By Robert Haugh
The City Council did not appoint anyone to fill the seat vacated by former Councilwoman Patty Mahan last night. District 5 will not have a representative until next year, after a November election.
In a bizarre move, Councilman Raj Chahal started the evening by stating that he would only appoint Suds Jain. Chahal then made a motion to do just that. Councilwoman Karen Hardy seconded the motion. She too said she would only vote for Jain.
There were 8 candidates who applied, including Jain.
The Chahal-Hardy maneuver was made before any candidates had a chance to speak or answer questions.
Chahal and Hardy killed the standard process for Council and Commission appointments. It was a process that the City Council unanimously agreed to follow two weeks ago.
Yup Chahal and Hardy agreed to the process before they tried to change it to help Jain.
Editor’s Note: In the 20 years that I’ve been covering Santa Clara, no one has denied candidates for any appointment a chance to make their case before casting a vote. It’s pretty outrageous.
The rest of the City Council objected to the Chahal-Hardy maneuver.
Councilwoman Debi Davis said “What I heard is not fair to the people who came and applied. I’m disappointed in you, Raj.”
Councilwoman Kathy Watanabe said that the Chahal-Hardy maneuver was an attempt to “hijack” the process.
The other candidates and the public also condemned the Chahal-Hardy maneuver to appoint Jain.
City Attorney Brian Doyle stepped to the podium as a resident of District 5 to speak. He said it was unfair to him and his neighbors that Chahal and Hardy would only approve of Jain and deny all other candidates a chance to speak and make their case.
One of the candidates Brian Lowery addressed Chahal’s argument that he was trying to save everyone time.
“The democratic process is for you to allow it (interviews) to go through. If you say you don’t want to waste your time, then why are you here?” Lowery said. “I spent a lot of time preparing for this. You sabotaged this dream.”
Other candidates spoke and expressed disappointment in Chahal and Hardy. They all said they were prepared for the fact that a supermajority of the City Council might not agree on one candidate. But they all wanted a chance to be heard.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor wrapped up the debate. She said that there are a lot of important issues in District 5 and the residents need a representative. She mentioned the downtown plan, the El Camino Specific Plan, zoning code updates, and transit development decisions.
“Both Councilmembers (Chahal and Hardy), with all due respect, said they want to go to an election — it’s important to go to an election,” said Gillmor. “But only if you don’t pick my candidate.”
The Council majority apologized to the candidates in the room for the fact that they were denied a chance to interview after spending a lot of time prepping.
Chahal and Hardy offered no apology.
[…] Note: On Monday, Vice Mayor Karen Hardy and Councilman Raj Chahal stopped the process that would have allowed eight applicants for the vacant council seat to speak and answer questions. […]
If Chahal and Hardy, along with Jain, conspired outside of a city hall meeting to “fix” this process, is this not illegal? They are all immoral if this is proven true, and Santa Clara residents must remember this in future elections. From a lifelong Santa Clara resident, thanks Chahal and Hardy, and Suds, for hampering the process of the rebirth of a Santa Clara Downtown. The people of the city took note.
Spoken like a true attorney. When you don’t have an answer you resort to diversion. In this case, it was calling my comment a “conspiracy theory” and calling me out for using a nume de plume.
As an attorney, you spent many years in law school to specialize in putting your words in others mouths for them. I asked you, point blank, if this meeting(s) took place and you are acquainted with those involved, you would have simply answered the question. Instead I get a response of blah, blah, conspiracy theory and blah, blah, you didn’t use your real name. Zero answers to my questions.
It is also my right to use a nume de plume as I wish, as my comments would be the same. I noticed others using a nume de plume, which you conversed with, and didn’t mention their use of a nume de plume. Does that make all of us *less brave* than you? No, people don’t always use a pseudonym to syay something they wouldn’t otherwise say, which you, of course, already knew. There are those who have security or job concerns for themselves and their family, those who just don’t like to put their name out there, etc etc. That is their business, not yours. If they post comments that they would have posted with their real names anyways, but feel more comfortable not being in a public arena, don’t use that as a *gotcha* when you don’t have a good answer for a question that puts you on the defensive. My comments and questions hit home with you, thus your sophomoric response.
