seminars and workshops for Councilmembers to learn how to maintain collegiality on the dais by using proven techniques 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.
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.
Recommendation 7
The City should commend City staff for their exemplary work ethic and professionalism. This recommendation should be implemented by August 1, 2024.
Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Process for Response
In 2022, the City Council had a duty to respond to two Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports entitled “If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped,” dated October 7, 2022 and “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council,” dated October 10, 2022. The City's transmittal and response process for the two 2022 Grand Jury reports is described below:
• The two reports were transmitted to the City Council as part of the October 18, 2022 agenda.
• On November 16, 2022, the Council considered the October 10, 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council”, provided comments on Council-related findings and recommendations, and directed staff to prepare draft comments and responses on operation-related findings all of which to be brought back, working with the City Attorney’s Office, for timely Council approval.
• On December 8, 2022, the Council considered the draft comment for the “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council” Civil Grand Jury report, provided direction on certain recommendations, approved the final version of the draft response, authorized the Mayor/Board Chair to submit the Council/Board’s response, subject only to technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications prepared by the City Attorney’s Office, to the Presiding Judge no later than January 9, 2023, and directed the inclusion of a cover memo to the Civil Grand Jury report response stating the decision was not unanimous.
• Separately, on December 8, 2022, the Council approved a draft response prepared by staff regarding operational matters to the Civil Grand Jury report entitled “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”
Now, with respect to the “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” Civil Grand Jury report, staff is requesting that the Council provide direction on the process it would like to follow to develop the City’s required responses by September 10, 2024. Consistent with prior Council direction and input for Civil Grand Jury Reports, staff is prepared to draft an initial response to the Civil Grand Jury report for each item that relates to the City as an entity. We are prepared to bring the draft responses to the City Council for your review and possible approval at the August 20, 2024 Council Meeting or at a special meeting, if necessary based on the City Council’s business calendar and the extent of Council input received at the July 9 Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report except for administrative time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Provide direction on the desired process to develop the City’s responses for the specified findings and recommendations outlined in the June 12, 2024 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” in time to be submitted to the Civil Grand Jury by the required response date of September 10, 2024.
Staff
Reviewed and approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager and Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS
1. Civil Grand Jury Report: “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council”
2. Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe’s June 18, 2024 Council Written Request