At its Feb. 18 meeting, the Santa Clara Charter Review Committee heard subcommittee recommendations for changes and considered a proposed comprehensive reorganization of the city’s 1951 charter. In its deliberations, the committee is also studying similar charter revisions in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
The committee discussed the best way to present proposed changes — in several ballot measures or a single one, with a goal of a ballot measure(s) for the 2026 election. Committee members also discussed four categories for considering proposed changes.
The first are form and appearance changes — for example, corrections, eliminating redundancy and clearer headings.
The second level is rewrites, deletions and additions — for example, changing the annual budget to a two-year budget, which is current practice and generally considered a best practice for municipal government.
Changes in policy or procedure that may be important enough to merit a separate ballot measure would be level 3 changes—for example, allowable uses and disposition of city-owned land.
Level 4 changes would be “possible changes to the charter that are either too complicated or too significant to have been fully analyzed,” City Attorney Glen Googins explained, “or appropriate for consideration as part of this charter update project, but are worthy of further study and consideration in the future.”
Going forward, the committee will likely be meeting more frequently.
“We’re really digging in now, we’re making good progress,” said Googins. “But there’s almost certainly going to be a rush and a need for additional meetings for this group in order to meet that [the planned] timeline.”
Subcommittee 2 (City Council) reported on its discussions so far. Council salaries will continue to be set by the Elected Officials Salary Setting Committee, but the committee is considering whether council members should be eligible for medical insurance. (Council is already allowed to participate in the city’s pension system.)
It also recommended changing the two meetings/month requirement to 24 meetings/year, with at least one per month, and clarifying the definition of “quorum.” (There are different quorum requirements for different council actions that sometimes confuse even council members themselves.) The subcommittee agreed that the charter should specify council duties and conduct, and best practices for declaring and filling council vacancies.
Subcommittee 4 (Boards and Commissions) will recommend explicit requirements for staff support for city commissions and boards, vacancy definitions consistent with those for elected officials, and disallowing board and committee closed session meetings. Apparently, the group discussed at length whether commissioners should only be removed or denied second terms for a publicly stated cause — effectively guaranteeing commissioners 8-year terms — and adding an ethics commission to the charter.
Subcommittee 6 (Fiscal Administration and Public Works) recommended changing budgeting provisions to conform to the city’s current biennial budget; adding electronic publication for city public notices and extending public review time. The subcommittee also considered changes to reserve requirements, the requirement for five council votes for budget amendments, changing the $1,000 threshold for council-approved projects and allowing design-build procurement — design and construction contracted to a single entity.
Googins proposed a charter reorganization to consolidate — for example, several sections talk about the city council, making it difficult to find specific rules about council elections and operations. The reorganization would also include cross-references to city code and history of relevant changes. [Proposed charter reorganization 2026.pdf]
Committee Member Burt Field was absent, while members Lauren Diamond and Jose Sinski attended remotely. Member Mohamed Naveed observed the meeting remotely, but didn’t participate. The committee will present its work to date to the city council in the near future.
Watch the meeting at tinyurl.com/chaterreviewfeb26. Find agendas for the Santa Clara City Charter committee’s meetings at https://tinyurl.com/sccharterreview.
Carolyn Schuk can be reached at carolyn@santaclaraweekly.com.
Previous Santa Clara Charter Review Posts:
Charter Review Committee Digs Into Charter Details
Charter Review Subcommittees Raise Transparency Concerns
Santa Clara 2025 Charter Review Committee Gets to Work
It has become more transparent at the Gillmor Machine agenda with this charter review committee. Not only does it have Gillmor loyalists on it but it is compromised .
