Oversight Board Committee - Regular Meeting

Excellent.

Okay, as noted, this meeting will be recorded. The Zoom application will notify you that this meeting is being recorded. Please press continue on the Zoom application to stay in the meeting. Use the raise your hand feature in Zoom when you would like to speak on an item and also to lower your hand when you're finished speaking. Please unmute when called to speak and mute yourself when you are done speaking. If you are calling in by phone, identify yourself by name before speaking on an item. Press star nine on your phone to raise and lower your hand. Press star six if you are participating by phone to unmute. So this is the call to order for the June 17th meeting of the Charter Review Committee. Will staff please call roll?

Holly Roberts. Pat Nicolai.

Here.

Bernard Tansey. Muhammad Naveed. Yes. John Brooks.

Here.

Joseph Zinski. Eric Crouchlow.

Here.

Burt Field. Here. Steve Kelly.

Here.

Lauren Diamond.

Here.

Eric Jensen. Mark Beckman.

Here.

Susan Peters. Here. Thank you.

Do we have someone participating remotely?

Yes, this is me, Lauren.

We're thinking my mic might be working better and it is. I'm not as echoey. Lauren, just wanted to confirm that you are there alone and that there's no one else of 18 or older present, and that if that does, those circumstances do change, you would notify us. Yes, to all of that. Yeah, and Lauren is participating. Her location wasn't identified in the agenda. She's participating based on for-cause exemption due to illness. Is that correct, Lauren?

That's correct. Thank you.

Excellent.

Good evening. My name is Pat Nicolai, and I'm the chair of the Charter Review Committee. On behalf of the committee, welcome to today's meeting. At this time, please turn off or mute all electronic devices, including cell phones, that may interrupt the meeting. And we will jump into our general business. And the first item of general business is report out on council feedback and direction, if any, from their June 9th and June 15th discussions regarding the Charter Review Committee final report and recommendation and possible CRC direction on any unnecessary appropriate next steps. And I know there's a staff report, but before we do the staff report, I was wondering if we could get some feedback from any of the charter review members that were present, if anybody wanted to give any feedback.

It's not suitable for work. Yeah, and there is a point during the presentation to Mr. Chair for that as well, after I give my readout, I was gonna invite that. Then Glen, the floor is yours. Very good, thank you.

First slide.

