Cupertino staff brief council on vacancies, recruitment under new state law; council accepts report

Cupertino city staff on May 15 presented an informational report on vacancies and recruitment required by Assembly Bill 2561 and Government Code section 3502.3, and the City Council voted unanimously to receive the report.

Vanessa Guerra, human resources manager for the City of Cupertino, told the council that AB 2561 — effective January 2025 — requires public agencies to assess vacancies and recruitment annually and to identify any policies or activities that pose barriers to hiring. Guerra said the city’s vacancy rate as of April 14 was 10.4% across departments, below the 20% threshold that would trigger expanded reporting by bargaining unit. She described recruiting channels the city uses, including its careers page powered by NeoGov and regional CalOpps listings, and outreach to professional organizations and conferences.

The report also broke out Cupertino’s budgeted full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing (202 FTEs excluding the five council members), showed that most FTEs are in Public Works, and described the three employee groups covered by bargaining units: Operating Engineers Local 3 (field and maintenance positions), the Cupertino Employees Association IFPTE Local 21 (professional/technical/clerical), and unrepresented appointed/confidential/management employees.

Why it matters: the state requirement is intended to increase transparency about local government hiring during a period of elevated vacancy rates statewide. The council received the report ahead of the June budget adoption to inform deliberations about staffing and service priorities.

Public comment and council questions: Several residents urged the council to prioritize filling community-facing roles. San R. (identified in the record as a resident) criticized what he described as “bloat” in the city manager’s office and urged closing unfilled positions there and prioritizing planning, building and public-works hires; he linked staffing to the recent user cost recovery fee. Sima Linscog (speaking as a resident) warned that frequent city-manager turnover has hurt recruitment and raised questions about recent legal and lobbying expenses compared with spending on recruitment and retention.

Council members asked staff for clarifications they said would help oversight and future reporting. Vice Mayor Moore confirmed employee organizations were notified and allowed to present under the law. Councilmember Fruin asked the administration to add columns to the vacancy table showing (a) the date a recruitment was posted and (b) whether a vacancy resulted from retirement; staff agreed to provide that detail. Councilmember Mohan asked whether the city begins recruitment before an announced retirement; HR said recruitment typically begins after a resignation and the employee’s CalPERS paperwork is received. Staff said the typical time to fill a vacancy is about 90 days but that timing varies by classification.

Council action and next steps: Councilmember Mohan moved and a colleague seconded to receive the informational report pursuant to Government Code section 3502.3. After brief discussion, the council voted to receive the report unanimously. Staff said they would return with the additional details requested (recruitment-posting dates and retirement reasons) and that the report supports budget decisions coming in June.

Ending: The staff presentation and public comments framed vacancies as both an operational and budget question going into the June budget adoption. The report will be posted with the council record and staff will follow up with the supplemental data requested by council.