►
Description
City of San José, California
Joint meeting of Rules and Open Government / Committee of the Whole of July 28, 2021
Pre-meeting citizen input on Agenda via eComment at https://sanjose.granicusideas.com/meetings.
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=879996&GUID=279DAB59-BD24-46EF-855B-F6FC92424DD5
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
E
A
B
G
G
G
It
is
a
precursor
wherever
euthyntics
exists,
eugenics
exists
and
what
eugenics
is
was.
It
was
a
was
a
movement
that
happened
here
in
the
united
states,
late
1800s,
early
early
1900s,
and
what
it
is
it's
a
it's
a
science
of
you
design
particular
basically
what
we
call
it
is
gentrification,
okay,
but
this
is
a
very
specific
science
that
designs
areas
with
the
intention
of
bringing
certain
breeds
of
human
beings
and
what
it
naturally
does
is
by
design
it
weeds
human
beings
out.
This
is
the
purpose
of
euthanasia.
G
G
H
Okay,
thank
you.
Well,
you
know
just
listening
to
paul
and
his
concerns
about
eugenics,
and
you
know:
what's
happened
to
our
people,
you
know,
what's
happened
to
the
people
and
what
capitalism
has
done
it
with
capitalism
which
is
based
on
fossil
fuels.
That's
how
we
have
capitalism,
it's
fossil
fuels
and
that's
what
has
to
go
to
zero,
and
we
need
to
always
remember
that,
because
we
are
in
a
crisis
and,
like
greta
slimberg
says
when
you're
in
a
crisis.
H
That's
all
you
talk
about,
is
the
crisis
and
like
gavin
newsom
said,
if
you
don't
think,
climate
change
is
happening
and
global
warming
is
happening.
You
know
just
look
with
your
eyes,
you
know
and
the
disaster
that
we're
having
to
witness
with
our
eyes,
and
so
you
know
what
so,
what
we're
talking
about
is
the
capitalism
is
exploits
people
and
nature
for
profit,
and
that's
what
san
jose
is
doing
in
terms
of
the
development
and
the
the
path
for
development.
Now,
like
it's
been
redlining.
H
Well,
there's
also,
you
know
which,
which
actually
I
found
out
in
my
neighborhood
in
the
garden
alameda
on
sheila
avenue.
He
was
a
german
okay.
It
was
you,
couldn't,
be
jewish
and
buy,
because
we
were
the
whites
that
had
a
separate,
you
know
issue
we
were
jewish,
and
so
we,
jews
were
the
ones
that
were
could
not
buy
in
my
neighborhood,
where
I'm
living
now
and
I'm
jewish
from
new
york
or
actually
from
russia,
romania,
and
so
you
know
this,
is
you
know
this?
Is
our
history
and
you
are
building
taking
our
lands?
H
That's
what
the
city
of
san
jose
is
doing
has
been
doing
continuously,
is
taking
our
lands
and
and
capitalizing
on
them,
financializing
them,
and
that's
why
a
hotel
is
being
built
in
my
neighborhood.
We
are
demanding
that
the
the
general
plan
is
corrupt,
because
this
is
what
you
have
been
doing
is
making
jobs.
When
you
know
the
you
know,
the
issues
are
our
crisis
which
are:
are
we
need
to
have
food
security?
We
need
housing
and
you're,
not
addressing
those
issues.
You
are
making
money
and
business
as
usual,
building.
B
H
H
So
you
know
and
the
issue
is
you
know,
retirement
benefits
for
convicted
felons
I
mean,
and
and
so
you
know,
I
can't
even
grapple
with
my
hand
my
mind
what
that
actually
means,
but
you
know
the
whole
our
whole
issue
of
retirement
benefits
and
you
know
the
whole
capitalization
of
our
you
know
our
city
in
regards
to
you
know
what
we're
paying
and
where
our
money
is
going.
Everything
has
to
be
looked
at
in
terms
of
how
we
are
reducing
our
fossil
fuels
to
zero.
H
That
is
the
that
is,
has
to
be
our
focus
or
we
will
not
survive
as
a
species,
and
you
can
say
I'm
you
know
you
know
exaggerating,
but
the
the
truth
is
is
that
that
is
what
everybody
is
talking
about.
Is
extinction
of
the
human
being
and
also
the
million
other
three
million
other
species
that
are
scheduled
for
for
threatened
with
extinction?
H
And
now
with
the
fires,
we're
losing
the
bears,
we're
losing
you
know
it's
terrible
and,
and
then
oh,
our
trees
are
how
we
get
to
net
zero
that
we,
you
know
we
have
this.
You
know
we're
investing
in
trees.
Well
now
the
trees
are
all
being
burned
down,
so
the
net
zero
has
to
go
away,
it's
no
longer
net,
it's
zero,
and-
and
this
is
what
we
have
to
be
doing-
and
you
know
all
of
our
money
and
our
you
know.
You
know
retirement
funds
and
everything
like
that.
H
Our
future
is
in
risk,
and-
and
we
need
to
be
thinking
about
that-
that's
why
I'm
saying
I
want
to
grow
food
on
at
615,
stockton,
avenue
and
everybody
say:
oh
that's,
ridiculous!
Yeah!
Well,
you
have
money,
you
have
lots
of
money
in
parks
and
recs,
and
I
want
that
bought
for
resiliency
and
to
create
a
community
center
that
helps
us
to
all
become
patrons
of
husbandry.