Subcommittee 4 was composed of members like Burt Field, a former Parks and Recreation commissioner and former president of the fake non-profit Stand up for Santa Clara, and Lauren Diamond, a former civil grand juror behind the election timed grand jury reports in 2024. It is no surprise that this subcommittee has those two individuals on it and is addressing whether commissioners should only be removed or denied second terms with a publicly stated cause. This here is self serving, because Burt Field himself was not re-appointed in 2023. Gillmor Machine and her loyalists will say it was a removal but in the end, they don’t know how to do simple math. The vote was 3-3-1 with Councilmember Raj Chahal famously abstaining and Mayor Gillmor pressuring him over it. Mayor Gillmor also demanded a reason for Burt Fields “removal” when in fact it was a non-reappointment. Getting to the bottom of the votes lacking for re-appointment stemmed from Burt Field’s alleged behavior online to the City Council which included comparing recalls to loading a gun. Field said it was his freedom of speech including then Parks and Recreation Commissioner Kelly Gonzalez-Cox. Burt Field was never held accountable by law enforcement for his alleged written threats to elected officials, which looks pretty threatening. However, when you look at who Burt Field is very good friends with, just see it is Pat Nikolai, the former police chief and the current chair of this Charter Review committee and you know why there was never any investigation or enforcement by the authorities because Burt Field was the best friend of the Police Chief at the time. Burt Field was ultimately held accountable by council by not having enough votes to continue serving the city. The inclusion of former Civil Grand Juror Lauren Diamond who was part of the jury releasing the 2024 grand jury reports discussed the non-reappointment of Burt Field and how it was a bad thing. This again shows the power of the Gillmor Machine and the mighty web it weaves.
The committee to weigh the options of “For cause” removal or non-reappointment is such a Gillmor Machine demand. It is just like when the City Council terminated the disgraced City Attorney Brian Doyle in 2021 and disgraced City Manager Deanna Santana in 2022. Mayor Gillmor and her “members of the public” demanded transparency for what cause they were being terminated for when it was reported that both City Attorney and City Manager were terminated for “No cause”. While one part of this committee is defining if City Council is employees where they are not, this other faction is trying to make it provide a reason to remove or not reappoint a commissioner as if they were a city employee. This is nothing but Burt Field and Gillmor retaliation for not getting their way in 2023. Notice how they can’t let it go and force it on people?
Again, simple math, If the commissioner is voted to be removed, they are removed. If the Council majority supports reappointment then they are reappointed, if they do not support it or the lack of votes to do so, the commissioner is not reappointed. It is at the discretion of the City Council and only the City Council and should not require explanations. If the shoe was on the other foot, would Gillmor and her majority give a reason? No. Remember she is scorched earth policy making and can’t stand when her commission plants are not picked or reappointed. There should be no automatically guaranteeing a commissioner an 8-year term.
Also, no surprise this same subcommittee is recommending an Ethics Commission. I had written a letter to the Government and Ethics Commission and they ignored me on my stance of being against the proposed commission with only Councilmember Park responding. The Ethics Commission is something Gillmor Machine continues to push for relentlessly. The Gillmor agenda is in the most need of an ethics lesson and ethics probe, however it would never be that way, it is ultimately a weapon of mass deception that will benefit Mayor Gillmor and her proxies. Councilmember Jain and Chahal vote on the Governance and Ethics commission supporting the proposal and listening to Gillmor proxies like Wanda Buck and ethics expert Tom Shanks. Now they are not stopping, they are going to try to force the ethics commission through the Charter Review committee and get an ethics commission written into the DNA, the fabric and formal documents of the city. Gillmor constantly talking about ethics is what I mentioned before that those who shout the loudest accusations often deserve the closest scrutiny and Gillmor has a lengthy record of crying world and making the loudest accusations, the most about ethics.
Gillmor ain’t done folks, her tenure and influence is not going away anytime soon. Gillmor has big plans for the next decade and all these significant possible changes to the charter is a clear sign of that. It is about maintaining power and using the charter as a weapon against those who are not aligned.
Trying to change the roles and duties of council and mayor and trying to include provisions like conducting themselves in a professional and courteous manner. Yet does this apply to Mayor Gillmor and her loyalists? Gillmor is trying to give stronger roles. So then if Kathy Watanabe is elected Mayor she can have more power and if Gillmor finds herself back on City Council again she will have defined duties she can refer to, the same with Kathy.