This is Mr. Haugh’s blog, and he decides if it is ok or not for us to use a nume de plume.
One last question for you, being a legal scholar. Given a hypothetical situation in another city, and the exact scenario is confirmed to have taken place, what are the civil and legal implications?
Quite honestly, the fairer process is for the people of the district to vote rather than letting a divided council do so. Chahal and Hardy saved the council probably a bit of time, but might have been handled in a more graceful manner. If those meetings would not be so late into the night, I would probably drag myself out of the house for live entertainment and drama. Then I could cancel Netflix.
Please stay home and watch netflix.
There is a good drama called I am not OK with This.
Seems a good title for what happened on Tuesday night and my district 5.
I think what Raj and Karen did last night was a big mistake, and I’m afraid it puts a mark by their name. And to have Suds say that he endorsed the plan is also very wrong. I think he will never every get elected in this district because of last night, it is the talk of the town.
We may not always agree with Mayor Gillmor, but you have to admit that she lets everyone have their say at the meetings. Even if she doesn’t agree with their opinion, we are all allowed to comment. I think that she deserves a lot of respect for that. Our previous Mayor, Mayor Matthews would set the timer to one minute, because he didn’t want to listen to us.
But last night Karen and Raj didn’t allow the candidates to speak at all. They agreed to have a hearing to listen to candidates and then did not allow it to happen. What a shame.
Since Raj and Karen are the council representatives for the Neighborhood University Relations Committee that is mainly aimed at District 5 residents, I have asked that they be replaced. Obviously they do not care about the citizens of District 5. I wrote to both Karen and Raj before the meeting last night, and neither one replied to get more of my opinion.
Anthony Becker is right—last night was must see TV. People texted me, “Are you watching this????”
Either the candidate I want or nothing. Only Chatty Patty would defend that position.
Santa Clara District 5 resident Brian Doyle here on my own time and on my own device. Last time I checked, being a City Attorney does not deprive a person of their right to free speech, or their right to vote or their right to be represented in a local legislature. (Also unaware of what rules of professional conduct Mr. Jain is suggesting that I violated.) In none of my remarks did I favor or disfavor any particular candidate. I had looked forward to hearing from each of them and making up my mind. I did very strongly feel, as I stated that evening, that Council should have appointed a representative for District 5. I would have been happier if Mr. Jain had been appointed after going through a fair process in public, rather than with that farce that had been cooked up behind closed doors in somebody’s kitchen. How anyone can call that backroom conspiracy to deprive District 5 of a representative anything close to fair and me unprofessional for objecting to is beyond me. It also seemed like political suicide for the 3 folks who hatched the plan. But that’s just my personal opinion.
As to rules of professional conduct, literally perhaps none.
As to appearance, a lot. I’ve never seen a City Attorney anywhere ever jump up and down like a jack in a box exchanging hats from city attorney to witness and back again as you did. Any attorney watching that performance cringed in embarrassment. It’s a can/should thing that will no doubt make its way to yet another exhibit for contempt should the City pursue its ill advised (no support in statement of decision, law [see what happened in City of Palmdale]) path you bizarrely advised to a reversion to illegal at large voting after Measure C failed. Crimminy! A City press release after you lost in court admits that impossibility!
Look. You really need a second opinion on how you’re advising on all matters related to your broader handling of issues touching on any aspect of the CVRA. You got the City slapped with the badge of racial discrimination in a court judgment, you’ve cost residents $4 million to date, you erroneously advised on the implications of a measure C defeat, then you pull the jack in a box stunt.
Give some thought to mitigating the harm caused under your watch. Step down, recuse yourself from anything touching on CVRA matters or at least get a second, third opinion!
Oh. Pride goeth before the fall kinda thing: keep repeating to yourself- “I will be a witness. I will be an attorney. I will never be both.” If nothing else, that advice will serve you well going forward.
