REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on the City Council’s 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 July 9, 2024, the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations were presented to the City Council and staff requested input from the Council on the desired process for providing the City’s response. The Council directed staff to prepare draft responses to the Civil Grand Jury report, including a process and options for developing an ethics program for further Council input and direction at a meeting to be scheduled as soon as possible but no later than in time for a timely response to the Civil Grand Jury.
The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:
Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury finding:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Consistent with the Council’s July 9, 2024 action and Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council’s consideration and approval.
The City Council’s final responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 10, 2024. Individual Councilmembers who also received the Civil Grand Jury report with request for their response to certain findings and recommendations were provided a deadline to submit their responses by August 12, 2024.
DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only specific findings and recommendations require the City’s response. The report included a total of nine (9) findings and twenty-two (22) recommendations. Of these, the City, as an agency, has been directed to respond to eight (8) of the findings and nine (9) of the recommendations.
Individual Councilmember(s) were directed to respond to Findings 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 and 5 and Recommendations 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h, 2a, 2b, 2c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 5e. The findings and recommendations that do not require the City’s response as an agency are not included below.
A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” report can be found on pages 35-39 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website: <https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/irreconcilable-differences-santa-clara-city-council-final.pdf>.
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings that the City was directed to respond to:
Finding 1a
The working relationships among Councilmembers and the Mayor are broken.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. However, it is important to note that at every regular meeting of the City Council, most items that come before the body are approved unanimously and without contentious debate. Further, members of the City Council routinely attend ceremonial events and community celebrations at the same time and professionally represent the City.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that working relationships are broken and that long-standing grievances do impede the City Council’s ability to conduct business professionally in a number of areas.
Finding 1b
Some Councilmembers do not adhere to the City’s adopted ethical and behavioral standards while conducting City business on the dais.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding.
The City Council acknowledges that, on occasion, the behavior of the City Council (both collectively and individually) does not adhere to the behavioral standards outlined in the City’s policies.
Finding 1c
Councilmembers Becker and Park air petty grievances and engage in squabbles with other elected officials and constituents from the dais. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.
The City Council as a whole does not think it appropriate to call out specific Councilmembers as several members of the City Council have expressed grievances towards one another and constituents from the dais. Through their individual responses, some Council members have addressed this practice and their beliefs on how widespread it is. However, at this juncture and collectively, the City Council desires to simply state that such behavior is not appropriate.
Finding 2
Councilmembers Becker, Park, and Chahal do not understand and/or do not follow established parliamentary and meeting procedures. (As noted above, City staff has contacted the Civil Grand Jury to confirm if this item is intended for the City as an agency or the individual Councilmembers that are referenced.)
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees with the finding.
Through their individual responses, some Council members have addressed this finding. The City Council as a whole declines to comment on the extent to what individual Councilmembers may or may not “understand” parliamentary procedures. However, at this juncture and collectively, the City Council desires to state that compliance with parliamentary procedures is an important part of their collective and individual responsibilities.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, it is important to note that a request to override a decision of the Mayor as presiding officer of a meeting is provided for in Robert’s Rules of Order (See Robert’s Rules of Order sections 23 and 24).
Finding 3
Some Councilmembers do not uphold their responsibility to conduct the City’s business professionally and efficiently.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.
The City Council acknowledges that, on occasion, the behavior of the City Council (both collectively and individually) does not adhere to best practices for conducting City business in a professional and efficient manner.
Finding 4
Some Councilmembers have become preoccupied by personal and political vendettas resulting in verbal attacks, mocking, and disparaging members of the public and community volunteers from the dais without consequence. Councilmembers have ignored the public’s request to address their behaviors.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the finding.
As a body, the City Council does not believe that it is appropriate to provide an opinion on the motivations for individual Council members' actions. We agree that verbal attacks, mocking, and disparaging remarks have been made by several Councilmembers, and that this is not appropriate behavior.
Finding 6
There has not been an employee satisfaction survey since 2019.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the finding.
Finding 7
City staff is exceptionally professional, well prepared, and consistently maintains their composure regardless of behaviors exhibited by the Council. Staff’s behavior is a model for the Council.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the finding.
