Loading...
CC 02-07-2023 Item No. 15 Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Written CommunicationsCC 02-07-2023 Item No. 15 Consider adopting City Council Procedures Manual Written Communications From:Kitty Moore To:City Clerk Cc:Pamela Wu Subject:Item 15 Written Communications Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:30:18 AM Attachments:CC Resolution No. 18-114 Adopting Rosenberg"s Rules of Order as the Offical Parliamentary Procedures for City Council Meetings.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please place the following Resolution in the Written Communications for CC Item 15 today: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx? docid=716745&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino Thank you! Kitty Moore RESOLUTION NO. 18-114 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE OFFICIAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the California League of Cities ("League") has consistently worked to promote effective local government, efficient decision-making, and informed public participation; WHEREAS, in 2003, as part of these efforts the League published "Rosenberg's Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21 st Century", which were amended in 2011 and continue to be updated from time to time. Rosenberg's parliamentary rules are preferred by legislative bodies for their clarity and ease of application; WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties . Such rules shall become effective upon a majority vote of the Council and shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and a copy thereof shall be exhibited to any person upon request; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes for Rosenberg's Rules of Order to be used as the procedures for the conduct of City Council meetings in the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the adoption of Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as amended from time to time, to govern the procedures of their official meetings. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of November, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council Paul, Sinks, Chang, Scharf, Vaidhyanathan None None None APPROVED: ~yPaul,Ma City of Cupertin Rosenberg's Rules of Order REVISED 2011 Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century By Judge Dave Rosenberg MISSION AND CORE BEL IEFS To expand and protect local control for cities thro1,1gh education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. VISION To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities. About the League of California Cities Est ablished in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California's incorporated cities . The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California's cities effectively serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities' behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes Western City magazine. © 201 / league of California Cities. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dave Rose nb erg is a Su pe rio r Co u rt Jud ge in Yolo C oun ty. H e h as se rve d as presiding judge of h is cour t , and as pres iding judge of th e Su pe rior Co u rt Appell ate D iv isio n . H e a lso has se rve d as ch air o f th e Tri al Co urt Pres id in g Jud ges Ad visory Comm ittee (th e committee co mposed o f a ll 58 Cali fo rn ia p res iding ju dges) and as an ad v isory me mber of th e Californi a Judic ial Co unc il. P rior to his appo intm ent to the be nch , Rose nb erg was m e mber of th e Yo lo Co u nty Bo a rd o f Sup ervisors , where h e se rved two terms as ch a ir. Rose nb erg also se rve d o n th e Da v is C ity Co un c il , including tw o te r m s as m ayo r. He has se rve d o n the se n io r staff o f two gove rn o rs, a nd wo rked fo r 19 yea rs in p r iva te law p ra c ti ce . Rose nb e rg h as se rve d as a m emb e r and cha ir o f numerous s tate, reg io n al a nd local bo ard s . Rose n b erg chaired the C al iforni a State Lo ttery Co mmiss io n , th e Cali fo rn ia Victim Com pe nsat io n an d Gove rnment C laims Boa rd , th e Yolo -So lano Air Quali ty Ma n age m en t Di stri ct, the Yo lo Co un ty Eco n om ic D eve lo pmen t Comm iss io n , a nd th e Yo l o Co un ty Crim in al Ju stic e Ca binet. Fo r m any ye ars, he h as ta ught cla sses o n parl ia m e n ta r y p roce dure a nd has se r ve d as pa rli am en ta ri a n fo r la rge a nd small bo di es . II TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Author ............................................................................................................ ii Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 Establishing a Quorum ................................................................................................... 2 The Role of the Chair ...................................................................................................... 2 The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion ........................................................ 2 Motions in General ......................................................................................................... 3 The Three Basic Motions ................................................................................................ 3 Multiple Motions Before the Body ................................................................................. 4 To Debate or Not to Debate ............................................................................................ 4 Majority and Super-Majority Votes ............................................................................... 5 Counting Votes ................................................................................................................ 5 The Motion to Reconsider .............................................................................................. 6 Courtesy and Decorum .................................................................................................. 7 Special Notes About Public Input .................................................................................. 7 1 INTRODUCTION The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Virtually all clubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules -Robert's Rules of Order-which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert's Rules of Ord er is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting of say, a five-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order. Hence, the birth of Ro senbe rg 's Rules of Order. What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified for the smaller bodies we chair or in which we participate, slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly enough, Rosenberg's Rules has found a welcoming audience. Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees, boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg's Rules in lieu of Rob ert's Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly. This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a foundation supported by the following four pillars: 1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of rules of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings. 2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate; and those who do not fully understand and do not fully participate. 3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must be simple enough that the public is invited into the body and feels that it has participated in the process . 4 . Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a democracy, majority rules . The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate, while fully participating in the process. 