CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 6 Consolidation of Commissions - Written CommunicationsGrace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Clerk,
Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11 :21 PM
City Clerk; City Council
2018-07-31 merging commission
Please put my comment from tonight's council meeting in the meeting record.
Thanks.
Among the many commissions , it seems Library Commission, Public Safety Commission, and Senior
Commission are the three that directly though people's lives daily. And if there is concern on their contribution,
perhaps we should empower the commissioners, these dedicated volunteers, to figure out how to have more
community engagement and contribute.
Let's not have council dictate what the commission does. Commissions are a vehicle for community enagement.
Is Cupertino's solution to everything: "what's not working. Get rid of it". Like what we do for Vallco? Let's fix
what's not working and make it even better, especially the community needs the service.
The only advantage of Parks and Rec commission is the meetings are video taped.
This can be easily achieved by installing a stationary camera in one of the smaller meeting rooms. This is how
CUSD board meeting and many other school board meetings. The technology is there and it's affordable.
Every city in the Santa Clara County Library System has
a library commission, except Campbell, which has a community engagement and services commission.
Public records revealed that on June 29, three city council members called a special meeting on merging
commissions to be scheduled before end of July 31.
Just one month later.
How did three city council members coordinate among themselves outside of the city council meeting to call an
emergency special meeting without violating the Brown Act? Please clarify.
As a result, Library Commission, Public Safety and Parks & Rec Commissions has to call urgent special
meetings to discuss it. Only three library commissioners and three public safety commissioners were able to
attend these last-minute special meetings.
One Parks &Rec commissioner said she felt blindsided by this urgency. And she said there doesn't need to a
problem to solve . She is happy to help advise the city council to solve any problem . But she needs to know the
problem.
Why have we wasted the staff time, the commissioners time and residents time on a non-existent problem? And
why do you call a special meeting before the three impacted commissions have even discussed this? Please
justify your reasons. Thank you .
1
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Clerk,
Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11 :20 PM
City Clerk; City Council
2018-07-31 Don't blame SB 35
Please put my comment from tonight 's council meeting in the meeting record.
Thanks.
Cc 7/:stl!J>
~~
Senate Bill 35 has good intent. It attempts to streamline projects with more than 2/3 residential use, but it also
requires projects to comply with the General Plan and Municipal Code.
We don't see any other city facing a SB 35 project several times bigger than the plan city council approved. But
only cupertino .
Why? We have a General Plan with unclear standard.
Who is responsible? Three city council members who sit here who voted to approve the General Plan and then
refused to clarify the General Plan when Mayor Darcy alerted the city council of the potential impact of SB 35.
Sand Hill is able to threaten us with a very dense SB 35 because of you. Your action and you inaction .
The city council approves the general plan. If it is open to exploitation, the responsibility is on the City Council
who refuse to fix the General Plan. You are responsible for the massive SB 35 Plan. Not the senate bill , not
even the Developer. You who voted to approve the general plan without clearly stating that the 2 million sqft
office allocation is not an entitlement. From the video record of Dec 3, 2014 , the city council specifically said
that the office allocation is not an entitlement.
We the People should decide what the city looks like in the General Plan.
Th City has done survey on water fee , head tax, etc.
Please use the survey tools and other digital tools to surbey the residents on what they want at Vallco.
Residents living close to Vallco don't even know what 's being considered as alternatives in the EIR or the
supposed community driven opticos process .
Why not send a flyer with all options listed to inform the residents ? I hope you are not afraid to info1m and
survey residents these options.
Transparency, accountability and community engagement.
Three important anchors for good governance.
Total Control Panel
T o: cityclerk@ cupertino.org
From: lfc hao@gmai l.com
Remove thi s send er fro m my a ll ow li st
You recei ved th is message because th e sender is on yo ur a llow list.
1
Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW : Transparency in public agency
From: Jacqueline Guzman
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 7 :12 AM
To: Grace Schmidt <graces@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Transparency in public agency
For the public record
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao @ gmail.com>
Date: July 25, 2018 at 1:14:00 AM PDT
To: Jacqueline Guzman <jacquelineg@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Transparency in public agency
Reply-To: <lfchao @ gmail.com>
Please put this in the written comment for the July 31 special meeting.
