The police union president has been presenting to the city’s charter review committee behind closed doors, raising questions about the nature of public meetings and his status as a lobbyist.
Santa Clara wants to update its charter, but to do so, it needs voters’ approval. Since the changes are a package deal, the Santa Clara City Council formed a charter review committee to do a deep dive into the charter.
Although the committee meetings are public, numerous changes necessitate the committee splitting into subcommittees to examine various aspects of the charter. Those subcommittee meetings are closed to the public.
Former police chief Pat Nikolai is the secretary of one of those subcommittees.
Janine De la Vega, the city’s public information officer, wrote in an email that the subcommittee discussed the police chief’s role. Nikolai asked the committee if it wanted the perspective of the Santa Clara Police Officers Association (SCPOA). It did, so the subcommittee invited Jeremy Schmidt, SCPOA president, to present.
De la Vega wrote that City Attorney Glen Googins determined the subcommittees are exempt from the Brown Act, which governs what meetings need to be public. However, she didn’t illuminate Googins’ reasoning for the exemption.
Behind Closed Doors
The Brown Act mandates that legislative bodies hold public meetings. Exemptions are narrow.
Broadly, “[a]ny board, commission, committee or other body of a local agency created by charter, ordinance, resolution or formal action of a legislative body is itself a legislative body,” according to the Brown Act, § 54952 (b).
The law only exempts groups solely composed of less than a majority of a legislative body. Since no council members sit on the committees, according to the Brown Act, the exemption doesn’t apply. Committees like the charter review committee that serve a specific purpose have “continuing subject matter jurisdiction.” They count as legislative bodies.
Further, since the council formed the committee through formal action, the charter review committee, according to the Brown Act, is not exempt.
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them,” according to the Brown Act. “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Even if the law didn’t require the meetings to be public, nothing mandates that they be closed-door. The city offered no explanation for why the meetings aren’t public.
Lobbyist in all but Name
Schmidt’s presence at the subcommittee meetings raises legal questions.
The city’s lobbyist ordinance specifies who counts as a lobbyist. It requires lobbyists to register with the city. Schmidt’s name doesn’t appear on the city’s list of registered lobbyists.
City code exempts union representatives from registering if they meet certain criteria.
Union representatives that communicate with city officials “… regarding wages, hours and other terms or conditions of employment, or the administration, implementation or interpretation of an existing employment agreement …” do not count as lobbyists, according to the ordinance.
The ordinance also specifies the conditions that negate the exemption.
An organization forfeits an exemption and qualifies as a “business or organization” lobbyist if it employs someone who spends at least 10 hours a calendar year engaged in advocacy for the group.
Additionally, a group counts as an “expenditure lobbyist” if it spends more than $5,000 in the same period in “… connection with carrying out public relations, advertising or similar activities with the intent of soliciting or urging, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with any City official in order to attempt to influence legislative or administrative action.”
SCPOA has a history of political activity. Those activities include building and maintaining a website, social media ads and mailers opposing a 2024 charter amendment to appoint the police chief. It has engaged in similar efforts to support council candidates and civil grand jury reports.
In 2024, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, SCPOA spent $170,000 on independent expenditures. Whether the union spent at least 10 hours in advocacy in a calendar year is not detailed.
Schmidt didn’t respond to requests to explain his lobbyist status.
Deafening Silence
The ordinance specifies that the city clerk, Bob O’Keefe, has administrative authority. The clerk’s office maintains the city’s list of lobbyists and is responsible for issuing notices of non-compliance for those found in violation, providing them with a notice of a 15-day cure period.
Enforcement authority lies with City Attorney Glen Googins, who can seek injunctive relief to compel compliance.
In an email to De la Vega, Googins, O’Keefe and Nora Pimental, assistant city clerk, The Weekly sought an explanation as to why Schmidt wasn’t listed as a lobbyist and whether anything is being done to remedy his absence.
The response, from De la Vega, acknowledged the circumstances that would exempt Schmidt but didn’t explain, or even address, why — or even if — he is exempt. Similarly, the response hand-waved the matter of enforcement.
“It is the responsibility of any individual engaged in lobbyist activities to be aware of these requirements, to track their hours to determine if they cross any applicable threshold, and to register as a lobbyist if required by the applicable City Code provisions,” De la Vega wrote.