John Pimentel, As the group knows, since your meeting. John Pimentel, On June 3 there's actually been to. John Pimentel, City Council sessions on this subject, the first one occurred on June 9. John Pimentel, It was a study session which. for those of you unfamiliar with that, is usually a presentation on a topic that's expected to take some time where no action is contemplated or agendized. And it's really to have The substance of a matter presented, you know, and receive, you know, questions and initial feedback from the city council and expectation of future action, you know, that they might take. And so this item was presented in that context, scheduled from 530 to 7. It took pretty much all of that. As you recall, on June 3rd, you designated some CRC members to assist both with the the finalization of your formal report and the presentation of this item. Very nice attendance of that group, including members Diamond, Peters, Roberts, and Crutchlow from that group with I think some additional participation from them and at least attendance from member Kelly and maybe member Brooks was there as well. John, were you there at that first meeting too? So that was nice and those folks were introduced as well as appreciation for the CRC members generally. There was a initial staff presentation. It included a description of the charter project origins, charter project purpose as reflected most expressly in the adopted bylaws themselves, the process that the CRC went through in order to implement the charter project, including a good amount of time spent on explaining to them that the ad hoc subcommittee formation, both process and function as the working groups, talked about the variety of forms of benchmarking that were used as part of the process, the identified stakeholders and how stakeholder input was solicited and received. We talked about the levels that categorize the various changings, the proposed changes, and then the results of this process with the description of the charter-wide proposed changes, the reorganization that was proposed, and at least started on the section by section presentation of the recommended changes. And we got about halfway through the group three groups recommendations on their section. In addition, hot off the presses, because I think it was finalized that very day, with some input from the group. The charter project final report was distributed and ultimately uploaded to the charter review projects website. At that point, really just a handful of questions were asked and answered. There wasn't much time after the presentation because the regular council meeting needed to start at seven o'clock and presented to them was the, the next steps for the June 15th meeting and beyond with, of course, the idea that the presentation would continue and be completed with the possibility of action at that June 15th or at least direction at that June 15th meeting with the communicated in effect deadline for council action being their July 14th meeting, if they were going to act and place this on the ballot prior to their summer recess. Next slide. Oh, you were already there. June 15th was a special meeting, which after a closed session item at six o'clock began at 630. I think it went to around 1130. That's an approximate time. Does that seem right to everybody? 1145, however long it was, it seemed like longer. And that was a meeting dedicated to this subject, right? And so, We had the very nice turnout of the designated CRC members again that were there and some others in addition to that designated presentation group, along with at this point, because the expectation is there would be time for a lot of questions about the various aspects of this. There was also a good range of city staff that were on hand, including representatives from the city manager's office, public works, finance department, HR, Silicon Valley Power, even the library director was there. And of course, Sue there, thank you to available both to provide support on question and answers and present on the group five section, the civil service sections. The staff presentation included some introductory remarks and thanks again to all the various people involved in this pretty extraordinary project. I gave a recap of the June 9th and then presented on the balance of the charter update, starting with slide 30, all the way through to the end. At this point, the council questions were much more robust, which is typical for them on a major issue. Every one of them had multiple questions. The public comment was there, but light. And then, and this might be a good place after this to, well, I talk about some of the questions and concerns that were raised in the next couple of slides, and then maybe for some supplemental input, Mr. Chair and your discretion and discretion of the members, if they wanted to add that. But in summary, after all of the concerns were expressed and the questions were answered, there were actually actions that were taken. And in summary, there was an action on a 4-3 vote to approve level one and level two changes to be prepared and tendered back to them for final action on July 14th. One of those, I think, votes was supportive of level one and level two changes. wanted more time to evaluate the changes with everyone acknowledging this was a lot, right? And they had just gotten the report and had received a good amount of presentation on it, but it's a lot, right? And with all the questions that they had. And then there was also unanimous approval for bringing back for further discussion, a possible standalone report measure regarding public works procurement update, including alternative procurement mechanisms that we spent some time, you know, talking about at that presentation. Next slide. This is a very summary version of the council questions and concerns that were raised. I'll go through them pretty quickly and won't touch on the details of the answer, because as all you know who either watched or were present, this was a pretty extensive interaction. But just to capture the gist and maybe high points of the comments and questions that were raised, One of the themes was, hey, there's a lot of ordinances and policies that are still to be developed. When will that be done? What rules were governed in the meantime while those policies are being developed? And how can the public know and trust what we're going to do with these policies not being described? I still have to do the count or talk to a member Cox, how she came up with this number. She identified 18 of these. I don't remember us adding 18. I mean, there might be any number of things like that that already exist in the charter, right? That contemplate additional policies and ordinances to be implemented. what I tried to communicate and maybe did so, you know, ham handedly is by its very nature, the charter is a document that contemplates and needs additional ordinances and policies, you know, to implement it just like the U S you know, the charter, as you recall, is our constitution, just like the U S constitution, which is a pamphlet. There are, rooms full of rules that implement the U.S. Constitution's provision and roomfuls more of regulations to that. We don't quite have roomfuls, but our Constitution also needs further definition and details and contemplates that in a variety of different places already. The idea that that would be a natural process as opposed to some artificial, how can we do this kind of thing in proposing these changes? I tried to at least explain to that. The idea of when that will be done is in due course with staff's ability to develop those things, but with the understanding that of the really highest priority things, if in fact, a proposal was made for a update to the public works procurement system given how important that was and how important the pending projects were that would be implemented by that that would be a prioritized effort in order to develop that ordinance and get that adopted as soon as possible the rules that would govern in the meantime was something we thought about there's actually a provision if you remember in the miscellaneous sections of the charter that addresses that that the rules in place and or general law city rules that apply would govern in the meantime while those policies were being created? And how can the public know, trust what we're going to do? a certain extent again like with every provision in the charter the charter contemplates all sorts of rules and policies and the benefit of adding something to the charter that defines that that a policy is going to be needed for that and in some cases provides details about what's going to go into that policy is intended to give you know and communicate to the public how those things would be implemented There was a lot of questions and a desire for clarity around the proposed levels. One of the thrusts of the conversation was I thought there wasn't going to be anything controversial. And that of course is true and untrue. The idea that, and what one person decides is controversial as opposed to what another person decides is controversial, you know, is part of that dynamic. But as you all recall, as part of this process, It was always contemplated that there would be a top to bottom review of the charter. There wouldn't be any proposed major restructuring of government because that wasn't what the charter project contemplated. And that changes might be proposed that would be in sensitive areas and those sensitive areas would be identified. And so I really do think this group was very good about keeping that limitation and that purpose in mind, but there was some sense on at least a couple of members of the council that that controversial things were being tendered to them and they didn't think that that was appropriate. And of course, in the end, it's their decision and their discretion to decide either what's controversial or what's not and what goes before the borders and what doesn't and whether or not that ends up being part of the comprehensive proposal or a separate measure. by what criteria were level three issues identified was discussed. What are the city council's options and CRC recommendations on these issues? That was presented, if you remember, the recommendation was that the level one and the level two changes should be presented as a comprehensive measure and such level three measures that the city council felt comfortable including as part of that comprehensive proposal. So that recommendation had been identified and was emphasized as what the CRC was thinking about. At the end of this discussion, there may be some discussions about how that might in light of council input and where they're at with it, how that might be refined as your recommendation. And then how our level one and level two issues I identified in the proposal as you'll recall, and as was presented, Anything that wasn't a level three proposal was a level one or level two proposal. There is some thought and we'll get to that about maybe making that more clear for the council members as if, you know, for example, be impossible to go line by line and sentence by sentence, you know, in the charter, but at least to give some meaningful examples of what a level two or level one, you know, proposal is versus a level two proposal. And maybe even because there's a couple of different categories of level two proposals, what those different categories are. So just a part of the thought process. What about ethics and transparency? What was the thought process in not recommending an ethics commission that was answered and presented? And as you recall there, that's pretty well described both in the report final report and in one of the annotations next to that section why is the crc recommending eliminating advanced notice of ordinance adoptions and consequences for unexcused absences and councilman interference part of that is when they review the underlying strikeout version things are struck out but it doesn't mean those are gone it means they're handled in another section um and so part of that is just diving in and getting familiar with know what what the overall recommendation is and where it ended up why was there no public outreach um that was a hard one right because you can always do more um of that but uh the the attempt was made to emphasize just how public this process you know really was um and um but how, because there wasn't a dramatic amount of public involvement in providing input into the process, how public education, if this does end up getting put on the ballot is just crucial to making sure the voters really do understand what's being put before them. And we can talk about that. And we did talk about that in some level of detail as a possible program for communication to the public on that. One thing I wanted to note and correct a little bit, I think in the report, and I'll take responsibility for this, under described the amount of press coverage there was of this. There were more stories probably than I even appreciated for it. I think the report described, you know, the press reports as occasional, but I think even member Jane listed the number of articles that had been written. And I think if there's additional information that's going to be, that could be provided to the council to make them feel more comfortable with how much, you know, public awareness there really was of this. I think a single sheet that summarizes all of the involved, all the public meetings that there were, how much information was put on the website, when that was put on the website, what articles actually were written about it, you know, can give them some comfort while this may not have filled the chambers, you know, for input. There was in fact, public awareness and communications to the public about what went on. how do we make sure modernization doesn't reduce oversight? I think that was in some respects a rhetorical question and it requires a little bit of investment into the charter itself. I endeavored to point out the different sections of the charter that were proposed that actually added transparency and oversight and ethical standards, both in the individual city council member duties and obligations section in the enhanced public notice policy and other policy contemplated, but a good one, you know, oriented towards, you know, transparency. And so there were things that were done. There really wasn't, transparency and oversight eliminated, you know, from this in any substantive way, if anything, there were things that were added, you know, to that. And the advanced notice of the ordinance adoption was explained with the idea that there really isn't an elimination of advanced notice. It's just an advanced newspaper publication of a legal notice with in fact, public meetings being noticed for the two-step ordinance approval and a publication in a newspaper. In addition to that, after the fact, Anne has pointed out the additional requirement of legal notice, of the enhanced legal notice process. I'll go a little bit quicker because I don't want to get too bogged down in this. There were questions about the retained library authority that were addressed. Here listed how they maintain confidentially on a librarian hire. They can meet in closed session, you know, as a personnel matter. Are their approval rights final or can they be appealed to council? As proposed, their very limited approval rights are not appealable to council and are worked out between them and the appointed librarian. What was the thought process around removing and retaining the qualified elector status? And we talk about that, right? With the thought about it being important that the chartered commissions have that status and a desire for consistency with the ability for residents who aren't necessarily qualified electors able to participate given the flexible rules in the city council created boards and commissions. So it wasn't that those opportunities were foreclosed to them, it's just, they didn't include the charter commissions our proposed changes in the city managers transfer authority budget carry forward and amendment rules different from the current rules and process was very grateful to have ken lee um who's the master of all this and as the folks in the in group six will recall you know provided extensive you know input on why this all made sense and he did his usual very clear um job uh or provided very clear answers in response to that, that appeared to satisfy council concerns. They talked a little bit about the existing nuclear energy prohibition. Will that hamper SVPs ability to acquire nuclear power? We talked about that and explained that that wasn't a current urgent necessity and that they still could potentially have nuclear power sources, just not financed ownership of nuclear power facilities. What will the voters see and how can we better inform the voters? As you guys know, you spend a lot of time talking about this. What goes in front of the voters, right? Will, should the full text of the charter go in front of the voters? The thought was that would be, more than would be helpful, you know, in that a lot of that information would be linked and available on the city's website and better explained there. But there's nothing that prohibits the council from saying, hey, I want to put an actual full version of the charter, you know, in front of the voters. They may ultimately, you know, still decide to do that. I would probably recommend that the clean version, you know, be tendered. so that it not be as challenging as the underlying strikeout version is, again, still with the link, you know, to that additional information, but that was talked about. Should the city attorney draft the impartial analysis was discussed? What can the city do to better inform the voters? And you all talked about that. There's probably more discussions to occur about that to come in the future with some options of enhancing the website and even sending informational mailers and having public forums that some of you may be interested in populating because you can't seem to get enough of this project. Next slide, tell us more about the value of alternative procurement mechanisms and the terms of the proposed ordinance. We did actually have some, a couple of slides that were things that were discussed with the group, at least by the public works director, but hadn't been presented in this level of detail and slides. So we had some slides to share with the council that talked about that and how the ordinance would address a lot of the concerns that were addressed by the mayor. and won't get into the details of that, but we have those slides available here for you tonight if the rest of the group wants to see that and talk about that further. There was, Decent amount of discussion around the police provisions. Ultimately, those weren't included in the recommendations, but there was a question about how many police officers reside in the city and what happens if no one is qualified or a chief resigns. Answered those questions. It is true that there's a, given the nature of this and the requirement for residency, that there's a small number that qualify. The answer was nine, by the way. Member Beckman, I know you had asked about that at some point. The answer is currently nine. That doesn't answer the question of how many, other qualified law enforcement officials live in the city that currently work with other law enforcement agencies. We wouldn't have access to that information. So it's not like the pool's only nine, but there's only nine on the current group. of the 153 that are there. And the answer about what happens if no one's qualified or if the chief resigns, the rules that are developed for elected officials apply in this case too, right? A vacancy would be declared. There could be an appointment process. That appointee would need to meet those same qualifications in the charter. And then an election would be held forthwith. No, it doesn't say that any longer, but at the next statewide election.

Glenn, just real quickly, because that was one thing when I was watching the meeting that my general question is, is nine too small of a pool or, you know, assuming there are nine people, how many would actually want to run for police chief? I guess that's the question and that was my only concern.

Yeah, and again, a fair question. They're not taking that up right at this point. And I think even the subcommittee and the ultimate CRC recognized that that was a level four, level five, you know, or six, you know, the residency, you know, standard, you know, for that. And so that's a fair question that, you know, could warrant further analysis, but not with this recommendation. And this group, I think, is where everybody ended up, you know, on that. The, I'm sorry, so I've got, for what purpose were changes proposed for the chief of police knowing this was a controversial subject? This has seemed to be kind of a theme for some of them. How come you're proposing these controversial things? And as you, as the folks know who worked on this subcommittee and as this larger group knows, that, I'm sorry, things that were issues that create potential operational and interpretation issues for the charters were things that you took up from the beginning of the charter to the end, but with a recognition that hey, this may make sense, but we get that it's in a controversial area. And this was one of those, I believe, that everyone thought makes sense to make a recommendation on, right? The current list of the qualifications of the, not the qualifications, of the duties of the chief of police don't come close to describing the duties of the chief of police and the idea that That because it's expected that this is not a ceremonial position, but a professional position, that at least the designation of the chief of police, which already exists in the code, right, and is how the chief of police functions, would be elevated to the charter, seemed like a logical, you know, I'm in reasonable... make the charter consistent with current best practice type of recommendation. It just so happens it's within this controversial area. And so that was really the explanation of why it was addressed and presented that way. And I think some of them accepted that, but maybe not others as an explanation. In my rush to produce this, that issue is addressed a couple of times. It's not doubly important, but that question is posed twice on your slide here. So, And then the next couple slides are our next steps slide, Mr. Chair. So if there are other things I missed, or that there were themes or observations for folks who were there, either in person, in the splash zone, so to speak, or watching online, you know, about the different things that were done and what was done. And this would be a good time maybe to solicit that. And then we can get into next steps and potentially the additional direction that the CRC might provide for itself or might provide for staff as this project keeps marching forward and working towards an ultimate final council decision on July 14th. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

Oh, excellent. Yes. Does anybody that was there would like to make a comment?