2 Establishing a Quorum The starting point for a meeti ng is the establishment of a quorum. A quorum is defined as th e minimum number of members of the body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted. The default rule is th at a quorum is one more than half the body. For example, in a five-member body a quorum is three . When the body has three members present , it can legally transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot leg ally transact business. And even if the body has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum during the meeting when a member departs ( or even when a member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is reestablished. The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum . For example, the rules of a particular five-member body may indicate that a quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the members of the body. The Role of the Chair While all members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the body who is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and purposes , the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action . In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself. Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion . To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision-making of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time. The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda. Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body's agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the following basic format: First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the agenda item subject is. The chair should then announce the format (which follows) tha t will be followed in considering the agenda item. Second , following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate person or persons to report on the item , including any recommendation that they might have . The appropriate person or persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item . Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions of clarification . At this point, members of the body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given time to respond . Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting for public input. If numerous members of the public indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair sh ould announce that public input has concluded (or the public hearing, as the case may be, is closed). Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who makes the motion. Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion . The chair should aru10u n ce the name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. However, a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair. Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should make sure everyone understands the motion. This is done in one of three ways: 1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it; 2. The chair can repeat the motion; or 3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion. Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief discussion, then th e vote on the motion should proceed immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it. 3 Ninth, the chair takes a vote . Simply asking for the "ayes" and then asking for the "nays" normally does this . If members of the body do not vote, then they "abstain." Unless the rules of the body provide otherwise ( or unless a super majority is required as delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules ) determines whether the motion passes or is defeated . Tenth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This anno un cement might take the following form: "The motion passes by a vote of 3-2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring a 10-day notice for all future meetings of this body." Motions in General Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. It is usually best to have a motion before the body prior to commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body focus. Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the chair should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member of the body makes a motion by preceding the member's desired approach with the words "I move ... " A typical motion might be: "I move that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings." The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways: 1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, for example, "A motion at this time would be in order." 2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, "A motion would be in order that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings." 3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the body is willing to step forward to do so at a particular time. The Three Basic Motions There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings: The basic motion . The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the body's consideration. A basic motion might be: "I move that we create a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." The motion to amend. If a member wan ts to change a basic motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: "I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee." A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way. The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion . A substitute motion might be: "I move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year." "Motions to amend" and "substitute motions" are often confused, but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different . A motion to amend seeks to retain the bas ic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a "motion to amend" or a "substitute motion" is left to the chair. So if a member makes what that member calls a "motion to amend," but the chair determines that it is really a "s ubstitute motion," then the chair's designation governs. A "friendly amendment" is a practical parliamentary tool that is simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion from some members. When that happens, a mem ber who has the floor may simply say, "I want to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion." The member suggests the friend ly amendment, and if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the proposer can formally move to amend. Multiple Motions Before the Body There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time . The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule has practical value. More than three motions on the floor at any given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone, including the chair. When there are two or three moti o ns on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time , the vote should proceed first on the last motion that is made. For example, ass ume the first motion is a basic "motion to have a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." During the discussion of this motion , a member might make a second motion to "a mend the main motion to have a 10 -member committee, not a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a "s ubstitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year." The proper procedure would be as follows: 4 First, the chair would deal with the third ( the last) motion on the floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, a vote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would elin1inate it . The first motion would be moot, as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions. Second , if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal with the second (now the la st) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and deb ate would focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion ( the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended. Third , the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five-member committee), or if amended, would be in its amended format ( JO-member committee). The question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser. To Debate or Not to Debate The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the body wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action. There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all a pply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion): Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to in1mediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote . Motion to recess . This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess . Normally, the chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote. Motion to fix the time to a djourn. This motion, if passed, req uires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: "I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight." It requires a simple majority vote. Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item· to be placed on "hold." The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body. "I move we table this item until our regular meeting in October." Or the motion can contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item ( or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote. Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say, "I move the previous question" or "I move the question" or "I call the question" or sometimes someone simply shouts out "question:' As a practical matter, when a member calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by treating it as a "request" rather than as a formal motion. The chair can simply inquire of the body, "any further discussion?" If no one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right to the pending motion that is on the floor. However, if even one person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that point, the chair should treat the call for the "question" as a formal motion, and proceed to it. When a member of the body makes such a motion ("I move the previous question"), the member is really saying: "I've had enough debate. Let's get on with the vote." When such a motion is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds vote of the body. NOTE: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: "I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes." Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires a two- thirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two-thirds vote. Majority and Super Majority Votes In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion still fails. All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions . The exceptions come up when the body is taking an action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two-thirds majority (a super majority) to pass: Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, "I move the previous question," or "I move the question," or "I call the question," or "I move to limit debate," it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass. 5 Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass. Motion to object to the consideration of a question . Normally, such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass. Motion to suspend the mies. This motion is debatable, but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private club) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at meetings by non-club members. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item. Counting Votes The matter of counting votes starts simple, but can become complicated. Usually, it's pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of the body is required. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated. If a two -thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of thumb is to count the "no" votes and double that count to determine how many "yes" votes are needed to pass a particular motion. For example, in a seven-member body, if two members vote "no" then the "yes" vote of at least four members is required to achieve a two-thirds majority vote to pass the motion. What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated. Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote "abstain" or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank ( or unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes . In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a majority of the board. (California Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of2-l would not be sufficient.A vote of 3-0 with two abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities in California, as another example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements. Local elected official s are always well-advised to consult with their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote count. After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of"those present" then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those "present and voting," then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are "present and voting ." Accordingly, under the "present and voting" system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are "present"), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not "voting"). On the other hand, if the rules of the body spec ifically say that you count votes of those "present" then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act just like "no" votes. How does this work in practice? Here are a few examples. Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes . Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are "present and voting." If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one abstention, the motion fails. Assume a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two -thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies. If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of three "yes ," one "no" and one "abstain" also results in passage of the motion . Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed-so an effective 3-1 vote is clearly a two -thirds majority vote . Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two-thirds vote of members "present." Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a "no" vote . Accordingly, if the votes were three "yes;' one "no" and one "abstain;' then the motion fails . The abstention in this case .is treated like a "no" vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to pass two-thirds majority muster. 6 Now, exactly how does a member cast an "abstention" vote? Any time a member votes "abstain" or says, "I abstain," that is an abstention. However, if a member votes "present" that is also treated as an abstention ( the member is essentially saying, "Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is abstain.") In fact, any manifestation of intention not to vote either "yes" or "no" on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank-orunreadable ba·llot is counted as an abstention as well. Can a member vote "absent" or "count me as absent?" Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left his/her chair and is actually "absent." That, of course, affects the quorum. However, the cha ir may also treat this as a vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais. The Motion to Reconsider There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of exp lanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subj e_ct only to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed. A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other garden-variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider. First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.) Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion . If such a member has a change of heart, he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other member of the body -including a member who voted in the minority on the original motion -may second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of minority could m ake a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again, which would defeat the purpose of finality. If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time. Courtesy and Decorum The rules of order are meant to create an at mosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation . At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setti ng is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to nave the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak. The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the r ight to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude. Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body. Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is "no." There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons: Privilege. The proper interruption would be, "point of privilege." The chair would then ask the interrupter to "stat e your point." Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person's ability to hear. Order. The proper interruption would be, "point of order." Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to "state your point." Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For exampl e, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate wi t hout allowing that discussion or debate. 7 Ap peal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed. Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, "return to the agenda." If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair's determination may be appealed . Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a mQtion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized. Special Notes About Public Input The rules outlined above will help make meetings very public- friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item: Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing. Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it. Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did . 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 658-8200 J Fax (916) 658-8240 www.cacities.org To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $1 0 © 2011 Leagu e of California Cities . All rights reserved. ® Printed 011 recycled paper. From:Kitty Moore To:City Clerk Cc:Pamela Wu Subject:Item 15 Written Communications Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:51:56 AM Attachments:CC Resolution No. 18-115 Adopting the City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please provide the following Resolution Code of Ethics for Written Communications on CC Item 15 today: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx? docid=716749&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino Thank you! Kitty Moore RESOLUTION NO. 18-115 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has determined that a Code of Ethics and Conduct benefits the public by increasing public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operations; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct will guide the conduct of Elected and Public Officials and support their independent, impartial, and fair decision-making and ex ecution of policy; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes to maintain an atmosphere of respect and civility in the performance of City affairs and public business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby adopts the attached "City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials" PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2Qth day of November, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council Paul, Sinks, Chang, Scharf, Vaidhyanathan None None None APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk ~:yPaul,~~ City of Cupertino *-w-:./ l ~ve.-ls-u c.-.J et r-,e.c.~o.-/,"c--/~../ '1k ;-le_,._. J.,<-re-v, s ;./.e.J LJ o...--.. ctd e.1 (.,AJ,1:k . p~~5 . CUPERTINO City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct For Elected and Appointed Officials Adopted November 2ot1,, 2018 by Resolution No. 18-115 PURPOSE The Cupertino City Council adopts this Code of Ethics and Conduct as guidelines for elected and appointed officials to exercise their office and conduct themselves in a manner that instills public confidence and trust in the fair operation and integrity of Cupertino's city government. 1 In accordance with State law and Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Cupertino's elected and appointed officials include the members of the City Council, the Mayor, appointed officers of City boards and commissions, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer. ETHICS The citizens and businesses of Cupertino and the general public are entitled to have fair, ethical, and accountable local government. To this end, the public should have full confidence that their elected and appointed officials: • • • • Comply with both the letter and spirit of the law and policies affecting the operations of government and their respective roles and responsibilities; and Are independent, impartial, and fair in their judgment and actions; and Use their public office for the public good and not for personal gain; and Conduct their deliberations and make their decisions in an atmosphere of respect and civility, and during public meetings in accordance with Open Meeting laws, except for confidential proceedings allowed by law. Therefore, members of the City Council, City Boards and Commissions, the City Clerk, the City Treasurer, the City Manager and the City Attorney (hereinafter, "City Officials") should conduct themselves in accordance with the following ethical standards: 1. Act in the Public Interest. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, City Officials will work for the common good of the people of Cupertino and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims, and transactions coming before them. 1 These guidelines are intended to codify the values of the City of Cupertino relative to the conduct of its elected and appointed officials and in no way distract from or supersede the many other rules and laws that govern city officials. By their very nature, some guidelines apply only to legislative bodies and decision-makers as noted in the Code . 2. Comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Law and City Policy. City Officials must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws in the performance of their public duties. These include the United States and California constitutions; the Cupertino Municipal code; laws concerning financial disclosures; sources of income and gifts; conflicts of interest laws; elections; campaign contributions; incompatible offices; employer responsibilities; and open government rules. 3. Conduct of City Officials. The professional and personal conduct of City Officials while exercising their office must be above reproach and avoid situations that create the appearance of impropriety. Officials must refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other City Officials, city staff, or the public. 4. Respect for Process. City Officials will perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council. 5. Conduct at Public Meetings. City Officials will come prepared to address items and issues at public meetings; will listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and will focus on the business at hand. 6. Decisions Based on Merit. City Officials will base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. When making adjudicative decisions that require determination of the facts of a particular case and application of the law and rules, decision-makers will maintain an open mind until the conclusion of the hearing on the matter and will base their decisions on the facts presented at the hearing and the law. 7. Communication. For adjudicative matters pending before the body, City Officials will rely on the agenda materials and information received at the public meeting to support their decision. To the extent substantive or material information is received outside of a public meeting, decision- makers must, at a minimum, publicly disclose the circumstances and the outside source of information. Consultation with the City Attorney is strongly advised to ensure the integrity and legality of decisions made on adjudicative matters. 