Trying to define a qualified elector so then Gillmor just needs to get someone with a Santa Clara address to be on City Council or a City Commission. They don’t need to live there and this is just Gillmor using the removal of short-termed Planning Commissioner Ron Patrick for lying on his application of residency. Ron Patrick’s address he used for the city application to be appointed to the planning commission was his place of business not his residence. When Patrick was confronted on this and ultimately removed from the Planning Commission, Gillmor and former Councilmember Watanabe were strongly against it. Now the definition of elector is so then this can happen again with someone not really living somewhere and just using an address in town. This is nothing new, former Councilmember Kevin Moore lived in Roseville yet served on Santa Clara City Council using his Santa Clara family home, Pat Kolstad moved to Washington yet “rented” a room in town before he termed out in retirement. There are many other examples but Gillmor wants this to be easier and more streamlined. Gillmor showed her hand back with this situation in 2022 and this itself ended up becoming a topic in the grand jury reports as well.
Discussion on vacancy, convictions, resignations, deaths. I hope with that focus on what to do in resulting convictions etc that includes future Mayor Kathy Watanabe and current Mayor Gillmor. If they were convicted would the rules apply?
Discussion on changes to the five votes budget amendment. Gillmor wants this because then she can get a simple majority to pass a budget amendment rather than a super majority of five. One can reference the last meeting where Councilmember Hardy sided with Gillmor on a reconsideration and only needed 4 votes. This is how Gillmor does the math game, she calculates what she needs when she needs it.
Anyone can see what the Gillmor Machine Agenda is on this charter review, and members on that committee and members on this Council will allow these changes to happen which will empower Gillmor further. Why do you think Nikolai is the chair, and individuals on there that have towed the Gillmor line.
While City Attorney Glen Googins is using this opportunity to lengthen his achievements at Santa Clara on his resume, maybe making this one of his biggest. This is just another feather in his cap like the World Cup and Super Bowl. Googins excuse for a lot of language fixes is saving staff time in understanding what things say. However, last week under reconsideration he had no clue what to do in the situation and couldn’t even comprehend his own rules of Rosenberg’s rules. Again, why did he really want to leave Chula Vista since he always is referencing it?
The bottom line is that this Charter Review committee just can’t pass the smell test. Something seems very oddly timed for this and the participation of the Gillmor loyalists and the direction they are taking this committee is beyond concerning. Some items make sense while others don’t. My fear is they will trojan horse their sneaky agenda in the package of ‘routine changes’.
The City of Santa Clara already maintains a well-established Ethics & Values program that thoughtfully addresses a wide range of areas, including Fair Campaign Practices, behavioral standards for Commissioners, Board Members, Appointed Officials, and Council Members. This existing framework provides a strong foundation for accountability and integrity, making the creation of a separate ethics commission unnecessary – particularly one that may not guarantee the same level of experience or qualification.
Residents place their trust in elected leaders and city staff to ensure that appointments to Boards and Commissions reflect both competence and commitment. To uphold that trust, the City Council should retain clear authority to make timely changes when necessary. Lengthy, fixed terms, such as eight years, can limit flexibility and responsiveness. Commission service is a privilege, not an entitlement, and the Council should be empowered to remove or replace volunteer members when it determines that doing so best serves the City’s interests, without being constrained by burdensome procedural requirements.
Adopting an electronic system for city public notices would be a meaningful and forward-looking improvement. Modern technology offers the opportunity to expand access, increase transparency, and provide both residents and Council Members with the time needed to thoroughly review fiscal and budgetary materials and offer informed input.
Finally, an important opportunity for refinement lies in the Charter’s requirements for candidates for the Chief of Police position. Updating these criteria to emphasize advanced education and leadership training – while removing strict residency requirements – would help ensure the City can attract highly qualified, forward-thinking candidates capable of meeting the evolving demands of modern law enforcement leadership.
• From Officer.com: “Minimum qualifications for police chiefs often do not prepare them for the complexities of command, increasing liability risks for small agencies.” https://www.officer.com/training-careers/hiring-promotion/article/55361054/when-minimum-standards-become-maximum-risk-closing-the-leadership-training-gap-in-small-police-agencies?utm_source=chatgpt.com