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
Glen Googins is again the Neville Chamberlain to Gillmor’s Machine. His explanations for this committee are often long winded exchanges. Googins battles Councilmember Park in a game of word play, while he backs down against Mayor Gillmor. Councilmember Park will often go on long tangents that do put pressure on Googins and upset Gillmor. Yet Googins never holds Gillmor the same as Park. Googins is a politician city attorney. He was an elected city attorney down in Chula Vista. He knows the game of politics and knows how to handle each Councilmember. He knows how to persuade Karen Hardy, Suds Jain and maybe even Raj Chahal, yet Chahal has pushed back at some recent meetings. Yet he does not know how to get persuade Kevin Park because you can tell at the back and forth between Googins and Park. Park is very critical of the City Attorney as of late but for good reason. Just as this article digs into the word play of Glen Googins one can’t help but ponder whose side he is on. The charter changes are significant and for him to be hands off on the private meetings of a charter subcommittee that are not subject to any brown act rules. Anything could be discussed with those on that subcommittee. Lack of transparency to see who is communicating like if Jude Barry is coaching or corresponding with Pat Nikolai, Jeremy Schmidt and Corey Morgan. The lack of concern around a former civil grand juror on a charter review that favors Gillmor’s agenda, this is the same former civil grand juror that served on the jury with our current City Clerk Bob O’Keefe before the 2024 elections. Glen Googins’ blind eye will cost the city, or members of this council some way or some how based on a lot of his word play responses. To see this paper question Googins motives and his description of ‘occasional’ attention is a spin zone technique of a person who used to be elected to office. Googins political roots are showing when he plays these moves. Why is he not as aggressive intervening with Mayor Gillmor’s actual abuses as he is with Councilmember Park’s harsh criticisms. Glen Googins may be more afraid of the Mayor than he is of the other Councilmembers who hired him. This Charter Review reeks of Gillmor’s agenda and he is giving it a glowing recommendation. Gillmor may seem reluctant now, but when it is time, she will be ok with all of it and more. Remember Gillmor changed the bond measure at the 11th hour, holding the city council hostage.