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations that the City was directed to respond to:
Recommendation 1a
The City should hire a conflict resolution professional and adopt robust conflict resolution training strategies. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.
The City is working to identify an appropriate conflict resolution professional or firm that has experience with elected bodies. The City intends to structure the training in two parts: First, a one-on-one session that will be offered to each Council member, followed by a group session with the entire City Council.
Implementation of this resolution may not be feasible by October 1, given the City’s procurement and contracting timelines. Further, with the impending City Council election that will occur on November 5, 2024, it will be appropriate and cost-efficient for this training to occur in early 2025.
Recommendation 1b
Councilmember Park should attend one-on-one conflict resolution training so he can learn to behave in a manner reflective of an elected official. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council can benefit from conflict resolution training.
As noted in the response to Recommendation 1a, “the City is working to identify an appropriate conflict resolution professional or firm that has experience with elected bodies. The City intends to structure the training in two parts: First, a one-on-one session that will be offered to each Council member, followed by a group session with the entire City Council.
Implementation of this resolution may not be feasible by October 1, given the City’s procurement and contracting timelines. Further, with the impending City Council election that will occur on November 5, 2024, it will be appropriate and cost-efficient for this training to occur in early 2025.”
Recommendation 2a
Councilmember Becker should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council should attend training in parliamentary procedures. This is especially true given that the Governance and Ethics Committee is recommending that the Council amend its Meeting Management Protocols and transition from a system based on Robert’s Rules of Order to a system based on Rosenburg’s Rules of Order, with modifications tailored to confirm with other City Council adopted and desired policies. See response to Recommendation 3.
Given the City Council election occurring on November 5, 2024, the training will be timed to coincide with the new Council member onboarding process in early 2025 but will be offered to all Council members.
Recommendation 2b
Councilmember Park should pledge to attend trainings in parliamentary procedures so that his behavior is more reflective of an elected who is dedicated to the electorate. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council should attend training in parliamentary procedures. This is especially true given that the Governance and Ethics Committee is recommending that the Council amend its Meeting Management Protocols and transition from a system based on Robert’s Rules of Order to a system based on Rosenburg’s Rules of Order, with modifications tailored to confirm with other City Council adopted and desired policies. See response to Recommendation 3.
Given the City Council election occurring on November 5, 2024, the training will be timed to coincide with the new Council member onboarding process in early 2025 but will be offered to all Council members.
Recommendation 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.
Draft Response
The City Council disagrees partially with the recommendation in that we believe all members of the City Council should attend training in parliamentary procedures. This is especially true given that the Governance and Ethics Committee is recommending that the Council amend its Meeting Management Protocols and transition from a system based on Robert’s Rules of Order to a system based on Rosenburg’s Rules of Order, with modifications tailored to confirm with other City Council adopted and desired policies. See response to Recommendation 3.
Given the City Council election occurring on November 5, 2024, the training will be timed to coincide with the new Council member onboarding process in early 2025 but will be offered to all Council members.
Recommendation 3
The City should adopt the formal resolution for Meeting Management Procedures developed and presented by staff to the Governance and Ethics Committee meeting on December 4, 2023. This resolution would tie meeting procedures to the City Code of Ethics and Values, and Behavioral Standards for Public Meetings, codify rules regarding respectful and professional language on the dais, and initiate more productive meetings to keep the Council and public focused on City business. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.
At their July 2, 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee, the Committee heard an item entitled “Review Meeting Management Protocol Options and Rosenberg's Rules of Order and Provide Direction to Staff”. At the meeting, direction was provided to return to the committee with a Meeting Management Protocol based on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
The item is currently scheduled to go before the Governance Committee for discussion and adoption on September 16, 2024.
Recommendation 4a
The City should establish an Independent Ethics Commission to oversee the behavior of Councilmembers and to ensure they model positive engagement with the public and reclaim the public’s trust. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.
However, as noted in the Civil Grand Jury’s report, there are several models for how to structure and appoint members to an Independent Ethics Commission. The City will release an RFP by October 1, 2024, to solicit assistance from a qualified consultant to identify options and best practices for the structure, powers and duties for such commissions, with a goal of establishing this body in 2025.
