Sunnyvale staff outlines engagement toolkit and 1‑pager for Charter Review Committee

City staff presented a high‑level public‑engagement plan and a one‑page informational handout to the Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee on June 30, describing the tools staff can provide to educate residents and gather feedback on potential charter amendments.

The staff presentation, led by Deputy City Manager Connie Vercellus and Deputy Public Information Officer Rachel Davis, explained that the materials — a one‑pager with a QR code linking to a centralized web page, a survey form via the city’s Open City Hall, Update Sunnyvale email items, social media posts and postcards — are intended to make it easy for residents to learn about the charter review and to ensure the committee hears the same, consolidated public input.

The one‑pager is designed as a neutral primer to explain what the charter is, why the committee is studying it and to point readers to a QR code that links to more information and to surveys. “We put together a chart that just has a very kind of buffet menu of options that our growing team is able to put together for you,” Rachel Davis said during the presentation. Connie Vercellus added that the one‑pager is intended so “as committee members, we gather information from the committee in that from the from the community that all of the committee can can hear that at the same time.”

Staff described practical timelines and limits. They said basic materials can be produced quickly — often within about a week once committee input is received — and that a typical survey period is 45 days, though under the committee’s tight schedule staff suggested the survey could be open for as little as 20 days. Staff also said postcards and some other tactics would incur some expense but could be absorbed within available CRC funds; the council previously adopted a budget line for polling that staff can use for professional polling if the committee chooses.

Committee members raised two consistent constraints for outreach: complying with the Ralph M. Brown Act and avoiding committee‑level advocacy. Staff advised limiting subcommittee members’ direct solicitation of opinions when multiple committee members might attend the same public event, because coordinated attendance or discussion could create a serial meeting under the Brown Act. City attorney/staff guidance was summarized by staff as: public outreach is acceptable, but the preferred channel for soliciting community‑wide input is a staff‑hosted, centralized survey or other channels that return results to the full committee at a public meeting.

Members discussed tactics such as tabling at farmers’ markets, doing targeted postcards and using a large poster with a QR code at outreach locations; staff said a poster or an 18x24 sign with a QR code could be produced. Staff also said they can work directly with subcommittees between meetings to develop specific survey questions, graphics and schedules so materials can be produced without waiting for the next full committee meeting.

Public comments at the hearing emphasized neutrality. A speaker identified as Steve S. urged the committee to avoid advocacy language, saying “Just the facts … Information only, no marketing, no sugarcoating, no advocacy.” Staff reiterated that outreach materials and surveys would be drafted to be informational rather than persuasive and that survey text and outreach plans would be reviewed with the committee before broad distribution.

The committee agreed to invite staff to subcommittee meetings for tailored support and to begin using the QR code/one‑pager and surveys as the primary channel to collect input. Staff will work with subcommittees to finalize survey questions and launch materials on the schedule the subcommittees specify.

Ending: Staff recommended the one‑pager, surveys and centralized web page as the main tools for public input and offered to meet with each subcommittee between meetings to prepare materials and timelines.