New Grand Jury Report Once Again Vilifies Santa Clara City Council Majority

A new report released by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on June 12 once again calls out the Santa Clara City Council majority while laying no blame at the feet of the minority. The report, titled “Irreconcilable Differences: The Santa Clara City Council,” came after the Civil Grand Jury “received multiple complaints” about “unprofessional and antagonistic behavior” by some members of the Council.

“The Civil Grand Jury found that Council members’ behaviors reflect deep divisions, rivalry, and routine disrespect among the Mayor and Council Members and towards other City of Santa Clara (City) elected officials,” read the opening lines of the report. “In addition, several Council Members have turned public meetings into spectacles by displaying abusive and belittling behavior from the dais towards members of the public …”

The 91-page report (including Appendices) singles out incidents involving five council members: Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal, Karen Hardy, Suds Jain and Kevin Park. There is little to no mention of Mayor Lisa Gillmor or Council Member Kathy Watanabe, except in passing.

The Civil Grand Jury watched “over 400 hours” of Council, committee and commission meetings that took place between Jan. 2020 and May 2024. It also examined City documents like the City Charter and Ordinance Code, the City’s Ethics and Values Program and testimony from the Criminal Grand Jury proceedings conducted in 2023.

At the heart of the investigation is the behavior of the Council majority on the dais, where some members of the Council are accused of behaving unprofessionally, grandstanding, engaging in off-topic monologues and personal insults such as accusations of lying.

Failure to Respect the Mayor

The Civil Grand Jury accused Council members of failing to respect the Mayor, saying that while Council members “understand the meaning and function of the gavel,” they repeatedly ignore it. It specifically singled out Becker and Park.

The report also cited an incident during the Oct. 4, 2022 meeting in which “Council members spent almost two hours deliberating the authority of the Mayor to send a letter on City letterhead without their prior knowledge and consent (see Appendix 2, Item 4).”

However, it minimized the issue without mentioning the topic of the letter. In that letter, the Mayor unilaterally asked Governor Gavin Newsom to expedite a decision on whether the Related Development was subject to the prevailing wage law.

The Civil Grand Jury did not mention that Related executives and employees have supported Gillmor financially in past elections. Or that following the debate, Gillmor voted in favor of referring the item to the Governance Committee to set a policy on how such letters would be communicated to the Council.

Misbehavior Toward the Public

Another key finding looked at how Council members related to members of the public.

During the Feb. 7, 2023 City Council meeting, Park left a book titled “All My Friends Are Termed Out” to the office of “Special Advisor to the Mayor.” The Civil Grand Jury report called out Becker and Hardy for “snickering” during the incident.

While the report hit the highlights, it failed to catch several nuances of the discussion. It called the person involved “a local City of Santa Clara business owner, who has worked with the Mayor on promoting worker cooperatives in the City.” However, that “business owner” has used the title of “Special Advisor to the Mayor” on worker cooperatives in communications. It is not an office officially recognized in the City, though Gillmor has confirmed the title in communications.

The report also criticized Park for his comments during the June 6, 2023 Council meeting when he accused the police Chief and his family of “profiting from their involvement in a nonprofit organization.” It said Park alleged improprieties and illegal acts.

The Civil Grand Jury stated, “The dais is not the appropriate venue for making allegations of illegal behavior.”

Failure to Reaffirm Burt Field to the Parks & Rec Commission

At least one page of the report dissected the Council’s refusal to reaffirm Burt Field on the Parks & Recreation Commission.

The Civil Grand Jury accused Becker of disregarding “professional behavior” by refusing to look at the Mayor when she asked for an explanation. It also accused Chahal of participating in a “deliberately orchestrated pattern of using abstentions without giving a reason” because he abstained from voting on Field’s candidacy.

The report said it was legal for Chahal to abstain but not “ethical” or “recommended best practices.”

The Civil Grand Jury report said the removal of commissioners should not be based on “personal grudges,” yet it also recognized that the City Charter allows the Council to remove commissioners “without cause.”

March 2024 Ballot Measures A & B

In regards to ballot Measures A & B, the Civil Grand Jury called the votes “the culmination of questionable behavior” on the part of the Council and said Council members took action without “determining if the charter change was of interest to voters.”

It mentioned the Charter Review Committee but did not mention that in the meetings, voters on both sides of the issue spoke out.

Council member Jain was accused of consulting “… frequently throughout the process with one of the Committee members and seemed to be strategizing with them.”

The report spent several paragraphs on the wording of the ballot measures, including the legal challenge to the wording of the measures, but used vague wording on the result of that legal challenge. Instead of saying that a Santa Clara Superior Court Judge dismissed the lawsuit, it used the term “the lawsuit failed.”

It then went on to mention the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.” The report called ballot language confusing and dishonest and told all cities to voluntarily submit questions to the County Counsel for approval.

The most recent Civil Grand Jury report did not mention that several cities, including the Santa Clara City Council, unanimously voted to reject the findings. In its letter, the City said the county has “no legal jurisdiction over a local agency’s ballot measure language.”

The Civil Grand Jury report also failed to mention Measure C, a March 2020 ballot initiative that tried to circumvent a judge’s order to eliminate the City’s at-large election system and replace it with a six-district election system.

Lack of Preparedness in Meetings and Other Issues

Four of the seven Council members were chastised for their “lack of preparedness.” Including during an Aug. 30, 2022 meeting in which the Mayor had recused herself and Chahal was absent.

