Milpitas — The Milpitas City Council on Oct. 24 reviewed a staff timeline showing how subcommittee scheduling for a city attorney candidate interview briefly risked violating the Brown Act and then voted to remove a planned evaluation of the interim city manager and acting city attorney from upcoming agendas. The council also approved a motion asking Councilmember Chua for a public apology, directing the city manager to bring back training on open-meeting rules and requesting policy recommendations to prevent a recurrence.

City Manager Diana presented a detailed timeline of communications between Aug. 25 and Sept. 5, saying staff intervened after seeing requests that appeared to exclude staff involvement in scheduling. "Had I not intervened ... what happens when a council meets in violation of the Brown Act and a council member faces prosecution," she told the council, describing a tense exchange and staff actions that resulted in the meeting being properly noticed.

Police Chief Jared Hernandez told the council he discussed the facts with the Santa Clara County district attorney's office. "What I was told is that an attempted Brown Act violation they would not pursue," Hernandez said, but he added that the DA's office told him that "had this meeting not been prevented, then, yes, it would have been a violation of the Brown Act, and it would have been subject to prosecution."

The council spent hours debating whether the conduct was a deliberate attempt to skirt open-meeting laws or a miscommunication about scheduling. Supporters of disciplinary action argued the sequence of texts and emails showed a pattern that required accountability; others characterized the episode as an honest mistake that staff helped correct.

Council Member Lam, who moved to remove the evaluation item from the Oct. 28 agenda, said the episode "created confusion, disrupt[ed] normal channels of communication, and undermined the trust and efficient functioning of our city hall governance structure," and urged Councilmember Chua to apologize to staff. Lam also asked the city manager to return with training for all council members and with policy and procedure improvements.

Vice Mayor Barbara Dio and Council Member Lian voiced concerns about process and the need for due process before formal sanctions. Councilmember Chua said she had meant for the recruitment scheduling to be confidential among those involved in the selection and that she did not intend to violate law; she said she had COVID during part of the period when messages were sent and that she relied on staff she had used in prior recruitment efforts.

The council voted on two consequential items: a motion (moved by Council Member Lam) to remove the evaluation of the interim city manager and acting city attorney from the next scheduled agenda (Oct. 28) was approved; and a later motion (also moved by Lam) asking for a public apology from Councilmember Chua, directing the city manager to bring back training on Brown Act and governance issues, and requesting recommended policy changes was approved by the council. Recorded votes for the latter motion show two "aye" votes, one "nay" and two abstentions; the council chair declared the motion carried.

The council asked staff to return with a training plan and recommended policy language. The meeting record shows the city manager and staff are to develop proposals to limit the risk of similar scheduling errors and to clarify the role of administrative staff and the proper chain for noticing closed sessions.

The meeting closed after the council adopted the motions and adjourned.