If Googins or O’Keefe intend to enforce the city rules they are responsible for enforcing, nothing in De la Vega’s response indicates it. In other words, the city seems keen to let the police union police itself.
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
What is occurring within Santa Clara’s charter review process reflects a deeply troubling pattern of political favoritism, institutional self-protection, and disregard for transparency laws that exist specifically to protect the public from insider influence.
At the center of these concerns is the apparent collaboration between politically connected city officials, police union leadership, and individuals with longstanding institutional ties to the Santa Clara Police Officers Association (SCPOA). Rather than conducting charter reform through a transparent and publicly accountable process, the city appears to be permitting substantive policy discussions regarding police authority, governance structure, and charter revisions to occur within closed-door subcommittees that may legally qualify as legislative bodies under California’s Brown Act.
If these subcommittees were created through formal council action and possess continuing subject matter jurisdiction, their exclusion of the public may constitute violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.). Such violations expose the city and participating officials to legal actions seeking injunctive relief, invalidation of actions taken, attorney’s fees, and court orders compelling compliance with open meeting laws.
Equally concerning is the apparent failure to enforce Santa Clara’s lobbying ordinance against the SCPOA and its representatives despite substantial documented political advocacy, independent expenditures, public campaigns, and organized efforts to influence charter-related governance decisions. Public reporting indicates that the police union spent approximately $170,000 on independent expenditures in 2024 while simultaneously advocating to preserve the elected police chief structure. If lobbying thresholds were met and registration requirements ignored, city officials responsible for enforcement may be exposing the city to allegations of selective enforcement, favoritism, and unequal application of municipal law.
The involvement of former Police Chief and former police union president Pat Nikolai in shaping charter provisions concerning police governance creates additional appearance-of-conflict concerns. When individuals with direct institutional interests are allowed to influence the rules governing their own power structure, public trust is undermined and the legitimacy of the process itself becomes questionable.
Most troubling is the political effort to preserve the elected police chief position at all costs. Critics have argued that the SCPOA effectively demanded political loyalty from elected officials, including Mayor Lisa Gillmor, in exchange for political support, campaign activity, and independent expenditures. The union’s aggressive opposition to appointing the police chief through the City Council has fueled public concern that the goal is not accountability, but rather insulating the police chief’s office from civilian oversight and preserving institutional control through political influence.
When political organizations spend heavily to influence elections, shape charter provisions, and pressure elected officials while simultaneously participating in non-public governance discussions, the public has every right to question whether Santa Clara is operating in the interests of residents or in the interests of politically connected insiders.
To restore public confidence, several actions should immediately occur:
• All charter review subcommittee meetings should be opened to the public and fully recorded.
• An independent outside legal review of Brown Act compliance should be conducted.
• The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and/or appropriate oversight agencies should review whether lobbying registration requirements were triggered.
• Any participant with direct political, union, or institutional conflicts regarding police governance should recuse themselves from charter recommendations affecting police authority.
• The City Council should consider appointing an independent ethics monitor or outside counsel to oversee the charter review process.
• Residents and watchdog organizations should continue filing California Public Records Act requests to preserve transparency and accountability.
Santa Clara’s charter is effectively the city’s constitutional framework. Any attempt to rewrite it through opaque processes, politically aligned advocacy, selective enforcement of laws, or insider influence risks not only legal consequences, but long-term damage to public trust in local government.
Adolf smiles.
No surprise! They always are out of public view and the rules do not apply to them and remember they don’t need no stinking ethics https://www.svvoice.com/letters/letter-to-the-editor-we-dont-need-no-stinking-ethics/.
Remember that this charter review is stacked with the Gillmor loyalists, which includes the former Gillmor stronghold police chief Pat Nikolai, a former grand juror that delivered Gillmor the 2024 election timed grand jury reports and Burt Field the former president of a fake non-profit Stand Up for Santa Clara that has avoided any oversight for their actions. It is said they still won’t provide any proof of their IRS status despite their political activity.
The Gillmor Machine is above the law above the rules and above those they are supposed to work for. The people. They believe the people work for them.