Recommendation 4b
The City should hire an Independent Ethics professional and adopt robust ethics training strategies supported by policy. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.
In March 2024, the City conducted a solicitation for a vendor to perform a review of the City’s ethics documents per Council direction. The law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore was selected, and their work is ongoing. The scope of work was based on the City Council direction to hire consultant for the review of existing City Ethics documents (e.g., Behavioral Standards of City Councilmembers and Code of Ethics and Values). In addition, the scope includes developing recommendations for improvements based on review and benchmarking; a presentation and engagement with Governance and Ethics Committee on recommended changes; (and); a presentation to City Council based on Governance and Ethics Committee review.
The City anticipates Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to present its work/ findings to the Governance Committee in October 2024. Any amendments will require City Council approval. Training on new/amended ethics policies will occur following their implementation, which is anticipated to occur in Spring 2025.
Recommendation 4c
All Councilmembers should participate in regular training and counseling with an established outside entity that specializes in government ethics to implement training seminars and workshops for Councilmembers to learn how to maintain collegiality on the dais by using proven techniques and best practices to avoid tense exchanges, bad behavior, misconduct, and incivility, and how the rest of the Council can positively influence the behaviors effectively. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should be ongoing.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation and it will be implemented.
Implementation of this resolution may not be feasible by October 1, given the City’s procurement and contracting timelines. Further, with the impending City Council election that will occur on November 5, 2024, it will be appropriate and cost-efficient for this training to occur in early 2025.
Historically, the City has covered the cost for a few members of the City Council to attend the Cal Cities “Mayors and Council Members Academy.” The academy is held annually, but the City has not allocated sufficient funds for all Councilmembers to attend if they desire to do so. Going forward, the staff will include sufficient funds in the proposed budget for all Council members to attend the annual academy. The next sessions are scheduled for January 22-24, 2025, and January 29-31, 2025.
According to Cal Cities, “Whether you’re a new mayor or city council member, or you’ve been serving your community for years, this academy is for you. The academy covers the legal, financial, and practical fundamentals to your job as an elected city official. Just as vital, you’ll have opportunities to foster relationships with your peers.” Specific to this recommendation, prior Cal Cities Mayors and Council Members Academies have included sessions on:
• Understanding Public Service Ethics Laws and Principles: AB 1234 Training
• Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors and Officials (AB 1661)
• Developing an Effective City Council and Manager Team - Key to Good Governance and City Success
• Your Legal Powers and Obligations
• Open Government and Conflicts of Interest
Note: In the fall of 2023, the City Attorney’s office conducted a 3-hour, in person AB 1234 training with the City Council. In addition to a majority of Councilmembers, more than 80 City staff members and members of the public attended. Topics included: ethics generally, local City ethics policies, conflicts of interest, gift limitations, disclosure requirements, Open Meeting laws (Brown Act) and Public Records Act laws. An updated version of this training will again be provided by the City Attorney’s office sometime in the fall of 2024.
Recommendation 6
The City should conduct an annual employee satisfaction survey, administered by a third party, which can be answered anonymously. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2024, and should occur annually.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with this recommendation. The City conducted a procurement process and hired a third party to do an Employee Survey in 2018/2019 and agrees another Employee Survey is timely. Staff will conduct a procurement process with the goal of having an employee survey completed by late fall/early winter 2024.
Recommendation 7
The City should commend City staff for their exemplary work ethic and professionalism. This recommendation should be implemented by August 1, 2024.
Draft Response
The City Council agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented in September 2025 via a resolution that is placed before the City Council for adoption and then subsequently conveyed to all City staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense. However, implementation of certain contemplated recommendations may result in increased expense for the City, which will be addressed by budget action, if necessary.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Irreconcilable Differences: Santa Clara City Council” and direct the City Attorney/Authority Counsel to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council/Stadium Authority direction.
2. Authorize the Stadium Authority Chair to submit the City/Stadium Authority’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney/Authority Counsel, to the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 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”