Here we go again.
A new grand jury report takes aim at Santa Clara City Council dysfunction. However, the tactics are strangely familiar to one released in 2022. That is to say, the conclusions have a political bend, one that stridently singles out the “49er Five,” a derisive label given to Council majority Raj Chahal, Suds Jain, Kevin Park, Karen Hardy and Anthony Becker.
The five have taken numerous stances against Mayor Lisa Gillmor and political ally Kathy Watanabe, who frequently criticize Levi’s Stadium management, Forty Niners Management Company (ManCo). Meanwhile, the majority has vowed to repair the relationship with the team after years of strife under a Gillmor-led Council.
This divide has created much friction among the Council, one that leaves them bickering over details, lobbing personal attacks, and occasionally throwing temper tantrums. Dysfunction among the Council is hardly debatable, but the grand jury fails to apply its standards equitably to all Council members.
All examples listed in the report, titled “Irreconcilable Differences,” paint the Council majority unfavorably, as if they are the only ones to behave poorly. There is little, if any, acknowledgement of the similar behavior from Council minority Gillmor and Watanabe.
For instance, the report calls out Council Member Kevin Park for a theatrical stunt he pulled where he indirectly addressed a member of the public. That public member, Kirk Vartan, holds the title of “special advisor to the mayor” on worker cooperatives.
Vartan has been an ardent supporter of Gillmor. Park took shots at Vartan by presenting a children’s book, titled “All my Friends are Dead,” substituting the word “dead” for the phrase “termed out.”
The behavior listed in the report would more accurately be listed under the umbrella of “bad manners” and not necessarily “unethical.” A community survey, cited in the report, even notes citizens’ concerns regarding the divisiveness among the Council, something it unironically presents while conflating what would most accurately be called “rude” with “unethical.” Further, the report fails to acknowledge that the behavior it points to does not happen in a vacuum.
Despite how the grand jury characterizes the Council majority, their behavior is no worse — in fact, quite tepid — compared to the two Council members the grand jury excludes from its scrutiny. Singling out “49er Five” behavior frames the issue in a way that characterizes them as the aggressor when the truth is a bit murkier.
Finger Pointing
If the grand jury had simply pointed out all the ways the Council have been unable to get along, the report would be doing little more than stating the obvious. However, the exclusion of bad behavior from Watanabe and Gillmor reeks of bias.
Just like the previous report, the grand jury cherry picks its examples and uses fallacious reasoning to justify its claims. Throughout the report, it even cites comments from public meetings without even bothering to list the name of the speaker.
Perhaps the incidents in question are in poor taste, but elevating them to the level of a grand jury indictment is likely to seem frivolous, fostering an increased distrust in the government. Nobody defends the pettiness of the politicking amongst the Council, but painting a picture as if it is only the “49er Five” who are to blame is disingenuous.
For instance, on several occasions throughout the report, the grand jury accuses the Council of eroding City employee morale. The examples it cites point the finger at those who “… behave as if they are more knowledgeable on certain topics than the highly experienced City staff. Additionally, there are many instances of Council members struggling to make decisions or to come to a consensus regarding motions about more complex items that staff bring before them.” (pg. 22)
Indeed, the Council has seen gridlock on certain topics, and the general hemming-and-hawing is enough to test the patience of a Buddhist monk. There is no doubt that — often in an attempt to balance the City’s financial woes with the will of its constituents — some Council members, often Chahal and Park, will kick the can down the road in an attempt to find a solution amenable to everyone.
But that is democracy. It is slow. It is plodding. It often tries to split the baby. Nobody is ever entirely happy, but no one is miserable.
This characterization acts as if challenging City employees is necessarily bad since it delays matters. It ignores that Gillmor and Watanabe were both keen to rely on City employees when Gillmor had a stranglehold on the Council but, now that they are in the minority, seem content to berate City employees when it suits them.
