{"id":400025,"date":"2026-07-16T00:14:16","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T00:14:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/400025\/"},"modified":"2026-07-16T00:14:16","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T00:14:16","slug":"lack-of-consensus-kills-comprehensive-santa-clara-charter-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/400025\/","title":{"rendered":"Lack of Consensus Kills Comprehensive Santa Clara Charter Update"},"content":{"rendered":"

Due to the quick turnaround of press time, The Weekly focused on one key item from last night\u2019s Santa Clara City Council meeting. We offer more in-depth coverage of other items discussed at the city council meeting in the coming days.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Santa Clara City Council has scrapped the idea of a comprehensive charter amendment for the November election, instead opting to propose one measure that would alter how the city procures contracts.<\/p>\n

At its most recent meeting July 14, division caused the council to nix a charter overhaul that took the charter review committee nearly nine months to develop.<\/p>\n

City Attorney Glen Googins, who had been working with the charter review committee, called the process a \u201chigh-integrity and productive exercise.\u201d He assured the council that the comprehensive review was \u201cnot intended to make a significant change to the structure of city government.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou are not going to see dramatic changes here,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Originally, the changes were broken down into three categories: \u201cclean up,\u201d administrative, and more controversial changes \u2014 designated levels one, two and three, respectively. However, at its previous meetings, where the council considered the changes, it put the kibosh on including any level three changes.<\/p>\n

SPONSORED<\/p>\n

\"Devid\"Devid<\/a><\/p>\n

Even with the hotly charged topics removed, and despite Googins\u2019 assurance, the council still picked apart several of the proposed changes, saying they were more substantive than presented.<\/p>\n

Council Member Kelly Cox called several proposed changes \u201cpoison pills.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Mayor Lisa Gillmor said she understood the desire for some of the changes because they lighten city employees\u2019 workload, she said the public only gains an indirect benefit, \u201cat best.\u201d Further, she called the changes \u201cvery clunky,\u201d bemoaning language that codifies a shift in city operations \u2014 shifts that, when looked at individually, look \u201cvery reasonable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBut collectively, the pattern moves the substance of governance out of one document that requires a public vote to change into instruments of a council majority, or, in some cases, the staff alone,\u201d she said. \u201cThey can alter it unilaterally, indefinitely, with no voter input. Residents would be ratifying a shell that says, \u2018there shall be rules\u2019 without knowing what those rules will actually say and no further say once the framework is approved.\u201d<\/p>\n

One public speaker agreed with Gillmor\u2019s assessment.<\/p>\n

Yvonne Inciarte urged the council to \u201cnot rush an unfinished product,\u201d saying it \u201cundermines the democratic process.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you vote for this, it is basically narrowing the authority of city council, and it is expanding the power of the city manager,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

As he had done previously, Council Member Kevin Park challenged whether the charter review subcommittees needed to be closed-door.<\/p>\n

Replicating his previous answer to Park\u2019s concern, Googins said the intent behind the subcommittee meetings being closed-door was not \u201cnefarious\u201d so much as for expedience, scheduling and fostering an environment where committee members could express ideas without scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Park countered, saying that was a poor excuse.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we are cutting corners, if we are excluding the public from discussions to fit our schedules, I see that as a problem,\u201d he said. \u201cWe do not fit the process for the time. We fit the time for the process. We make sure we have the time for a good process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several council members said they feared that the measure would fail if the council didn\u2019t unanimously support it, essentially torpedoing the charter review committee\u2019s effort.<\/p>\n

Due to the division, the council instead approved a separate amendment. The amendment would allow for \u201cbest value\u201d bidding options for public works projects, most notably one called design-build. Such contracts allow for a single contractor to handle both aspects without a competitive bid, likely speeding up construction and saving the city lots of money.<\/p>\n

But even the seemingly mundane amendment saw tinkering from the dais. Gillmor and Cox both took issue with the absence of a monetary threshold for what constitutes a \u201cmajor\u201d project. They wanted a firm dollar amount specified in the ballot question. Without one, Cox said, it \u201clooks like a cash-grab.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just like with the city\u2019s proposed $400 million bond measure last election, Council Member Suds Jain said he felt \u201cpushed into a corner\u201d to approve the proposed $250,000 threshold lest the motion fail.<\/p>\n

The motion passed unanimously.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The council designated Jain and Council Member Karen Hardy to draft the argument for the measure. They can designate up to three other signatories to that argument, which is due to the Registrar of Voters by July 28. Rebuttals are due Aug. 7.<\/p>\n

Consent Calendar Spending<\/p>\n

The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar:<\/p>\n

A $2.5 million increase to a purchase order with 3M Company, 715 aluminum conductor composite reinforced (ACCR) conductors and related accessories. The total purchase order is now $5 million.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Three agreements totaling $6.9 million with Westwood Professional Services, Inc., RRM Design Group, and Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey for parks rehabilitation and improvement design.<\/p>\n

A one-year $65,000 extension to an agreement with Carl Warren & Company for general liability claims adjusting and administration. The total compensation is now $635,000.<\/p>\n

The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 13 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.<\/p>\n

Members of the public can participate in the city council meetings on Zoom at https:\/\/santaclaraca.zoom.us\/j\/99706759306<\/a>; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City\u2019s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov<\/a><\/p>\n

Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

Previous Santa Clara City Council Posts:
Santa Clara\u2019s Electric Utility Connectivity Increases<\/a>
Charter Changes Still Divisive\u00a0at Santa Clara City Council Meeting<\/a>
Santa Clara Sets its Sights on Relocating City Hall<\/a>
Levi\u2019s Stadium Capital Projects Approved Despite Division<\/a><\/p>\n

SPONSORED<\/p>\n

\"Watchdog\"Watchdog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Due to the quick turnaround of press time, The Weekly focused on one key item from last night\u2019s…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":400026,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[2914,6036,79747,2915,2916,2917,2918,88,90,89,197,32452,2919,2920,2921,2922,2923],"class_list":["post-400025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-jose","tag-albert-gonzalez","tag-bay-area-news","tag-glen-googins","tag-karen-hardy","tag-kelly-cox","tag-kevin-park","tag-raj-chahal","tag-san-jose","tag-san-jose-headlines","tag-san-jose-news","tag-santa-clara","tag-santa-clara-charter-review","tag-santa-clara-city-council","tag-santa-clara-mayor-lisa-gillmor","tag-santa-clara-weekly","tag-silicon-valley-voice","tag-suds-jain"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=400025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400025\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/400026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=400025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=400025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=400025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}