For more than 30 years, the mission of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has been as vague as its name.

A coalition of policymakers from the 15 municipalities that make up the county, the group holds monthly board meetings, hosts educational events for its members and issues position statements on state bills pertaining to hot button issues such as housing and taxes. In the past few years, it lobbied against Senate Bill 9, a 2021 bill that allowed duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones, supported additional state and regional funding for transportation and in favor of lowering the voting threshold to approve new local taxes to 55%.

As its mission has evolved and its lobbying became more assertive, its stature has grown. Margaret Abe-Koga, a Mountain View council member who chairs the Cities Association's Board of Directors, recalled a period years ago when the group even considered going out of existence.

"When I started, there was a point where we thought about disbanding because we didn't have anything to do," Abe-Koga said during the Sept. 14 meeting of the Cities Association board.

In recent years, however, issues like clean energy and city planning became more central and the organization has grown.

"We are growing in our identity as legislators look to the Cities Association more than before for input," Abe-Koga said.

Locally, however, the Cities Association is famous for another reason. Last year, council members in each of the 15 cities found themselves in closed session meetings to discuss a prospective lawsuit from Andrea Jordan, the group's former executive director who accused staff and board members of harassment. Each city, to its chagrin, found itself potentially liable for damages stemming from the litigation.

While the suit didn't advance, the conflict forced the group to reconsider its legal structure and added some urgency to an ongoing discussion about forming a Joint Powers Authority, an idea that the Cities Association has been exploring since 2017. It hopes to formally approve the transition to a JPA by the end of the year.

"What came to light is that as an unincorporated association, there's always going to be a question whether liability can go to individual cities," Jannie Quinn, general counsel for the Cities Association, said at the group's Sept. 14 discussion. "That's one of the reasons that I think the JPA was selected."

State law, she told the board, allows the group to "create a separate entity for your common interests and to have liability rest with that entity."

Whether or not the transition happens this year, as supporters of the move hope, depends in large part on the feedback that the Cities Association gets from its member cities, each of which is now considering its position on the JPA formation.

The Palo Alto City Council is preparing to discuss the proposal and make a recommendation at its Oct. 23 meeting.

Abe-Koga argued during the September discussion that recent legal issues and the organization's growth warrant the change.

"As we grow, it's just becoming more and more important for us to have our liability and have legal status that protect ourselves from any kind of challenges that we had before. That's really what we're trying to do here – protect all of our cities," Abe-Koga said.

Not everyone, however, is entirely sold. Palo Alto Mayor Lydia Kou was one of several members of the Cities Association board who said she was concerned about the creation of the JPA, which she said would give the body "a broad amount of power."

She said she was particularly concerned about the prospect of a JPA representative taking positions at regional meetings that differ from those of member cities, each of which has unique views.

"They're not taking our votes to go and vote at these regional bodies, they're voting whichever way they want," Kou said.

Abe-Koga and Quinn both framed the proposed joint powers authority structure as a compromise that incorporates dozens of revisions submitted in recent months by city managers and city attorneys from the 15 cities. Quinn noted that under state laws, joint power authorities can levy taxes and purchase real properties. Some local officials suggested that the Cities Association does not need these powers. Cities Association officials agreed.

"Not only did we remove those provisions, we included prohibitions (stating) that we can't do that," Quinn said.

A report from Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada stays agnostic on the topic of whether the city should support the effort, leaving that decision to the council. It notes, however, that forming a JPA isn't the only way to protect cities from lawsuits.

"There are alternative ways of avoiding liability, such as refraining from hiring employees and avoiding involvement in initiatives without sufficient management or checks and balances," the report states.

Shikada is also asking the council to consider whether the JPA agreement should be further amended to make sure its positions truly represent the consensus of member cities. For example, this may include a discussion of whether the organization needs a simple majority or a supermajority to act.

He is also recommending that the Cities Association create a committee with staff from member cities who would advise the Board of Directors on whether its proposed projects would entail significant costs.

"Overall, staff believes that proceeding with a JPA and addressing the issues above would best be undertaken with the expectation that member agencies will need to devote more time to ensuring appropriate consultation and engagement on CASCC activities and operations," Shikada's report states.