8. Conflict of Interest. To maintain independence and impartiality for the common good and comply with the extensive set of conflict of interest laws, City Officials will use caution and their best efforts to avoid the appearance of impropriety in their actions and decisions. Consistent with the law, decision-makers will not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have (a) a material financial interest, (b) an organizational responsibility to or personal commitment to others that creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of one, or ( c) a strong personal bias as to one party or position. Potential conflicts of interest should be discussed with the City Attorney at the earliest opportunity prior to a public meeting or hearing in order to ensure time to research and analyze the facts. Decision-makers are referred to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 2.18.030, which provides, among other things, that the City Attorney may render informal advice to individual Councilmembers regarding potential conflicts of interest, as appropriate. However, it is understood that Councilmembers are protected from potential liability for a conflict of interest only upon taking action that complies with a written opinion issued by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). If informed to seek formal advice from the FPPC or other State agency, a member will not participate in a decision until the FPPC has issued a written opinion that concludes there is no conflict. The member will provide the City Attorney a copy of the written request to the FPPC and the opinion, and will conform his or her participation to the advice given. If a conflict of interest exists regarding a particular matter or decision, the member will not participate in the decision or discuss the matter with other decision-makers or other persons, unless otherwise permitted by law. 9. Gifts and Favors. Public Officials will not take advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which is not available to the general public. They should refrain from accepting gifts, favors or promises of future benefits, which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of impropriety. 10. Confidential/Privileged Information. Public Officials have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of privileged documents and communications and the legal advice provided to or by them, in accordance with the law. This includes information gathered during a closed session and advice rendered by the City Attorney. Members will not disclose confidential or privileged information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or other private interests. 11. Use of Public Resources. Public Officials should not use public resources which are not available to the public in general (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies, or facilities) for private gain or for personal purposes not otherwise authorized by law. 12. Representation of Private Interests. In keeping with their role as independent representatives of the City and stewards of the public interest, Councilmembers should not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any Commission or proceeding of the City, nor should members of Commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies. 13. Advocacy. Members should represent the official policies and positions of the City Council and Commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members should explicitly state they are speaking in their personal capacity and not in their official capacity as members of their respective bodies. When speaking in their personal capacities, members should state their views do not represent their bodies' official positions. Councilmembers and Commissioners have the right to endorse candidates for Council seats and other elected offices; however, it is inappropriate to mention or display endorsements during Council meetings, Commission meetings, or other official City meetings, unless otherwise allowed by law. 14. Policy Role of Members. Members should respect and adhere to the Council-Manager structure of Cupertino City government as outlined in the Cupertino Municipal Code. In this structure, the City Council determines the budget priorities and policies of the City with input provided by City staff and Commissions and the general public. Members should not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or the professional duties of City staff; nor should they impair the ability of staff to implement Council policy decisions . 15. Independence of Commissions. Because of the value of the independent advice of Commissions to the public decision-making process, members of the City Council should refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of Commission proceedings. 16. Positive Work Place Environment. Public Officials should support a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members should recognize their special role with City employees and in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff. CONDUCT GUIDELINES The Conduct Guidelines are designed to describe the manner in which City Officials should treat one another, City staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with while representing the City of Cupertino. 1. City Officials' Conduct with Each Other in Public Meetings and Private Encounters Elected and appointed officials are individuals with different backgrounds, personalities, values, opinions and goals, who have chosen to serve in public office to protect the City's interests and the wellbeing of the community they serve. In all cases, this common goal should guide officials' conduct with each other and with the public, particularly when individuals may not agree on every issue. (a) Respect and facilitate the role of the Chair in maintaining order It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep comments of City Officials on track during public meetings. City Officials should recognize and assist the Chair to focus discussion on noticed agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Chair's actions, those objections should be voiced politely and with reason, following procedures outlined in parliamentary procedure. (b) Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate Difficult questions, challenges and disagreements with a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of debate and public discourse of a free democracy in action. Robust discussion and free debate, however, do not justify making belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive or disparaging comments. ( c) Work through the Chair to address offensive personal comments If a member is personally offended by the remarks of another member, the offended member should make notes of the actual words used and call for a "point of personal privilege" that challenges the other member to justify or apologize for the language used. The Chair will maintain control of this discussion. ( d) Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches City Officials have a public stage and have the responsibility to show how individuals with different points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole. (e) Continue respectful behavior in private The same level of respect and consideration of differing points of view that is appropriate for public discussions should be maintained in private conversations. 