Charter Review Committee forms six ad hoc subcommittees, approves schedule and rosters

The Charter Review Committee on Oct. 22 unanimously approved the Oct. 1 meeting minutes, adopted a regular monthly schedule and established six ad hoc subcommittees to review sections of the city charter.

Chair Pat Nicolai opened the session and the committee first voted to approve the Oct. 1, 2025, minutes ‘‘in the form presented with such modifications, corrections as may be required or requested,’’ following staff guidance that minutes are summary records rather than verbatim transcriptions. The committee then adopted a proposed regular calendar of third‑Wednesday meetings at 6 p.m., beginning Nov. 19, 2025, in the City Council chambers, with alternative venues to be posted when conflicts arise.

Staff said the main action of the night was to create six subject‑based subcommittees to serve as working groups and to present proposed rosters. The groups are: Group 1 — powers and structure of city government; Group 2 — city council (elections, powers and conduct of meetings); Group 3 — senior officials (duties and qualifications); Group 4 — boards and commissions (composition, powers and duties); Group 5 — civil service (classified/unclassified rules and commission duties); and Group 6 — fiscal administration and procurement. Staff told the committee that each subcommittee is intended to include three to five members, will be staffed by the City Attorney’s Office and relevant departments, and will report progress to the full committee for consolidation into a final proposal to the City Council by early July 2026.

On procedural and legal matters, staff cited sections 3.2 and 6.5 of the committee bylaws and reminded members that while ad hoc subcommittees with fewer than a quorum are generally not subject to the Brown Act, members must avoid serial communications that could constitute an unauthorized meeting. Staff said each subcommittee should keep informal notes to facilitate public reporting when the subcommittee reports out to the full committee.

Staff described the practical work ahead for several groups: Group 2 will evaluate council provisions including Measure R language that requires voter approval for some parkland dispositions; Group 3 will examine article 7 and article 9 provisions for the city manager and department heads; Group 5 will review civil service language that likely will require meet‑and‑confer processes with bargaining units; and Group 6 will review fiscal rules and procurement thresholds. Staff specifically noted the charter’s current threshold requiring City Council approval for public‑works projects at $1,000 or more and said the committee should consider modernizing that limit, either by raising the dollar threshold or by defining major projects by principles implemented in ordinance.

Committee members discussed the proposed rosters and flagged a few slide errors; staff confirmed the summary roster slide was authoritative. After motion and second, the committee voted on the package of subcommittees and rosters with a friendly amendment to add Committee Member Joe Sosinski to Group 1. The motion, including the amendment, passed by roll call vote with every member voting yes.

Members and staff also discussed meeting logistics: subcommittees should coordinate meeting times (scheduling is exempt from Brown Act notice rules), staff will provide room and technology support when possible, and the city will distribute contact lists and a packet of background materials to each subcommittee (staff cited tab 6 in the binder as containing contact and logistics information).

Public commenters raised two items for the committee’s attention: a caller who identified herself as Tara said the preference data used to generate proposed rosters was not yet available on the public website and asked that the data be posted; and a second commenter, Dr. Tom Shanks, urged the committee to consider whether ethics provisions (including an independent ethics commission) should be raised and asked where the Santa Clara Stadium Authority would fall in the review. Staff responded that the committee may consider ethics questions under Group 2 or Group 4 at the committee’s discretion and clarified that the Stadium Authority is governed by a joint powers agreement, not the city charter. Staff committed to posting the members’ preference data as post‑meeting materials and to making packets and contact information available to members.

Staff also said it used a generative‑AI tool (Copilot) when assembling draft rosters and that the city is drafting an AI policy that will guide any official use of generative AI for charter analysis or drafting. Staff said they will present benchmarking information, suggested charter‑language conventions (including readability for a lay reader), and options for using AI at the committee’s Nov. 19 meeting.

The committee’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Nov. 19, 2025, at 6 p.m. in City Council chambers; staff said they will post venue changes and provide packets to subcommittees in advance.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded unanimous roll‑call votes approving (1) the Oct. 1, 2025 minutes; (2) the proposed 2025–26 meeting schedule (third Wednesday, 6 p.m., beginning Nov. 19); and (3) the six ad hoc subcommittees and their rosters as amended to add Joe Sosinski to Group 1.