We
all
need
to
be
required
that
our
lands
be
productive.
I
Hi,
my
name
is
matt
mason,
I'm
the
union
rep
for
ifpt
local
21.
First
I'd
like
to
say
that
local
21
believes
that
police
officers,
convicted
of
murder
or
sexual
shock,
the
assault
should
have
an
investigation
into
how
to
vacate
their
pension
benefits.
This
goes
without
saying.
We
believe
these
examples
that
were
cited
in
this
memo
are
purposely
provocative.
I
Our
union
has
concerns
about
this
memo
being
proposed
today.
For
several
reasons.
First,
the
language
being
proposed
proposed
is
seriously
over
broad
in
the
mayor's
own
memo.
He
references
how
the
current
unicode
already
allows
the
retirement
boards
to
vacate
pension
benefits
for
employees
who
have
been
con
evicted
of
treason
or
a
felony,
and
under
the
2013
pension
reform
act.
This
type
ability
is
already
given
to
other
pension
systems,
as
well,
so
to
automatically
vacate
these
benefits
based
on
the
felony
convictions
of
serious
overreaction
and
overreach,
I'm
sure.
I
As
a
federal
prosecutor
in
the
past,
I
don't
have
to
remind
mayor
licardo
that
it's
relatively
easy
to
obtain
a
felony
conviction
in
this
country,
as
it's
also
not
hard
at
the
state
level.
In
fact,
it's
known
that
people
of
color
are
much
more
at
risk
to
be
convicted
of
a
felony
than
others
because
of
access
to
quality
representation
and
how
drug
laws
have
been
written
to
prejudice.
Poor
communities.
I
The
language
being
presented
today
opens
up
the
possibility
for
felony
convictions
having
nothing
to
do
with
public
service
such
as
drug
use
or
possession
or
tax
evasion,
where
benefits
would
automatically
be
vacated
unless
the
individual
is
able
to
either
clear
the
offense
or
get
it
commuted
on.
Third,
this
change
may
also
violate
the
measure
b
settlement
because
it
goes
beyond
the
already
existing
ability
of
the
retirement
board's
ability
to
vacate
vested
benefits.
I
G
Okay
and
then
have
that
law
binding,
okay,
mayor
ricardo's
time
to
exercise
morality
as
it
reflects
in
the
law
was
a
long
time
ago
when
he
signed
that
non-disclosure
agreement
with
google.
Okay.
That
was
the
time
for
mayor
le
cardo
to
exercise
his
moral
authority
from
his
position
of
power
to
protect
the
people
when
he
failed
that
and
failed
the
people
as
a
result
of
it.
G
And
then
he
wants
to
use
something
like
this
in
order
to
in
order
to
make
himself
appear
at
our
expanse,
because
it
takes
time
and
energy
to
do
at
our
expense.
In
order
to
make
him
look
like
he
is
the
defender,
because
his
reasoning
and
his
justification
for
it
was.
He
said
that
the
people
in
the
taxpayer
deserve
better.
G
Okay,
that's
paternalistic.
I
don't
need
him
deciding
for
me
what
it
is.
That
is
better
for
me.
What
is
better
for
us
and
the
people
is
protection
from
billionaires.
That's
what
we
need.
We
don't
need,
pension
time
being
wasted
on
pension
funds
when
mexicans
and
the
latinos
on
the
east
side
have
bull's
eyes
on
them.
They
have
bull's
eyes
on
them
because
of
this
400
000
people
that
you
have
slated
to
come
to
this
city.
You're
gonna
have
to
vacate
at
least
two
hundred
thousand
to
accommodate
that.
A
You're
unmuted
hello:
there
you
go:
okay,
hi,
I'm
jason
condit,
I'm
a
employee
with
the
city
of
san
jose
and
a
member
of
local
21
aea
union.
The
muni
code
already
allows
for
the
pension
boards
to
vacate
pension
benefits
for
felony
convictions,
for
treason
and,
and
also
this
appears
to
be
a
reporting
problem
to
report
back
to
the
board.
Also
what
what
is
exactly
the
problem-
that's
not
already
fixed
under
the
current
union
code
and
the
pension
reform
that
matt
mentioned
under
from
2013.
What
are
what
are
we
trying
to
fix
by
this?
A
A
K
Yes,
good
afternoon
vice
mayor
jones,
council
members,
my
name
is
mary
blanco,
I'm
the
business
representative
for
operating
engineers,
local
three.
I
have
more
questions
than
comments,
but
first
I
do
want
to
start
off
by
stating
that
we
currently
have
a
retirement
moa
that
was
negotiated
in
2015.
and
it
doesn't
expire
until
june
30
of
2025.
K
K
It
does
not
define
a
felony
felony,
so
my
right
to
assume
any
felony
would
trigger
this
proposed
revision.
Number
three
wouldn't
would
this
felony
have
occurred,
for
example,
while
still
employed
by
the
city
after
retirement
from
the
city.
I
would
like
you
to
understand
that
several
vested
oe3
members
contacted
me
inquiring
if
a
felony
conviction
prior
to
coming
to
work
for
the
city
would
prevent
them
from
receiving
their
pension
in
the
future.
K
It
is
very
broad
and
it's.
I
have
a
lot
of
questions.