2. City Officials' Conduct with the Public in Public Meetings Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual City Officials toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony. (a) Chair's responsibility to establish proper decorum at meetings The Chair will be responsible for informing the public of proper decorum during meetings to facilitate a welcoming environment for speakers. The Chair should establish an expectation of mutual respect among City officials, the public, and speakers. (a) Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with respect Members' primary responsibility during public testimony is to listen. Welcome all public speakers and encourage their active participation in public meetings by listening to their comments. A void engaging public speakers in debate, and call on the Chair whenever a point of order or clarification is required. (b) Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual speakers Consistent with legal requirements, the Chair will determine and announce limits on speakers at the start of a public meeting or hearing process. ( c) Practice active listening It is disconcerting to some speakers to have members not look at them when they are speaking. It is fine to look down at documents or to make notes, but reading for a long period of time or gazing around the room may give the appearance of disinterest. Members should try to be conscious of facial expressions, and avoid those that-could be interpreted as "smirking," disbelief, anger or boredom. (d) Maintain an open mind Members of the public deserve an opportunity to influence the thinking of elected and appointed officials. (e) Ask for clarification, but avoid debate and argument with the public Only the Chair -not individual members -can interrupt a speaker during a presentation. However, a member can ask the Chair for a point of order if the speaker is off topic, exceeds the time allotted for public comment, or engages in behavior or discussion/language that is disruptive or violates the law. (f) Avoid personal comments that could offend members of the public Whether addressing an individual member of the public or the public at large, it is never appropriate to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. 3. City Officials' Conduct with the Public in Unofficial Settings (a) Make no promises on behalf of the Council, Commission or City Members will frequently be asked to explain a Council or Commission action or to give their opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is appropriate to give a brief overview of City policy and to refer to City staff for further information. It is not appropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Council or Commission action, or to promise that City staff will do something specific for the constituent. (b) Make no personal comments about other City Officials It is acceptable to publicly disagree about an issue, but it is not acceptable to make derogatory comments about other City Officials, their opinions, or actions. 4. City Officials' Conduct with City Staff Governance of a city relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials who set policy, appointed officials who advise the elected, and City staff who implement and administer the Council's policies. Therefore, every effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the roles and contributions made by each individual for the good of the community. The City of Cupertino operates under a Council/Manager form of government as established in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 whereby the City Council controls the administrative services of the City only through the City Manager. The Council/Manager form of government is intended to provide the best of unencumbered professional/technical staff input balanced with the collective oversight of elected officials. Under the Council/Manager form of government neither the City Council, nor individual Council members, can give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager. The City Manager takes his or her orders and instructions from the City Council only when given at a duly held meeting of the City Council. No individual Councilmember can give any orders or instructions to the City Manager. Interactions between City Council and City staff are governed by Chapter 2.17 in the Cupertino Municipal Code. (a) Treat all staff as professionals Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not acceptable. (b) Do not disrupt City staff from their jobs City Officials should not disrupt City staff while they are in meetings, on the phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions in order to have their individual needs met. Do not attend City staff meetings unless requested by staff -even if the elected or appointed official does not say anything, his or her presence implies support of a position, shows partiality, may intimidate staff, and may hampers staff's ability to do their job objectively. (c) Never publicly criticize an individual employee City Officials should not criticize the performance of City employees in public, to the employee directly, or to the employee's manager. Comments about staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation. Appointed officials should make their comments regarding staff to the City Manager. (d) Do not get involved in administrative junctions City Officials acting in their individual capacity must not attempt to influence City staff on the making of appointments, awarding of contracts, selecting of consultants, processing of development applications, or granting of City licenses and permits. ( e) Do not solicit political support from staff City Officials should not solicit any type of political support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.) from City staff. City staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support political candidates, but all such . activities must be done away from the workplace. (f) Attorney-Client Relationship The City Attorney provides advice to City staff, to Public Officials, and to Councilmembers individually and collectively. In accordance with law and Rules of Professional Conduct, the City Attorney represents the full City Council and the City as a municipal organization, and any attorney-client relationship established belongs to the City, acting by and through the full City Council. To the extent permitted by law, only the City Council as a body and not individual councilmembers can waive the attorney-client privilege. 5. Council Conduct with Commissions The City has established several Commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Citizens who serve on Commissions become more involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council. They are a valuable resource to the City's leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect. (a) If attending a Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal opmzons Councilmembers may attend any Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public. However, they should be sensitive to the way their participation could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Any public comments by a Councilmember at a Commission meeting should be clearly made as individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council. (b) Limit contact with Commission members to questions of clarification It is inappropriate for a Councilmember to contact a Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer, and vice versa. It is acceptable for Councilmembers to contact Commission members in order to clarify a position taken by the Commission. ( c) Respect that Commissions serve the community, not individual Cou ncilmembers The City Council appoints individuals to serve on Commissions, and it is the responsibility of Commissions to follow policy established by the Council. But Commission members do not repqrt to individual Councilmembers, nor should Councilmembers feel they have the power or right to threaten Commission members with removal if they disagree about an issue. Appointment and re- appointment to a Commission should be based on such criteria as expertise, ability to work with staff and the public, and commitment to fulfilling official duties. A Commission appointment should not be used as a political "reward." (d) Be respectful of diverse opinions A primary role of Commissions is to represent many points of view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives. Councilmembers may have a closer working relationship with some individuals serving on Commissions, but must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Commissions. (e) Keep political support away from public forums Commission members may offer political support to a Councilmember, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties. Conversely, Councilmembers may support Commission members who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a Councilmember. 