Whatever comes out of this charter review you know will be Gillmor agenda based especially with the guiding hand and assistance of City Attorney Glen Neville Chamberlain Googins. Whatever comes out of this charter review you can guarantee that the POA will help campaign to support those charter changes if on the ballot.
The fact that you have former Chief of Police Pat Nikolai who happened to be the former Union President when Mike Sellers was chief on this committee has always been the biggest red flag. Nikolai was a bully then and still is. Nikolai always made sure the union followed Gillmor’s orders. When Nikolai became chief the role floated to Alex Thorke then to Jeremy Schmidt who was the perfect fit for the Gillmor owned Police Union. Schmidt made himself known by showing up to council meetings and making what looked like bribes if the council could prove something about the police chief role. That there was another red flag of Schmidt’s tenure as POA president. I’ll be blunt, Jeremy Schmidt is a bully and a corrupt cop that was caught deleting records related to the grand jury leak and subsequent trial. This is the same cop and police union president that in 2022 asked candidates to take a pledge to protect the elected police chief, and when challenged of how unethical that pledge was. Schmidt allegedly texted a former Councilmember that they were willing to play games and be intimidating rather than protecting and serving the community. Remember that they pushed that ethics pledge, to protect the chief. Remember that. https://www.svvoice.com/santa-clara-mayoral-candidate-anthony-becker-declines-poa-pac-endorsement/ , https://www.svvoice.com/police-union-campaigns-while-negotiating-contract/.
Both Nikolai and Schimdt avoided any scrutiny for their involvement in the 2022 Grand Jury Report leak. That is why it is no surprise they are not held to the standards of public records for the subcommittee, a political loophole. Gillmor must have a person on staff finding political legal loopholes that is like the person during broadcast sports games collecting all the stats before the game and during real time. When you look at how Nikolai avoided getting questioned for his timed letter to the District Attorney to investigate anti-Gillmor Councilmembers while his police union was handling a leaked grand jury report and creating an election website out of it. You have to ask yourself how is this person on this charter review let alone not questioned for their participation in a leak scandal. The same goes for Jeremy Schmidt and Gillmor political spin doctor Jude Barry whose texts during the leak period talked about changing the plans which opened up a million questions about what those changes were in their plan. It ultimately revealed their hand, that they knew the report was happening and that a website creation was always in the cards. They all avoided further questioning despite all the evidence that shows they were probably given a leaked copy by Gillmor. The fact that this subcommittee is not subject to brown act rules, there is no way to know if there is communication between Jeremy Schmidt and Jude Barry about this Charter Review committee. Jude Barry has testified that he works for the Police Union as a consultant and for the Related company. Mayor Gillmor calls out Al Guido of the 49ers for conflicts of interests for double dipping but refuses to call out her political handler Jude Barry who works for both Related Company and the Santa Clara POA, her biggest campaign contributors to her great machine. So just like the grand jury leak scandal and this charter review, Schmidt, Nikolai and Gillmor are not held to the same standards as everyone else. Nothing to see here. Move along and the friendly District Attorney who is endorsed by the Santa Clara POA will never look into any wrong doing, cause why would cops and elected officials do any wrong doing? Corrupt cops? Never!
The reality is this, Jeremy Schmidt should be registered as a lobbyist in the city of Santa Clara. Jude Barry should be registered as a lobbyist for the city of Santa Clara. Yet no one will enforce it. The last city clerk, do-nothing Haggag, never demanded the POA register as a lobbyist. Yet do-nothing Haggag did demand the 49ers often. It is the same business as usual with do-nothing former grand juror current city clerk Bob O’Keefe. Neither of those city clerks never made sure that they were registered lobbyists. The same could go for Kirk vartan and his special advisor role for the Mayor and for worker coops, that is in the definition of a lobbyist. All of them really are lobbyists for the Gillmor Machine. The city clerk should be holding them accountable like they did with Jed York, Larry McNeil, Rahul Chandok,Al Guido etc etc all 49er lobbyists. But no one does any enforcement on the Gillmor machine, only those against it.
The charter review reeks of the Gillmor Machine trojan horse. No grand jury, no District Attorney or no real detective will hold any of this accountable and none of them will be transparent.