The Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee on Sept. 4 agreed to narrow and rework a draft community survey about possible charter amendments and directed staff to return with a revised version for the committee to review on Sept. 25.

Deputy City Manager Connie Bersellas told the committee the survey is intended to gather public input to help the committee prepare a final recommendation to City Council on proposals that could reach the ballot. "The intent is to get a lot of feedback," Bersellas said, adding staff would launch the survey after the committee signs off on the questions and run it through Sept. 29 if the committee chooses that schedule.

The committee’s action on Sept. 4 trimmed demographic questions, asked staff to provide clearer background text for several items, and directed staff to quantify special-election costs and typical turnout when presenting the vacancy options to respondents. Member We moved the set of changes and Member Davis seconded; the motion passed 8-0-2 with Members Pine and Philly absent.

Why this matters: The committee is considering four potential charter amendments — rules for filling council vacancies, council and mayor compensation, alternative public-works delivery methods, and the city manager’s authority to settle claims — that could change how Sunnyvale fills seats, pays elected officials, contracts for projects and manages legal claims. The survey is intended as one public input dataset that the committee will combine with other research before recommending ballot language to Council.

What the committee changed and why
- Demographics: Committee members agreed to simplify respondent demographics to two questions aimed at understanding likely voter representation: whether the respondent is a registered Sunnyvale voter and whether they voted in the 2024 general election. Several members said lengthy demographic sets risked deterring responses and would not reliably represent the electorate.
- Clarity and background: Members and staff agreed many questions need brief plain-language background explainers so nonexperts can answer. Deputy City Manager Connie Bersellas and Deputy PIO Rachel Davis said staff will rewrite items to avoid leading phrasing and prepare short context paragraphs (for example, explaining what it means for the city manager to settle a claim).
- Compensation and income context: Committee members debated how best to show local income context in the compensation questions. Some members recommended one or two simple, familiar figures rather than multi-row charts (one source discussed was HUD county income limits); staff said they prefer showing dollar ranges rather than technical indices to keep the survey readable.
- Vacancy options and election cost: Committee members asked staff to provide simple, comparable descriptors so respondents understand the trade-offs: special elections generally shorten the time a seat is vacant but can cost more and attract lower turnout; filling vacancies only at general elections reduces cost and raises turnout but leaves seats vacant longer. Members asked staff to add approximate cost ranges and typical turnout rates to the vacancy question so responses reflect those trade-offs; staff noted prior city figures ran from roughly the low hundreds of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars for past special elections and that stand-alone special elections can be much more costly, depending on county coordination.

Discussion highlights and concerns
Committee members repeatedly urged brevity and simplicity so the public would complete the survey rather than drop out. Member Rubino warned that complex or poorly explained terms would confuse many residents. Member Neuswanger and others urged a short informational “one-pager” or linked voter guide to accompany the survey so respondents understand pros and cons without biasing answers; staff said they would prepare a concise background sheet with a QR code for outreach.

City manager settlement authority: Several committee members asked staff to add a plain-language sentence explaining what a settlement is (for example, "When a monetary claim is filed against the city, the city manager may negotiate a settlement to avoid the cost of a trial") and to remove or reword leading yes/no choices. Member Vickrey noted a legal nuance discussed earlier in meetings about whether a charter could delegate the exact settlement amount to council ordinance; staff said they had found precedent in three California cities that set the mechanism in the charter while allowing council to set the amount by ordinance, but that the question has not been definitively tested in court.

Public-works delivery: The committee debated whether to keep survey questions on alternative public-works delivery (such as separate design and construction contracts versus a single design–build contract). Some members proposed keeping a single, simple descriptive question rather than multiple technical subitems; others argued the question provides useful public temperature on contracting approach. The committee took a straw poll and directed staff to drop more detailed question variants (4a and 4b in the packet) for now and to consider a single simplified question about delivery method.

Votes at a glance
- Consent calendar (approval of August minutes): Motion by Member Pine, second by Vice Chair Wickham. Roll-call: 7 yes, 0 no, 2 abstain; Members Vickrey and Davis abstained; Member Philly absent. Outcome: approved.
- Motion to revise the draft survey, reduce demographic items, add clearer background text and quantify special-election cost/turnout, and return a revised survey for review: Moved by Member We, seconded by Member Davis. Roll-call: 8 yes, 0 no, 2 absent (Members Pine and Philly). Outcome: approved.
- Motion to schedule a follow-up committee meeting to review the revised survey on Sept. 25 at 6 p.m.: moved and seconded; roll-call: 8 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. Outcome: approved.
- Motion to add a question limiting appointments to 10 months: moved by Member Neuswanger, seconded by Member We; the committee voted 0 yes, 8 no, 2 absent (motion failed). Several members said the proposed wording was leading and that appointment-term limits raised trade-offs (incumbency advantage vs. continuity) that merit more deliberation.

Next steps and public outreach
Staff said they will revise the questionnaire to reflect the committee’s directions, produce a one-page background/FAQ to accompany the survey, and arrange a test preview (staff said a working test in the OpenGov/Open City Hall platform will be available for the chair and vice chair before the Sept. 25 meeting). Staff also said the survey will be hosted on the city platform (OpenGov/Open City Hall) and that they will use targeted outreach tools, social media posts and neighborhood association emails to publicize it. The committee set Sept. 25 as the next meeting to review the revised survey and the proposed engagement plan.

Public comment
Two in-person speakers addressed the item. A frequent commenter identified as Steve S. urged careful, nonleading phrasing in compensation questions and emphasized the value of framing comparators clearly (for instance, specifying what "making pay fair compared to similar public roles" means). Steve S. also urged the committee to keep survey language neutral and asked the committee to vet background explainers before publication.

What remains undecided
The committee has not finalized exact wording for several questions (notably compensation, the settlement-authority phrasing, and the vacancy options). Committee members asked staff to return with the edited survey and the engagement plan by Sept. 25 so the full committee can review a near-final, testable version before public launch.

The committee's action on Sept. 4 narrows the survey and sets a schedule for staff to bring back a polished, testable questionnaire and outreach plan at the Sept. 25 meeting.