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.”
View Comments (13)
Does the opposition think that the residents are stupid? I was torn in the beginning who to give my vote to, Mrs. Bhatia, Mr.Gonzalez, or Mr.Satish Chandra Vale. Mr. Doyle is implying it was $250K. Looks like the Mayor Gilmor/Kathy W team supporting Satish Chandra Vale forgot their last lie of $750K. Mr. Gonzalez was an ok School Board member but never lived in our area until recently. I can't find anything about him.
It's obvious to those of us that are watching, the opposition is scared of her. Trying to take her down. She keeps going, though.
I find this sad, and so do other young professionals to see this kind of behavior at our local levels. This is the reason our generation hates politics and politicians. They want to keep things dirty and don't care about the real reason to run for office. Our generation is getting stuck with so many problems created by such people. Was it always like this for Santa Clara?
Alaiss,
.
I do not live in District 1 but if I did I would most definitely not vote for Satish Chandra. He is a Trump supporter and supporter of Modi and the BJP and propagated election conspiracy lies in 2020.
.
No matter how qualified a person is for a local political position I would never vote for them if they support the overturning of legitimate elections or support authoritarian politicians. And from what I have seen of Satish Chandra he does not seem all that qualified as a candidate for Santa Clara city council.
I second your thoughts and your motions.
This article is biased and doesn't even attempt to be fair.
With the 49ers continued strong-arm tactics, I vote against any ballot initiative or council member they are for. Jed York thinks Santa Clara is "Jedsville" and I can't stand him buying off the city council. Luckily Lisa Gilmore was not removed, but sadly he has the majority of the bought and paid-for council on his side (as well as this publication).
Most recently he was trying to shove a ballot initiative where we (meaning Jed) would "elect" the City Clerk and Chief of Police, and then he would pay enough to sway those elections.
I wish the bully Jed would be replaced by his family but instead they recently elevated him. Maybe an earthquake can knock down "his" stadium ("The House that Jed Built") and they can take their marbles somewhere else and maybe build a stadium in San Francisco? Their moving (but not the earthquake) would be "sweet."
I believe you are mistaken. Jeb and the 49ers did not interfere with the recent ballot initiative to "elect" the City Clerk or the Chief of Police, nor did not they "pay" to sway those elections. Since all the frivolous lawsuits between our City and the 49ers have now been settled, my belief is that Jeb and the 49ers no longer have any particular interest in supporting any future Council Members. Under our new City Manager and City Attorney, Lady Gillmor sorely misses Doyle/Santana to filing any future lawsuits.
Busher 3...you're joking right? The 49er machine literally opened up multiple campaign opposing candidates they know they can't control. They already invested $900,000 in them! Wake up buddy!
If what you say is true, then I am truly surprise and I apologize. Frankly, I am puzzled why the 49ers would want to involved themselves further into our City affairs since all their lawsuits have already been settled. I look forward to our coming elections which may provide some answers.
An interesting article appeared in this morning’s Mercury News discussing the 49ers and our City’s upcoming elections. It states the 49ers are investing $930,000 in campaign funds. However, after carefully reading the article, my interpretation is that the funds are not so much to support their candidates, but more to deny certain other candidates.
The candidates the 49ers are oppose to, are those being supported by our Mayor Lisa Gillmor, the SCPOA, and the developers of the Related Santa Clara Project: Chandra (District 1), O’Neill (District 4), Kertes (District 5), Cox (District 6).
My guess is that although all their lawsuits have all been settled, the 49ers still hold a “grudge” towards Lady Gillmor and wishes to deny her any further support she may have in our City.
Buchser3,
.
Your interpretation is incorrect. The Forty Niners have established committees that are supporting Jain and Park and Gonzalez and not just opposing their opponents.
Well, my belief is that neither Jain nor Park is in the 49er’s “pockets” (don’t know about Gonzales). Whereas I am quite certain Chandra, O’Neill, Kertes, and Cox after election shall be all firmly committed to serve as Lady Gillmor’s minions.
Doyle is disreputable. He did the City of Santa Clara a disservice during the CVRA matter and has never stepped up to the lectern to explain his incompetent actions that loss more than $1-million taxpayer dollars.
.
Harbir Bhatia is the only District 1 candidate residents should vote for.
CSC,
.
Why do you support Harbir Bhatia over Albert Gonzalez?
For three simple reasons: track record of professional maturity, business experience, community engagement.
.
There will always be differences of opinion. Items for consideration by the City Council will rarely match each individual councilperson’s liking 100% and we’ll continue to see alliances and political maneuvering, that is politics in general. Clearly defined goals and how people conduct themselves will at least give everyone a sense that representatives are trying to achieve equitable progress as a community. From what I’ve seen of Bhatia out in the community (not just read online) she is very active, and every interaction has been extraordinarily professional, courteous, and genuine.
.
That's not to say Gonzalez isn’t professionally mature, I just haven’t seen much of him in the community. There are two articles featuring him: On September sixth he was featured with other candidates in the San Jose Spotlight where Gonzalez states his plan is to address a high cost of living by maybe reaching out to Nvidia to find a creative solution. Nowhere is there evidence that Gonzalez has interacted with them or other companies so it appears to b merely pipedream for now. Four days ago, the second piece was an advertisement in the San Francisco Examiner that was paid for by the DeBartolo Corporation but not authorized by Gonzalez. While education and affordable housing are admirable causes, current imperative needs for the City of Santa Clara are (i) reining in outlandish payroll costs and pension benefits, (ii) improving infrastructure, and (iii) rebuilding ties with the corporate community.
.
Going forward, we can’t afford to guess or hope what a candidate (Gonzalez) will bring to the Council, and we certainly don’t need an undercover, right-wing MAGA outlier (Chandra) to befoul the community. I strongly believe the combination of Harbir Bhatia’s executive business experience, vivacious community engagement, and well-mannered character will bring much needed improvement to the City Council.