City Council Targets City Manager Pamela Wu with Unprecedented Series of Closed-Door Performance Evaluations
In a city long plagued by turnover and turmoil at the senior staff level, Cupertino has once again been plunged into political instability—this time centered around its City Manager, Pamela Wu. On May 2, the City Council will hold its third closed-session performance review of Wu in one month. The latest meeting agendized just 24 hours before the meeting has language in the notice about discipline that was not included in other meeting notices. The hasty movement has left many residents asking: is this about performance, or politics?
Wu, who became City Manager in late 2022, has been credited with stabilizing city government after years of dysfunction that saw seven different city managers in four years— an unusually high turnover compared to other cities. Under her leadership, Cupertino secured Housing Element certification, resolved a major sales tax revenue crisis with the State, and helped unlock progress on the long-stalled Vallco redevelopment project—accomplishments that many view as critical to the city’s future.
But despite these successes, Wu has found herself at the center of a growing rift with a faction of the City Council, particularly Mayor Liang Chao. The repeated closed-session evaluations—most recently on April 2 and 29, with a future disciplinary proceeding scheduled again for May 2—have prompted a wave of questions from residents and civic leaders who view the process as veiled retaliation and political interference targeting civil service.
In written comments to the Council, resident Philip Nguyen characterized the moves by some member of the City Council as “not so different from the attempts by the federal government to replace all governing officials with under qualified individuals who will blindly follow political orders.”
Supporters of Wu note that the criticisms against her—ranging from the cost of Sister City travel to her perceived tone during meetings—are less about governance and more about personality. “Some recent emails attacking Ms. Wu have been personal, inaccurate, and repetitive — calling her ‘arrogant’ or ‘communist,'” wrote resident Nicholas Sheng-Ming Egan. ”Public employees should be evaluated based on their results and professionalism, not political bias or personal grudges.”
Written communications submitted to the Council show a divide of some who are largely focused on personal grievances and her interactions with certain councilmembers, while supporters highlighted tangible and significant accomplishments in fiscal management, state compliance, and professionalizing city operations.
Notably, some critics have accused Wu of failing to notify the Council of petitions or spending too much on the Council Sister City travel, while defenders counter that these complaints are being selectively weaponized and taken out of context.
In a letter of her own submitted to the Council, Wu raised procedural questions about the process itself, hinting at a lack of transparency and fairness in how these evaluations have been initiated.
For now, the Council has held these proceedings behind closed doors, so it is impossible to know the specifics of what was discussed, nor the positions of each councilmember. But clear divisions have been made abundantly clear both on the Council and in the reactions from the public.
Residents and city hall watchers alike are monitoring closely—not just to see what happens to Pamela Wu, but whether this “professional harassment” sets a dangerous precedent of political interference with the daily operations of the City, a condition that was the subject of past Grand Jury Reports on the City’s operations.
According to the Cupertino Municipal Code, “Individual Council members shall not attempt to influence staff decisions, recommendations, workloads, and schedules, and department priorities without prior knowledge and approval of the City Council.”
This is designed to prevent political micromanagement and protect the neutrality of professional staff.
If councilmembers are directing staff independently or leveraging their influence to interfere with administrative decisions, it could be a violation of both local policy and the intended spirit of state law.
This episode raises the question of how the City moves forward from here. As resident Donald Williamson put it, “Leadership comes with the responsibility to foster a respectful environment for staff and residents alike. We must focus on moving Cupertino forward, not falling into cycles of instability that hurt everyone.”
Correction: The quote by Mr. Sheng-Ming Egan was previously misattributed to Seema Lindskog.