City Council addresses allegations by grand jury
Nearly two months after an explosive civil grand jury report accused members of the Cupertino City Council of fostering a toxic work environment within city government, the city's councilmembers began formally addressing the allegations, conceding that, though some of the claims were inaccurate, the watchdog panel still identified genuine problems.
On Feb. 7, the councilmembers discussed the 52-page report, “A House Divided,” which accused members of the last council of belittling and berating staffers during council meetings, exerting too much influence over staffers and of committing “councilmanic interference,” or trying to interact directly with city staffers and provide direction to them instead of going through the city manager, as councilmembers are required to do.
The report also alleged that the culture of dysfunction led to high staff turnover, especially in key management and leadership positions that are difficult to fill with qualified candidates. According to the report, those staffers had “significant capabilities and experience,” and their departure hurt the city's ability to serve its constituents.
The council's brief discussion of the report was tabled for the council to continue at a later date, but the meeting marked the first time since the report's publication that the council collectively addressed and discussed its findings, bringing the city one step closer to responding to the allegations made.
In a draft response, the city said agreed that distrust between staffers and councilmembers has been pervasive and mutual, but that “specific instances may be inaccurate or complete.”
For instance, according to Cupertino City Attorney Chris Jensen, the allegation that Councilmember Kitty Moore personally questioned a city staff member about charges on a city credit card, cited as an example of councilmanic interference, was “inaccurate in material respects.”
So far, the council has responded to the allegations by considering a new council procedures manual that details clear rules for councilmembers to follow, including their relationships to city staffers and the events of council meetings, Jensen said at the meeting. The council also held a retreat to focus on governing and conducted an enterprise leadership study. The city also took steps to address the issues raised about fiscal and risk management in the report, including increased staffing and the submission of monthly treasurer's reports to the council.
But those responses, as well as the drafted responses to the grand jury report, are just the beginning of the work necessary to change the culture of the council and its relationship to the city, according to Councilmember J.R. Fruen.
Fruen, who raised the motion at the meeting for the council to table the discussion and continue it later for the sake of time, said in afterward that he believes the grand jury report confirms a level of dysfunction in local government that was already an open secret to Cupertino residents.
“It speaks to a lot of things that were generally known to certain parts of the public, and that were coming out from either staff or former staff,” Fruen said. “It confirms, to some extent, that these things were going on and that there were serious issues between councilmembers and staff.”
As a newly elected councilmember who campaigned on the promise of trying to alleviate that tension, Fruen said he believes the majority of the council has a strong desire to address the issues outlined in the report. But doing so will require a significant culture change, he said.
That change will require all councilmembers to recognize that the culture of dysfunction exists and to admit that the council has room to improve, according to Fruen.
It also will depend on the council having more efficiently run meetings, improving relationships with city staffers and cultivating a culture of respect toward them, and implementing the new council procedures manual going forward.
“We live in a time of broken behavioral norms in politics, and we're not immune from that, clearly,” Fruen said. “I don't think it hurts to have ground rules for things so people know what the expectations are and so accountability can reign … it's hard to have accountability if people don't have a common set of rules they're willing to accept.”
The council voted 4-1 to table the discussion, with Moore voting against the motion. The council will continue to discuss the report and will approve a final response to the report's findings by March 17 — meeting the legal obligation to respond to the report within 90 days of its release.
According to Fruen, it's important for the council to resolve the issues raised in the report, not just to repair its own reputation but to be of better service to Cupertino residents as well.
“People would like to feel good about their city, that they have a well-run city, that their voices are being heard and that folks are respectful, instead of every City Council meeting being a clown show,” Fruen said. “Who wants to engage with that?”