Thanks.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao @ gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 25 , 2018 at 1 :06 AM
Subject: Transparency in public agency
To: ntambe@cupertino .org, mbi yani@cupertino .org, cstanek@cupertino.org,
hdavis @ cupertino.org, jwilson@ cupertino .org, parks @ cupertino.org
Dear Parks and Rec Commissioners,
CC 07-31 -2018 Item No. 6
JI.
The Brown Act is the open meeting law to ensure transparency and sufficient notification for the
public. It may be an inconvenience at times, but it is important to ensure that the decisions of a
public agency are deliberated and made in the open. Public trust is important.
I looked up the Brown Act and sent the information to Jacqui. I thought you might be interested
to know.
According to Gov't Code§ 54952, Parks and Rec Commission is a "legislative body", subject to
the Brown Act, because it is created by a formal action of the City Council.
If the Library "committee" is created by the Parks and Rec Commission, it would be a "standing
committee", which "have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by
charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body".
Thus , the Library committee is a legislative body, subject to the Brown Act.
1
a .0111 m 11 s1
Just changing the name from "commission" to "committee" would not allow someone to
circumvent the Brown Act.
It makes sense, doesn't it?
This seeming innocent issue of merging of commissions has been made controversial and
emotional because of the very tight timeline the three City Council members , Sinks , Savi ta and
Chang, put us under. In case you didn't know, three City Council members called for a special
meeting specifically about the merging of commissions after mid June. For some unknown
reason, the three City Council members MUST discuss this issue before the end of July. They
cannot wait until the next regularly scheduled city council meeting. This forced the Library
Commission to call a special meeting to study this in July, after they've cancelled their July
meetings. As a result, only three Library Commissioners were able to attend.
In addition, the City Council nor the staff have given any sufficient rationale on why there is a
need to even consider this issue. As Judy Wilson pointed out tonight, there doesn't seem to be a
problem to solve; how can we discuss the solution. And Judy said she even spoke to Rod Sinks,
the Council member who brought this up in the first place. It appears that many hours of staff
time and commissioner time are wasted on a witch hunt to solve a non-existent problem.
One commissioner wondered why people seem to be so negative about this issue. As you can
see, the negativity we are experiencing is due to a lack transparency in the process . What exactly
is the true motivation for such exercise? Why the other Commissions with even less activities are
not reviewed? Why is there such an urgency all of a sudden? Before the city proceed any further
with this issue, these questions should be answered truthfully. I hope that the solution for this
issue will not be one with even less transparency.
One commissioner mentioned that the Library commission meetings are not recorded , so it's hard
to find out what's discussed. Is that a sufficient reason to absorb Library Commission? The same
argument applies to almost every other Commission, except Planning Commission. Should we
then merge them all? Of course not.
In fact, the city can install a stationary camera in one of the conference rooms and record the
commission meetings held there.There is technology for simple video recording or audio
recording if needed.
Thank you for your service on the Parks and Rec Commissions. I hope that we all learn from this
experience and come to a sensible solution that value transparency and community engagement.
Regards,
Liang Chao
Cupertino Resident
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 25 , 2018 at 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: Committees versus Commissions
To: Jacqueline Guzman <JacquelineG@cupertino.org>
Some information on whether a "committee" is subject to the Brown Act.
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2009/06/aa-advisory-committees-and-the-brown-act/
2
! J( • )
Gov't Code § 54952. As used in this chapter, "legislative body" means: Jon
(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or
federal statute.
(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether pennanent
or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or
fonnal action of a legislative body. However, advisory c01mnittees, composed solely of the
members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not
legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of
their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting
schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are
legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.
According to Gov't Code§ 54952 , Parks and Rec Commission is a "legislative body", subject to
the Brown Act, because it is created by a formal action of the City Council.
If the Library "committee" is created by the Parks and Rec Commission, it would be a "standing
committee", which "have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by
charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body".
Thus, the Library committee is a legislative body, subject to the Brown Act.
Just changing the name from "commission" to "committee" would not allow someone to
circumvent the Brown Act.
It makes sense, doesn't it?
