The Santa Clara City Council’s parliamentary process has come under attack, with one council member saying city employees are weaponizing it to nullify his vote.

At its most recent meeting, March 24, Council Member Karen Hardy called for reconsideration of an item heard at the previous council meeting. The item was a five-year, $1.17 million contract with Peregrine Technologies, Inc. for a data-sharing software.

To pass, the item needed five votes. Council Member Kevin Park dissented, defeating the item because Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Raj Chahal left the meeting early.

The city’s policy specifies that only a member of the prevailing side can ask for a reconsideration.

But City Attorney Glen Googins said Hardy was on firm ground because the city’s policy doesn’t speak to the matter. The “unique facts” of the situation, Googins said, made him comfortable with Hardy’s request.

Among those “unique facts” was that the council took up the item close to 2 a.m., and the entire council wasn’t present.

“By saying that the people that were absent from the vote have a right to weigh in makes no sense whatsoever,” Park said. “If you are saying that anyone can leave the dais and not being present and come back and request that an item be reconsidered, that doesn’t make any sense.”

Googins argued that a motion failing to pass is the same as no action, but acknowledged Park had “some support” for his position. 

Park called such a categorization “world-breaking.” He referenced a letter from Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenburg, the author of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, the city’s rubric for parliamentary procedure.

Googins paraphrased the letter, but Park insisted on reading its contents. The letter specified that Park is the “prevailing side.” 

Park suggested delaying the item until the city’s Governance and Ethics Committee could take it up. Googins interrupting foundational concepts “willy-nilly” then feeling comfortable proceeding is a “dangerous precedent,” Park said.

Still, the council approved adding Hardy’s request to a future agenda. Park left the dais for the vote.    

Jay Ess, a public member, previously pulled three items from the consent calendar: the Peregrine contract, the approval of the police department’s inventory of military equipment and a surveillance drone grant. He called the reconsideration “BS.” 

“It seems to be pretty obvious that the council wants to turn Santa Clara into a surveillance hub, and that is something that the constituents, the residents don’t want,” he said.

Ess called Gillmor moving the items to the end of the agenda a “procedural shell game” that “fundamentally undermined public transparency, trust and democracy.” He accused Gillmor of “using the clock as a weapon to tire out dissent,” adding that it’s an “abuse of the chair.”

Ess called for the council to amend its policy to guarantee public participation, ensuring any item pulled by a public member must be heard in agendized order or following the consent calendar.

“When the mayor knows the public has pulled these items to speak on privacy and civil rights, and then pushes them into the dead of night, it sends a clear message that this council prefers to authorize surveillance in the dark,” he said. “Let’s stop using procedural tricks to silence the community.”

Several public commenters scoffed at the notion that the item warranted reconsideration because council members were absent. Many said if the item mattered to those council members, they should have stayed for the entire meeting.

Adding items to the agenda and how they end up there also came up again. 

Former Vice Mayor Anthony Becker again called for the city to investigate the leak of FIFA documents to The San Francisco Chronicle. Becker said his request, called a 030, to have that item added to an agenda has yet to be fulfilled, despite several attempts.

“There seems to be a thumb on the scale in this city that continually pushes things in a certain direction,” Becker said.

In addition to Ess and Becker, several members of the Muwekma Ohlone tribe also requested an item be put on a future agenda. That request was to have the council draft a letter supporting their fight for federal recognition.

Despite having a portion of the agenda earmarked for considering 030 requests, Council Member Albert Gonzalez moved to add the tribe’s request to a future agenda, something that drew ire from Park. Chahal joined him in dissent, saying he opposed it on “procedural grounds.” While Jain said, “we have never done that,” indicating that the council usually does not respond to public comment.

Googins waved away the discrepancy.

“There is no requirement that you wait until the end of the meeting. It is, in effect, a referral in the flow, a referral in the flow of the meeting on an item that came up. The Brown Act allows that, and your 030 policy allows it as well,” said Googins.

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

Previous Santa Clara City Council Meetings:
Police Surveillance Hot Topic for Santa Clara City Council
Stadium Budget Item Highlights Capital Needs
Santa Clara has a Transparency Problem — Still
Santa Clara Car Dealership’s Alternate Trash Pickup Denied