2006-2007 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Inquiry Into Expenditures for the City of San Jose Mayor’s Travel

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  The Grand Jury concluded that two legal entities have decided there is no clear legal authority forbidding the City’s security expenditures for the Mayor’s nonpersonal travel. In addition, an official guideline has been established by the San Jose Police Department defining the conditions under which security will be provided for the Mayor on a daily basis and during nonpersonal travel. 2 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of December 2006. Ronald R. Layman Foreperson David M. Burnham Foreperson Pro tem Kathryn C. Philp Secretary 3 Bibliography Doyle, Richard, Office of the City Attorney, City of San Jose. Letter to George W. Kennedy, Office of the District Attorney, County of Santa Clara, April 28, 2006. Kennedy, George W., Office of the District Attorney, County of Santa Clara. Letter to Richard Doyle, Office of the City Attorney, City of San Jose, December 8, 2005. Kennedy, George W., Office of the District Attorney, County of Santa Clara. Letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, September 27, 2006. San Jose Police Department, “Mayor’s Protective Detail Unit Guidelines,” August 2006. 4

Observations 1

• OB1
  In December 2005, the District Attorney sent a letter to the San Jose City Attorney questioning the legal basis for the expenditure of public resources to provide security for the Mayor at what appeared to be purely political events. The City Attorney responded to the District Attorney in a letter dated April 28, 2006, citing various statutory and case law in support of the protective detail, and concluded that (1) there was a legal precedent to provide security detail for a public official, and (2) the actions by the San Jose Police Department officer did not constitute political activity. Pursuant to the City Attorney’s letter, the District Attorney determined that there was no clear legal authority on this issue and decided not to pursue the matter further. Additionally, in his letter to the District Attorney, the City Attorney stated that the City would develop guidelines for the use of a security detail for the Mayor and Council members. The Grand Jury contacted the City Attorney on August 14, 2006, to determine the status of the draft policy. On August 17, 2006, the City Attorney faxed to the Grand Jury a copy of the San Jose Police Department’s “Mayor’s Protective Detail Unit Guidelines,” dated August 2006. These guidelines stipulate that “The Mayor’s Protective Detail will serve as Security for the Mayor including any local, statewide, and national non-personal travel.” Current guidelines provide for a minimum of two officers to be assigned full-time to this detail. Their duties include ensuring security at City Council meetings, checking the physical security of the Council chambers, conducting a proper advance of the Mayor’s scheduled off-site visits, arranging for parking at events, maintaining the transportation vehicles, arranging for the planning and executing of the Mayor’s movements when traveling within or out of the State, and determining emergency protocol when needed.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.