Loading...
CC 11-07-23 Late CommunicationsCC 11-7-2023 Written Communications Oral Communications From: j w <jzw97@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:51 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <citymanager@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: urgent! person to talk to 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. This message was sent to the City of Desert Hot Springs. Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 3:37 PM Dear city manager, We tried to reach the city and outside law firm. Could not reach anyone. Debra tried to set a mtg, didn't go through either. It has been months, please let us know who we could talk to. No one wanted to be associated with the injustice. We wanted to work it out at the earliest. Please let us know earliest time we could talk to you or your assistants. Thank you! ps: so far all lawyers treat us like big developer, we are just long term resident. we need your immediate meeting with us. we pray! long time ingredient Huang family 2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR MEETING – Oral CommunicaƟon by Peggy Griffin Good Evening Council and Staff, Regarding ITEM 19-Info on Hybrid OpƟons for Commission MeeƟngs Although I believe the legislaƟve body should aƩend in person, I also believe that council and commission meeƟngs should be hybrid for the public to encourage more parƟcipaƟon and access and that the recordings be posted. I am glad that the Governor’s State of Emergency has expired so that members of legislaƟve bodies are required to aƩend meeƟngs in person or comply with the narrow excepƟons authorized under the Brown Act. This provides the public with access and transparency. I also appreciate City AƩorney Jensen’s AƩachment A that describes the Remote MeeƟng Requirements that must be met in order for a Council member or commissioner to parƟcipate remotely. In fact, on Tuesday, September 19, 2023 we had a case for the need to parƟcipate remotely under the Brown Act by Vice Mayor Mohan. According to City AƩorney Jensen’s AƩachment A Memo, regardless of the reasons for a Council member’s request, whether it’s just cause or an emergency, several “general requirements apply” as listed in his memo. <SHOW SLIDE> At that Council meeƟng, during a break, I quesƟoned City AƩorney Jensen regarding 2 potenƟal Brown Act violaƟons: 1 - the inability of the public to “see Vice Mayor Mohan during the meeƟng” 2 - no public disclosure of whether anyone else was in the room with her. I was told “everything was okay” but it was NOT according to his own memo! Vice Mayor Mohan should have disclosed to the public during the meeƟng that no one was in the room with her. We should have seen Vice Mayor Mohan throughout the meeƟng, not just when she voted. I’m thankful that this memo and the remote parƟcipaƟon requirements have been published so it’s clear to everyone that Brown Act violaƟons occurred that night. I also am hopeful that next Ɵme the remote parƟcipaƟon excepƟon of the Brown Act is used, that ALL the general requirements will be followed as we will have benefited from experience. The Brown Act is not just a dumb law. It provides transparency in government which benefits everyone. Thank you. REFERENCE (Brown Act secƟon): LegislaƟve body = City Council REFERENCE: AƩachment A – Memo RE Brown Act Teleconference Amendments, Pages 3-4 From:Rhoda Fry To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:11/7 City Council regular meeting Oral Communications Date:Tuesday, November 7, 2023 6:30:50 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 am a 40-year resident and continue to be disappointed by the Council’s actions since the beginning of this year and have a number of concerns. 1. I am very upset that the City Staff engaged in a $170K contract to figure out how developers can build on-top of our fairly new Community Hall, our renovated Sports Center and our City Hall. This is not okay. And it was not the direction that City Council gave back in February. Nevertheless, the City Council directed staff to continue looking at the idea of pimping our City-owned land to developers. This is not okay. And we don’t need a City Hall that is four times the size of our current City Hall to hold about 130 employees. What makes this even more worrisome is that three of our council members have intimate ties to developers. Stop the studies now. Private development does not belong on public property. 2. The City Council has just ratified a new employment contract for the City’s employees and I request that these increases in costs be reflected immediately in the budget. When will we see a revised budget? 3. When will City Staff present a new budget? I am very concerned about our current budget. Why have we budgeted for an 11% increase in headcount since 2019? I picked 2019 because it is pre-COVID. And even more concerning, why are we budgeting for a 30% increase in Employee Compensation? To me, that means that our City is way too top heavy. When I added the budgeted cost of Administration and Administrative services, we’re looking at a 42% increase. Why? Please take a good look at where we need to add people and where we don’t. 2019 BUDGET 2023 BUDGET % Increase Contract Services $21.6M $24.8 15% Employee Compensation $19M $24.7M 30% Employee Benefits $8M $11M 38% Employee Headcount 203 people 225 people 11% Community Development 28 people 37 people 30% Administration + Administrative Services 30 people 42 people 42% 4. The City Manager decided to stop video-recording and live-streaming