Liang
On Tue, Jul 24 , 2018 at 8:51 PM, Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@grnail.com> wrote:
Jacqu,
First, I hope to thank you for graciously guiding everyone through the issue of merging
commissions, which has been made controversial and emotional because of the very tight
timeline the three City Council members put us under. And the vague or non-existence rationale
for even considering the merging of commissions. The City Council member who proposed the
idea appears to have created a problem to solve when there is none, as Judy Wilson pointed out
tonight at Parks and Rec Commission meeting tonight. The negativity we are experiencing is
due to a lack transparency in the process and I hope that the solution will not be one with even
less transparency.
The option of making Library Commission a committee was brought up tonight as a way to be
"flexible", but such flexibility comes at a cost of transparency and public participation, which
the Brown Act is meant to protect. The speed limit is restrictive, but it is necessary to ensure
safety . So, we must look at whether turning Library Commission into a non-Brown-Act
committee is even legal.
There are two types of committees, the standing committee and the ad hoc committee, that a
City Council can create. The standing committee meets regularly and has an ongoing
responsibility of a certain focus . The ad hoc committee is created for one specific task. Once the
task is done, the committee is dissolved. A standing committee created by a Brown Act body
is subject to the Brown Act too . Otherwise, one can easily create standing committee to meet
in closed session on any item to circumvent the Brown Act. An ad hoc committee is not subject
to the Brown Act, but its task has to be decided and specified in the open meeting of the City
3
Council. This ensures that important decisions are determined in the open with sufficient public
notification and participation.
I remember the City Council faced a similar issue this year regarding the Legislative Action
committee, right? Just changing the name from "Commission" to "Committee" would not
change whether the entity is subject to the Brown Act or not.
The same rule applies to the Parks and Rec Commission, which is a Brown Act body. If a
Library committee, which meets regularly reports to the Parks and Rec committee, the Library
committee is subject to the Brown Act as a Library Commission.
Is it more efficient to create two levels of Brown Act committees? Why?
So, please make sure that the staff or the Parks and Rec commission does not recommend an
option that violates the Brown Act.
Sincerely,
Liang
Total Control Panel
To: jacquelineg@cupertino.org
From : lfchao@gma il.com
Remove this sender from my a llow li st
You received this m essage beca use the sender is on your allow list.
4
CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 6
tiiiW
Lauren Sapudar !
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, July 26 , 2018 11 :13 AM
Subject: FW : Meeting Thoughts -commissions
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Written Communication for 7 /31/18, item #6.
From: Lisa Warren (mailto:la-warren@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:10 PM
To: Jacqueline Guzman <JacguelineG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Meeting Thoughts -commissions
Ms. Guzman,
I had to leave the Parks and Rec meeting early to get to another meeting on
time .
As I was walking to my car, I considered a couple of things.
I realized during the Library Commission meeting last night, the
Commissioners didn't have a chance to discuss pros and cons of this idea. I
don't think a slide was presented for that. That made it difficult for you to
answer when one of the PR commissioners asked what LC and PSC had
listed as pros and cons.
There was so much discussion tonight about the possibility of creating
committees I felt that the real question was not being addressed .... got
sidetracked with one of a handful of questions from your slide .. as if it were
the main topic.
I drove away thinking that PR Commissioners should be asked this question
another way. That being .. if it was being considered that PRC be 'absorbed'
into any one of several current commissions, what would their thoughts be ?
I suppose another thing that could be asked of LC and PRC is what the pros
and cons wbuld be if they were to 'absorb' PRC and another commission.
I did not get a sense that anyone thought Library or Public Safety
Commissions are insignificant or should be 'gone'. The focus was on
changing the 'name' and therefore the 'operation of' these groups of resident
volunteers . As you know, there is no definition of how that would be
done . No plan.
1
o .olt1 rr ~T
What Cupertino needs is more transparency, not less . If Brown Act
avoidance is the 'reason' to consider committees over commissions, then it
====-is a seriously flawed reason to support the idea.
In addition, if one of the 'good' things about PRC meetings is that they are
televised/recorded, why would this entire discussion take place
unrecorded? I am really disappointed that none of the council members who
called for a special meeting on the 'concept', and create the frenzy of special
meetings, was not
present at any of the three commission meetings.
