In his 200-page report on the proposed charter changes, Santa Clara City Attorney Glen Googins opined that the notable absence of public involvement in the city charter rewrite was attributable to the “technical nature of the Charter Project,” making “it unlikely to attract a lot of public attention or interest,”  and that “further, there was only occasional press coverage of the project.”

We suppose that depends on your definition of “occasional.”

The dictionary defines “occasional” as “happening now and then or rarely,” “without a defined pattern or schedule,” “brief or short-lived in duration or presence,” and “not continuous or steady.”

The Silicon Valley Voice has covered the Charter Review Committee 10 times, from its founding and every meeting since. Ten reports over 10 months is hardly “happening now and then or rarely.” The only things we cover more frequently are city council meetings.

What has been “occasional,” however, is the reports coming out of the charter subcommittees. There’s no “defined pattern or schedule” of which ones keep minutes or notes. In our “steady” coverage, we recall a moment when City Attorney Googins took a subcommittee to task for its unsteady ability to meet – in fact, at that point, the subcommittee had yet to schedule a meeting. 

If the city attorney thinks our coverage is insufficient, we must remind him that we cannot report on what we cannot see. Now, the argument is that ad hoc subcommittees aren’t subject to the Brown Act. But nothing discussed in these subcommittee meetings is confidential. The city has simply chosen to be opaque instead of transparent. When The Voice requested to attend a subcommittee meeting, the request was denied. 

While the subcommittees report at each meeting, it’s not in-depth reporting. It’s little more than a smattering of items discussed, such as: “Possible conversation of changing from two council meetings a month to 24 meetings a year.” It always leads to more questions. Why were they discussing the issue? Who asked for it? Why do they think it’s necessary?

And then, of course, there are the hot topic items.

When the former elected police chief, current elected police chief and the current president of the police union all gather in a room to “provide input” on the section of the charter that specifically applies to the police chief’s role in the city and there are no minutes, no notes and no one in the public to witness that meeting, that’s a problem.  

Further, when Charter Review Committee members question increasing the qualifications of the elected police chief because there may not be any qualified candidates, we can be pardoned for thinking that agendas other than a desire for good governance may be at work here. 

We are not disputing that the Charter Review Committee members devoted many hours and were very diligent in their work. We are all grateful for their service to our city. We only wish we were allowed to share with the community what questions they grappled with, and the information, analysis and thinking behind their recommendations — from their own mouths, not what a city official chose for annotations in a final draft. 

So, Mr. Googins, maybe the issue is not that the coverage is “occasional” as you say, but that you don’t like what you’re hearing.

Further Reading on Our Charter Review Committee Coverage:
2025 Charter Review Committee Set — 9/23/25 
Santa Clara 2025 Charter Review Committee Gets to Work — 11/12/25
Charter Review Subcommittees Raise Transparency Concerns — 11/ 21/25
Charter Review Committee Digs Into Charter Details — 2/6/26
Charter Review Committee: Biggest Recommendation is Charter Reorganization — 3/28/26
Planning Commission Discusses Charter Changes — 4/3/26
Charter Review Committee: Clear Direction on Library Board Changes, At Sea on Elected Police Chief Authority — 4/7/26
Santa Clara’s Charter Overhaul: Six Months of Work, One Stubborn Sticking Point — 4/28/26
Police Union Shapes Charter Review Committee — Out of Public View — 5/27/26
8 Months in the Making, Santa Clara Charter Overhaul Heads to Council — 6/8/26