6. Conduct with the Media Commission members are not authorized to represent the City to media outlets (including broadcast, print, and social media sites) outside of official Commission meetings unless specifically authorized to do so. (a) The Mayor is the official spok esperson for the City Council on City positions The Mayor is the designated representative of the City Council to present and speak on the official City position. If an individual Councilmember is contacted by the media (including broadcast, print, and social media sites), the Councilmember should be clear about whether their comments represent the official City position or a personal viewpoint. (b) Choose words carefully and cautiously Comments taken out of context can cause problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sardonic asides, sarcasm, or word play. It is never appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media (including broadcast, print, and social media sites). COMPLIANCE 1. Acknowledgement of Code of Ethics and Conduct City Officials should sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understand the guidelines contained in the Code of Ethics and Conduct. 2. Ethics Training for Local Officials City Officials must comply with State or City mandated requirements for ethics training. Ethics training must be completed prior to representing the City on intergovernmental assignments or Council subcommittees. 3. Behavior and Conduct The Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct sets forth guidelines and standards of ethical conduct desired and expected for members of the Cupertino City Council and Commissions and other City Officials. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of city government. The Chairs of Commissions and the Mayor and Council have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct are brought to their attention. (a) City Council: Individual Councilmembers should point out to the offending Councilmember perceived infractions of the Code of Ethics and Conduct. If the offenses continue, then the matter should be referred to the Mayor in private. If the Mayor is the individual whose actions are being questioned, then the matter should be referred to the Vice Mayor. It is the responsibility of the Mayor ( or Vice Mayor) to initiate action if a Councilmember' s behavior is not in compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct. If no action is taken by the Mayor ( or Vice Mayor), then the alleged violation(s) can be brought up with the full Council. (b) Commission Members: Counseling, verbal reprimands, and written warnings may be administered by the Mayor to Commission members failing to comply with City policy. These lower levels of sanctions should be kept private to the degree allowed by law. Copies of all written reprimands administered by the Mayor should be distributed in memo format to the Chair of the respective Commission, the Commission Staff Liaison, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, the City Manager, and the City Council. In accordance with law, the City Council may impose sanctions on Commission members whose conduct does not comply with the City's policies, up to and including removal from office. Any form of discipline imposed by Council should be determined by a majority vote of at least a quorum of the Council at a noticed public meeting, and such action should be preceded by a Report to Council with supporting documentation. When deemed warranted, the Mayor or majority of Council may call for an investigation of Commission member conduct. Also, should the City Manager or City Attorney believe an investigation into a member's conduct is warranted, they may refer the matter to the Mayor or Council. The Mayor or Council should ask the City Manager or the City Attorney to investigate the allegation and report the findings. These sanctions are alternatives to any other remedy allowed by law to remedy conduct that violates this code or State or Federal law. In order to protect and preserve good government, all members of the City organization should be cognizant of their responsibilities and duties to meet the requirements of the law and uphold the guidelines contained in this Code. IMPLEMENTATION The Code of Ethics and Conduct is intended to be self-enforcing and is an expression of the standards of conduct for City Officials expected by the City. It therefore becomes most effective when City Officials are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions. For this reason, this document should be included in the regular orientations for candidates for City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, applicants to Commissions, and newly elected and appointed City Officials. Members entering office should sign a statement (example below) acknowledging they have read and understand the Code of Ethics and Conduct. In addition, the Code of Ethics and Conduct should be periodically reviewed by the City Council and updated it as necessary. I affirm that I have read and understand the City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials. Signature Date From:Jenny Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: Consent Calendar Items Not Being Able to Be Discussed Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:25:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. FYI. Please add to the Public Record for City Council Handbook adoption under Consent Calendar at the Feb. 7, 2023 City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Consent Calendar Items Not Being Able to Be Discussed From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 8:18 AM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: The City Council Handbook not allowing the public to pull items from the Consent Calendar should not be adopted tonight, Tuesday, February 7, 2023 under any Circumstances. If this handbook is okayed, anything could be listed in the Consent Calendar and then Voted to be approved by a vote of the City Council, without the public being able to Say anything. Approve "10,000 housing units at Vallco" could be put into the Consent Calendar and the City Council or any future Council could just approve the project with no input from the Public. This is not efficiency of proceedings. This is streamlining, ministerial, by-right approval And building as dictated by the high density housing laws, ala SB 35, SB 330, SB 9, SB 10 and SB 50 that was never passed because it was fought down by people of California Doing their due diligence. So the Consent Calendar could approve 10,000 housing units at Vallco with no Input from the public. No one can say anything about trees cut down, public roads clogged with Dirt and mud and dust, construction noise going 24/7 for ten years etc. Something as innocent as no you can't pull items from the Consent Calendar anymore Becomes lets approve anything by way of the Consent Calendar. We see where something So small becomes something so big. The Consent Calendar is no place to be fighting SB 35 and SB 9 and SB 10 and SB 330 out. We thought that battle was being carried out at the state level etc. But, never in a million Years did I think it would go so far as to be fought out at the agenda level in our own City. The fight for Local Control is indeed bound up in our city's Consent Calendar and that right should not be conceded tonight in our City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Jenny Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Consent Calendar Items Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:05:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: There are some very serious problems happening since the new City Council was seated in January, 2023. The first of these is the attempt to limit the ability of the public to pull items from the Consent Calendar for Discussion. Where did this idea ever come from? We have always Had the right to pull items from the Consent Calendar in Cupertino. Why does this City Council think it has the right to take away the right of the public to do this? All in one month? What does this new City Council even know about the public in Cupertino? Why do they think they know best about what the public should and shouldn't do? It seems to me that there are some pretty big liberties being taken