I'll go ahead and start. I think that was a very good summary from city attorney. So I think overall, it was captured. I think one of the things that you said, which I'll just kind of emphasize, I really got the feeling. So the final vote for the first item in terms of moving forward with the level one and level two was a four to three vote. I was really hoping we would have a stronger support base for this. And I do think that some of the members really just weren't ready. We forget how much we have been looking at this and talking about it in such detail. And there are a lot of changes and we've assessed many of those changes as whether it's level one or level two. But to do their part, they do need to make sure they feel comfortable with that moving it forward. So I think, and this might get to some of the next steps, options that we can do that maybe we can help move some of the people, not just time, but maybe some tools we can give them to help them along.

I just wanted to add, having been the first meeting and then listening to the meeting this week, it's probably best to scrap anything that's level four or five and simplify it to the ones that are less controversial issues.

Testing, OK. First, in looking at how it was presented, I think this is a big package. We all know this because we've been living this. And I think for city council, maybe they were a bit surprised at how much we had done and what it took to actually present it. Definitely there were some council people that were very good at having read up on it extremely well, and I know others needed time and I can understand that. What I think is a takeaway for us, number one, the presentation and the questions that they had can show us some of the areas we need to do a better job at explaining. And I'll give you an example. Council Member Cox, a lot of ordinances and policies to be developed, and she said 18. And what I didn't quite understand from that comment was the fact that what we were doing was something that is, you know that the charter is very, very static. It's not going to change very often. but there are items that belong with things that are going on inside that, that should be ordinances because bottom line, if you set up an ordinance and you find that it's not working properly, you change it. It's very easy to change relatively speaking to saying, I need to change the charter. And so I think we did a good job of doing that saying, Hey, these things should be in an ordinance because they may need modification enhancement and stuff, you know, cause you may not get it right the first time. I mean, think about all the tasks that one does. And if you had to make sure you absolutely got it done right the first time, it would cause a lot of problems. So I think making sure that we identify that was one of them. Council Member Park had mentioned He didn't understand the level one, level twos and how they were decided. I can understand the aspect of wanting to make sure that the level ones and level twos are properly identified further to make sure that everybody knows what's going on. I think personally, I saw it as the reports that I had seen were okay. I understood them, but again, I'm probably a little tunnel vision because I've been here through the process. So number one, we should take a look at the questions that were asked again, and make sure that everything is clarified properly for them. But I will say that the public outreach, I had made a comment about like, I just don't think enough people really were here from the public and I wish there were more. but that wasn't me saying that we didn't do good outreach. I had this problem with the planning commission where we said, okay, we put these notices out to 500 feet of the area that is affected. And a lot of times we go back and saying, okay, let's push this item out and let's go 2000 because all of a sudden, you know, we just felt like, hey, there's a railroad or something, whatever, right? We took this to council one time and said, hey, we need better outreach. And after a significant amount of back and forth, the mayor said, look, the public's going to do what the public's going to do, and that's it. And we're good enough. Okay, I kind of get that sentiment, but I always feel like our statement of values is we do the good that we can for the people of Santa Clara. And all of us here are people of Santa Clara. So number one, I'm not too worried about the average. We've done the best I think we can, and people... They wanted to join in, great. If they didn't, then so be it. But that doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation that when we put this out to a vote, that we do the best that we can. And then finally, what I'll say is I very much believe in our statement of values and our ethics and our morals that we take along in doing this. And there were comments made at that last meeting that I take umbrage with. And I wanna make sure that this is well understood here. There were comments made about how we were structured and that subcommittee meetings were done in private. And there was concerns about that. I don't like assumptions made that we were trying to do bad. We were all trying to do good. And I would appreciate if the council would think about what was said and make a statement about it. Because it really, to me, smacked at what we, the effort that we put into this was being questioned. And also staff and their motivations were being questioned. I believe staff is doing the best job that they can. And they take their job very seriously. And quite honestly, I don't know if I could do this job. this is to me a very difficult position to take. Okay, so I'm not gonna go pontificate too much on this, but I wanna just say, look, you shouldn't be questioning the motives of people. And if you do, you better have something to back it because I feel really that that was not necessary to say. Thank you, Chair.

I'll keep it short. I too took offense at that for all of us and all of staff. But one thing that we talked about after the meeting was to give them examples of level one and level two changes. And I thought that was a good idea not to I thought maybe we could label everything but Glenn's eyes said no. Examples would be good.

And you'll see, you'll be happy to see that on the next slide when we talk about next steps. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think one of my takeaways and we can figure this out as a group, but each council member selected someone specifically and had someone from the lotto to be on this panel. So it is the public speaking. And so it's kind of, how do we get that message across? Because we're all here out of different areas and doing the right thing for the betterment of the city. And I think that communication needs to come through.

A couple of it.

Also, yes, I did not like that inference, but just to be clear, it was not across the board of all members. So just wanted to make that clear.

CoB, Jay Sugnetthi Rao, Excellent well if no other comments, why don't we go on to actually we could see, is there any member of the public or or lauren if anybody else wants to make a comment on this. CoB, Jay Sugnetthi Rao, Oh yeah next steps.

CoB, Lauren Bigelow, I mean, I agree with everything that's been said by everyone else it's, I think that this Council. CoB, Lauren Bigelow, has some difficulties in their relationships with each other, and I think that was reflected and, unfortunately. kind of came back at us, but I don't think it was a reflection of what we did. I think it's just kind of how they are.

So I'll turn it back to Glenn then for. Yeah, thank you.

If I might just an observation that I might make, obviously, even closer on the front row of the splash zone, you know, and all of it. The And I think you've made this comment and they all made this comment and I just agree with it. Because of how involved we've all been with this and for so long, we do need to recognize that it's a lot for this council to absorb and take action on without letting it sit a little bit with them. And if some of you saw me there kind of struggling, you know, with not wanting to be too directive, right, in what my recommendation, you know, was at the end, I acknowledged of that and even tried to, when there was motions and seconds made, you know, to encourage maybe even slowing that down, right? And giving the folks that hadn't caught up yet, you know, an opportunity to get comfortable with it as opposed to having, you know, a vote that suggested opposition, you know, in a division when in fact it was just varying degrees of comfort level, you know, with where, you know, we were. And I completely understood that. The thing I was defensive of and hopefully not in any untoward way and a couple of you have mentioned it already, was really the integrity of the process, which in a couple of instances was impugned, you know, in ways that I thought, you know, were unfair, and particularly because of how thoughtful kind of professional staff tried to be, and you all were in developing a process, right, that was aligned with the express purposes adopted in the bylaws, was constantly aware of and reminding each other of, okay, well, what's the public gonna think about that? Are we fixing a problem or are we fixing something that's not a problem? Is this, even though this makes sense, is this a sensitive area, right? That we should identify and elevate as a level three thing, make sure we've got public input. It really was a process that I thought was high quality and that the way that all of you across the spectrum of every district and across the spectrum of the, maybe the political divide on the council, were engaging it in such a professional project-oriented way. I didn't want to be lost in the shuffle and in the discussions around that. So I did feel a little defensive, if you will, of this effort and of the project's integrity itself. And I hopefully communicated that in a professional way, not an overly defensive way about it. I think that's the main thing I wanted to observe, Mr. Chair, in my observations of it on the front line of it.

I appreciate those comments.

Pat, can I say one thing? I very much respect every one of you. and for anyone to go after the people who work for a city, Sue, Len and Courtney is mistake. You guys are working for the city and just want to thank everybody and understand this has been a big, big process and to be sitting here next to you tonight is an honor for me. So anyhow, I think we all did the best we could. It's a really big project and I think we did okay. We got a lot more to do, but we're okay.

Speaking of more to do, what do we have for proposed next steps?

Next steps, next slide, next steps. So the way things are set up now, there was a thought of... CoB, Jay Sugnetta, may be trying to get in front of the Council on June 23 but because of how soon, that is. CoB, Jay Sugnetta, And what other competing agenda items that there are for that meeting I think we're headed towards a July 7 you know next consideration by the Council with final action. occurring on if they're going to proceed and take final action on July 14th. So in the interim, one of the things identified here, both based on input and thoughts from my staff, some preliminary post, you know, city council, you know, input from the CRC folks, you know, who are there and in attendance, there's a few things things here that you may want to talk about and direct, you know, be prepared or prepare yourselves. What additional information can be provided to council, right? Either in the interim or at the next, you know, meeting at which they'll consider the item. And the list is here. Member Roberts touched on this. Examples of level one and level two changes. Again, maybe we did take too much for granted, right, what those things are. There are some nuances, right, particularly in the level two arena of you know, what's a clarification, what's a best practice, what's in a substantive addition, but not thought to be one that's controversial because it's consistent with best practices or things that we do already, but it's not in the charter already. Let's give some examples of that. I think there are examples of that, both in the report that I gave and in the final written report that was put together, but let's pull that out, right? And just put it, you know, we're in a, in side-by-side or however, you know, it could be presented to give them additional comfort level and understanding about how this was categorized.