Last
but
not
least,
my
reading
of
the
cases
that
have
been
reviewed
by
the
appellate
court
ties
the
felony
forfeiture
to
job-related
felonies
that
have
a
material
relation
to
the
theory
or
operation
of
a
pension
plan.
This
proposal
appears
to
be
more
in
line
with
trying
to
lessen
public
outrage
which
the
courts
have
ruled
is
not
permissible.
K
B
E
E
I
guess
I.
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
as
well
about
how
the
police
and
fire
board
or
or
the
federated
pension
board,
were
they
made
aware
of
these
two
cases,
for
example,
and
and
opted
to
keep
the
pensions
for
these
two
people.
What's
the
what's
the
mechanism
by
which
pension
benefits
would
get
withheld
or
stripped?
If
somebody
is
convicted
of
a
felony,
how
does
it
work
right
now.
L
Yes,
good
afternoon,
councilmember,
that's
a
very
good
question,
so
the
process
right
now
is,
first
of
all
to
answer
your
question.
These
two
specific
cases
happened
some
10
11
years
ago.
We
actually
just
became
aware
of
it,
just
as
a
city
staff
became
aware.
I
think
last
at
this
moment
we
don't
have
a
process
specifically
where
we
do
a
search
to
see
if
there
any
convictions,
so
we
have,
they
have
to
be
treated.
So
the
straightforward
answer
to
your
first
question
says:
no.
L
This
issue
has
not
been
brought
up
to
the
board
for
determination.
Again,
we
became
aware
just
now
and-
and
we
are
in
fact
proceeding
to
address
this
issue
through
the
board.
There
is
a
process
that
we
have
to
follow
and
this
is
very
likely
couldn't
in
court.
So
we
have
to
make
sure
that
that
we
follow
the
correct
procedure.
L
So
we
don't
really
have
any
comments
on
what's
been
proposed
other
than
we
hope
that
both
boys
get
the
chance
to
comment
on
it
in
the
regular
course
of
business
whenever
an
ordinance
is
being
proposed
to
the
city
council.
But
again
the
straightforward
question
is:
we
haven't
addressed
this
issue?
No,
not
at
the
bottom.
E
E
It
seems
to
me
nora
that
this
is
basically
a
a
flip
of
the
default
mechanism,
so
by
default
the
the
benefits
would
be
terminated
upon
a
felony
conviction
and
the
board
would
be
able
to
reinstate
them
through
a
process,
as
opposed
to
what
happens
now,
which
is
that
the
board
has
to
take
action.
So
there's
sort.
L
E
Okay,
and
do
you
have
any
comment
on
what
the
process
should
be
for
changing
this
given
or
maybe
jennifer,
given
all
of
the
ordinances
that
we
have,
but
also
the
propositions
that
we've
voted
on
to
get
to
get
to
the
current?
The
current
structure
of
the
retirement
vor
boards
and
relationship
with
the
city
council.
J
A
E
J
If
it's
in
in
again
jennifer
and
roberto
jump
in
but
for
our
office,
we
would
need
to.
We
wouldn't
be
prepared
in
a
short
time
frame,
to
bring
an
ordinance
forward
and
there
was
a
lot.
That
is
a
lot
that
would
need
to
be
vetted.
So
if
it
went
to
council
it
would
it
would
go
as
a
discussion
at
council
and
then
a
referral
to
our
office
in
the
city
manager's
office
and
whoever
else
is
involved.
Perhaps
retirement
boards
to
bring
something
back.
E
Okay,
I'm
I'm
comfortable
having
that
discussion
with
the
full
counsel.
I
see
all
my
colleagues
also
have
their
hands
raised,
so
I
I
expect
that
this
would
have
a
robust
discussion
at
council,
so
I'm
fine,
bringing
it
to
council
and
learning
more
and
figuring
out
how
this
process
would
work.
I'm
hesitant
to
make
a
motion,
because
I
want
to
hear
from
my
colleagues
first
thank
you.
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
Some
questions
kind
of
along
the
same
lines
as
councilman
davis,
but
when
I,
when
I
first
saw
this,
my
instinct
tells
me
that
there's
some
there
was
some
steps
kind
of
bypassed
in
in
bringing
this
to
rules
at
this
stage
before
having
some
conversation
about
this
and
before
potentially
discussing
whether
this
is
a
question
for
negotiation
with
our
bargaining
units,
because
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
this
is
something
that
should
be
a
council
action
versus
a
negotiated
action.
And
maybe
this
question
for
jennifer.
A
D
Issues
are,
and
it
sounds
like
from
the
question
that
councilman
davis
asked,
if
there's
more
of
a
question
of
how
do
we,
how
does
the
city
become
aware
of
felony
convictions
in
the
first
place
in
order
to
even
trigger
the
you
know,
whatever
action
occurs,
whether
it
was
automatic
or
follows
the
process
that
exists
now,
if
it
turns
out
that
the
city
wasn't
made
aware
of
these
particular
cases.
That
were
the
examples
given
in
this
memo,
it
doesn't
seem
to
me.
D
It
strikes
me
that
whatever
the
process
was,
no
action
would
have
occurred
either
way,
because
you
know
somebody
has
to
call
attention
to
the
city
if
there's
a
conviction
right,
so
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
more
research
that
has
to
be
done
before
already
as
a
council
to
be
had
to
have
this
conversation.
So
maybe
my
preference
would
be
for
us
to
have
a
closed
session
discussion
before
we
even
agenda
for
council
action
find
out
what
the
proper
approach
would
be,
whether
we
need
a
change.
