Saratoga News
News
Grand jury finds no collusion, but city needs better policies
By Shannon Burkey
A Santa Clara County grand jury has found Saratoga lacks written policies and procedures that define how the city council and staff conduct official business.
In a report released May 24, the grand jury stated that throughout the process of trying to sell the North Campus property, there "were no established written policies or procedures for city officials to rely on for guidance" and that "all of the officials interviewed confirmed that there is no formal contract policy regarding the sale of city property."
The grand jury began looking at Saratoga after it received a complaint from a resident about the events surrounding the proposed sale of the 2.5-acre North Campus site.
The complaint said city officials and the prospective buyer engaged in improper behavior on two counts and that negotiations that reduced the $7 million purchase price to $6.5 million would have cost the taxpayers $500,000.
However, the grand jury report said it did not find evidence of collusion between the council and city staff and the buyer. But it concluded, "there is a serious lack of written policies and procedures in Saratoga regarding standard practices in conducting public business."
Specifically, the report stated that the city has no policies or procedures when it comes to the sale of city-owned land.
The report also stated that during the negotiation process with the potential purchaser, no written records of meetings, discussions or decisions among the city and the buyer were kept.
The grand jury is recommending the city commission an independent management audit to look at its policies and procedures, and then implement the audit recommendations. It also recommends the city adopt and enforce a policy requiring all city staff to keep written records of meetings, decisions and actions that implement policy.
State law requires the city to respond to each of the findings and recommendations; however, the city is not required to implement the recommendations. If it decides not to implement any of the recommendations, it must provide a statement with the reasons why.
"To have policies for something that happens once every 20 years or that may never happen again sounds a little crazy to me," Councilman Chuck Page said. "I certainly wouldn't be in favor of looking at everything that might ever happen and create a policy for it. I think that's ludicrous and a waste of our taxpayers' dollars."
Page said he would, however, be in favor of having a committee or task force look into the city's policies and make a recommendation.
The city recently started a process to update its outdated policies and procedures. Since this process is already in place, Councilwoman Ann Waltonsmith said the city should move to add the new policy and get it out of the way.
"It's a once-in-a-blue-moon event. This is a corrective action on a very infrequent occurrence. We should do it," she said. "We don't have the money to do the independent audit, but I think we've gotten the message and we need to do what we can to move forward in a timely manner."
The council opted not to commission the independent management audit due to financial reasons, but it directed the city attorney to draft a policy to keep written records of all closed sessions and meetings for all sales more than $2 million.
"If we make a good faith effort to reply in a respectful manner and respond to the issues, I think they will be satisfied and they will have gotten substantively what they wanted from us, and we will not attract them again on this issue," said Dave Anderson, the city manager.