Just a question on that. Was my understanding that Council Member Park was asking for each one, each item to be labeled one or two and the reason why that specific recommendation was that, was I mistaken?

Um, he did say that, and I'm again, trying to strike the balance because it, because it can be sentenced by sentence. Um, And I don't know that that's helpful or informative, and it would be a fair amount of work to do it.

I don't disagree with you. How do we explain that?

That is maybe in that way, and that might not satisfy him or others. The thought was giving examples. But if this group tells me that's what you want to do, I will do it. if you think that's an important enough issue and an important enough exercise. Some examples would probably be good. Yeah.

Close that question again. What I would suggest maybe, I agree with you, some examples would be good. Maybe consider a hybrid. In other words, if there are a few of the items that you were thinking, Glenn, that kind of was... there was a, it reached a very high level to the point where, okay, maybe this is one where we do say, hey, this is level two. And this is why we considered it a level two. I don't, you know, I'm thinking that maybe just- Yeah, let me- And I would say, I would leave it up to you. I'm comfortable with your judgment.

Yeah, let me riff off that. And it's not my judgment really, because it's you all- deliberating on what you think this council needs to be comfortable, right? Then we would have to do that in action. So, well, I don't think they were all asking for that, right? So, but maybe to your point, a hybrid.

But if we did that, we would have to have another meeting.

It wouldn't be, yeah, you'd have to, in effect, there already is a presentation subcommittee that I could go through and engage in that exercise and tender that if this group decided to that presentation subcommittee for input on that. My in-between thought, if you wanted this to be done, would be not to label everything level one or level two, but at least to go through and maybe highlight level two changes where they appear. And have that now, and then so level three have already clearly been identified, right? And if we identify, maybe it's even just substantive level two, you know, changes, and then everything else is, you know, level one or level two. That makes sense. Including with, you know, and again, including the examples, but maybe that's even a better version of, you know, the examples is go through and identify the substantive end of the spectrum on the level two ideas throughout. And I think that could be done. It's a lot, it's still a lot of work, but it's an important project and it deserves the work that you guys decide to tell me you want produced. And I could use the, the existing subcommittee. Sorry, you just created more work for yourself since you're on that subcommittee to use as a sounding board for that. Cause I wouldn't expect you to go through that.

Well, actually, I mean, Lauren is home six, so she could just do the whole thing.

Yeah. Lauren is. Yeah, that's right. And not here in person to defend herself. So you can take advantage of that.

Joe Soskin should be the one, you know, Glenn real quick. I got asked a question by people that watched the meeting on Monday, like level one, level two. They're like, what is that? And one of the things I had to explain in short term was level one is like, Organizing the charter first right it's a no brainer, the words don't change, nothing changes level two is an example of like the chief of police being he instead of the person or whatever the phrase is, and then level three you get into bigger things. So I. I think like defining the categories would probably be good.

Yeah, and as you know, they actually are very expressly defined. They were presented to you and approved by you. Your examples are okay. I actually would put your second example as probably a level one change. The level two change would more, my example of the more substantive level two change, for example, would be the addition of definition of vacancies. that for me would be a substantive level two change right clearly there's something that happens if there's a vacancy it previously wasn't defined um there's new words in there that now define what that is they're consistent with best practices and easy enough to understand but it's not nothing right so for me that's a good example of a substantive level two you know change and there's more than a few of those right those are those are throughout i was thinking of uh how we've

now do the two-year budget? I mean, changing the charter to say that you're now doing a two-year budget is a substantive change, but it's a perfect example of, yes, it's a substantive change, but- it's not controversial.

It's what we- I would agree. And that is, yeah, those are changes to align with current city practices that are considered best practices, right? We didn't change the charter to align with city practices that were bad practices, right? The proposal was to change the city charter to align the things that were done now. There ought to be alignment between everything with the charter, you know, determining it all and everything else, you know, being implemented in accordance with that. If these things here are, that are actually being done in the front line or out of line with the charter, one of them needs to change, right? You either need to stop doing things this way or you recognize that this is now a modern appropriate way to do things and make sure that the charter has caught up with that. And there's a good number of those in there. Those are level two changes. Member Brooks probably more even than the example that you gave. And so again, as opposed to the abstract concepts, putting examples to it, I think is a really good idea and would be a good helpful. Again, that wasn't an action of the, just to be clear, the city council did not direct us to do that, right? This is me reacting to, and I think members of this group, particularly those in attendance reacting to, hey, we get that this is a big project. How do we want, we want everybody to understand it, right? As much as possible as a pathway towards the voters ultimately understanding it. And so what can we do better to do that? And I think the examples and maybe with member Crutchlow's suggestion of maybe even going through and being a little more comprehensive about that, that is something that we can do. And so it's listed as- The good part is we did hear what their questions were.

So we kind of have an idea of where they definitely need more amplification of our explanation.

Glenn, when it was brought up that only nine current police officers live in Santa Clara, they need to mention that anyone can move here and also run.

Yep, that is absolutely right. And I didn't get too much into that, again, because I think that's the different level and didn't want, just like this group decided, let's not start getting a list of level four things, right, that we might want them to consider going forward. That kind of thing and that kind of conversation can become a distraction. But you're absolutely right. If that's questions asked again, that would be another point to make is that if someone wants to run and they don't live here already, they can move here. That's absolutely right. slippery slope to get into residency and does residency matter and is it lawful and should we change it for that that's that's the thing that could be a little tricky because again that's not anything that this group's recommending even if it might be a valid discussion for future consideration and that's why i didn't bring it up earlier i also want to make sure that people understand that it's not a subject matter that really needs to be discussed because if somebody wants to run they just kind of move here yep that a very good point and and fair point The second one of these Mr. Chair is examples and types of pending projects that would benefit from the use of alternative procurement mechanisms. Again, this was talked about, but in an abstract way, I actually have a meeting tomorrow that SVP scheduled, you know, an expectation of this for them to, give me additional information about just what those projects would be and the kinds of procurement mechanisms they're talking about. Let's make this tangible, right? More tangible than it is, you know, already. And so that's another thought process of additional information that could be prepared and even provided before July 7th to the council, you know, as something to, again, reinforce their collective understanding of really what's being talked about here. So. That's another one. Examples of what would go into the proposed ordinance, again, along the procurement side. I think, and I don't think the mayor had dived into this that much to see it because I went over it with her. Actually, that section does list a lot of the things that would go into that ordinance, which I think are useful and would give the public at least most of the public, you know, enough comfort level of how that's going to be handled. We could probably do better still in that. Either put that all in one, you know, slide again as a matter of presentation and maybe annotate that a little bit more as to what that might look like, you know, to make sure that It's not going to be a process that just has projects shuffled to everybody's favorite insider contractor. No, it's a competitive process. Bids and proposals are submitted. Interview panels are developed to rank them. The city is set up to do this kind of evaluation. It does this kind of evaluation all the time. Let's demystify it. Even though these procurement mechanisms may be new, how we sort through and determine who is the most qualified actor isn't something that we're not familiar with. So give some more examples of that. And then this one, list of all the existing and proposed implementing ordinances and policies. I don't want to, I'm not trying to gotcha member Cox at all. I think she's coming at this in a thoughtful way, but I don't think it is 18, right? And I think there's a number of existing ones. What are the new things that are being proposed, right? And what would be involved in creating a policy like that? And where did that suggestion come from? Because a lot of it came from, for example, our assistant city clerk who said, yeah, I don't have an, you know, I'm the one who has to administer this excused absence policy. Sure would be helpful if I knew what all that meant, right? Instead of just a vote, you know, that's put on with the, you know, the council members, you know, voting. And the same thing We heard feedback from boards and commissions. What are we doing? How is this supposed to work? The idea that that would be something that would be developed isn't intended to be a novel, outrageous thing, but it's a good example of the kind of thing that would be contemplated. And then I think to the point of how much public input was there, how did this process unfold? I think another summary sheet of all the public meetings, the information that was made available on the website and the news coverage, more articles, frankly, than I realized, that should be listed, right? So that there, this wasn't something that was developed in the dark halls and corridors of, you know, of this, you know, CRC committee. The ad hoc subcommittees met all these times, but they reported out every month, right, at a public meeting. There were newspaper articles, you know, that covered, you know, things. There was information, you know, on the website. There really was a public effort. So that's our thought, you know, including some feedback, preliminary feedback from the CRC members of additional information that can be provided. I'm sensing a consensus support for yes, please, by all means, let's get them, because it's a big thing, you know, as comfortable as we can. And if additional information or different ways of presenting existing information can get them closer to that, let's do it.

I also think it will get us a step further, assuming this progresses and they move it forward to the public of some of the tools that will be needed to do the communication.

Lynn, do you have the 18 items that Council Member Cox said she saw?

