The Santa Clara City Council majority still doesn’t like the contents of the civil grand jury report — or what its recommendations are implying.
At a special meeting Tuesday night, the council addressed the findings and recommendations contained in the civil grand jury report “Irreconcilable Differences.” The council majority — which the report attacks, claiming many of them are unethical — continued to rebuke the grand jury’s characterization.
Many of the issues raised in the report revolve around the council undergoing education on ethics or procedure. Still, several council members maintained that the civil grand jury report was biased and only focused on the behavior of the council majority.
“I contend the council relationships were broken even before I was even on the council,” Council Member Suds Jain said. “From Day One, [the council majority] were mistreated. We were not given a chance to be represented.”
Despite refuting many of the claims, the council agreed to several findings and submitted to some of the recommendations. In particular, the city intends to hire an ethics consultant to train the council — individually and collectively — how to get along better and establish an independent ethics commission.
Consensus on the responses was due in large part to City Manager Jovan Grogan and City Attorney Glen Googins’ presentation of the language framing each item. That language was careful to deplore behavior without throwing any individual council member under the bus, as the report does.
Several council members praised the wording, calling it “fair” and “even-handed.” One of the only points of unanimous agreement was that the council should commend city employees for their professionalism.
Almost across the board, however, Mayor Lisa Gillmor and political ally Council Member Kathy Watanabe took issue with city employees’ framing of each item. Instead, they agreed with the grand jury carte blanche on most points.
Although city employees contextualized many items, often taking the sting out of them, Watanabe repeatedly noted that the grand jury did not implore the council to explain why it agrees with a finding.
Gillmor accused city employees of “opining” on matters where the language crafted failed to hold individual council members accountable to the grand jury’s accusations.
Further, they maintained, the behavior of Council Member Kevin Park and Vice Mayor Anthony Becker deserved calling out.
“There was a reason they singled out two particular council members,” she said. “It’s been quite evident.”
Park said city employees worked hard to create a balanced view of the issue at hand.
“It is pretty clear that a balanced view is not going to be what is acceptable by some of these people on council,” Park said. “It is a very strong position to not consider movement. It is a very strong position to just continue on forward with the narrative that you have.”
Addressing the claim that his behavior hampers city efficiency, Becker pointed the finger at his opponents.
Regularly, he said Gillmor and Watanabe filibuster meetings before claiming the meeting has gone late into the night, requesting to defer items to future meetings while bemoaning the lack of efficiency.
“When I hear that you are setting your own sabotage by creating the problem and trying to be the solution,” said Becker.
During public comments, Brian Doyle, Santa Clara’s city attorney prior to his firing, said he supported the formation of the ethics commission. Doyle also chastised the council members who, as he put it, were “whining” about Watanabe refusing to speak to them.
“Many of you stopped talking to me after the 49ers got to you. You stop talking to me,” Doyle said. “You wouldn’t tell me what they were telling you, and you plotted with them. Eh, sometimes karma comes back to you.”
Other commenters saw the grand jury report as a political hit job.
Michele Ryan called it part of the “old guard machine.” Weaponizing grand jury reports is a new tool toward that end.
The council will also adopt updated behavioral standards and have the city conduct a yearly employee satisfaction survey.
The council meets again at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 5; its next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 10. The council meets in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the City Council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov.
View Comments (1)
Did the Council refute or repudiate the claims of the Grand Jury? I maintain that they repudiated them.