Until very recently, all discussion I had been aware of that explained the
reason for this proposed 'consolidation' (which is actually undefined by
details) as a way to 'save money'.
Now it is hard to find anyone willing to explain how this idea came up
months (or more) ago.
Commissioner Wilson reported that she tried to find an answer to 'why' this
has been suggested. She mentioned asking Rod (Sinks) the question, yet
repeated more than once that there still was no answer.
Yet suddenly it becomes necessary for special meetings ?
This message should be included in any written communication packets for
July 31, 2018 special City Council meeting.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Total Control Panel
To: jacguel ineg@ cupertino.org
From: la-warren@ att.net
Remo ve this send er from my a llow li s t
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
2
Bo ard of Directors
Board President, Jerry Liu
Vice Pr esident, Art Cohen
Tre as urer, Janet Trankle
Se cretary, Kiran Varsh neya-Ro hra
Henry Sang
Diana Matley
Gopal Kum ar
Tim Widman
Kristen Lyn
Exe cuti ve Directo r
Carrie Young
Advisory Council
Bob Adams
Tom lzu
Gayathri Kanth
Hsing Kung
Be v e rly Lenihan
Be n Liao
Richard Lowentha l
Orrin Mahoney
Eno Sc hmidt
Steve Ti ng
Gilbert Wong
Community Librarian
Cla re Varesio
~~_/ -~
CUPERTINO LIBRARY FOUNDATION
www.cupertino libraryfoundation.org
10800 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014
July 25, 2018
Dear Mayor Paul and members of the Cupertino City Council ,
CC 07-31-2018 Item No . 6
Please accept this letter on behalf of the Board of the Cupertino Library Foundation
(CLF) regarding the commission consolidation study currently scheduled for the July
31 , 201 8 city council meeting.
The Cupertino Library Foundation is 501(c)(3) non -profit organization chartered to
provide continuing financial support to our Cupertino Public Library . Founded in
1994, CLF continues to provide financial and creative support for multi-
generational , multi-lingual educational and cultural programs in collaboration with
the Cupertino Library . Since its creation, the CLF has raised over $3 million to
benefit the Cupertino Library and the Cupertino community.
The Cupertino Public Library, a part of the Santa Clara County Libra ry District
(SCCLD), is a be loved institution in a community which places a high value on
education . In FY 2017-2018, It hosted over 835,000 visitors with almost 2.4 million
items circulated. On both an absolute and a per-capita basis, it is the most popula r
library in the Santa Clara County library district.
The Board of the CupE)rtino Li brary Foundation strongly opposes the proposed
commiss ion consolidation due to the following reasons :
1. The proposed cost sa vings from the commission consolidation is miniscule
compared to the benefits that a properly resourced and directed
commission brings to the Cupertino community.
2. The elimination of this commission and its passionate volunteers defeats
one of the key goals of increasing civic engagement with the city .
3 . Library commissioners not on ly advise SCCLD but also influence and take
act ions to fulfill ou r residents ' needs and requests. An example is the
recently announced "extended library hours ", which was the top ranke d
reques t from a user survey . The Library Commission took th is request to the
heart and ac t ively drove the request with SCCLD to achieve what we have
now . Patrons are sim ply thrilled with this change and enjoy in g those extra
hours. The Cupe rtin o Public Library is the most used public facility in the city,
and residents will not be well -served by the elimination of a dedicated
Li brarv Commission focused on librarv issues.
Board of Directors
Board President, Jerry Liu
Vice President, Art Cohen
Treasurer, Janet Trankle
Secretary, Kiran Varshneya -Rohra
Henry Sang
Diana Matley
Gopal Kumar
Tim Widman
Kristen Lyn
Executive Director
Carrie Young
Advisory Council
Bob Adams
Tom lzu
Gayathri Kanth
Hsing Kung
Beverly Lenihan
Ben Liao
Richard Lowenthal
Orrin Mahoney
Eno Schmidt
Steve Ting
Gilbert Wong
Commun ity Librarian
Clare Varesio
~~~ ~-
CUPERTINO LIBRARY FOUNDATION
www.cupertinolibraryfoundation.org
10800 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014 .
While we appreciate the recognition of the key role that CLF plays in supporting
our library during the March 6, 2018 city council meeting, we are not a forum where
community members can speak freely to air grievances or make service requests.