No, I asked her, hey, if you've got that list and could show me what it is, let's talk about it. And so I will do that with her, but I bet... She developed that by doing a search of the existing charter. And I bet there's, say we came up with eight. I don't know what the right number is, right? That this group recommended some number. I bet there's 10 that are there already, right? That contemplate additional ordinances that be made. I wouldn't be surprised. And then maybe she's right. Maybe it is 18, right?

I didn't do that search, but- Yeah, I think that comes down to, again, understanding, this is the way that it was perceived. Again, it's a great opportunity to just clarify, okay, this is what really happened. Okay, we see how you saw 18, and this is what it really means. So yeah, you're right on with- And again, maybe she's right, right?

The point, and you're making this too, isn't to correct her, right? It's to- I don't think you tried to correct her. Yeah, it's to make sure everybody understands what was already there and contemplated. And again, the nature of a charter itself, right? The charter itself purposely doesn't include all the rules. It contemplates, you know, one of the examples she might have found in there was the charter contemplates development of an administrative code, right, to provide additional information and details about all the departments of the city, you know, and all the positions of the city. That, I bet, is one of her 18, right? But it's an existing thing, right, that's contemplated already, given the nature of the charter. So just to give a little more flavor of that, as opposed to correcting her, I think would be useful, again, to enhance understanding. So Mr. Chair, I, I don't know that action needs to be taken on this. Staff would be comfortable with you, at least you could either take a vote or ask if there's consensus to ask that this additional information be put together with input from the existing presentation and final report committee to be presented to the city council, if possible, well in advance of the next meeting, but no matter what at that next meeting.

i think you have consensus obvious consensus from the group that all that additional information would be well received do you need a formal vote for that um uh hold on i'm not not quite on consensus because i think eric brought up a good point about that hybrid option is that included in what the staff would do basically looking searching for only the number twos, basically leaving everything else that wasn't the two or the one.

Yeah, and maybe even a subset of number twos, the substantive number twos, if we're going to label it, right? With examples of ones and twos and seeking out the substantive level twos.

I think that's the appropriate.

Yeah. My only comment too is about obviously getting it to them, as you said, prior to the meeting would be ideal in considering what's being presented to them at the next meeting, because you have the procurement options as well, trying to balance that so that I don't know how much time the next meeting will, you know, this will be allotted. So the procurement is very important as well. So just, considering that.

Yeah. According to their direction, right. The procurement's really the focus of the next meeting. But again, depending upon the direction of this group, we definitely want to get that information in front of them in advance, you know, maybe ask, yeah. Ask for questions about that. Right. So that they can start shaping their final recommendation for both the first aspect of it and the second. And again, as we'll talk about in a minute, maybe even to combine those, you know, after all in a, in a, in a different approach. So I'm okay with consensus if there really is consensus on this with member Beckman's good clarification on that, Mr. Chair. Very good. The next thing, just as a next step that needs to be done is to finalize and refine the charter document. As we've been mentioning, just, but we haven't gotten to, we still need to keep reviewing it, right? And scrubbing it, as I say, for errors, you know, reproved formatting and especially the definitional structure, right? We've created this defined terms concept I know that the example I give of what needs to be refined is we've got a number of terms surrounding laws, right? There's sometimes references to particular sec, you know, code sections. Sometimes there's reference to state law and sometimes there's a reference to applicable law, right? Which includes all federal state got a little bit of a tussle on that all federal and state, you know, you know, laws and regulations. And so again, charter should be tight on that, right? If we're creating, you know, this new definitional structure, those words should be used as is intended, you know, and corrected. So that's an exercise, more of a wonky technical, you know, exercise. And if a substantive issue, you know, came up with it, I would highlight that. But that needs to happen. Create and finalize the list of defined, you know, terms is something that again, we've got to start on. But when before council takes an action on what they're putting in front of the voters, right, that needs to be done as well. Um, update the civil service sections to reflect, you know, the section changes as you recall, and as was presented, uh, um, by a chief assistant router to the council at the last meeting. What's actually was in front of them was the original action that was taken, you know, by this group and what was tendered to the bargaining groups, right? It doesn't have. that the handful of changes that they proposed that were accepted, you know, by staff. And so that needs to be built in and highlighted for council, you know, when it comes back, you know, around for them. There's not a whole ton of that on the substantive, you know, from a substantive standpoint necessary to highlight. And, of course, an update to them, and I'll turn it over to you, on where we're at with the meet and confer and input into those changes, and maybe even the other ones, if we haven't all given up on that yet. So I'll turn it over to Sue to provide an update on that, but that is something that, of course, needs to be finalized as well.

So we're up to eight, no, actually nine bargaining units that have responded with their assent or consent to the latest version of the language, which removes the red lines to 1101 and 1102. are now 701 and 702, I think. So I'm very hopeful that we'll get the other two bargaining units to agree. And I think with those changes, the removal of potential changes to 701 and 702, I don't think there's anything else in those sections that would raise any of those issues to be a level three. I think they're solidly levels one and two.

And then again, maybe a little bit as an example of scrubbing going through that to make sure that those sections have been fully integrated to the formatting and the cross-references and things like that to get it into the truly final form. Any questions about that aspect of it, those provisions for Sue from the group? And then the last, of course, change, and this may change a little bit depending upon the discussion of things on the next page, is updated to reflect the excluded level three changes, right? If those things aren't going to be included, you know, the charter needs to be updated to, you know, eliminate those things and do it in a way, again, that keeps the changes that are just formatting, right? And, you know, in a defined term, but any of the substantive aspects of that, if the council is not going to be supportive of that, you know, would be removed. on next slide, any modification to the recommendations? There's a couple of things, one thing I wanted to clarify and ultimately with the council and then potentially a discussion for this group. Now that there's a clear thought and intent to pursue the procurement changes as a separate measure, So there's three kind of items listed here on this next page. The first is clarify that they intended to include deletion of the real estate notice requirement, old section 714. If you recall in an earlier motion that was made, which wasn't explicitly included in the second motion. There was a suggestion that by, I think member Hardy, if I'm remembering correctly, that that deletion really isn't a level three, it really should be a level two with how outdated that is. And she would want that to be included in their level one and level two proposal. I think that's worth clarifying you know, with her, because again, we do these definitions and these categories and some of it's subjective, right? You know, the things that are highlighted is, hey, this might be controversial. Upon further reflection, it's really not, right? And I think that was her thought process in having that be included. And so that's something that will want to be, you know, clarified because I think as many of these changes that were thought out, you know, and presented and included in the comprehensive, you know, measure consistent with the project's beginning purpose and carried all the way through would be a good idea. And then this other one is along the same vein, you know, really. And I think member Jane touched upon it, you know, himself. The public works update was identified as level three, mostly because it's so substantive, right? But not because it's, and so different than what's there already, not because it's really that out of line or necessarily even controversial. The idea that the public works provisions would be implemented specifically by ordinances, how a lot of charters do it. The idea that the city would be able to use alternative procurement mechanisms is already included for general law cities and is very commonly included you know, throughout, you know, most jurisdictions that have thought to do this, right, or our general law cities, and most of the cities in California are general law cities. And so is this really, because it's substantive, a level three change that needs to be presented as a separate measure? Or might it be better either received, you know, or appropriately categorized as more of a you know, substantive, you know, level two update. Again, that's the dividing line between substantive level two and level three really is subjective, you know, at some level. And the recommendation of this group for that very same reason, as you know, from a macro standpoint was, hey, we recommend a comprehensive update You know, update to the Charter that includes all the level one and level two changes and such level three changes you know you think the Community might you know would be naturally supportive of. The pulling out of this. was offered as an option right, but not as a necessity, you know or or a recommendation and potentially. separating a measure and might encourage focusing on that measure and things that might be wrong with it, as opposed to including it with the overall comprehensive recommendation. So it might actually make it less likely that measure gets passed if it's put on its own, as opposed to part of a comprehensive proposal. and query whether or not including it as part of the comprehensive proposal, if it's truly not controversial, would risk having that comprehensive proposal not pass, right? The idea of separating things would be, hey, you don't wanna put something in the comprehensive proposal that's gonna be so controversial, even if it's a good idea that it might prevent the comprehensive proposal from passing. And so it's just a different way of thinking about you know, this measure, it can absolutely, and if the council would prefer it, you know, be proposed as a separate ballot measure, but that's gonna cost $250,000 more and won't necessarily, you know, improve the likelihood of its passage if in fact it's appropriately viewed as a high level two, you know, item as opposed to, you know, a level three item. So just tendering that as I'm, you know, thinking about all these things and as that proposal is, doesn't need to be anything you take up at all. You know, if in fact you're comfortable with, you know, where it ended up, but it was something that I was, you know, reflecting on that Member Jane might've said, hey, I really want this thing. And you said I could do it as a separate measure. So no matter what, we should do it as a separate measure, right? That isn't necessarily the recommendation, right, of this group. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, but Mr. Chair, tendering it to the group, you know, for discussions as to whether or not there's any, you know, desire to to weigh in further along the lines of what I described or just leave it be, however they end up sorting it out themselves. Because I can certainly just point that out to them as opposed to having it be something the CRC decides it needs to weigh in on specifically.