Brian Doyle, you are right. Being a City Attorney does not deprive you of your right to free speech. However, as I’m sure you know, as an attorney you are held to a higher standard of conduct than non-attorneys. When you speak, whether you are speaking for the City or yourself, people who listen will give greater weight to your words and treat them as if you are speaking as an attorney, usually for the City. If you can’t understand that, perhaps you’re in the wrong line of work.
City Attorneys, and City Clerks, would be wise to stick to administrative matters and work behind the scenes. Let elected officials do the talking.
My all fact based comments not being published. Why not?
Over two dozen comments by you have been published. Some, like those you made this evening, were filtered to spam. You may want to go back and see that gaggle of comments you’ve made, that are visible to all.
That’s fine. My remarks (always facially based) are an important as response to Doyle’s post.
Will you post or not and why not?
I’ve approved all comments you’ve made today. If there’s something missing, please re-post, as I don’t see anything else from you. I do not post duplicate comments, by the way. I see several comments by you in the last several weeks.
“Recall Chahal” with Hardy next. What a disgrace for these two did last night. And only to appoint two face Jain. Jain the one who was against appointment unless it’s to his benefit, unbelievable. Sad and sorry for those who showed last night to the opportunity to enter the appointment process. And thank Raj and Karen for showing who you really are. I guess this is what you get from district voting, candidates from the bottom of the barrel. Disapponting
Last nights council meeting was MUST SEE TV and had more plot twists than an episode of House of Cards.
Everyone’s emotions were high and full of passion.
Councilmembers Chahal and Hardy both stated in the beginning of the meeting how they felt and what they were going to do. It is not illegal it is not wrong they saved everyone time. While unpopular it is what it is. I was a resident of District 5 but now a resident of District 6. Whatever happens in district 5 effects me in 6. The council may be elected by districts but it is to serve the whole city…. a district is just your closest representation.
Now that the seat is open, other councilmembers need to step up to help District 5.
Things that need clarification
1. The downtown project is safe. In fact, after 2020 elections their could be a super-majority in favor of it and maybe fast track it. Also currently the remaining council can vote on it. Councilmembers Chahal, Hardy, O’Neill, Watanabe and Davis. That is 5 votes right here and all you need is a simple majority, which is 4. Mayor Gillmor has to abstain cause she owns property so it is one vote shy from her and one vote less in District 5. Lets say in November a candidate wins and lives near downtown, they themselves had to abstain and we are back to 5 again….. this is also why Patty Mahan had to abstain as district 5 council member because both her business and home were feet away. District 5 should not just be the deciding factor of downtown this is an all out effort from every district councilmember, its Santa Clara’s downtown not just district 5’s. Also worth noting on downtown project is if you are afraid of the votes on the dais, the best method would be a ballot measure to make it law by and how it will be paid for. Make it so then council has to follow the law. We are this close to the dream, I want it just as bad as you do, but most of the action will take place i feel in 2021-2022 and i consider that progress from what this group has done since 2016.
2. Karen and Raj saved peoples time. Yes like i said it is unpopular….but going to the dentist, taking the trash out is unpopular but it has to be done sometimes. Sometimes these can be hard pills to swallow. If Raj and Karen had their sights on a candidate that stood out most to them then they should be allowed to feel that way or vote that way. They stated it early on in respect of time. I would have loved to hear the interviews too, I myself was shocked by the move, but it was clearly to respect the time of those present.
3. I heard a couple councilmembers attack Raj and Karen for it being a “plan”. This is uncalled for because to be fair, there is always a plan to appoint someone. In 2016 the plan was to appoint Kathy Watanabe for then Seat #6 (before is became district 1). I heard rumors and actual members of the council that stated it was planned. When Jamie Mathews resigned in February 2016, Dominic Caserta, Pat Kolstad and the rest of the majority including Jerry Marsalli selected Lisa Gillmor as mayor. It was already decided. In return to then appoint Kathy Watanabe the deal was for Mayor Gillmor to endorse Dominic Caserta for County Supervisor. Essentially My interview that night in March 2016 for appointment was a dog and pony show. Dominic Caserta had said during his run for county supervisor that the deal was to appoint Kathy so then he can get all of their endorsements for his county supervisor run. That was alarming to me that someone would go along with that….. He lost all of their endorsements way before the bombshell allegations came out on him. So if we talk about plans. Lets talk about those. —- not to mention Lisa Gillmor was appointed to be the City Council following Jamie Mathews win for Mayor in 2010 to fill his seat. She was selected after her work on the Measure J campaign which brought the stadium/49ers to Santa Clara. These are facts not attacks on Gillmor Watanabe etc. It’s stating what has been said and what’s happen in this city in regards to two councilmembers saying it was a “plan”. Raj and Karen were upfront about it.