D
C
Thank
you
vice
mayor
and
I'm
also
still
stuck
a
little
bit
in
summer,
but
nothing
like
a
controversial
issue
to
kind
of
get
us
out
of
our
our
summer
run.
So
this
is
definitely
something
that
that
I
perked
up.
When
I
read
this
memo,
because
I
thought
it
was
a
very
broad
brushed
approach
to
crime,
especially
felony
crime,
that
is
so
nuanced,
even
murder
is,
is
so
nuanced,
it's
not
just
murder.
C
I
know
that
we
already
have
background
checks,
and
so
those
and
and
the
process
that
jennifer's
office
goes
through
to
hire.
People
on
already
does
a
really
good
job
in
terms
of
filtering
folks
out
that
it
may
not
be
eligible
to
work
at
kelly
park
with
children
right
or
code
enforcement
and
to
come
into
people's
homes
if
they've
had
a
different
kind
of
a
background.
C
So
so
I
think
we
already
have
a
lot
of
that
in
place,
and
I
think
what
we're
looking
at
now
and
now
that
this
is
this
issue
has
arisen,
is
really
the
process
about.
How
do
we
inform
the
retirement
board
and
what
does
the
retirement
board
do
in
terms
of?
I
think
this
is
a
decision.
That
really
is
not
for
the
council
really
at
this
moment.
I
think
it
has
some
conversations
that
are
missing.
J
We're
we
are
looking
at
it.
Calpers
has
provisions,
there
are
plans
that
have
provisions
for
the
elimination
of
pension
benefits
with
certain
triggers
and,
as
I
say,
the
charter
has
language
and
has
had
for
quite
some
time
how
we
do
that
is,
I
think,
the
the
purpose
of
the
memo
and
from
the
mayor
and
the
suggestion
by
the
mayor,
whether
or
not
we
can
just
do
it
immediately
upon
the
conviction,
is
something
that
we're
still
looking
at
and
we
can
bring
we
can
bring.
J
J
We're
we're
looking
at
that
and
we
don't
think
it
does,
but
but
that's
something
we're
still
confirming,
but
we
we
don't
think
it
violates
that
language,
but
again
that's
something
we
would
need
to
to
work
with,
and
I
think
jennifer
had
indicated
that
it
is
something
that
she
would
would
go
through
a
meet
and
confer
process
with
the
unions.
Also
at
some
point,
if
we
were
putting
language
together
so
that
can
take
place
really
anywhere
along
the
line.
J
C
Yes,
I
did
see
that
municipal
code
that
was
included
in
in
the
mayor's
memo,
and
I,
although
when
he
had,
I
think
those
two
items
in
his
memo.
He
took
one
step
further
and
said
that
the
survivors
wouldn't
be
able
wouldn't
be
eligible
to
receive
some
of
those
benefits
if
they
were
or
the
the
family
members,
not
the
survivors.
C
What's
the
morality
of
this
issue
and
I
think
that
what
we
need
to
do
is
first
figure
out
whether
this
is
legal?
Second,
let's
figure
out
what
the
process
is
and
third,
let's
you
know,
these
are
best
practices,
lessons
from
our
past.
Let's
sit
down
with
our
unions
and
figure
out
whether
this
is
really
an
issue
or
not.
If
these
are
two
police
officers,
obviously
who
are
interacting
with
our
public
on
an
ongoing
basis
or
actually
these
are
not.
C
This
is
obviously
a
very
premature
memo
to
submit
to
rules,
and
I
think
it
needs
to
be
vetted
out,
so
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
first
have
a
conversation
with
our
a
sit
down
or
a
meet
and
confer
whether
it
it
is
now
or
the
next
time
we
are
allowed
to
meet.
I
don't
know
why
this
issue
didn't
come
up
in
this
last
round
that
we
just
finished
with
our
unions.
C
A
Yeah
I
mean
we
can
meet
good
for
about
things.
You
know
mid-contract
as
well.
I
think
there's
a
couple
questions.
First,
that
need
to
be
answered.
I
think
the
legality,
the
questions,
you're
answering
and
then
the
retirement
moa.
I
think
we
still
need
to
look
at
that
and
I'm
interested
in
hearing
kind
of
the
union's
perspective
on
that.
C
Right,
so
my
motion
is
to
first
figure
out
whether
this
is
legal.
So
have
this
analysis
go
through
the
city
attorney's
office
to
have
a
potential
meet
and
confer
with
through
your
arm
of
the
department,
jennifer
and
then
also
figure
out
what
the
process
is
for
the
retirement
board
for
them
to
identify
a
process
that
I
that
identifies
these
employees
and
then
triggers
the
the
board
to
actually
review
the
cases.
C
C
There
isn't
anything
for
the
federated.
So
I
think
that
question
is
still
unanswered
and
you
know
I
think,
about
rehabilitation
and
what
our
probation
department
has
in
the
direction
that
it's
been
moving
in,
and
that
really
is
to
rehabilitate
folks
to
integrate
back
into
our
society.
And
when
we
say
you
know,
you've
paid
your
dues,
but
we
we
won't,
allow
you
to
come
in
and
work
on
our
streets
on
our
sewers
on
our
part
in
our
parks.
C
C
Obviously,
there's
some
parameters
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
are
concretely
abiding,
and
that
is
some
sexual
assault
issues
and
re
and
obviously
molestation
and
those
kinds
of
felonies
that
would
create
really
a
risk
for
our
public
right.
