Despite strident concerns from some council members, changes to the city’s charter moved forward.

At its most recent meeting June 15, the Santa Clara City Council discussed changes to the city’s charter, with some voicing strong opposition to some of its provisions. 

In a lengthy presentation, City Attorney Glen Googins presented the council with changes to the city’s governing document as decided by a council-formed charter review committee. The council formed the committee last year after deciding its charter needed a voter-approved update.

Googins said the update allowed for, among other things, an update to “outdated language” and empowered city employees to exercise “professional judgment” in various city operations. 

Among the changes were qualifications for the city attorney and police chief. The changes would require the city attorney to have seven years — as opposed to the previous four years — of experience and the police chief to have at least two years experience as a lieutenant. 

Many of the changes were routine or non-substantive, but several more contentious changes drew ire from the council.

Council Member Kevin Park said the changes seemed to be targeting certain council members, adding there is “something for everyone.” He accused city employees of turning a “small project into a huge project.”

“I want to know what kind of slippery slope we’re doing by giving additional powers where they were not before where this was supposed to be a clarification,” he said. “They say good lies have a little bit of truth in them, and great lies have a lot of truth in them.”

Most of the tension revolved around delineating between changes that were deemed controversial. Googins said the changes fell into three categories — level 1, level 2 and more divisive level 3. However, some council members derided the lack of clarity between seemingly routine items and more contentious ones.

Eric Crutchlow, the chair of the planning commission and charter review committee member, said he wished the group had gotten more public input. The group tried its best with the task it was given, he added.

Mayor Lisa Gillmor joined Park’s skepticism that the changes were fully in the public interest, saying many of the provisions lacked “guard rails.” 

“I understand that many of these recommendations are intended to improve administrative efficiencies and provide staff with greater flexibility,” she said. “However, my responsibility is to evaluate these policies through the lens of the public. And my primary question is not whether a provision makes administration easier, but whether it preserves transparency, accountability and protections that residents expect from a very clear city charter.”

Park further challenged whether Googins could be impartial, undermining the notion that he could write an impartial analysis, citing Googins’ “emotional response” to previous topics. 

Googins said he had “no useful response” to Park’s claim.

Council Member Suds Jain said he wanted the procurement process to have a separate ballot measure. The proposed changes empower the city to skip the bidding process in certain projects to expedite work on projects where it has high confidence in certain companies.

Jain said his experience on the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) board gave him insight into how different procurement processes could help fast-track projects of high importance.

“The current charter language really ties our hands in terms of what we can do and how fast we can move,” he said. “Design, bid, build means you have to have 100% design before you go out to bid. And that doesn’t account for any complicated projects that might have uncertainty.”

Despite some of the council’s characterizations, City Manager Jovan Grogan said the changes do not empower him to do anything out of line with city practices. The changes do not, for instance, allow him to transfer money between departments, adding that the changes just “provide clarity.”

A similar vagueness cropped up when discussing the police chief’s role. When asked about who would be in charge of reprimanding or hiring and firing employees, Googins said the matter wasn’t a conflict but a “disagreement,” adding that, with the changes, it was “now clear” that the police chief headed the department.

Despite confusion and division, the council approved city employees returning to the council with additional changes to bring before the council. Gillmor, Park and Council Member Raj Chahal opposed that motion. Another motion to return with options for a separate ballot measure regarding the procurement process passed unanimously.

The charter review committee meets again June 17. The council will discuss the changes again at its June 23 or July 7 meeting. Proposed ballot measures need to be submitted to the Registrar of Voters by Aug. 7, meaning the council will need to make a final decision by its July 14 meeting.

Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com

Related Charter Review Posts:
EdBoard: Hey, Glen, We’re Listening
8 Months in the Making, Santa Clara Charter Overhaul Heads to Council

Previous Santa Clara City Council Meetings:
Council Approves Maintenance Costs, Utility Rates
Santa Clara Tackles Employment Gaps, Overhauls Performance Reviews 
City Establishes Special Event Zone, Bars ICE from World Cup