Milpitas council opens review of conduct, pauses discussion and orders evidence gathering

The Milpitas City Council on Oct. 21 discussed a staff report that concluded the city’s code of conduct, open‑government ordinance and municipal code were not followed during a recent recruitment and scheduling exchange. The matter generated extended debate, a public explanation from the interim city manager and a council vote to continue the review with additional evidence gathered.

Interim City Manager Diana (last name not provided in the public record) told the council she had brought the issue to the body because she believed the city’s rules had not been followed and that role alignment between elected officials and staff is central to good governance. Diana said she felt “it’s a little bit awkward” to bring the matter forward but that part of her duty was to report departures from policy. In a public letter included in the packet she also said that the situation had caused stress and that she had submitted a resignation notice effective Oct. 31.

The underlying event traced to an August period when a council subcommittee was conducting an external search and a council member asked an administrative staff member to poll the council and reserve space for a confidential, council‑only meeting. City staff said that the request to schedule a meeting without staff involvement conflicted with the council handbook, the municipal code and the city’s open‑government rules; staff advised the mayor and council that the city attorney had been asked whether a Brown Act violation could exist in the circumstances. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office subsequently advised staff that, based on the materials the city provided, the DA did not see a prosecutable violation of the Brown Act.

The council debated whether the packet language presented the matter as a concluded violation or an allegation. Several council members — including Vice Mayor Gary Babadillo and Council Members Lam and Lian — said they wanted to see the full thread of emails and text messages that led to the report before making a formal judgment. Council Member Lian asked that the city produce a timeline and all related communications from Aug. 24 through Sept. 5 and suggested staff could prepare an independent factual timeline for council review. Other council members urged action to uphold standards and avoid undermining public trust.

After extensive discussion, the council voted to continue the matter and to direct staff to compile the full set of communications and evidence and to agendize the item for a special meeting (tentatively the coming Friday) for further council review. That motion was approved by a majority of council members voting (three yes, one no, one abstention on the special‑meeting direction). The council also discussed but did not immediately pursue formal disciplinary remedies such as censure; one council member announced an intent to initiate censure under the council’s 2017 censure policy, which requires a separate written charge and a subcommittee process.

Acting City Attorney Chris Creech told the council his office prepared a confidential attorney‑client memorandum that summarized legal observations; council members debated whether to waive privilege so the memo could be publicly released. The council also heard several city department leaders express appreciation for the interim city manager’s leadership and concerns about organizational continuity if she departs.

The council’s actions were procedural: it did not impose discipline but asked staff for a compiled timeline and communications and scheduled a follow‑up review. Council members and staff said they expect the additional materials to clarify disputed facts and to inform any subsequent council determination under the city’s code of conduct and censure policy.