the Parks and Rec meetings without input from the Council. I have asked the Mayor 3 times now what the cost to the City is of recording and livestreaming these meetings. No Answer. What I have learned is that the City charges only $68 per hour to Silicon Valley Clean Energy for video work and the use of our Community Hall monthly. If that’s all it costs, then we need to reinstate video-recording and livestreaming. If not, then we need to be charging an appropriate fee to Silicon Valley Clean Energy. What I did learn today is that these meetings are audio-recorded and these recordings are retained for 30 days. Why is the City throwing out these recordings when it is all we have now? So my ask is that if the City Manager is unwilling to reinstate live-streaming and recording, that at least the audio-recordings be retained in perpetuity. Thanks, Rhoda Fry CC 11-7-2023 Written Communications Item No. 1& 2 Approve the Tentative Agreement revising the salary and benefit terms for Local 21 and Local #3 employees From:Rhoda Fry To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:11/7 City Council Special Meeting Agenda items 1 and 2 Date:Tuesday, November 7, 2023 4:33:30 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, Pertaining to 11/7 City Council Special Meeting Agenda items 1 and 2 It appears that at least 2 holidays are being added to the pay schedule. That seems more than what other cities offer, but if that is what the City needs to retain excellent employees, then so be it. Please update the budget accordingly so that we have transparency around the cost of employees and benefits. Please keep in mind that 2 additional days off across 200 or so employees, is 400 days – that’s nearly 2-person years of jobs! Not including weekends, there are 260 work days in a year. I am guessing that on average, employees have about 15 days of vacation and now 14 days of holidays. That takes us to about 231 working days per employee. So - - - by adding 2 paid holidays (and it looks like it is sometimes 3), you are costing the City about 2-person-years of jobs. Why? Adding onto those 400 days, you’re probably going to be throwing in some double-time for folks who are have to work on holidays. So for those 400 days, you could be closer to 432 working days (231 x 2). And that’s not even counting those years where there are an extra 3 paid holidays and not 2. I would have also liked to have seen easily-accessible data on how neighboring cities compare with paid holidays. Thanks, Rhoda Fry CC 11-7-2023 Written Communications Item No. 11 Mitigation Fee Act - an Annual & Five- Year Report for (FY) 2022-2023 COUNCIL POLICY TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE 1 of 4 POLICY NUMBER 0-28 EFFECTIVE DATE November 8, 1994 REVISED DATE November 30, 2004 APPROVED BY COUNCIL ACTION 11/08/94 Item 9(C) PURPOSE This Policy applies only to the Mayor and City Council members, and amends and supersedes the original City Council Policy 0-28, the Censure Policy. GUIDING PRINCIPLES It is the Policy of the City Council that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances and City policies, including the Code of Ethics. Violation of such law or policy tends to injure the good name of the City and to undermine the effectiveness of the City Council as a whole. Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of law or policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy. Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct. Considerations In deciding whether or not to open an investigation, Council should consider: • whether an investigation may compromise investigations regarding the same alleged actions, and, if theactionsmayresultincriminalcharges,whethertherightof theaccusedCouncilmembertoafairjury trial may be compromised by proceeding with an investigation; • if persons involved in the allegations may choose to exercise their constitutional right against self-incrimination, which may limit the investigation's ability to present a full picture of alleged events; • how to ensure that it ensures protection of the rights of those accused of violations of law or policy, those making such accusations, and those who have information regarding the accusations. At any point during any of the processes described in this policy, the Council may refer the matter, as appropriate, to the Santa Clara County District Attorney or to the San José Elections Commission for investigation.Followingsuchareferral,theCouncilmayproceedwithanyactionsitchoosestoundertakeunder the provisions of this policy. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding actions it may choose to take in response to violations of law or policy, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to three types of action: admonition, sanction, and censure. DEFINITIONS Admonition This is the least severe form of action. An admonition may typically be directed to all members of the City Council,remindingthemthataparticulartypeof behaviorisinviolationof laworCitypolicy,andthat,if itoccurs City of San José, California or is found to have occurred, could make a member subject to sanction or censure. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions, although it would not necessarily have to be triggered by such allegations. An admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder, would not necessarily require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true Sanction This is the next most severe form of action. Sanction should be directed to a particular member of the City Council based on a particular action (or set of actions) that is determined to be in violation of law or City policy, butisconsideredbytheCounciltobenotsufficientlyserioustorequirecensure.Asanctionisdistinguishedfrom censure in that it is not a punishment. A sanction may be issued based upon Council's review and consideration of a written allegation of a policy violation. The member accused of such violation will have an opportunity to provide a written response to the allegation. A sanction may be issued by the City Council and because it is not punishment or discipline, would not necessarily require an investigation or separate hearings. Censure Censure is the most severe form of action contemplated in this policy. Censure is a formal statement of the City Council officially reprimanding one of its members. It is a punitive action, which serves as a penalty imposed for wrongdoing, but it carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the member as an elected official. Censure should be used for cases in which the Council determines that the violation of law or policy is a serious offense. In order to protect the overriding principle of freedom of speech, the City Council shall not impose censure on any of its members for the exercise of his or her First Amendment rights, no matter how distasteful the expression was to the Council and the City. However, nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the City Council from collectively condemning and expressing their strong disapprobation of such remarks. PROCEDURES Investigation 1. Any member of the City Council may submit, in writing, an allegation concerning a violation of law or policy to the Rules Committee. 2. The Rules Committee shall determine whether to forward a recommendation to conduct an investigation to the full Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting. Part of the determination should include allowing the Councilmember who is the subject of the allegation the opportunity to address the allegation in writing or by appearing at the Rules Committee meeting at which the allegation is discussed. 3. If the Council determines, by majority vote, that: a. An investigation is warranted, it may designate a standing or special committee or one of its members, including the Mayor, to conduct the investigation. The Council may select an independent investigator to assist in conducting the investigation. The independent investigator would be managed by the committee or individual designated by Council to conduct the investigation. b. An investigation is not warranted, an individual Councilmember is not precluded from submitting a request for admonition, sanction, or censure in accordance with the provisions of this policy. 4. Inthecourseof theinvestigation,theindividualorcommitteedesignatedtomanageitmustdeterminethe process by which statements are taken. A witness may choose to provide a signed declaration under penalty of perjury attesting to his or her knowledge of the facts surrounding the allegations. If a witness is unwilling to submit such a declaration, the Council may issue a subpoena to compel the witness' testimony, consistent with its subpoena power granted under the City Charter. TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE 2 of 4 POLICY NUMBER 0-28 5. At the conclusion of the investigation, the results shall be presented in writing to the full Council. Based on the results, any individual Council member may file a request for admonition, sanction, or censure. Admonition 1. A request for an admonition must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council. The request should contain the specific language of the proposed admonition. 2. The Rules Committee shall determine whether to forward the proposed admonition to the full Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting. 3. An admonition can be approved by a majority vote of the Council. Sanction 1. A request for sanction must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council. The request should contain specific allegations of conduct in violation of federal or state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics. 2. A copy of the request for sanction shall be provided to the Council Member accused of the conduct by personal service at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Rules Committee meeting at which it will be considered. 3. The Rules Committee shall determine that either: a. The proposed sanction should be forwarded to the City Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting; or b. An admonition, rather than sanction, should be recommended to the City Council for consideration; or c. No action is required. 4. This determination is subject to confirmation by the City Council as part of the Rules Committee report at the next Council meeting. 5. A sanction is based on the Council's review of the written record and of the information provided as part of the public hearing of the issue as part of the Council meeting. A sanction action must be approved by a majority vote of the Council. Censure 1. A request for a censure hearing must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council. The request must contain the specific allegations of conduct in violation of federal or state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics, upon which the proposed censure is based. 2. A copy of the request for censure and the charges shall be served on the Council Member accused of the conduct by personal service at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Rules Committee meeting at which it will be considered. 