May I have a comment? I mean, it does make sense to have it all as one package. one ballot measure I think has a much better chance of passing.

One ballot measure? No. I think if it's a level three, city council needs to decide that, you know, somebody might say, look, I see that level three. I like the rest of the stuff, but you got it all in one thing and I'm not going to vote for it because I see this one item. So I really believe that the city council has to make that decision. And we gave them that option. Yeah.

You absolutely did give them the option. I guess I think the way it was presented maybe led them to treat this as a standalone measure more than it naturally might be. And it would also be reasonable to say, hey, if you don't think it's that controversial, it is in line with again, for all the reasons I stated, sorry, I won't state it again, with what most other jurisdictions do, is it that controversial really? And they might say, yes, this is too big of a deal. It's too much. We wanna be able to explain it separately. It should be a separate measure. Or they could say, You know what? It makes sense as part of the overall package. You're right. It absolutely is up to them. I'm just I'm asking whether the CRC wants to weigh in any further or whether you feel like you've already identified it as a level three.

So I think that's that's our recommendation. Right. Saying, hey, we think this is somewhat controversial. You tell us what you think and you make the decision accordingly.

I guess I'm asking you, do you think it's controversial as opposed to so substantive? That's the thing. Is it really that controversial? That's I guess the question. Is it that controversial? One of the things that could treat it as being controversial, right? And you remember this was both discussed amongst this group and pointed out to the council that a proposal to change it, although differently than the way you're proposing it back in year 2000, quite a while ago, but still, to increase the $1,000 limit to $50,000 was not approved by the voters. Does that by itself make it controversial? And I'm asking the question. Yeah. So, I mean, it doesn't, you could absolutely answer yes. And if the group says, yeah, sure enough, we get that. We're not going to try to argue any differently. Believe it as it is. I'm just tendering it to make sure it's not a lost subject matter if you want it to weigh in differently.

Can I get clarification that if we were to leave it or to say that the $250,000 option B and option A, all of that would be considered level three. Leaving it, what we would present to voters as a one-two would be just to leave it at that $1,000 threshold. is there least, shouldn't we at least put forth within, you know, the base document that we absolutely want to see the city or the citizens approve is a reasonable number. You know, at one point in time, 50,000 wasn't reasonable. Maybe, maybe it is now, maybe it's a hundred thousand. I mean, The subcommittee said 250. What is it that we would recommend in that piece package?

Yeah, so now you're getting into the hybrid, you know, recommendation, you know, arena, which is that that's why I even brought it up, right, for that kind of discussion. I think putting a number into the level one and two would potentially compromise its approval because now you're putting in a number, which as was discussed potentially as a lightning rod, you know, for voters. And so that probably wouldn't be something from a strategic standpoint, I would recommend the council, you know, should decide that. But the idea that you might put into the level one and two a provision for adopting an ordinance to allow for alternative procurement mechanisms in theory might work. Or you could say, hey, don't forget about option B, counsel, if you're not comfortable with something that doesn't have a number in it. You could put forward, you know, option B instead of option A, right? If they would feel better, you know, having a number in there from a transparency sake. So there's any number of different iterations, right, of that, either incorporate some elements into your level one and two, incorporate the whole thing into level one or two, propose not just option A, but option B, either, you know, as either a standalone or incorporated into level one or two. I don't want them going. I mean, that's almost too many things, right? You know, to consider, but any of those are possible and they will consider all of them. I promise you as they, as they wrestle with this question, I guess for this group is, do you want to further refine your recommendation as to what you think might make most sense? Or as you've done already make the general recommendation of We think a comprehensive amendment with all the level one and two stuff makes sense. And again, and with as many of the level three things you think you're comfortable with that the community would be supportive. That would include potentially if they so decided the public works procurement proposal. You don't have to call it a level two. You could ask them, hey, and don't forget, we said level threes that you think the community will be comfortable in and let them sort it out in all these different ways in permutations. I don't necessarily have the political expertise and this is a good smart group of people that are connected. This might be one of those. political ballot design, you know, questions, you know, with polling that isn't going to happen right between now and the decision, you know, to put this on the ballot. So it could absolutely reasonably be left as it is. I just didn't want with this meeting, given the feedback that they got in the direction they're going, not tender to you the opportunity of thinking about it differently if you wanted to make a different recommendation.

I think once when you went through the additional information you were going to give them on the plan with all the here's how it's going to work, here's the proposed plans that are going to be Silicon Valley input, I think that's going to take a lot of the pressure off of them to approve it when they see the the benefit of it. Yeah.

And maybe that will be part of the process. Yeah. Getting them more familiar with it might deescalate it into the extent they're familiar with it and might consider that. Like I said, you don't need to do anything other than you did already. Your recommendation was perfectly appropriate and left room for them deciding what I'm tendering to you, you know, already.

Yeah, I think their point was 90% of the people voted against the measure before.

That was for measure R. R, okay. Yeah, that was different, yeah.

But I think in general, people don't like voting for taxes and stuff like that. And what has to happen is people have to understand, like, look, what we're really talking about is not a new tax or anything like that. What we're talking about is we are spending money and... The money got spent because it still went to city council. It still got spent. It's just saying, can we make this more efficient? Do we have faith in our city manager to do the right thing? And everything is still public. It's nothing done outside a vacuum. And it can still be challenged at any time it needs to be challenged. And I think that's probably the issue is people don't really understand. And they see that sometimes what's what's trying to be done. You're saying, I want to be able to spend more money. Yes, as a city manager. Okay. But if the city manager doesn't get that approval, it still goes to city council, it'll still get spent. It's just saying making things more efficient, more effective. And I think that people tend to say, if you're going to raise the limit, oh, that sounds like a tax. It just doesn't, they don't look at it enough or understand it. So again, it's all going to, like everything else on this, we have on here, it's gonna be how well we present it to people because if they don't understand it, they're gonna vote no.

It would be disappointing to me for us to go through all this work and still come out with a thousand dollar threshold. That number is so out of date. So I think us talking about it would be great to present it because again, we've put all a lot of work and to see that be a roadblock to us succeeding would be a real negative.

I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't want to die on this issue either, given all the good work for the rest of the stuff too. It's going to be a compromise, unfortunately. I agree with you.

Glenn, if we don't take action to make a specific recommendation, you will still raise that to the city council in terms of what their options are.

I would, as part of my duty, even in describing that to them, you don't need to change your recommendation. Your recommendation incorporates this as an option. Yep. You don't need to do anything with this to have this be something when this issue is discussed for me to talk about with them.

And I would also agree that I would not support doing any kind of hybrid version where we increased it in the one with the one and twos. I think either that would jeopardize it or if it passed people would then view well they already have this, why do they need to have this other measure pass I think separating it out into in some way. highlights the expenditures, either as important, which it is, or as controversial, which I'm not sure it is.

And I would agree with you from our five and a half hour meeting that we spent together. But if this is the roadblock to getting all this work done, make it separate.

Appreciate that, Chair. Last one in this category to talk about. Do I even talk about it?

is- Honestly, can I just cut to the chase? Yes. You don't need to talk about this, Glenn. I mean, can I make a motion as the chair or can I not make a motion as a chair?

There's no prohibition on you making a motion as the chair.

Okay, then I would make a motion that we remove all of the proposed changes to the chief of police language and revert back to the original charter language.

um can i also ask a question as part of this separate from the chief of police there were other level three items um identified to them like the parkland for example example the secondary uses and some other things are we going to make a motion and identify all of those as well i i think we should yeah

Can someone refresh me on what the blowback was on the addition of the police chief duties? I mean, I listened last night, and I didn't.

Yeah, there actually wasn't specific blowback on that. There are a lot of questions around it. There might have been general questions. John Lund, Maybe some of the comments around I thought you weren't going to bring us anything controversial may have been targeted at this, but I don't remember them being specifically targeted as at this, it might be helpful for me to go through the list of the level three ones that were identified. John Lund, And Mr care, you can certainly do that to kind of affirm you know this group's you know view of where. of where things are at, but I think they already took the action to not, you know, do that. Right.

