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