We saw this "Call To Action" from the publisher, Cupertino Matters on Friday asking residents to contact the City to repudiate the blatant and obvious conflict of interest between Scharf, Chao, and Willey with respect to their litigation against the City and their hastily called closed door session on Friday.
The City immediately cancelled the meeting!
It was not our intention to be the RESISTANCE to the Council, but with the election of these three, Scharf and Liang's NIMBY agenda will be front and center. We need ethical transparency in government, so far, they aren't delivering.
We need your voice at every Council meeting either present in communications or via email, it matters and it works!
From Cupertino Matters (reprinted with permission):
Earlier this week, Cupertino Matters published known closed sessions regarding pending litigation. Yesterday afternoon, Thursday, at 4:30 this agenda item was posted for a closed session at 5:00 p.m.,TODAY, Friday. The timing in itself is questionable, though by providing just the date and time of the date earlier, the notice apparently meets Brown Act requirements. This is the official notice:
"Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation; Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al; Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 16-CV-296322; (CaliforniaGov. Code sections 54956.9(a) and 54956.9(d)(1).)
This obscures the true subject of the session. The "Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative" or CCSGI is the predecessor PAC to the Better Cupertino PAC, and was formed to support Measure C, which was soundly defeated in 2016. Litigation involving Mayor Scharf has continued since that time, though the courts have consistently rejected the suit, most recently on October 9, 2018. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22952 This lawsuit cost the city $225,441 which as a public entity is not recoverable. The city, however, is entitled to recover $5,276 in filing fees.
This Committee and Mayor Scharf (a named party) have requested that the California Supreme Court review the case to reverse the Court of Appeal. While the Supreme Court takes very few such cases, this newly installed City Council could sabotage the litigation resulting in hundreds of thousands in attorneys’ fees flowing to pay Better Cupertino’s legal expenses—the same entity that supported Messrs. Scharf, Chao, and Willey in their election bids and in which they all held leadership positions.
Even if the action is nothing more than a bargaining chip to encourage the city to settle without recovering $5,276 in filing and other costs, the obvious conflict of interest should shock the conscience of all who care about basic good governance. If you object to the glaring potential self-dealing the participation of Scharf, Chao, or Willey in this closed session represents, please write to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Council, and the City Clerk's office for inclusion in the council packets and demand the recusal of any or all of these council members.
How would it be ethical for this City Council to line the pockets of their political allies’ lawyers at the expense of resident taxpayers? Is that what Cupertino voted for in November?
Publisher and Editor
P.S. If you have received this from a friend and would like your own copy, just send an email to CupertinoMatters@gmail.com to be added to the subscription list.