The 2025/2026 Santa Clara Charter Review Committee met to wrap up its business — at least that’s what most might expect after the committee finished its work and presented its proposed charter to the city council. Instead, the meeting became a 90-minute postmortem and a plan to continue work.

After nine months of work, the committee sent its proposal to the city council in June. In July, the council declined to put the proposed new charter before voters this November, except for an item about public works contracts.

City Attorney Glen Googins, who walked the recommendation through four council meetings between June and July, put the outcome bluntly: the comprehensive update “wasn’t proposed and struck down, it just wasn’t proposed.”

Charter Review Committee Postmortem

As Googins sees it, the project faced a number of roadblocks:

• At the city council’s July 14 meeting, its last before summer recess, members didn’t take up the item until 10:52 p.m. and debated it until nearly 2:00 a.m.
• Council Member Kelly Cox’s list of 18 provisions was left to future council ordinances rather than written directly into the charter. Mayor Lisa Gillmor concurred in this objection.
• Council Member Kevin Park’s questioned why the committee had taken up chief of police qualifications and authority at all, given it was known to be controversial.
• Questions about the transparency of the process due to the closed subcommittee meetings where the actual work was done.
• Perception that minor changes affecting parkland use would undermine Measure R, a prior ballot measure that passed with strong voter support.

In the end, Googins said, it was Mayor Gillmor and Council Member Park whose concerns about the package were never fully resolved, and by the July 14 vote, a majority of the council agreed it would be “problematic” to send something this significant to voters over these objections.

Committee members had their own theories about what went wrong. Eric Crutchlow said it wasn’t fair to the public or to staff to take up major decisions after 11 p.m. Steve Kelly blamed the hour as much as the substance, arguing council needed a month or more to digest the recommendation properly.

“People, when they are fatigued, are like they’ve been drinking,” he said.

Burt Field said the scale of the undertaking, not any one misstep, was the real problem.

“We’re on boogie boards and a tidal wave’s coming in. The people in the position of making decisions were overwhelmed,” he said.

Committee Plans a Second Act

After Googins said the group was “officially disbanded,” the committee voted to continue its activity.

Five committee members, Crutchlow, Kelly, Field, John Brooks and vice chair Joseph Sosinski, volunteered to work with staff on outreach for Measure C, the one charter item making the ballot.

The bigger discussion was over an additional report for the city council.

“If you did desire to proceed with something like that,” said Googins, “elements of that could include summary thoughts on the city council action, a supplement to the final report to summarize post-report proceedings.”

The committee didn’t need to write anything further, said Googins. Staff’s plans didn’t depend on it: the recommendation will go to council “once the new council is seated, as part of their priority setting,” regardless of what the committee submits.

“This is definitely something that professional staff is interested in doing,” he said.

The committee voted to have a subgroup draft a report and bring it back for full review. Holly Roberts, Mohamed Naveed, Brooks, Crutchlow, Field, Kelly, Eric Jensen and Mark Beckman in favor; Sosinski, Lauren Diamond and Susan Peters opposed. Sosinski, Crutchlow, Boeckman and Pat Nicolai were appointed to write it. As the committee is disbanded, it’s not clear who would meet to review it.

Measure C, the only charter change reaching voters this year, allows the city to use alternative contracting methods such as design-build and sets a $250,000 threshold above which the city council, rather than staff, must approve the procurement method.

Previous Santa Clara Charter Review Committee Posts:
Lack of Consensus Kills Comprehensive Santa Clara Charter Update
Charter Changes Still Divisive at Santa Clara City Council Meeting
Charter Review Committee Narrows Proposal for Council Approval
Charter Changes Move Forward Despite Division
EdBoard: Hey, Glen, We’re Listening
8 Months in the Making, Santa Clara Charter Overhaul Heads to Council
Police Union Shapes Charter Review Committee — Out of Public View
Santa Clara’s Charter Overhaul: Six Months of Work, One Stubborn Sticking Point
Charter Review Committee: Clear Direction on Library Board Changes, At Sea on Elected Police Chief Authority
Planning Commission Discusses Charter Changes
Charter Review Committee: Biggest Recommendation is Charter Reorganization
Charter Review Committee Digs Into Charter Details
Charter Review Subcommittees Raise Transparency Concerns 
Santa Clara 2025 Charter Review Committee Gets to Work 
2025 Charter Review Committee Set