And so action to not move forward to level three changes. So this is just us, I guess. And these with it. And I frankly would like to make the motion to do that. Yeah. You told, I'm not trying to prevent you from doing that. I'm just, I'm, I'm, it was, yeah. I mean, it's listed as one of the, as the level,

increased qualifications and duties and advise on law enforcement public safety issues yeah so here are the ones if i might jared to the extent you were contemplating maybe being more holistic you know about that on on your report um the actual final report page 34 um and if you don't have that it's in your i think these may have also been similarly listed in the in the um Here it is, yeah, I think they're similarly listed in slide 44 of the presentation that was given to the council. These are the ones that were identified as level three. And please anyone, if there's one that I'm missing, please let me know. Modifications to measure R to allow for secondary uses of park property provided no adverse impact, five affirmative votes of city council and all revenues for park purposes. That was one of the ones that's clearly a level three. proposed deletion of public notice and public bid opportunity and sale of property above $500. That's the one that actually was categorized and that might be warrant clarifying as really maybe a level two, right, per the council recommendation. And so I might suggest you not take a definitive action with respect to that, given the council discussion, you know, around that item. They may ultimately decide not to include it, but I don't think they did, you know, in fact, if anything, the inclination appeared to be to declassify that right or reclassify that as out of the level three category. The next next one, Mr. Chair, the increased qualifications, you know, for the chief of police and the the addition of duties, you know, for the chief of police, two different sections, but, well, you know, both chief of police related Adams items, and then public works procurement update as of course has been pulled out, you know, and is still in play, you know, and for a separate discussion and then any service service rules that weren't approved, you know, in the meet and confer obligations. And it sounds like that's being resolved, you know, as so. It really would be, I think, of the ones that were tendered. It's the chief of police, both qualification enhancement and powers and duties enhancement, and the measure are really the only ones that are, I think, still clearly within that level three category based on the discussions that council had.

I agree. So we do have a motion and a second on that one.

Yeah. So just to clarify, we're talking about just the three items that Glenn just mentioned that would be a level three, correct? That's right.

The two chief of police and the parkland.

Yeah. I guess, can I amend my motion to then include the parkland? Please. Measure R. So it'll be. Oh, sorry. I thought it already had been included, but yes.

Yep. Yeah, so you amend it and then I'll second it.

All right, so amended, so seconded.

So discussion.

Discussion. So what's exactly on here? So get rid of R, all the stuff regarding chief of police.

And that's it for this motion.

That's it?

Yes, because everything else is being dealt with. The only thing being removed right now is the language on measure R and the language for the chief of police. The other items that are listed as, level three changes are the property that Glenn's going to clarify that councilman council member Hardy brought up.

And you actually could include chief as I'm thinking about it, the, the civil service changes that aren't approved as part of the meet and confer process.

Well, that was already, I thought covered, but we can add that to the motion.

Yeah.

Easier.

Yeah. You don't need to. I think that's already pretty clear. Yeah. Yeah.

Um, You know, I guess I don't see a reason why we need to take any action on this and that it was our recommendation. Why do we need to change our recommendation because of feedback and actually lack of feedback? You know, my sense after listening to that five hours was that the only thing that they had time to pay attention to was, you know, the procurement item. they really didn't have time to really get into the others. I think we leave it as it continues to be our recommendation. I haven't heard a discussion here as to why we need to change it.

Well, I guess anyone else? I'll chime in. My concern is we want council support. So when this goes in front of the voters, at least five out of the seven council members are supporting it. So it appears to the voter that there is strong support to update the charter. That's my perception and obviously, We do not want to do all this work and not get the majority of our work ratified into the new charter.

But the point, we are presenting our best effort at trying to change the chart. And it's up to the council to determine what actually gets presented to the public as to vote. Why are we changing our recommendation? I mean, it is what it is. We don't need to become in an alignment into what we anticipate the city council wants us to do. We're here to make a recommendation. And as a group, we said, these were important. So I'm like, why do we need to take it?

Let me give you a reason why, maybe. So I think I understand one way of looking at it. I see it as we did get some feedback from city council. Some of that feedback was definitely, we need more time to look at this, right? So now they have this much to look at, right? What we're saying here is given some of the other feedback in the discussions that were going on, we can already contemplate that, hey, we already knew that level three is probably are the ones we wanna kick. So we're going to make it easier for staff to focus on less and give less, you know, I mean, you're taking like the big galaxy and putting it down a little bit, but given more focus on the things that we really feel are, are ones we want them to focus on. So we are taking some feedback into account and we were already at the meeting. There was already discussion about level threes and how they, you know, how we should, we should really stay away from them. That was some of the feedback from council is how I, at least I interpreted it. I know you saw the meeting too. So what I'm thinking is less work to be done by staff, less work to be done by council if we agree that, hey, that makes sense.

But the council directed the staff specifically as to what they wanted. One and twos and this one, three. We don't have to do anything else. They basically have said, here's what we think needs to be brought up. at the next, the council has said what they think needs to be brought up at the next meeting. And again, we're not directing the staff to do anything more in these other items.

Well, there's more items they have to consider, right? I mean, do you agree that they have to go back with another version of the documents and the things that we want them to consider? Yes.

All right. I would agree in the sense that they've asked for basically the charter to be revised only for one and twos and taking out all the others. So, yeah.

So, and if I can, if I can chime in.

Pull out some of them now.

That was from a majority of the council. It wasn't just one or two. It was like, hey, level threes. And the one level three we were going to pull out was the procurement, correct? Like everything else that was one and two, they were going to consider. And it wasn't just, One council member, would you agree with me?

Yeah.

It was a majority of the council said, hey, let's focus on ones and twos in this round that we're doing. And why do all this work for not? Because we're going to add level threes into this round.

It's certainly up to us to decide whether or not we feel pulling some stuff out now would be advantageous. And Mark, if you feel like, hey, no, we already made a recommendation, I get that.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate both sides of this conversation to member Beckman's point. That really is already the direction that the council has provided. It's within the parameters of your recommendation, right? Which was level one and two, and whatever level three items you feel comfortable including, they even affect based on their current direction. That doesn't mean it couldn't change again to the other side of the equation that what we wanna recommend is the levels one and two with a little bit of a clarification right on the real estate piece and a little bit of still work left to be done in the civil service piece to see where we end up. I'm not going to be doing anything inconsistent with that because I'm not looking to do, you know, extra work and want to, I agree. And I, but I also need to be prepared because there's not there. The final decisions aren't being made. And that's really why I even brought it back to you. I just wanted to gut check, you know, with all of you, if you wanted to refine your recommendation to include these things and, then this would be the time to do it. If you don't wanna do that, you don't need to take any action because that's already the path that they're going down or to the chief's motion as seconded, you could say, hey, we heard you, we affirm that, we're comfortable with how you've sorted out what's controversial and not, and we support a version of this that has a good chance to pass. And so that's how I would translate Mr. Chair, what you're proposing. Either one, you don't need to do that because your recommendation is your recommendation and they acted within the parameters of it. But if you wanted in response to that to affirm, hey, we get how you do that, that's exactly the kind of thing we were hoping you would do. An affirming motion to that effect, there's certainly no harm in it. So I'm okay either way, I guess, Mr. Chair.

I can't help but think that a motion by us to remove two of the controversial items that gets messaged back to them does not, it helps sell the entire package, I believe.

Yeah, it gives the impression that we're trying to meet them halfway. And we have a better chance of them approving it if we kind of try to do that, I think.

I think the language is important in what we say we are. if we're going to take a vote on this, because I don't think we're removing that recommendation, at least in my mind, as a whole in general, but we're recognizing that given the political sensitivity and the fact that we want, they still have a lot of work to do to get the ones and twos and the procurement moving forward, but that's where we want the focus to be. and that these level threes, which we've identified, although we think they're a good idea, that makes sense to focus there and not just move forward as they are in nine.

My sense is if they had another month, they would take up more specifically the other item three and give it at least greater consideration. But they clearly see the procurement as the one item they really want from them. The rest of this is it would be helpful. And just that sense that we really don't need to meet them halfway. This isn't a negotiation. They hold the card. They get to choose what they want. And that's what our role was, make a recommendation, not to necessarily change our minds based upon the winds of the council. What we thought as public, representing the public, what we thought was right. I'll leave it at that.

Lauren, did you want to chime in before or any other member of the public?

No, I don't have anything to add.

For those of you who may not know me, I'm Carolyn Shuck from the Santa Clara weekly. I think as a voter in the city, I look at some proposal like new charter and I have questions about it.

Hold on one sec, Carol. We want to make sure you're being picked up on them. I might want to get even closer to it.

Okay. Make it, you know, and I like to get a list of things that, and I personally, I start with a list of questions I have about it off the top of my head. And then I go find answers to those questions. I'm not suggesting each one of you do that because it's a little late in the day, but I would suggest a list, just here's what a dozen, no more than a dozen of changes that are being proposed. Don't say this is a minor change, this is a major change, just they're being proposed. We might not make them. Some of them I'm sure we will make like, reorganizing from 18 sections to nine. Take that big thing about, you know, bidding, I'm not sure I know exactly what's in the charter. I know what you've been talking about. Make it simple. There are other ways of awarding public works projects in our world that weren't done in 1951. Here are what they are. Just list them. And people who care about it will go look it up. But just some things that I can look at one page, and I'm making the offer, my editor might get real mad now. I'm making the offer that if you will do that, we will publish it in online for everyone to read. And you can use that, send that out, say you want to read about it. And we will have that on our landing page. So I'm making that offer because I think that the level of this discussion is way too complicated for most people, myself being most people to understand. Thank you.