At
this
point,
I
don't
know
that
this
is
the
issue
that
we
are
trying
to
solve
for
now,
but
the
issues
that
I've
seen
so
far,
the
ones
that
I've
made
into
emotion
so
first
have
the
analysis
through
our
city
attorney.
C
You
can
come
back
and
cold
get
right.
We
could
in
closed
session.
That's
fine
with
me.
I
just
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
the
rules
committee
to
come
back
to
have
this
just
the
second
follow-up
discussion,
but
I
also
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
our
council
to
have,
because
it's
so
premature,
so
closed
session
is
is,
is
fine
with
me.
F
Yeah,
thank
you
vice
mayor
and
appreciate
the
the
commentary
thus
far.
I
think
councilmember
adenis
pointed
it
out
correctly.
Nothing
like
a
nice
little
controversial
topic
to
to
get
us
back
into
the
swing
of
things,
and
I
will
say
you
know
the
mayor
is
typically
very
prescriptive
in
his
directions
and
and
thoughtful
whether
I
agree
with
those
thoughts
or
not,
but
he's
typically,
very
just
prescriptive
and
thoughtful
and
and
on
such
a,
I
think,
an
issue
that
he
must
have
known
would
have
been
controversial.
F
What
I'm
reading
are
number
one,
a
very
broad
use
of
the
word
felony,
and
he
doesn't
indicate
what
types
of
felonies
we
would
be
considering
here
provides
some
examples
that
are
obviously
in
and
of
themselves
right,
very
controversial
in
in
ones
that
I
think
are
triggering
for
that
purpose.
But
yet
the
broad
use
of
the
word
felony
that
he's
using
would
incorporate,
as
we
know,
every
every
felony.
As
far
as
as
I'm
concerned,
he
doesn't,
he
doesn't
specify
any
differently
there.
F
Additionally,
the
felony
conviction
is
not
denoted
as
though
it
would
have
to
be
work
related,
which
my
current
understanding
would
be.
What
what
the
authority
that
our
our
boards
have
today
would
allow
them
that
opportunity
for
felonies
that
were
actually
work
related
to
to
be
able
to
to
forfeit
an
employee's
pension,
and-
and
so
I
think
in
that
essence,
I'm
I'm
having
to
interpret
that
he's
meeting
any
felony,
whether
it's
work
related
or
outside
of
of
work,
and
so
very
broad,
I
think
terms
and
and
potential
consequences.
F
The
other
thing
as
well,
that
he's
utilizing
is
talking
about
forfeiting
of
pensions.
He
doesn't
specify
the
portion
that
the
city
is
putting
in
versus
the
portion
that
the
public
employee
puts
in
all
of
our
public
employees
are
are
putting
in
a
contribution
towards
their
pensions
as
well
and
as
you,
if
you
look
through
the
the
current
authority,
it
talks
about
a
forfeiture
of
the
city's
portion,
but
that
that
individual
would
still
be
able
to
to
collect
or
get
returned
what
was
their
their
portion
their
their
contribution.
F
So
that's
not
included
either.
So
I
think
broad
is
an
understatement
to
you
know
kind
of
describe
where
the
mayor
was
going
in
an
overreach,
no
doubt
in
my
mind
an
insult
to
our
public
employees.
I
would.
I
would
hope
that
he
maybe
would
have
some
responses
to
those,
but
but
again,
don't
necessarily
have
that
opportunity
to
engage
here,
which
is
why
I
also
think
it
is
premature
before
moving
really
anywhere
else
for
for
that
matter.
F
F
I
think
misleading,
based
on
what
his
his
proposal
actually
states,
and
so
it
sounds
like
the
one
thing
that
I've
learned
at
least
today
from
from
from
from
roberto,
was
that
we
don't
seem
to
have
a
good
process
for
actually
identifying
when
something
like
that
may
happen,
and
for
our
boards
to
be
able
to
to
make
a
decision
on,
should
they
be
forfeiting
somebody's
pension
or
at
least
again
that
portion
that
the
city
has
contributed.
So
if
anything,
that
would
be
what
I
think
might
deserve.
F
You
know
a
further
look
and
ensure
that
we
can
can
be
notified
and
that
we're
aware
of
those
things
and
that
those
decisions
are
being
made
by
our
board,
and
so
what
I,
what
I
don't
see,
is
also
any
sort
of
response
from
staff
on
the
early
consideration,
as
we've
sometimes
have
done,
get
an
idea
on
the
staff
time
we're
hearing
a
little
bit
about
that
here
that
nora
you're
stating
this
is
not
something
that
you'd
necessarily
be
able
to.
You
know
return
back
extremely
quickly
on.
F
I
know
jennifer,
based
on
what
you're
saying
it
would
require
some
discussions
initially
at
least
right
with
our
with
our
bargaining
units
and-
and
it
looks
like
it
would
take
some
time.
So
I'm
curious
on
that.
We
didn't-
we
didn't
get
that
here.
What
does
that
look
like
for
the
consideration
of
staff
time?
That
would
go
into
this,
let's
say,
for
instance,
just
coming
back
to
rules,
as
the
current
motion
is
stated,
I'm
sorry
not
rules
coming
back
to
closed
session.