4. In 2018 Gillmor, Davis Watanabe and O’Neill made motions to appoint Suds, Kevin Park, Mohamed Nadeem, when Mahan and Kolstad refused to appoint that night. They ridiculed Mahan and Kolstad and censured them over it for it. Recently before last night, Mayor Gillmor stated that they could have appointed Suds or any of the candidates i named but she blamed in on Patty Mahan. They would not even entertain the idea of appointing Suds Jain. Lisa knew the only way they would all agree of a super-majority being 5 votes would have been for Suds.
5. Suds comments here are correct. I foresee a censure of Chahal and Hardy. He is right that Lisa’s council would have never voted for Suds not in 2020 nor in 2018 nor in 2016.
6. Robert Haugh as a reporter, you need to be more serious in actually talking to others about what happen. Like “Calling for a quote” or “on the record”. You have never once contacted Suds Jain, Raj, or Karen or myself. You do not interview, you only write bias pieces. Last election when everyone thought i broke the rules on a donation from the chamber ( which we didn’t cause i knew it was wrong) not once did you call to get a quote or even let me defend myself. It was one way reporting. It was the same way for Yes on Measure C bias. And now this.
7. Lisa wants her majority, I don’t blame her and understand why. She don’t want the pendulum to swing. yet i think she should know we are not her enemy, we care for the city deeply, we want to fight the wrongs as well. I think communication needs to happen more and Lisa needs to listen to opposing view points. I think she even said “Important things do come to light while speaking to someone”. I wish she would listen to me and others on how we want to help but it cant always be her way or the highway. Where I come from, which is Santa Clara, it is a two way street.
8. It was unprofessional of the city clerk and the city attorney to speak on these matters. Yes they live there but it’s not right. This not an attack it is just from our point of view it looked bad. Rod Diordan had told me he could never take sides nor speak during council meetings on issues because of his role had to be impartial. Hosam, i do know whose side you fall on, and it is OK….. that is your freedom to do so but not as the city clerk. You always have to play the role of clerk. I feel you should have not spoken in my opinion. That is the reason why i never ran for city clerk in 2018 was because that person would have to keep quiet and can’t give opinion or emotion on any matter. Your comments last night are passionate….but Hosam it was not in the right setting. The same goes for city attorney…. that was unfair and not ethical for him to speak to council like that, I have never heard a city attorney speak that way. . It continues to show bias. Hosam there is no bad blood just calling a spade a spade.
9. Kevin Park said it best during the night about Measure C couple weeks back….that it is about agendas and power. Everyone focuses on the number 4, all you need on council in 4 votes majority. Maybe in 2020 elections that can change and become more independent body by different council members voting and it never being two sides. I would love to see the day when the votes are split up, Gillmor, watanabe, Davis and O’Neill. . I would like to see it different majorities. For example, my appointment to Planning Commission, Mahan, Gillmor, O’Neill, Kolstad voted for me. That was not the usual majority… it was a new majority, we need to see more of that and after 2020 i think that will be more of a reality.
10. I am sorry to all the candidates who applied….. In my opinion I would rather know up front rather than the intentions behind the scenes like I experienced in 2016 appointment process. I ended up running for council because of that process. They were all great applicants and I see the same thing happening here in fall elections.
11. This adds more for the 2020 elections. District 5 will have a new council member elected BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. I always felt a group of 6 people should not decide the fate of an elected office. Being an appointed incumbent before an election is an unfair advantage. Myself and Suds Jain both lost to Kathy Watanabe an appointed incumbent that was only on the job for 7 months before election day. I accepted that loss and learned from it that the appointment process bypasses the voters. The electorate can now pick the best candidate.