here and it really Looks like someone is trying to shut the public up or limit what the public can say or Do in this city during City Council meetings. If allowing the public to pull Consent Calendar items off the Agenda for discussion was Good enough for past councils of Cupertino, then it is good enough for me. And that Is twenty-three years worth of councils. No one ever mentioned this as an issue. Not Once in twenty-three years. Look it up if you want to. So what makes this Council think they can start doing this out of the blue in one month After being seated? What gives? What makes them think they are smarter or know more Than other Councils? The public in Cupertino are very sophisticated when it comes to Their City Council meetings. It is the Cupertino way. I am very concerned that this Is an overt attempt by this new Council to suddenly take away long standing traditions Of civic expression and engagement in this city. All in one month. I think this Council forgets that they are not the only Councils to have been in place In the long history of Cupertino as a city. You should be glad and proud that the public of your city is so engaged and aware of procedure And process in their city. That is what makes Cupertino great and such a bastion of Democracy. That is what the history of California has always been as well as the United States. Yes, democracy is messy and takes a lot of discussion and time, but it is of the people and Was founded that way in this country. Making changes so quickly in one month of sitting in an elected position and taking away the public's Rights of expression and discussion on City Council agendas is no way to start out a new year If a new Council. It smacks of intrigue and ideas to try to take away the rights of the public in Their communication and discourse with their city. This course of activity in one month has been very troubling. This procedure book limiting the public and then not letting anyone discuss what is in The book shows that there is something else going on in these dealings. The secret Agenda again reintroduces itself. Why all the changes in just one month? Let's be honest. What is the real goal here? The public in Cupertino was not born yesterday. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:City Council Subject:2022-02-07 CC Meeting - Request to PULL Consent Items 13-17 Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 11:06:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, With respect to tomorrow’s City Council agenda/meeting, I would like to PULL items 13-17 on the Consent Calendar. I don’t think any of these items should have been put under Consent in the first place. They are of great interest to the public and need to be discussed in public. PULL Consent Item 13 - Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy and fee waiver PULL Consent Item 14 – Retail square footage at Main Street (Public has been asking for over a year!) PULL Consent Item 15 – Council Procedures Manual PULL Consent Item 16 – Appeal of PC’s denial of Sign Exception PULL Consent Item 17 – Response to Civil Grand Jury Thank you. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Jenny Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:City Council Manual on Consent Calendar Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 3:28:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: I see that someone has placed the adoption of the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual on The Consent Calendar as Item Number 15 for the City Council meeting on February 7, 2022. I fear that this item has indeed been misplaced in the order of the Agenda and should be placed Appropriately under Public Hearings since it is a "Work in Progress" and needs much time, Attention and discussion before it should ever be released as any sort of actual useable Document. Indeed, this document is disrespecting all of the fine City Councils that came before in The history of Cupertino. That it could be thrown together in one month and Implemented in one month is the biggest slap of disrespect and insult to the Cupertino way of Democracy that could ever be envisioned. I'm not sure where the Agenda is going in thinking this item should be placed on The Consent Calendar, but it looks like Cupertino Democracy seems to be going Down and circling the drain even now. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Jenny Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Postponement of Item Number 15 on City Council Agenda Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:49:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: It is apparent that Item Number 15 on the City Council Agenda has been placed in The wrong location on the City agenda (under Consent Calendar) and the whole item Should be postponed until it can be studied further. There is no urgent rush to have this Item be voted on. In fact, the whole item is very confusing because the item has been placed On the Consent Calendar and it involves whether the public can pull items from the Consent Calendar itself, leading to a very circular and bizarre series of thought processes in trying To figure out how an item concerning the Consent Calendar wound up on the Consent Calendar in the first place. The manual is confusing in itself and it is in the best interest of the public to study this item More before anyone votes on it. The manual contains some very startling items to say the least. Please postpone item 15 on the February 7, 2023 City Council Agenda. It is not ready for prime Time and provides some very unusual context and unclear meaning as to its placement on the Consent Calendar. This is in the best interests for all involved. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Sean Hughes To:City Clerk Subject:Comment for 2/7/23 Meeting Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:20:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I would like to submit the following for public comment regarding Consent Calendar Agenda items 14, 15: Item 14: I support the adoption of the Staff Memo conclusion that the center is in compliance with Condition 9 of City Council Resolution 12-098 (M-2012-03). For further comment, I believe the 40% restriction on the amount of "food services" or "restaurants" in the Main Street parcel is overbearing and unnecessary. I am happy to hear that this determination of compliance passed judgement without further action, but would encourage the Council to remove or preclude such requirements going forward, specifically those that could trigger further "traffic analysis" simply because of such an arbitrary metric. While this isn't the most egregious example, the detrimental impact of undue delay upon government actions has been thoroughly studied and even recently commented on in national news and policy reviews - we would do well to consider if such rules actually result in beneficial community outcomes. Item 15: I enthusiastically support the adjustments and adoption of the "City of Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual". In particular, the changes in sections 2.2 (removal of mayor), 4.2 (commission member attendance), 4.5 (commission member removal), 6.6 (procedure for workload-impacting Council requests), 7.5, 7.6 (improved meeting materials availability), section 8.5 (better management of public comment), and 8.9 (meeting adjournment requirement). These reforms try to address major issues called out in Cupertino's own governance report, as well as deteriorating relationships and lack of procedure highlighted in a recent grand jury report In addition, as a member of the public, I welcome the earlier availability of meeting materials (7.5, 7.6), as well as a reform to public comment (8.5) because the previous policy chilled public speech on many Council items. Finally, the lower threshold to adjourn meetings (8.9) is welcome because late night meetings are fundamentally undemocratic and inaccessible to large swaths of the public. Thank you for these reforms and I hope the Council adopts this procedural manual as published. Regards, Sean