A
I
can
probably
jump
in
on
the
form,
and
you
know
we
didn't
do
a
forum
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
and
part
of
it
might
be
that
I'm
transitioning
from
vacation
mode
back
into
work
mode
like
many
of
you,
but
typically
that's
something.
The
administration
and
the
city
manager's
office
does
for
staffing
capacity.
We
do
not
require
other
appointees,
such
as
nora
or
others
to
do
it,
and
I
think
you
know
there
are
gray
areas
of
that
memo
that
I
think,
as
a
team,
obviously
the
attorney's
office
and
jennifer's
team
and
cmo.
A
We
do
need
to
figure
out
council
members,
so
you're
accurate,
and
I
was
trying
to
figure
that
out
and
that
would
be
part
of
the
process
of
putting
that
form
together
to
figure
out
what
is
needed.
I
think
the
direction
the
council
member
uranus
laid
out,
which
is
what
we
would
traditionally
do
to
build
a
form
and
then
bring
it
to
closed
session.
We
would
typically
green
light.
A
F
F
F
F
So
for
me
I
I
would
actually
suggest
that
the
mayor
comes
back
goes
back
to
the
drawing
boards
comes
back
to
rules
with
a
with
a
a
different
proposal,
or
even
if
he
wants
to
come
with
the
same
proposal,
I'd
ask
staff
to
come
back
with
a
an
actual
response
at
that
time
on
early
consideration,
and
then
I
would
be
more
comfortable
deciding
you
know
what
the
next
step
should
be.
Should
it
be
something
that
goes
to
close
session?
C
C
I
think
my
motion
just
describes
the
kind
of
the
areas
where
I
think
there
needs
to
be
an
additional
work,
but
I'm
also
open
to
having
having
this
just
go
back
to
the
mayor's
office
so
that
they
can
complete
the
work
that
we
see
missing
so
now,
whether,
however,
that
happens,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
in
closed
session.
It
could,
it
could
be
submitted
resubmitted
to
rules,
and
then
the
world's
committee
can
at
that
point
decide.
F
F
D
Just
parliamentarily,
you
know
obviously
councilman
can
withdraw
your
promotion.
You
don't
have
to
vote
at
all,
but
anyway
I
I
I
do
want
I
I
I
hesitate
only
what,
for
one
part
I
mean,
I
don't
think
all
the
elements
of
house
member
reign
of
promotion
are
necessary,
but
I
do
think
that
we
should
have
a
closed
session
discussion
before
rules.
D
The
mayor
brings
a
more
well
thought
out
proposal
forward,
and
I
agree
with
you
that
the
proposal
here
is
not
well
thought
out.
Either
appears
rushed
or
purposely
overbroad,
but
it
was
clearly
overbought
and
and
not
detailed
enough
and
not
specific
enough,
but
bringing
it
back
still
will
leave
me
with
a
lot
of
questions
that
I
think
will
be
better
answered
in
closed
session.
D
So
if
the
motion
could
be
just
amended
to
say,
let's,
let's
have
a
discussion
in
closed
session
about
some
of
the
questions
of
whether
or
not
of
what
the
process
should
be.
What
the
appropriate
procedure
is,
what
might
be
missing
as
to
why
some
of
these
cases
were
not
brought
forward
so
that
we
can
understand
better
what
changes
may
be
warranted
or
maybe
whether
the
process
is
even
broken
at
all?
D
C
C
E
B
E
Thank
you
I'll
support
the
motion
as
amended.
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
come
back
to
closed
session.
I
don't
know
that
it's
important
to
reject
the
mayor's
memo
at
this
point,
but
because
it
has
clearly
spurred
discussion
and
we're
not
referring
it
on
to
open
session,
but
as
long
as
we
go
to
closed
session
and
have
this
discussion
about
what
next
steps
could
and
should
be
and
give
an
opportunity
to
for
us
to
give
direction
to
jennifer
and
find
out
more
from
nora.
I
think
that
would
be
good
thanks.
F
Yeah,
thank
you
seeing
the
direction
I
I
would
like
to
just
ask
that
we
make
it
really
specific.
The
only
thing
I'm
comfortable
if
we're
going
to
be
spending
further
time
and
energy
on
this
is
really
looking
at
the
current
system
that
we
have
today,
which
allows
for
pensions
to
be
forfeited
in
a
specific
specific
circumstances.
B
F
C
Yeah
and
I,
what
I
suggested
were
the
legal
issues
that
that
were
brought
up
in
the
discussion.
It
could
be
specifically
to
what
is
currently
in
the
municipal
code,
which
is
on
the
job
or
felonies
that
are
related
to
your
job.
So
we
can.
We
can
continue
to
to
speak
in
in
reference
to
that,
because
that's
the
only
thing
that's
on
the
books
for
now,
and
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that,
because
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
the
legality
is.
C
D
I
just
wanted
to
be
make
sure
that
we
don't
completely
limit
the
conversation,
because,
if
there's
concerns
from
the
council
about
whether
we
need
to
proceed
with
any
changes,
I
mean
we
should
be
available.
We
should
be
open
to
having
that
those
questions
be
asked
and
answered
during
that
closed
session
discussion.
So
starting
with
what's
currently
there.
B
J
That
obviously
could
be
the
subject
of
litigation.
But
but
if
this
is
just
not
something
you're
even
going
to
bring
forward
either
to
counsel
or
or
not
something
you
want
the
city
to
consider,
then
there
may
not
be
that
reason
to
be
in
closed
session
so
and
jennifer
may
not
have
a
reason
to
meet
and
confer
either.