I think we all have disagreements and are passionate about our city and love our city. I know why we fight these fights.
Let’s just think of it this way…..no one died last night.
We all lived. We all went home, we all went home to someone we love. Some out there don’t have a home.
There are people out there dying now to a virus that has gotten are attention and changing the way we live by the day.
Instead of pitting each other against one another this is a time where we should come together.
I said it last night sometimes all we need is an olive branch of hope. I extended that to Mayor Gillmor and her majority last night. Let us stop the fighting, name calling, and dragging people through the mud.
We are human beings lets treat each other like humans and not barbarians.
Now let see how many attacks I get.
I have contacted Hardy, Chahal, Winters, Sellers, Mahan, Jain and many others over the years for quotes. Sometimes, people don’t respond.
I report what I see.
You see differently on many subjects than I. That’s life.
One thing you cannot deny, I’ve allowed and continue to allow comments from all. I don’t block differing opinions. I embrace them.
You may not agree with what’s written here, but that’s a right we have.
We can agree to disagree.
I provide valuable insight into Santa Clara that you won’t read elsewhere. Despite your beliefs, me and this site aren’t owned by anyone but myself.
I’ve never Received even a penny for this site. I don’t sell advertising or editorial.
I have never talked with Robert Haugh. The only interactions I have had with him were online about whether he moderates the comments. I would be very happy to have coffee with him or talk over the phone to explain my positions. I’m sure he knows how to get ahold of me. If he did try to contact me, perhaps it went to spam but I would expect that he would be more persistent.
Suds, do I not have your correct email address? Your email has a recipient domain with your name in it.
My email is a gmail address with a portion of my name.
Suds, why don’t YOU contact HIM?
Usually journalists contact their sources. Not so often the other way. No matter. I sent him email this evening asking for a meeting or phone conversation. He has had my email because none of my postings have been anonymous.
all do respect
Yes, you can report on different subjects and have your opinion.
But in regards to contacting people I don’t believe you. Yes we have spoke briefly on Facebook Messenger. But that wasn’t for a story or an ‘interview’.
I suggest that santa clara news has an email for people to send letters to the editor like when you do the OPINION shop. An email to send information or evidence.
Suds Jain stated it best.
In 2018 when you wrote the news story on Chamber donates $1,000 Check to my campaign. You never contacted me or reached out once for my side of the story… in which for the record we never accepted the money, it was returned for being over the $590 maximum donation from single source. I had to defend myself in the comments on this page. You had my email, my phone number was known. Any reporter that i don’t know somehow always finds my number, except for Santa Clara News.
I felt i should have been able to defend myself via the news story and not in the comments. Because a person will read the headlines and synopsis not the comments of the person in question defending themselves.
All i’m saying is please provide both sides of the story with quotes or information from both sides.
Yes you allow comments just like other news sources do. Continue to let that happen for pro and opposing views.
This is a good example of why districts don’t work.
Chahal and Hardy proved they don’t give a flip about my district 5.
They can go back to their tiny districts and no one will care or know how they screwed District 5 last night.
But I know and I have friends in their districts.
2022 here we come.
Chahal and Hardy made a big mistake.
I’m really disappointed by the actions of those two last night. What they did was the equivalent of a juror who refuses to pay attention to all of the evidence in a case before deciding how to vote on the charges. That’s not a quality I expect from a diligent Council member.
It’s possible that Mr. Jain was the best candidate. If they had in good conscience voted for him after hearing all of the applicants go through a normal, fair application process, I would respect that, even if my personal opinion was different. (I don’t know how I would have voted, since I didn’t hear all of the evidence and several of the applicants were previously unknown to me.) But to not even give the full applicant pool a fair chance to discuss their qualifications, beliefs and priorities before effectively voting seems very wrong.
