Dear members of the City Council-- please remember that you just completed a performance evaluation process of the City Attorney. If there were serious concerns with his performance, you could have fired him for cause. But you aren't doing that. Please remember that you are in your office to put the interests of the people and city of Santa Clara over your own interests or those of outside parties. Please consider the oath of office you took and don't weaken our city at this critical time.
Logically, given how meetings have gone in the last few months, one might assume this is related to the City Attorney. From my limited interactions with the City Attorney he has always been thoughtful and engage and does not deserve this treatment.
The city attorney does not drive the council, and if the current council is dissatisfied with the actions of previous councils, they are welcome to call that out, but do not punish people doing their jobs.
What's up with these council members? Becker cites the Brown Act as a reason for NOT informing the other council members of his quick and must-be-now CLOSED meeting to fire the city attorney. However, the Brown Act is about TRANSPARENCY. Did he think I wouldn't look it up? This is BS. And it is another typical council of SC trick to pull this during the summertime when the citizens are focusing on other things. The city council of SC ALWAYS pulls their worst during this time.
I have heard that this agenda item is related to City Attorney Brian Doyle, although I have no idea who leaked this confidential information. The city council should investigate who is leaking confidential information.
If it is true that this item is to dismiss or discipline City Attorney Brian Doyle, I am definitely in favor of this action. His bad advice in relation to the CVRA lawsuit cost residents $6,000,000. That money could have been used for more important community needs.
No one should be fired "for no cause" as Anthony Becker wrote in his memo of 8/25/21. If the person Mr. Becker, Jain, Park and Chahal is after is Brian Doyle it looks extremely suspicious since these council members were highly backed by the SF 49ers. Shame on you city council members if this is the case. We will remember this at the ballot box.
Assume the 4 horsemen of the 49ers, a.k.a. councilmembers of the apocalypse, manage to fire the City Attorney. Given that the City Attorney represents the City for every function and the Charter states there "shall" be a City Attorney, will these 4 councilmembers hire a replacement? According to the Charter a replacement still represents the City and not a football team, so what is the point of today's idiocy? Finally, note the Charter's section 700 also allows recalls of "elected officials."
It is believed that the unidentified city employee to be discussed during this closed session meeting is Brian Doyle. As a resident of the City of Santa Clara, I firmly oppose the firing or dismissal of Brian Doyle. I feel he has properly represented and defended the city.
Dear members of the City Council-- please remember that you just completed a performance evaluation process of the City Attorney. If there were serious concerns with his performance, you could have fired him for cause. But you aren't doing that. Please remember that you are in your office to put the interests of the people and city of Santa Clara over your own interests or those of outside parties. Please consider the oath of office you took and don't weaken our city at this critical time.
Logically, given how meetings have gone in the last few months, one might assume this is related to the City Attorney. From my limited interactions with the City Attorney he has always been thoughtful and engage and does not deserve this treatment.
The city attorney does not drive the council, and if the current council is dissatisfied with the actions of previous councils, they are welcome to call that out, but do not punish people doing their jobs.
What's up with these council members? Becker cites the Brown Act as a reason for NOT informing the other council members of his quick and must-be-now CLOSED meeting to fire the city attorney. However, the Brown Act is about TRANSPARENCY. Did he think I wouldn't look it up? This is BS. And it is another typical council of SC trick to pull this during the summertime when the citizens are focusing on other things. The city council of SC ALWAYS pulls their worst during this time.
I have heard that this agenda item is related to City Attorney Brian Doyle, although I have no idea who leaked this confidential information. The city council should investigate who is leaking confidential information.
If it is true that this item is to dismiss or discipline City Attorney Brian Doyle, I am definitely in favor of this action. His bad advice in relation to the CVRA lawsuit cost residents $6,000,000. That money could have been used for more important community needs.
No one should be fired "for no cause" as Anthony Becker wrote in his memo of 8/25/21. If the person Mr. Becker, Jain, Park and Chahal is after is Brian Doyle it looks extremely suspicious since these council members were highly backed by the SF 49ers. Shame on you city council members if this is the case. We will remember this at the ballot box.
Assume the 4 horsemen of the 49ers, a.k.a. councilmembers of the apocalypse, manage to fire the City Attorney. Given that the City Attorney represents the City for every function and the Charter states there "shall" be a City Attorney, will these 4 councilmembers hire a replacement? According to the Charter a replacement still represents the City and not a football team, so what is the point of today's idiocy? Finally, note the Charter's section 700 also allows recalls of "elected officials."
It is believed that the unidentified city employee to be discussed during this closed session meeting is Brian Doyle. As a resident of the City of Santa Clara, I firmly oppose the firing or dismissal of Brian Doyle. I feel he has properly represented and defended the city.