J
So
that's
that's
my
only
concern,
but
otherwise,
if
we
are
in,
if
it's
something
we're
bringing
forward
or
the
council
wants
us
to
consider
or
brief
them
on
and
the
council
is
going
to
consider
changes
to
the
muni
code,
some
type
of
legislation
that
has
litigation
risk,
then
yes,
we
can.
We
can
talk
about
that.
We
can
talk
about
the
risks
and
my
office
would
be
broadly
considering
and
and
bringing
to
the
council.
What
those
risks
may
be.
J
Well,
the
the
parameter
would
be
municipal
code
changes
the
either
changes
to
the
existing
municipal
code,
which
affects
only
the
police
and
fire
plan
and
or
bringing
forward
similar
language
that
would
affect
the
federated
plan
because
there's
nothing
in
the
munico
right
now
on
the
federated
plant.
So
if,
if
the
request
is
for
us
to
look
at
how
we
can
terminate
benefits
in
a
more
expeditious
manner
for
people
who
are
convicted
of
felonies
and
what
would
those
felonies
be
do
they
have
to
be
while
on
work?
J
Would
it
matter
if
it
occurs
during
the
time
of
a
person's
during
the
retirement
period
and
not
during
the
employment
period,
all
those
kinds
of
issues?
I've
got
a
list
a
mile
long
from
your
questions.
Here
we
would.
We
would
bring
forward
all
of
those
items
as
as
we
were,
making
recommendations.
If
that's
where
the
the
council
decides,
they
want
to
go.
F
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
you
know
I
was
going
to
to
point
out
some
of
the
things,
but
nora
just
did.
I
think
that's
where
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we're.
Obviously,
at
the
moment,
directing
it
to
closed
session
right.
This
isn't
something
that
staff
has
directed
a
closed
session.
So
that's
why
I
wanted
to
be
prescriptive
on
it.
We've
also
left
it
pretty
vague
what
exactly
staff
should
be
bringing
to
closed
session,
because
of
I
think
how
broad
the
mayor's
memo
was,
and
that's
why
I
was
shaking
my
head.
F
F
No
that
we
can't
we
don't
necessarily
have
carte
blanche
right
to
just
to
go
off
on
whatever
might
interest
us,
and
so
I
also
wanted
it
to
be
to
be
very
specific
that,
because
that's
just
my
interest
until
I
think
we
get
a
lot
more
clarity
on
where
it
is
that
the
mayor's
actually
intending
on
going.
If
it
is,
if
you
know
his
intent,
is
exactly
what
he's
written
well,
then
I
think
you
know
my
answer
would
be
pretty
easy.
F
Today
would
be
just
be
no
right
and
it
would
be
something
different
to
look
at
our
current
system
and
say:
is
there
something
actually
broken?
That's
why
I
had
asked
for
that.
You
know
amendment
or
at
least
clarification
within
the
motion.
It
sounds
like
it
was
not
accepted
by
the
second
or
I'll.
Just
ask
correct,
councilman,
cohen.
D
F
Okay,
so
you
know,
I
I'm,
I
guess
I'm
happy
again
to
sort
of
to
vote
no
and
just
force
the
mayor
to
come
back
with
something
more
clear.
I
would
agree,
though,
with
the
commentary
from
my
colleagues
that
we're
gonna
be,
you
know,
we'd
be
back
in
the
same
boat.
We
are
today,
at
least
in
my
mind.
We
would
have
a
little
more
clarity,
but
I
I
will.
B
D
F
C
Listen,
I
I,
I
think
I've
been
very
flexible
in
terms
of
what
I'm
adjusting.
I
don't
know
that
we
are
saying
two
different
things.
I
think
what
I
think
that
councilmember
cohen,
what
you're
looking
for
is
the
possibility
to
ask
follow-up
questions
or
to
explore
additional
areas
and
those
areas
that
can
be
explored
in
closed
session,
as
nora
said,
have
to
do
with
it,
have
to
be
of
a
legal
tenure
area
right
and.
A
C
I
think,
and
she
talked
about
you
know
we
could
talk
about
whether
the
supply
is
too
federated
or
not.
So
I
think,
and
what
I
try
to
do
is
try
to
keep
my
area
my
suggestion
as
something
really
general
so
that
we
could
ask
some
questions.
I
what
I
what
I
did
agree
to
is
that
listen.
Let's
answer
some
of
the
questions
that
are
currently
going
to
identify
whether
we
can
continue
to
ask
or
even
continue
to
have
these
conversations,
and
that
is,
can
we
even
legally
move?
C
C
I
think
it's
2025
is
the
date,
if
I
remember
correctly
so
so
I
think
we're
saying
the
same
thing:
councilmember
cohen,
I
don't
know
that
there's
an
area
of
concern
that
that
we
couldn't
discuss
as
long
as
it
meant
the
closed
session
criteria.
I
could
you
maybe
expand
on
some
of
the
areas
that
you
would
want
to
ask
that
you
think
that
you
heard
maybe
norris
not
be
open
to.
D
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
that
I'm
saying
that
you're
not
saying
I
think
it's
councilwoman
is
trying
to
limit
that
discussion
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
he's
trying
to
limit
it.