I agree with another council member who said that important things sometimes come to light during the verbal interview process that are not obvious purely from a paper application. For example, if a particular candidate was an academic genius but had little ability to work with others, or poor fiscal management skills or poor ability to prioritize conflicting needs, that might not be apparent purely from a paper application but may be more apparent during a traditional interview process.
I have sometimes indirectly learned a lot from similar applicant pools. Applicants sometimes bring up concerns (and even potential solutions) that aren’t well known by the sitting Council members. Even if those on the dais learned nothing more about the applicants, they might well have learned something about other issues that could be highly relevant to their future duties. That alone seems like sufficient reason to hear from the entire applicant pool.
The idea that, solely because Mr. Jain was a leading contender in a previous interview process, he should be treated as the (or even a) top candidate this time is absurd, since (among other reasons) the candidate pools were clearly different and new information might have come to light since that time.
As a threshold matter, and importantly, Roberts piece omits several critical items.
First, the staff report itself expressly provided the Council could act without interviewing applicants. That’s omitted from the piece. So, The motion’s first and second to appoint Suds Jain was entirely within the rules.
Second, many posters to this site demanded the appointment process steer clear of any considerations of “race or politics.” Fine. So appointment to be made objectively. Education, governmental volunteer service, volunteer service in the community, personal and professional accomplishment. Objectively, Suds is #1 in each category. When Suds was nominated, ugly backlash from a majority of council. So, objectivity be dammed, they never meant it. It had to have been about race and politics afterall!
Third. So the City Attorney literally makes up a Roberts Rule. A “Superceding Motion.” Sorry, there is no such thing. He made it up just like there was some legitimate basis to oppose the CVRA demand letter. He made it up just like advising Council they had a defense to the subsequent CVRA lawsuit. He made it up (after the City had been enjoined from conducting at large elections), advising Council and the public in a ballot statement and public declarations and press releases, that if Measure C lost, the City would revert to the illegal racially discriminatory at large elections contrary to express court order! He made it up that he can provide unbiased legal advice to Council on appointment where he pops up as a distraught witness (any lawyer would cringe at best) in the same hearing he is rendering legal advice!
I mean, with this track record why is Doyle still around?
When applied to the facts and “not made up” rules, Raj and Karen followed them to a T.
Opponents? Not at all.
So goes the last gasps to preserve white privilege in Santa Clara.
Raj and Karen are to be commended.
Hey J. Byron Fleck you said “Objectively, Suds is #1 in each category.” I call BS. There were several highly qualified people there but we never got to hear from them – Ms Procunier was a past councilmember (and even though she withdrew, Chahal had his plan and pre-written statement before even knowing that). Mr Lowery was a 7 year civil service commissioner and ran twice for council against big names. Mr Knaack is current chair of Parks and Rec commission. Several other candidates had impressive resumes.
Also a simple google search would find that you’re also wrong about tabling a motion. http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-05.htm
You are indeed correct regarding a motion on the table and I apologize for my error. Good find. Thank you
Beyond that, I do take issue with the objective fact of Suds superior qualifications.
Education? BS, MS MIT
Commissions? Charter Review, planning, chairs of both, perhaps other bodies.
Community volunteer? Board member OQRA, started robotics group at Wilcox.
Publications/awards: many on environmental, ecological and importantly climate change issues
Note: I’m limiting these to “objective” elements. That is not to say other applicants are not qualified, it’s only to say that, objectively speaking, Suds record leads the class. I presume all other applicants agree.
It may have been different perhaps, had my dear friend Dr. Keri Procunier not withdrawn. However, she did. The City was just blessed to have good candidates Monday, however, of the four, Suds had the most objective cred by far.
He sounds like a brilliant and eminently qualified potential candidate who conspired to circumvent democracy with sitting council members, for his own gain. I don’t want to put a label on this potential candidate, but a few did come to mind. What do you think of his actions? Is this story all wrong? If so, please give the correct version.
Ok. Sorry. I don’t do conspiracy theories. If you have evidence that Suds so colluded, or say any of the other applicants colluded with other Councilmembers, present it. While your at it, why se you hiding your identity? Lol!