Thanks Carolyn. Mr. Chair, if I might comment on that, appreciate that feedback and it's helpful to point out, that very list that you were talking about actually is included in the language that's in the charter. So I might suggest you look at the option A or option B recommendation. It does endeavor without being an inclusive list, give a good list of the kinds of procurement mechanisms that are being talked about. And as part of this process, as you all know, the proposal for to facilitate the voters understanding of this is to have on the city's website. And if you would publish it, that would be fantastic. That same list with an explanation of what those mechanisms are, right? And how they're different. And so the city's website, particularly if it's a standalone measure, but no matter what, but particularly if it's a standalone measure will absolutely include list of the kinds of things that are being talked about um and explanations of what they are um so good good feedback and um uh appreciate that excellent i'm motion on the table yes and i was going to wait till john got back to make the vote And if, and if, while you're waiting for that, if I, if I might suggest there, you know, interest in verbiage, you know, for this, I think that member Peters, you know, suggested it's important how this is communicated. And so if I might suggest maybe a little more formally what that, what the verbiage might be, the motion, a little bit more curated, you know, might be. that the CRC supports council direction to not include provisions in the comprehensive update that they've deemed too sensitive at this stage to be included, which include the proposed changes to measure R and any proposed changes to the police chief qualifications and duties. And so it's, Not you're changing your recommendation, but you've heard what the council said and you're supportive of that. I might check with member Peters if that's the kind of modified concept that you wanted to get at.

That's what I'm looking for, but you may have a different view.

That's why he's an attorney and I'm not.

Yeah, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either. I'm just trying to hear the different feedback and synthesize it into something that as many of you as possible can be comfortable with.

I'm going to say there was a professor of mine, and he was telling me about his doctoral thesis and how he had to go defend it. And one of the things he got some really good advice about is they're going to try and catch you on different things, and they're going to try and get you to back off your statements. And he wound up doing his presentation. They asked questions. He didn't back off, including when they asked him in three areas, you misspelled these words and looked at him and said, yeah, I meant that. So there is a viewpoint that Mark has brought up that reminds me of things I've been taught where like, okay, we made our recommendations and we're good with it. And if you, you know, we only recommend you just like planning mission only recommends. And so they get to choose what they like and what they don't like. So I'm trying to think what, by putting this forward, what are we communicating to them? Are we saying we're trying to meet you halfway? We agree that there are changes in there. Well, I mean, wasn't that the way it was from the beginning that we knew that we're making recommendations and the city council would decide which ones and such. So,

maybe you can help me understand by voting for this what what are we communicating what are we trying to again i think we are communicating to council that we heard what they were saying that there are some issues they are not going to deal with um specifically the chief i'm not sure how much they talked about measure r but i know it was brought up a little bit but just from their comments and the tone of the conversation it's obvious to me that those items are not moving forward So I don't see a downside for Glenn to be able to report out at the next council meeting that the charter group heard what they were saying and took action in support of it. I think that goes to my belief, them supporting the entire changes, including the procurement, which is the one issue they want to deal with. That's the reason I would put the motion forward. And I think that's why Steve seconded it. And I believe that's why Glenn. Does this help you, Glenn?

It's really your communication. I'm going to proceed accordingly.

My question to you is this, You're the one that has, it doesn't with the city council. It doesn't help me and it doesn't hurt me.

I'd be comfortable communicating it. The, the way in which I rephrased it a little bit, I think addresses, you know, some of the concerns about not changing your recommendation, but in fact, consistent with, I think the maker of the motion and the second wanting to communicate that you're also in being, you continue to be engaged in this process and. consistent with your recommendation, you want something to go forward that they're comfortable with and that you feel has the best opportunity to succeed. And so I think it doesn't change the recommendation, but it does show some kind of awareness and interactive and respect for the process that they're going for. And that's, I think the revised version gets at that. Excellent. Doesn't hurt me. I'm happy to communicate what you do.

Okay. Let's have the vote.

Holly Robert.

Sorry, guys.

Yes. Holly Roberts. Yes. Pat Nicolai.

Yes.

Mohammad Naveed. John Brooks.

Yes.

Eric Crutchlow.

No.

Burt Field.

Yes.

Steve Kelly.

Yes.

Lauren diamond. Yes. Eric, just kidding. Mark Beckman. Susan Peters.

Yes.

Thank you. Mr.

Chair that that passes eight to two.

Excellent. Right. Continue with the slides.

We're really near the end, the other things that need to be done. And again, hoping that the presentation subcommittee can stay around to help with input on this. Sorry, is prepare for the presentation and the revised recommendation, if any, you know, which there isn't, again, the recommendation is standing for the July 7th meeting. The focus on that will be going over to the extent necessary, the updated information we're providing them, right, in these various categories to get folks comfortable, you know, with where they're at. And again, with different information and articulation of what the proposed measure, you know, either separate measure or potentially included with the comprehensive measure that they might undertake. You're not changing your recommendation about that. That'll just be identified as an option for them. And then you don't need to take this action now, but potentially take measure of any willingness that the CRC might have in participating in a public education campaign. I do think that's something that's been recognized as necessary. I do think something that council made very clear, although they didn't take an action that they think is gonna be necessary. And so to the extent that this group wants to communicate you don't have to decide what that's gonna be, but that you, you know, stand, you know, ready to assist, you know, with that, you know, in ways that the council may request is something you can talk about, you know, and consider at this meeting. And the forms that that would, I guess that would take as I'm thinking about it, professional staff will prepare what goes on the website and the FAQs, but to have a CRC membership, maybe looking at that and providing some review and curation of those FAQs and how that gets presented would be helpful. And in addition to the extent there's any decision to do public forums, you know, would this CRC or a subcommittee of it, you know, be willing to participate in that if the council says, yeah, we're going to put some money together behind that, we're prepared to put some staff resources around that. Is that something, you know, the CRC would be willing to participate in?

Glenn, maybe you want to repeat the legal,

obligations of the city what they can and can't do in publicizing um you know in other words like we can't sell make you know you should do this type thing but maybe you can just restate that yeah sure the the dividing line that i'm gonna make seem simple now but you know at the margins isn't always because that's how the world is is that um public resources can't be spent advocating for at a particular action at an election with respect to a candidate or any measure proposed, be that proposed by the council or be that a citizen's initiative. So the two elements of that that are important are advocacy and public money. The public is allowed, however, or the public is allowed to use public resources in order to communicate to the voters information about measures that are in front of them. This was done with oversight and input by our office to be in compliance with these restrictions and provisions for measure I, for example. There was a website that included information. I think there was a mailer that was sent out that said, hey, on the ballot is this measure um you know the kinds of things that are being considered you know for construction are these things please go to the polls you know on you know whenever the polling day was you know and and vote you know as you see fit all those things can be done because those are informational what could not be done is a mailer be sent like a political campaign mailer right vote in favor or vote against you know this you know if you don't vote in favor of this you'll lose this that or the other thing or So there's, again, some nuance, you know, to that as the, you know, in terms of the information that is provided to make sure it's information and not advocacy, but that's the rule in a nutshell.

Thank you. I'm sure members would be available if they, you know, if an event came up, maybe Courtney could send an email out and I'm sure anybody that's around would be happy to help. Actually, Lauren.

Well, I think that given the most public person here is the chief, that all advocacy on behalf of the charter should be done by him alone.

Now he can't.

So I don't know that I need a formal vote on that, but if there's consensus of that could communicate consensus of this group to the extent that the council develops a campaign, not campaign, wrong word, a, you know, information program that this, yeah, that this group would be, you know, willing to participate, you know, as the within reason, I'll add the within reason part. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's it for staff's presentation.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, then we will go to a public presentation. This item is reserved for persons who wish to address the committee on any matter within the subject matter of jurisdiction of the committee that is not on this agenda. The law does not permit committee action or extended discussion on any item that is not on the agenda, except under special circumstances. The governor and body or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed. An appropriate body may request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting. Does anybody want to speak at this time? Anybody online want to speak at this time?

There are no hands raised.

Excellent. Any other staff committee member comments?

Just one last comment, Mr. Chair. There's a couple of slides in the presentation that was circulated to you that were actually the slides that were presented to the council on the design build as an example of best value procurement. You've got those in your packet, just as a matter of your formal edification, right? These things were talked about with the group and touched on right in the general discussions, but I want everybody to be informed if you could go to the next slide on that. Yeah, the design build, as an example of best value procurement mechanism. These are some of the, you know, of the arguments that were presented. Next slide too. We also talked about potential drawback and mitigations, you know, to those things. And we never did present the public works, you know, update option B, but that is something when they get into, you know, the discussions on what they wanna put forward, again, either as a separate measure or potentially as the comprehensive measure that we'll be getting into, you know, with them. You're all familiar with that, but wanted you to at least have, you know, the bullet point of the slides that will probably be discussed again. They almost certainly will be discussed again at their July 7th meeting.

Excellent. No other comments. We are adjourned.