The Civil Grand Jury said, “… Council members, with the exception of Council Member Watanabe, showed such confusion during their deliberations about what they were voting for, and about the process, that they were unable to decide …”

Council members were accused of “struggling to make decisions” and showing “confusion.”

Other issues listed in the Civil Grand Jury report included breaches of Parliamentary procedure, including speaking after lengthy public presentations and motions being made before agenda items had been discussed or deliberated. Some Council members were also called out for grandstanding on personal issues that had nothing to do with City or Stadium business.

Impact on City Staff

The Civil Grand Jury reports that much of this has had a detrimental impact on City staff.

In some cases, the report says, City staff have spent hours working on projects only to have “…some Council members behave as if they are more knowledgeable on certain topics than the highly experienced City staff.”

That coupled with the “animosity and public displays of bad behavior” on display at Council meetings has left staff embarrassed and demoralized.

“The Civil Grand Jury has learned from several sources that the City has developed a far-reaching reputation for having a dysfunctional Council, and that recruiting has been an issue because candidates have watched the contentious City Council meetings,” read the report.

49ers Out of Place in Report About Irreconcilable Differences

While offering no insight into how the 49ers play into the City’s “irreconcilable differences,” the report dedicates several pages to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and Measure J. It makes an extra effort to point out how much money the 49ers donated to the campaign for Measure J and to PACs in the 2022 election but does not reference other PAC donations.

What’s more, while jurors spent time investigating Measure J, audit reports, City and Stadium Authority budgets, stadium contracts and litigation documents, there is no clear line to how these documents helped lead to the report on “irreconcilable differences.”

The report did take time to mention, more than once, that no money has gone into the General Fund as promised under Measure J.

The report did not mention that City Finance Director and Stadium Authority Treasurer Kenn Lee told the Council during its Feb. 6, 2024 meeting that money that would usually flow into the General Fund was currently being held in a legal contingency fund until the legal dispute between the City and the Forty Niners Management Company (ManCo) was resolved.

The 49ers are never mentioned in the report’s findings or recommendations.

Grand Jury’s Findings and Recommendations

The Grand Jury offered seven recommendations to the Council.

First, it found that the working relationships between the Mayor and Council members are “broken” and that some Council members did not adhere to the City’s ethical and behavioral standards. It specifically called out Becker and Park for airing “petty grievances” and engaging in “squabbles” with other elected officials and constituents.

As a result, the Civil Grand Jury recommended that the City hire a conflict resolution professional and adopt “robust” conflict resolution training strategies. It also recommended that all members of the Council attend one-on-one conflict resolution training, though it pointed out that Gillmor and Watanabe have “shown appropriate meeting decorum.”

Second, it was recommended that Chahal, Park and Becker attend trainings on proper Parliamentary procedures.

Third, the Santa Clara City Council was advised to adopt the formal resolution for Meeting Management Procedures that City staff presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee on Dec. 4, 2023.

Fourth, the report found that some of the Council members had become “preoccupied by personal and political vendettas” and as a result, the City should establish an Independent Ethics Commission to oversee the behavior of Council members. It also suggested that the Council hire an independent ethics professional and participate in regular training and counseling on government ethics.

The fifth finding called out Becker and Park, saying they had engaged in unethical behavior on the dais by “insulting, humiliating and intimidating constituents and volunteers.” It also pointed to Chahal, Hardy and Jain, saying they “implicitly encourage” these behaviors by failing to “call out inappropriate conduct.” It does not mention whether Gillmor or Watanabe called out the conduct.

The Civil Grand Jury recommended that all five Council members pledge to train with an ethics expert. There was no such recommendation for Gillmor or Watanabe.

Sixth, the City should hire a third party to implement an annual employee satisfaction survey. The Civil Grand Jury notes that one has not occurred since 2018.

Finally, the Civil Grand Jury directed the Council to “commend” City staff for its “exemplary work ethic and professionalism.”

Slant Hidden Beneath the Wording

While the report uses generic terms, the context in which those words are used tells a much different story.

The report often refers to “Council,” “Council members,” or “Mayor,” creating a very distinct line between the Mayor and the rest of the Council. Mayor Gillmor is never referred to directly as a member of the “Council” or a “Council member.” Her political ally, Council Member Watanabe, is rarely referred to in this document and when she is, she is always referred to separately from the “Council” or “Council members” grouping.

This context creates two groupings, one that groups Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain and Park under the banner of “Council” or “Council members” and the other that includes “Mayor Gillmor” and “Council Member Watanabe.”

Without highlighting any incidents of bad behavior by Gillmor or Watanabe, this report gives the impression that there is an aggressor – or five in this instance – and a group of victims. It also implies that the animosity on the dais is one-sided.

The Conclusion of the document highlights this. While the terms “Council” or “Council members” are used often in the Conclusion, one line makes it clear that those terms do not refer to everyone.

“Whatever action the Council chooses to implement in addressing the fiscal integrity of the City will take a concerted and united effort on the part of the entire Council,” reads the report.

The use of the term “entire Council” clearly indicates that while the “Council” or “Council members” may be referenced throughout the document, it does not refer to the entire body.

Anyone who has watched Santa Clara City Council meetings knows that there’s enough blame to go around to the “entire Council.”