I know people who have already made up their minds won’t believe me. That is the peril of confirmation bias. I did not coordinate with Councilmember Chahal concerning his motion to avoid the applicant presentations and suggest that I was the most qualified applicant. I was actually blindsided by his motion. I spent at least 8 hours preparing for the interviews. I did spend a number of years serving with Councilmember Chahal on Planning Commission so he knows well how I comport myself on the dias and come prepared to the meetings.
If what you said is true, Chahal and Hardy pulled a stunt which was bound to cause a public uproar, and will be remembered by Santa Clara residents during many future electrons. If you’re version is true, Chahal and Hardy need to make a public statement stating you weren’t involved in the proceedings. They were the ones colluding to pull this off.
“”Objective’ elements” do not a councilmember make. Besides, your objective elements may be objective to you, but subjective to others.
Mr Chahal prepared his statement apriori, not knowing Ms Procunier would withdraw, so it’s disingenuous to say that Mr Jain was the most “objectivelly” qualified applicant when Mr Chahal and Ms Hardy pulled off their stunt (which as Mr Jain acknowledged in his comment below, was planned ahead of time with his knowledge).
He was also not one of four. He was one of eight candidates (7 after the withdrawal). It would have been entirely understandable had Mr Chahal came to his conclusion AFTER hearing all 7 candidates. But to bypass the entire process and say that Mr Jain was the ONLY qualified applicant without even hearing from the others is pretty ridiculous.
I would have had more respect had Mr Chahal and Ms Hardy put their foot down and say they would not appoint anybody at all, rather than say Mr Jain or nobody else.
It is clear that Suds Jain will never get elected in his district
Chahal & Hardy saw to that
Must be nice to have good friends?
Have you thought about moving?
Last night watching what was to be “Democracy” in action was nothing more than an “Ultimatum” presented by a person, who I can not bring myself to call a Councilmember. This display of “My Way or the Highway” approach to running a city needs to be addressed. I felt sympathy for the people who took their precious time and spirit of civic duty to be lambasted by a self righteous person stating they were not of caliber to be a Councilmember.
This person showed a lack of good governance. How do you know these residents of District 5 were not eligible in your eyes, you never heard them. Isn’t this part of a being good listener!
Suds shows his true colors. He said he wanted an election only because he didn’t believe he would be chosen. What kind of crap is that?
So it was a choice of Suds or nobody? Well as a resident of district 5 I wanted a representative, but between nobody and Suds, I chose nobody. Nobody has less integrity than Suds.
Another fun night with must see TV at city Hall. Raj tried to be clever and Hardy agreed but looked lost again. Of course it’s all fair to promote Suds.
We all new the dark side would block the appointment, just not how. I can understand the decision not to appoint. Making your decision without hearing their presentation and only on their written application is very unfair to the candidates. Raj didn’t seem to realize the difference.
I can’t imagine the voters that are trying to move district 5 ahead will now rally behind Jain. I wouldn’t hire Raj as a campaign manager. Way to think it through PM.
This is the outcome I advocated for. It’s the fairest process for everyone. Interesting that one candidate already said she would not run in November.
There was no way Lisa’s council would have voted to appoint me despite my very active engagement with the City. They don’t like people who will be independent. Think about how many past council candidates have worked for the Gillmors. Lisa tried hard to keep me off the Charter Review Committee.
I will bet on Lisa’s council voting to formally censure councilmembers Chahal and Hardy like they did with Mahan and Kolstad. They will have to come up with a different excuse this time since the meeting didn’t go till 2 AM.
Highly unprofessional for the City Attorney and Clerk to speak up even if they are residents of District 5. They made it clear who’s camp they are in.
“Highly unprofessional for the City Attorney and Clerk to speak up even if they are residents of District 5. They made it clear who’s camp they are in.”
I want to mention 3 things here.