One of the Commission's most important resp on si bilities is th e public venue it
provides for community members to share concerns they have regarding any
aspect of library services . We would like to see the Library Commission work more
intimately with CLF, Friends of the Cupertino Library, and with our neighbor Library
groups to form a more holistic ensemble to gr ow and extend the education,
culture, and discourse in Cupertino . We also encourage a revitalized Library
Commission to se ek more direct community involvement with its activities.
If the City Council is dissatisfied with the current Library Commission structure or
work plan, we respectfully recommend that, instead of a hurried decision to
eliminate the Commission, we work in conjunction with other organizations and
the community to clarify the unsatisfactory issues and redefine the charter for the
Library Commission . There are complex and nuanced library issues looming in the
near future which will require in-depth analysis. One issue is the expiring lease
agreement for the library building, and another is the planned addition of a
program room to the only library in the district which does not have a dedicate d
program room. CLF is willing to assist in this exploratory and mission definition
process to help bring more service to the Cupertino community. Other cities in the
Santa Clara County Library Dist rict have library commissions to serve their
residents; our residents deserve no less.
Jerry Liu
Board Presiden t
Cupertino Library Foundati on
jli u@cu perti nol i braryfoundation .org
June 18, 2018
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Council members,
CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 6
The Library Commission acted at its June meeting to communicate to you it present
understanding of, and position with respect to, the proposed City Council 2018 Work Plan item
regarding the elimination of this commission.
We were not informed of the proposal prior to its appearance in the draft Work Plan and never
have been consulted about the intended benefit to the community. Nonetheless, we have
taken the proposal seriously. Following our regular procedures for developing advisory input to
the City Council, we have:
• entertained public comment and testimony,
• collected input from influential community groups,
• sought information on budget and other metrics impacts from city staff,
• and extensively discussed potential outcomes in publicly attended commission
meetings.
Some parameters are unresolved-such as whether the Library Commission will be combined
solely with the Parks and Recreation Commission or if both the aforementioned commissions
will be further combined with the Public Safety Commission . The latter outcome is the subject
of one budgetary planning exercise presented to us by city staff.
Public and community comment is unanimously and vigorously opposed to the City Council's
suggestion. We are unable to address any budgetary benefits. The fundamental assumptions
articulated in the single estimate of budget impacts prepared for your review, as no doubt you
have noted, are essentially flawed by assumptions untethered to the priorities, annual work
plan goals, and operational considerations of the two or three commissions impacted.
The Library Commission reflects the library service needs of the Cupertino community to the
Cupertino Library staff and the Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) leadership. Further,
commissioners directly work in support of the library and its capabilities, in partnership with
Cupertino Library staff, SCCLD management, and community-based organizations (Cupertino
Library Foundation, Friends of the Cupertino Library). The Library Commission also liaises with
comparable library-focused appointed and volunteer organizations throughout the Bay Area .
a ol/1
SCCLD is nationally recognized as a leading, forward-looking, and award-winning library system .
The Cupertino Library, as we are well aware, benefits from the visionary leadership of SCCLD
management and the opportunity to collaborate with and learn from other community libraries
in the SCCLD . It also maintains unique service aspects specifically designed to serve the
Cupertino community. Data show ever increasing usage and materials circulation and the
library staff work towards near-saturation patron registration. The recent extension of opening
hours to 72 hours/week is the highest availability across the SCCLD, and a matter of public note
and celebration .
While the Library Commission has not yet proposed an expansion of its membership to better
serve the community's input, we are at least reminded of the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it." By extension, we might advertise and advocate the extraordinary success of the Cupertino
Library-community (and non-profit support organizations)-Library Commission-City Council
nexus and share credit for this long-standing and long-nurtured success.
The commissioners are deeply interested in knowing the origins of the Work Plan proposal for
commission consolidation. We are open to understanding the underlying drivers, rationale and
potential benefits, budgetary and staff impacts, and-importantly-to study and discuss these
matters with our sister commissions which, surely, have parallel concerns. The absence of input
from the public and impacted commissions would represent a lack of due diligence and
breaches of procedural regularity and responsibility.
