Santa Clara’s former city attorney is rolling up his sleeves and getting his hands dirty, becoming embroiled in the political infighting that ramps up as this year’s election nears.
At the council’s Sept. 3 special meeting, Brian Doyle addressed the council. During public comment, he made some bold statements, ones that have significant political implications.
A grand jury report released earlier this year necessitated the special meeting. The report, titled “Irreconcilable Differences,” details council dysfunction. The law requires the council to respond to the grand jury’s accusations within three months. Consequently, because it was the subject of two reports, the council held two lengthy sessions to respond to each report’s findings and recommendations.
Twice during the meeting, the council heard public comments. As a member of the public, Doyle began hurling implications from the lectern. He told the council of a supposed conversation he had about a year ago with Sameena Usman.
Usman served as the senior government relations coordinator for Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) until January. She also sat on the city’s charter review committee in 2011, according to her LinkedIn.
When he told her the council had fired him “on orders of the 49ers,” Doyle said Usman told him that was “terrible.”
“She then told me a very interesting interaction that she had with the 49ers. She said that, before the election in 2020, someone from the 49ers had told her that they would provide $250,000 in financial support if she decided to run for council, and all she would have to do is agree to meet with them if she were elected,” he said.
The city council fired Doyle in 2022. Among other things, the council majority believed Doyle squandered millions in tax dollars fighting a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit that overturned Santa Clara’s at-large voting system. He also failed to disclose to the city council a CVRA settlement offer that would have saved the city more than a million dollars.
Throughout Doyle’s tenure as city attorney several council members said he regularly injected himself into political decisions. Many believed it was a bridge too far, considering he was supposed to be impartial.
As an example, on multiple occasions, Doyle left the dais and stood behind the lectern during public comments. His comments were usually to lambast the Forty-Niners Management Company (ManCo) as a “member of the public” before reassuming his role as attorney.
Since his firing, Doyle has made his feelings on ManCo well-known publicly, lending credence to the idea that he is more interested in taking down the 49ers than being impartial. Not only did he imply a quid pro quo for anybody who the 49ers supported, he didn’t stop there, tossing a red herring into his mix of mudslinging, all but accusing the council majority of taking a sweetheart deal.
“[Usman] told me that she got [sic] together with Harbir Bhatia, and they decided, between the two of them, that only one person of color should run for the council seat,” he said. “Now, who doesn’t believe that the 49ers had the same conversation with the five of you?”
Bhatia is running for District 1.
Such tactics from her political opponents were inevitable, Bhatia said. It was just a matter of when it would start.
“This to me is pretty much in their pattern of behavior to start smear campaigns to reduce credibility, in this case, me, before I get out there … I never knew you could take a clean slate and make it dirty,” Bhatia said. “They are just scared. This is more of the same.”
Claiming she met with Usman has a clear motive, Bhatia said.
Clearly, Doyle chose his words carefully to avoid making a direct allegation, she said. Instead, Doyle is relying on the listener’s inclination to draw a correlation. Because his claim that Bhatia met with Usman followed the narrative about what the 49ers told her, it will lead listeners to make the same assumption about her without actually having to say so.
By mentioning ethnic minorities, Bhatia said Doyle is trying to drive a wedge between voters.
“This is about trying to create divisions in our community,” she said. “This is like the old British tactics of divide and conquer.”
What seems like an implication that she took $250,000 from the team just shows that her opponents “can’t keep their lies straight,” Bhatia said. When she last ran, her detractors accused her of accepting $750,000, something that was unsubstantiated.
As a board member of the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce, Bhatia said she obviously had interactions with the 49ers, but nobody ever made such an offer to her. Further, she said she has many interactions — with many people — about her political career, but she doesn’t recall the discussion with Usman Doyle is alleging.
In hopes of clarifying whether the 49ers offered her such a deal and whether she met with Bhatia, a voice mail left for, and a text message to, Usman asked her directly to confirm or deny Doyle’s version of the story. Those inquiries went unanswered.
Responding to a text message requesting an interview, Doyle wrote that he will “never” speak to the Weekly, writing that the paper is 49ers CEO Jed York’s “propaganda ministry.”