1. It’s obvious you weren’t listening to what I said when I went up to speak as a resident. I did not take a position on whether the Council appoint or not. I spoke about Measure Q as my brainchild that changed the Charter appointment rules from a simple majority to a super majority. Had the Charter only required a simple majority, the Council in 2018 would have appointed an African American (Eversley Forte), an Arab American (myself), or any one of 3 Asian Americans (yourself, Mohamed Nadeem or Kevin Park). I stated that the change was made to emphasize how much of a privilege an appointment is and give more power back to the voters. I also said that it was totally within Raj and Karen’s right to block the appointment. My main point was that it would have been more appropriate to have made that clear when the Council unanimously agreed to open up applications for appointment. Grandstanding after agreeing to the process was massively disrespectful to: 1) the candidates who spent time applying and preparing, 2) staff time for setting up the application process and 3) the other city committee which was bumped to make room for the interview.
2. I find it entirely hypocritical that you made publicly stated multiple times (at the meetings and online) that the Council should not appoint anybody, and then you yourself applied seeking the appointment. To me that signals a real lack of integrity – if you think an appointment is unfair, then you should have applied your own logic to even the appointment of yourself. But to make matters worse, you took the path of “my way or the highway” – that if you wouldn’t be appointed, then NOBODY else should be either. The hypocrisy speaks volumes.
3. In my capacity as the elected City Clerk, it is my job to ensure that the process is fair and equitable to EVERYONE involved.
Fairness to you: During the discussion I asked the City Attorney for a Robert’s Rules clarification around whether or not the Council would be able to re-vote on appointing you if it failed Raj’s original motion. One could argue that based on Robert’s Rules of Order once a decision was made on a motion you could not re-vote the same motion again (ie: if they failed to appoint you based on the original motion, then conducted the interviews, you would be barred from a subsequent motion to be appointed). What you failed to realize is that I was looking out for YOU – trying to make sure that the process was fair for YOU.
Fairness to the other candidates: I found it very unfair and quite unprofessional for Raj to pitch you as the only qualified candidate in plain view of all other candidates before the interviews even began. How do you think the other candidates felt hearing that entire prepared speech? Do you really think you are the only one who has served this community on committees or ran for office? The applications from many of the candidates were extremely impressive, and I think they all deserved a fair chance to be heard especially after the Council unanimously approved the process. Had they gone forward with the interviews after hearing Raj’s speech, do you think the other candidates would say to themselves, “Gee, I have a fair shot at this!” or would they think the process was rigged and biased against them before it even started? At the very least and out of respect for the other candidates, Raj could have waited till the candidates went into the conference room before starting his speech. I feel terribly for the candidates who put their best foot forward in good faith, then got the door shut on them before even having a chance to speak.
Finally, I want to remind you that I was elected by Santa Clarans (in a City-wide election no less). I am not part of any “camp” nor do I answer to the Mayor or Council. I answer to the people of Santa Clara. Saying that my speaking out is “highly unprofessional” is exactly counter to what I was elected to do by the people in the first place. Since being elected I have kept a low online profile so folks would not accuse me of being biased or pushing an agenda, but I wont stay silent with you questioning my integrity after what you just did. I have never held back from speaking my truth, not before, and not now just because I’m elected.
Suds, some people can’t perceive how others see them, and therefore blame those around them, especially those with more power, in lieu of themselves not having more ability and interpersonal skills to win others over, and their own inability to perceive how their abrasive behavior closes, rather than opens, doors in life. Politicians who don’t have those skills play the victim all the time when they don’t get their way.
This is what happens when outside sources tamper with our elections. In the 2016 election Chahal finished a distant third to Mayhan and Silva. So now we have a third place finisher sitting at the “Adult table” dictating how our City Government is going to run. This is the kind of stuff the 49ers love to see.
I know very little about Hardy, but seem to be learning more and more each day.
all do respect, but that comment sounds a little George Wallace-ish. This can’t always be about the 49ers. Those who are the majority brought them here we can’t forget that.
Raj placed third in 2016 but first in 2018.
Currently in National Politics a 3rd place finisher Joe Biden finished 1st now looks to have the nomination. You me or anyone may not agree but thats the way it is.
So in reality, Chahal earned his place and was voted by the people. ‘
Most don’t win in their first try…. Raj won his second time.
I know others on council too that lost and then finally won.