I
mean
I,
I
think
I
think,
there's
potentially
some
areas
that
will
be
brought
up
about
things
on
this
memo
that
we
might
want
to
get
some
clarification
on
as
to
how
we
would
proceed
if
there
were
recommendations
to
make
some
changes.
D
That
catholic
seems
to
want
us
to
not
discuss
that
he's
and
I'm
not
sure
how
we
would
even
limit
that
discussion,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
once
we're
in
closed
session
discussing
this
we're
free
to
ask
questions
anyway,
as
as
vice
president.
So
I
I
guess,
I'm
not
even
sure
what
councilmember
is
asking
for
here,
but
I
think
you
and
I
are
on
the
same
page.
That's
why
we're
doing
this.
C
C
I
think
well
we're
saying
the
same
thing,
maybe
in
different
ways,
and
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
just
have
this
conversation
in
closed
session
that
has
to
do
with
these
legal
matters,
and
so
that
way
the
council
can
figure
out
whether
we
can
move
forward
with
this
or
not
and
and
then
have
all
these
answers
that
we're
looking
for
from
today.
Anyways.
Thank
you.
B
J
A
D
B
M
M
G
Paul,
yes,
thank
you,
paul
soto,
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
about
what
the
actual
memo
states
in
terms
of
the
way
that
I'm
reading
it
is
saying
that
it's
suspending
the
work
that
it's
just
like
dropping
it
like
like,
like
these
types
of
analysis,
are
not
going
to
be
done.
That's
how
I
understand
it
to
mean.
G
So
what
I'm
asking
for
is
some
clarification
on
that,
if,
if
I'm
reading
that
correctly,
if
I
am
that
concerns
me
because
we
especially
with
the
anti-displacement
this,
it's
almost
like
I'm
because
of
my
attendance
at
these
council
meetings,
I
have
literally
over
a
few
thousand
hours
in
on
these
council
meetings.
I
listen
to
everything
I
take
notes
and
I
have
an
excellent
memory.
So
I
keep
track
of
like
everything
and
the
thing
that
concerns
me
most
is
the
400
000
people
that
are
planned
to
come
here,
okay
and
so
for
myself.
G
A
B
B
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you
again.
Oh
really,
sir.
I
hope
when
you
look
at
the
work
plan-
and
this
may
not
be
exactly
what
you're
talking
about
right
now
but
dta
is
the
people
try
and
the
tragedy
happened
out
there,
but
even
before
that
and
before
the
pandemic,
vta
has
always
been
considered
a
really
strong
source
of
the
2040
plan.
M
You
know
because
it's
just
the
way
the
streets
are
now
and
that
there's
clear
guidance
for
bta.
What
exactly
are
you
gonna?
Do
this
tragedy
that
happened
and
again
nothing
to
him,
but
in
these
workplaces.
I
guess
this
is
the
lifeblood
real
clear
what
the
city
is
going
to
do
and
the
city
of
san
jose
have
requires
a
lot
of
display
over
vta.
M
B
K
A
M
M
Writing
phone
call
and
making
phone
calls
writing
emails
about
you.
People
want
us
involved,
the
311
doesn't
work
trying
to
talk
about
potholes
and
stuff
like
that.
It
doesn't
work,
it's
not
that
it's
not
or
it
doesn't
work.
The
the
contact
with
3-1-1
does
work.
Sometimes,
if
you
have
a
look
on
the
phone
a
lot
of
time,
you
know
several
hours
at
times.
That's
not
an
exaggeration
and
calling
council
persons
offices.
M
And
I've
called
once
in
a
while.
I
get
a
call
back
that
people
wouldn't
follow
through
called
about
a
sign
that
has
a
phone
number
on
it.
It
says
call
if
there's
any
concerns
about
the
construction
and
it's
the
same
phone
number
that
they
just
moved
the
sign
around.
Now
they
have
new
construction
over
to
santana
roadside.
M
People
with
my
type
of
digital
issues
mix
things
up,
and
it
was
just
an
and
or
people
in
lobbyists
and
stuff
can
pick
up
the
phone
and
talk
to
people
500
times
or
more.
If
the
san
jose
and
san
jose
spotlight
story
is
correct
and
we
can
and
it's
really
frustrating
it
really
really
really
is
it's
very
frustrating
and
it's
like
we're
not
feeling
like
we're
being
hurt,
and
I
just
want
to
make
that
point.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah
there
are
some
serious
issues:
legal,
both
legal,
moral
and
ethical.
With
respect
to
that
panel
that
convened
in
order
to
install
chris
burton
okay,
you
have
gary
dillable
on
that
committee.
You
have
pierre
luigi,
you
have
eric
schoenhauer
that
was
conveniently
left
out,
and
then
they
found
out
about
that
and
then
installed
him.
That's
what
good
democracy
does
the
press
informs
the
people
so
that
the
people
have
the
power?
G
We
have
the
power,
not
you
and
you
are
exercising
powers
that
are
not
do
not
belong
to
you
in
order
to
serve
the
needs
of
these
billionaires
that
are
coming
to
this
city.
Don't
you
see
what's
going
on
around
you?
Don't
you
see
the
poverty
that's
being
created?
Don't
you
see
the
the
oppression?
That's
going
to
only
increase
within
the
next
five
years,
you're
gonna
hear
a
weeping
and
a
crime
in
this
city
that
is
going
to
be
unprecedented
in
its
history
since
1846
july
14th,
because
it's
going
to
be
on
par
with
that.