By Robert Haugh
The Santa Clara City Council is moving closer to putting major charter changes before voters in November. But critics say the process is being rushed, and the language is vague and lacking transparency.
At its July 7 meeting, the Council reviewed more proposed changes to the City Charter, Santa Clara’s governing document. The latest discussion came after more than nine months of work by a Council-created Charter Review Committee.
City Attorney Glen Googins said the charter is outdated and in a “state of clumsy organization.” He said changes are needed because the City, the law and the way local government operates have changed.
“The city has changed. How we conduct business has changed. The laws have changed,” Googins said.
But several Councilmembers questioned why such a sweeping rewrite is being pushed toward the November ballot on a tight timeline.
The City must submit final ballot language to the Registrar of Voters by Aug. 7. That gives the Council only one more meeting to settle major issues before the deadline.
Council Member Kevin Park said the process felt hurried.
“The fact that we are doing this seems irresponsible to me,” Park said. “Why are we doing this? Why are we rushing this?”
Park accused Googins directly of repeating his past work as City Attorney of Chula Vista. “Are you trying to catch lightning in a bottle?” Park asked.
Park also criticized the Charter Review Committee’s subcommittees for being closed to the public, calling it “disingenuous.”
Mayor Lisa Gillmor also objected to the lack of specifics in the proposed charter changes. Many key details would be decided later by ordinance instead of being written directly into the charter.
Gillmor pointed out that voters will vote on almost two dozen charter changes that have no detail. She said it was a “trust” issue.
“Why even have a charter, because most of it will be empty?” Gillmor said.
Council Member Kelly Cox raised a variety of detailed concerns about the language, approach, and process.
She had concerns about vague and subjective standards, especially in the absence of an independent ethics commission.
Several members of the public also opposed the changes.
Mayoral candidate David Kertes called it “shifting the authority away from the City Council and Mayor and really pushing more power to the City Manager and City Attorney.”
Former Councilmember Kathy Watanabe, also a mayoral candidate, called into the meeting to raise concerns as well about the process and the final product.
The Council voted 4-2 to have staff return with revised options. Park and Gillmor opposed.
Despite her numerous concerns, Cox supported the vote to move forward.
Council Member Raj Chahal was absent again from another City Council meeting.
Danny, a CHARACTER IN TORTILLA FLA, used to catch bedbugs and put them on a piece of paper and name them after coty council members. Hmm, the big bald bedbugs could be Jain. And the slimy one could be Park.
The message to the voters is pretty clear: Vote No. In addition, any council member (like Chahal) who consistently ducks meetings and avoids leading on an important issue like the City Charter should not even be considered for running for mayor.
Here is what I presented in person at the council meeting:
Good evening, Mayor Gilmore, City Council, and City staff.
My name is David Kertes, and I am a resident of District 5.
I am very concerned about the possibility of placing a comprehensive Charter Update Measure on the November 2026 ballot.
• There are still roughly 21 unresolved items, which means this proposal is far from settled.
• Once again, it feels like this process is being rushed forward without transparency or meaningful resident input — a pattern we’ve seen repeatedly over the past several months.
• Residents are not being given clear information about the proposed changes. People deserve to know exactly what they are voting on and how these changes will affect them going forward.
• As drafted, this appears to be a complete overhaul of the Charter that would shift authority away from the City Council and concentrate more power to the City Manager and City Attorney.
• Placing this measure on the ballot will cost over $250,000, and that money could be far better spent addressing actual residents’ needs.
For these reasons, I am asking the Council to vote against placing this measure on the November ballot. Instead, please focus on resolving the outstanding items and engaging residents in a transparent, thoughtful process.
Thank you.