Santa Clara’s 13-member charter review committee has completed its work on the city’s first major charter overhaul since 1951, with results headed to a City Council study session on June 9.
The goal of the overhaul was principally housekeeping and modernizing: making the charter more logical and easier to understand, bringing it into conformance with current law, and reflecting current procedures and modern business practices. If the City Council approves the changes, the new charter will be on the ballot next November.
The most visible change is structural: the 18 articles of the 1951 charter are consolidated into nine, the language is more readable, and a glossary defines formal terms. The remaining changes update city government to conform to new practices like district council elections and biennial budgets, with the most significant changes to finance and procurement.
The following summary is presented alphabetically.
Boards and Commissions
The Board of Library Trustees is proposed to expand from five to seven members. Rather than overseeing library administration — which hasn’t been the case in years — the board will approve or disapprove the library director and, with the director, set policies on collections, lending, patron conduct, and meeting room use, while advising the Council on facilities plans, budget, and significant donations.
A new provision makes the Salary Setting Commission an official city commission, and gives it authority over compensation, including benefits, of all elected officials.
City Clerk/Assistant City Clerk
The elected city clerk and county registrar’s role in city elections is defined. A new Senior Assistant City Clerk position is designated in the charter. The assistant clerk is responsible for day-to-day administrative duties: attending Council meetings, maintaining records, and administering oaths for appointed officials.*
City Council
The proposal articulates expectations for council members — attending meetings; listening to public input; placing city interests above their personal interests and conducting themselves “in a professional and courteous manner.” The draft also includes explicit prohibition of “councilmanic interference” — council members circumventing the city manager to give direction to city employees.
A 4/5 council vote will continue to be required to fill vacancies, otherwise an election must be held. The draft also clearly articulates the two-term lifetime limit for council members and mayors elected after 2016.**
Civil Service
Changes to civil service provisions are unlikely because the city’s unions haven’t approved proposed changes. There is no information about the nature of any disagreements, nor any visibility of discussions.
Elected Police Chief
The most controversial topic in the charter is the elected police chief. The committee was given the restriction that changing the method of choosing the police chief was off-limits.
The new charter formally designates the Chief of Police as head of the Police Department, responsible for supervision, management, and administration, and required to advise the City Council and City Manager on public safety, leaving questions of appointing and supervisory authority unresolved.
The proposed charter adds to police chief qualifications a requirement for POST — Police Officer Standards and Training — Management Certificate, considered equivalent to lieutenant-level experience. All Santa Clara police chiefs in the last 30 years have met this standard in practice, though not all formally held the certificate, according to City Attorney Glen Googins.
Concerns that increasing qualifications would reduce the pool of police chief candidates — they must be registered voters living in Santa Clara — drove the qualifications deliberations, judging from remarks made at full committee meetings. While the charter requires the police chief to meet the same qualifications as Sheriff, it is less than what’s required by other California cities like San José.
Fiscal Administration
The city’s budgeting is updated to allow biennial budgeting, reflecting current practice. An important change is that public works procurement will now be able to use modern procurement tools like design-build and best value contracts. This is significant for many infrastructure projects to be undertaken under 2024’s Measure I.
Instead of a fixed dollar threshold, the new charter leaves it to the council to define by ordinance which projects require council approval and which can be approved by the city manager.
Transfers between departments or funds of existing appropriations will continue to require a five-vote supermajority, but appropriating new revenues like grants, or reducing expenditures based on savings will require only a simple majority.
Parkland Protections
After some heated discussion among the whole committee, the existing two-thirds voter approval requirement for sale or change of use of dedicated parklands was retained.
New provisions were added allowing the lease of dedicated parkland for less than 180 days — six months — and allowing certain “secondary uses” of parkland with a five-vote Council supermajority, without requiring a ballot measure. The draft, however, doesn’t define “secondary uses.”
The planning commission — in a public meeting — recommended that the new charter require a super majority council vote to overturn planning commission decisions, but in the end, the charter committee decided against that.
Transparency?
The proposed Santa Clara charter update was clearly necessary, and the committee’s many hours of work have produced a document that is clearer, better organized and in line with current law and practices.
But was this a transparent process? While meetings of the whole committee were public, the subcommittee meetings where these changes were discussed were closed (allowed by the Brown Act).
One subcommittee that drew particular scrutiny, given the composition of the committee reviewing the role and authority of the elected police chief: a former elected police chief and union president, along with the current police chief and union president, were invited to provide input.
The draft includes annotations explaining the rationale of proposed changes but reveals little about the actual discussions — leaving the question of whether characterizations before the final vote accurately capture the intent and reasoning of the subcommittees, or whether they reflect the City Attorney’s own framing of the decisions.
Further, charter review committee members voted on provisions at their May 20 and May 27 meetings without seeing those annotations, which only became available days before the June 3 final meeting. Notably, the draft requires the City Council to act in public “in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act” — a provision itself decided in closed meetings.
*The assistant city clerk was assigned the majority of the city clerk’s responsibilities in 2018 rather than trying to change the charter to appoint a professional city clerk.
**The lifetime term limit was approved in 2016, and California law prohibits retroactive laws.












With the effort to update the charter after more than 74 years you would think we would have put more care and effort into the endeavor.
Having a pre-selected stacked committee to achieve a determined outcome or at least protect the most precious post, Elected Police Chief, was the goal of this effort. They even have the previous Chief on the committee, that seems like a major conflict of interest, especially knowing the position commanded almost $1,000,000 annual compensation in 2024. Not to mention on the political campaign support the POA give to council members willing to “pledge” that they will approve every raise during their term . . . I wonder who put them on the committee . . .
Councilmanic interference is a joke that is spun to allow those that have control keep it while reducing the Council’s authority The City Manager and City Attorney have not been held accountable on their performance and the performance of the overall staff. Recently they spent over 2-years working on relocating City Hall Civic Center to Agnews Mental Hospital without any public discussion on notice. wasting years of city staff time while also hiring consultants for CEQA and outside council. This is a prime example of a bureaucrat wasting public funds and reasources for their own gain/recognition.
It is time to hold Council more accountable and take out the “middle people” from the equation. If the public can not directly hold the staff position accountable then they should ONLY take direction from Council after public input.
Council is accountable to the voters not a City Manager or City Attorney and therefore the positions are “untouchable” currently. The city has grown in size, population, and complexity since the last charter update and this commit did NOT take those factors into the recommendations.
The Stadium Authority (AKA Council) spends WAY too much time discussing and fighting over Stafium issues. They should be discussed and the public should have input but the City Council has an entire City to manage and when we spend this much time on any one thing the rest suffer and many things have . . . Just look at Measure I bond for all the things the City “missed” along the way. It is time to have a Stadium Authority commission appointed to work on these issues and report/yake direction from council. Missed oprotunity is a real loss.
No discussion about the increasing the current 5% draw from SVP annually?! Really?! Around 90% of all power consumed in Santa Clara are Commercial/Data Centers . . . This would allow us to build a Capital Expendeture fund so we don’t need to continue to ask tax payers for Bonds with putting a minimum burden on our residents. Currently 5% is roughy $36m annually contributed to the general fund from SVP.
This Charter Review Committee is a set-up to get the same “Santa Clara Way” result. I really hoped more came out of this effort.
Bravo Adam!