Our collective years ofexperience giving service to the City Council and our community compel
us to advise against unconsidered actions to achieve outcomes not transparently
communicated to all affected parties-most notably your electorate . Such decisions carry risks.
Conscientious evaluation of outcomes is an essential advisory function provided by Cupertino's
system of commissions . We urge you to use the system you've established, not circumvent it.
Sincerely
Library Commissioners
City of Cupertino, CA 95014
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Monday, July 30, 2018 11:06 AM
City Council
CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 6
Subject: Merging of Public Safety/Library/Parks & Maintenace Commissions
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers:
In regard to: Merging Public Safety/Library/Parks & Maintenace Commissions
If the City needs to make such a change to the Commissions, it is important that the name be chosen carefully to
reflect the change. The three commissions aren't an obviously natural fit, but some thought could find a couple
of words that capture parks, recreation, library, and maintenance .
Public Safety is Number One .
Maintenance is , also , a critical aspect of a well-run, safe, city so cannot be buried, either. Maintenance should
be one of the words. I recommend that it be the second word.
Libraries, parks, and recreation all contribute to an educated and healthy citizenry. A third word can combine
those successfully, I think .
Possible Ideas:
Safety, Maintenance, and Lifelong Learning Commission
Safety, Maintenance and Public Life Commission
Safety, Maintenance and Community Services Commission
OR, although a little longer:
"Pub lic Safety, Maintenance, and Lifelong Leaming Commission"
"Public Safety, Maintenance, and Public Life Commission"
"Public Safety, Maintenance and Community Commission"
"Public Safety, Maintenance and Key Services Commission"
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
31 Year Cupertino Resident
Total Control Panel
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tara Sreekrishnan <tarasreekrishnan@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:57 PM
City Council
CC 07-31-2018 Item No.(&
Christie Wang; Liana Crabtree; Amanda Wo; Rose Grymes; Gopal Kumarappan
Save the Cupertino Library Commission
Letter to the Cupertino Courier
printed on July 20th
Within the next month, City Council is likely going to consider dissolving the City's Library
Commission -a body of appointed volunteers which advises the council on the functions and
status of the City's only library. Cupertino is rich in its remarkably overlooked politics which
are often of meaningful consequence. And a merging of the Library Commission with the
Parks and Recreation Commission is no exception.
Now, of course, the council is not out to arbitrarily dismantle residential participation in this
sphere. Some members believe commission loads are too light, costs could be cut (the
commission cost the City about $24,000 last fiscal year), and that the exceeding demand for
Cupertino Community Hall rentals would free up if the commission were to be eliminated.
While these are understandable concerns, the proposed solution is regressive in nature.
This motion -currently supported by a majority of the council -would effectively render us
the only city in the Santa Clara County Library District without a commission solely focused
on libraries.
This makes no sense when you consider just how pivotal the Cupertino Library is as a
centerpiece of the city. It's by far the busiest library in the county by any metric.
Espousing ubiquitous academia in the form of our high achieving public schools and
community college means that we must also ensure key components of that learning are
maintained. And that means ensuring residents continue to have an influential say in the
adequacy of library services and the renting of library community spaces.
1
.olll rn91l 8IO~ IE 8
f commissions are underutilized, we shou ld be focus i ng on greater community outreach,
rather than simp ly eliminati ng them. And in t e rms of Communi t y Ha ll ov e rbookin g, the Ci t y
sho uld fo cu s on cr e atin g more community spac es for revenue gen e ration , r ather th a n simply
shuffling around whi c h group s get preference.
Cos ts might be sav e d by eliminating the Library Commission , but budgets are ultimately a
statement of values. As someone who grew up here and attended Portal, Kennedy , and Mon ta
Vista, libraries were always like my second home. My mother was a Cupertino Public School
Librarian. T he faculties which allow for the Cupertino Library's greatness are well within the
values of Cupertinans; I just hope they are within the values of the council too.
Thank you,
Tara Sreekrishnan
Total Control Pane l
To: citycouncil @ cupertino.org
From: tarasreekri shn an@ gmail.com
M essage Sc ore: I
My Spam Bl ocking Level : Hi gh
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This m essage was deli ve red becau se the co ntent filter sco re did not exceed yo ur filter level.
2
Hi gh (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (9 0): Pass