3. The Rules Committee shall determine that either: a. Further investigation of the charges is required; or b. The matter is to be set for a separate public hearing; or c. The recommended level of action is admonition or sanction, rather than censure; or d. No action is required. 4. This determination is subject to confirmation by the City Council as part of the Rules Committee report at the next Council meeting. TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE 3 of 4 POLICY NUMBER 0-28 5. Depending on the determination of the Rules Committee and the confirmation of the City Council; a. If further investigation is required, it shall be done by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Mayor. If the Mayor is the subject of the charges, the committee shall be appointed by the Vice Mayor. The following guidelines apply to ad hoc committee investigations: i) The committee may be staffed by administrative and legal staff. ii) If authorized by City Council, the committee may subpoena witnesses and documents. iii) In making a determination, the committee should determine if taking all the facts and evidence into consideration, there are reasonable grounds to believe or not believe that the conduct, violation, or offense occurred. iv) ThecommitteeshallissueafinalreportandrecommendationstotheCityCouncil.Thefinalreport shall be made available to the public. b. If a separate public hearing is set, it must be set far enough in advance to give the member of Council subject to the charges adequate time to prepare a defense, and that member shall be given the opportunity to make an opening and closing statement and to question his or her accusers. The membersubjecttothechargesmayberepresentedandmayhavetherepresentativespeakorquestion on his or her behalf. The Mayor, or Vice Mayor if the Mayor is the subject of the charges, would preside at the hearing. The rules of evidence shall not apply to the hearing, which is not a formal adversarial proceeding. The City Attorney or designee shall provide legal advice to the City Council during the hearing. 6. A decision to censure requires the adoption of a Resolution making findings with regard to the specific charges, based on substantial evidence, and approved by a two-thirds vote of the Council. TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE 4 of 4 POLICY NUMBER 0-28 4831-0084-6333v2 JH\27697001 ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL Adopted October 12, 2021 PURPOSE The Los Altos City Council adopts this policy for members of the City Council to assure public confidence in the integrity of local governance, to hold itself accountable to each other and the public, and to foster trust from the public. This policy applies only to the City of Los Altos Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers serving on the Los Altos City Council (“Council”) for improper conduct that could result in admonition or censure. This policy shall be effective on the date of adoption by the Council (“Effective Date”) and shall not be applied retroactively to any conduct occurring before the Effective Date. Any disciplinary action taken by the Council under this policy shall be a final action and is not subject to an appeal or reconsideration. POLICY It is the policy of the Council that all its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Council Norms and Procedures (hereinafter referred to as Law or Policy). Violations of such Law or Policy tend to undermine the effectiveness of the Council as a whole and foster distrust from the public. Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of Law or Policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy. An investigation is not required, but any Councilmember may request and be granted an investigation of the alleged violation. Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding certain actions it may choose to take in response to violations of Law or Policy, which would not require the Council to adopt policy, including but not limited to voting to remove a Councilmember from a Committee or Board, or a vote of no confidence in a particular Councilmember, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to two types of actions: admonition and censure. The Council shall only admonish or censure a Councilmember pursuant to this policy if a Councilmember has violated the same Law or Policy more than two times and the 4831-0084-6333v2 JH\27697001 Councilmember has been publicly warned about such violations by another Councilmember or Councilmembers(s) and the Councilmember that received the warning continues to violate the Law or Policy. Admonition An admonition may be informal or formal and is typically directed to a member or members of the Council. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions in violation of a Law or Policy. An informal admonition may be issued by the Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder, it would not require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true. A formal admonition would follow a public hearing, as further described below. The Council recognizes the right to criticize is protected by the First Amendment, and may be done by an individual Councilmember, or by a Council motion and vote. A Mayor may from time to time remind Councilmembers to comply with any Law or Policy in order to conduct an orderly meeting. Such reminders by the Mayor are not an admonition. Censure Censure is an official reprimand or condemnation made by Council in response to specified conduct by one of its own members. Censure is disciplinary in nature and requires the formal adoption of a resolution setting forth the Councilmember’s alleged violations of Law or Policy. Although not required, censure could involve an investigation and it must protect the due process rights of the Councilmember being investigated. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the Councilmember as an elected official, but a censure is a punitive action for a Councilmember’s violations of Law or Policy. PROCEDURE Informal Admonition An individual Councilmember can make an informal admonition at any Council meeting during the Public Presentations or Reports of Councilmembers portion of the meeting. The Councilmember making the informal admonition must first ask the Mayor to make the informal admonition and state on the record the basis for the informal admonition, including the previous two or more times that the Councilmember, who would be subject to the informal admonition, had been warned. After doing so, the Mayor must allow the Councilmember to make the informal admonition. If the Mayor would like to make an informal admonition, the Mayor is also required to state on the record the basis for the informal admonition. Formal Admonition or Censure Public Hearing At a public City Council Meeting, three (3) Councilmembers may request a discussion of a formal censure and/or formal admonition action be placed on a future regular meeting Council agenda. At the future meeting that the discussion is heard, a vote by three (3) or more Councilmembers is required to agendize a formal public hearing. The City Clerk shall provide a formal notice of the hearing to the Councilmember who is the subject of the action. The notice 4831-0084-6333v2 JH\27697001 shall contain the specific allegations and/or charges on which the proposed action is based and the date and time that the matter will be heard. At the hearing, the Councilmembers who requested the hearing shall have a cumulative total time of no more than 10 minutes to state the reason(s) they are requesting the formal admonition or censure, and the Councilmember who is the subject of the action shall have up to 10 minutes to respond. Upon hearing the testimony, the Council may take action setting forth its findings and stating the terms of the disciplinary action. Disciplinary Action. If, at the close of the hearing, a majority of the entire membership of the Council finds that the subject member’s conduct violates any Law or Policy, the Council may take one or more of the following measures: (1) Formal Admonition. A Formal Admonition can be in the form of a motion and vote, or an adopted Resolution, and can take any or all of the following forms: (a) The admonition is directed to one or all members of the Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in violation of law or City policy; and/or (b) Direction is given to the subject Councilmember to correct the result of the particular behavior that violated Law or Policy; and/or (c) A reprimand is directed to the subject member of the Council based on a particular action (or set of actions) that is determined to be in violation of Law or Policy but is considered by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require formal censure. (2) Resolution of Censure. The Council may adopt a resolution of censure that clearly sets forth the facts supporting the allegations of misconduct giving rise to the censure. A resolution of censure requires a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council. A resolution of censure may include the imposition of certain actions against the Councilmember such as removal from a committee or Board. CC 11-7-2023 Written Communications Item No. 13 Adoption of Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials Page 16 of 51 REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED internal audit risk reduction and mitigation recommendations. Recommendation 3b should be implemented by July 31, 2023. Finding 4 A comprehensive Code of Ethics not only provides guidance and baseline standards for ethical behavior, it includes sanctions and consequences for deviations from the standard. The City’s Ethics Policy is generic and lacks enforcement provisions and therefore fails to provide a framework to address ramifications for policy violations. Recommendation 4a The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission with guidance from experts in applied ethics, such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, to: (i) develop and implement a robust government ethics training program for all councilmembers; and (ii) evaluate a best practices enforceable Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy that governs all councilmembers and appointed officials for consideration by the City Council. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023. Recommendation 4b The City should reinstate enforcement procedures to enable the City Council and the public to file complaints and testify at public hearings to help remediate ethics violations. This revision should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023. Recommendation 4c The City Council should engage a conflict resolution professional to help enhance mutual understanding and respect amongst all stakeholders. This recommendation should be implemented by January 31, 2023, and should be repeated at least once per year. Recommendation 4d The City should publish its current Ethics Policy on the City website by January 31, 2023. 428 CC 09-19-2023 428 of 673