Examples of this are legion, ranging from discussion on the naming rights for Levi’s Stadium, discussions on a ballot measure, the FIFA World Cup, and talks on confidentiality agreements.
Gillmor frequently uses loaded language to trap opponents, even City employees, when their rhetoric doesn’t align with her goals. She did so recently with Chahal, characterizing his opposition to the City giving away field time in the shadow of a massive looming deficit as “fighting hard against the kids in the community” or when she dressed down the City’s finance director, Kenn Lee.
Still, the report is not the first time the erosion of City employee morale has been an issue. However, the last time the issue reared its head was in reference to former City Manager Deanna Santana, hired when Gillmor had the Council under her thumb.
The Council majority fired Santana, something that Gillmor frequently references as evidence that the Council majority is “unethical” because Santana regularly butted heads with ManCo. A local union applauded Santana’s firing, citing a toxic work environment.
Hypocrisy
Further, treatment of Council colleagues was a sticking point in the report. When Becker agreed with the removal of a parks and recreation commissioner for making personal statements, the grand jury called his comments “angry and derogatory attacks” (pg. 19).
Using the comments of a fellow parks and recreation commissioner to try and prove its point: “[the commissioner] … is now being persecuted in this manner. It makes me think that my volunteer work can be scrutinized at a level like this when you have better work to do. So, I would very much like to discourage the removal of a commission member because you don’t like what they say. That’s schoolyard play, OK, and I want to be better than that, and I want to believe Santa Clara is better than that, honestly. It would make me rethink my position on the council if our words were used to take us out of volunteer positions.”
The comment seems downright pallid compared to Gillmor’s derisive laughter directed at Becker in 2021.
This isn’t the only time the grand jury presumes to know the thoughts or feelings of Council members. The report states that Council members “showed such confusion” (pg. 19) and “displayed general confusion” (pg. 21). Nowhere in the report does the grand jury indicate it interviewed the Council members in question to verify these characterizations, instead relying on what appears to be mind-reading.
Just as in the previous report, this grand jury fixates on how things appear instead of drilling down into how they are. This is illustrated when it writes that Chahal’s abstention on a matter “appears to be a deliberately orchestrated pattern” (pg. 19).
Such a claim plants a seed in the reader’s mind that chicanery is afoot without having to prove anything. On the other side of the fence, one could easily say that it appears that Watanabe takes her cues on how to vote from Gillmor, given that she rarely votes contrary to the mayor. Without substantiation, however, making such a bold declaration would be scurrilous.
What’s Good for the Goose, Is Good for the Gander
Not only does the grand jury act as if Gillmor and Watanabe are simple victims and never aggressors, it also fails to note circumstances that mirror the ones they criticize.
For instance, the report draws attention to money poured into campaigns of the “49er Five” by the team, presumably to paint them as shills for the 49ers. However, it fails to note big-money contributors to Gillmor and Watanabe — contributors such as the Related Company and the police union. Never does the grand jury implicate the mayor and her cohort for the dysfunction on the Council because of these contributions.
Similarly, the report lists several instances of, what can only be called, Council members being rude to one another. It is no surprise that these gaffs are all examples of the “49er Five” being mean to Gillmor and Watanabe, although they are often couched as “wasting staff time.”
But nowhere does the report call out Gillmor or Watanabe’s rudeness. Like, for example, when Watanabe refused to let Park, the Council’s first Korean American member, speak at an anti-Asian hate rally, saying it is “my event.”
And, at no time during a lengthy public comments segment where one commenter, a Gillmor supporter, accused Park of “just wanting attention,” did Gillmor put a stop to the antics.
Nobody disputes that Council squabbling has created a rift in local government. That isn’t good for anyone. But, assuming those disagreements are symptomatic of a lack of ethics, especially when framed as if only one side of the aisle is guilty, does nothing but add to the public’s lack of faith in its rulers.
The Santa Clara City Council’s next meeting is at 7 p.m. June 25 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
