Santa Clara Councilmember Kevin Park Discloses Income Two Years Later Than Legally Required, a Violation of State Law

By Robert Haugh

Santa Clara City Councilmember Kevin Park finally included income on his Form 700.

That’s the Statement of Economic Interest that all California elected officials are legally required to fill out accurately.

The issue was first brought to public attention on June 7 by former City Attorney Brian Doyle.

“There are some serious inconsistencies in official filings by Councilmember Kevin Park that at best indicate an unacceptable level of deceit and at worse perjury,” said Doyle.

Doyle wanted the Council to allow Park to explain himself. But the request failed on a 5-2 vote.  

The 49er Five rejected Doyle’s request saying the former City Attorney had a conflict. Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Councilmember Kathy Watanabe voted in the minority.

Then on June 21, Santa Clara resident Craig Larsen made the same request. Larsen said he had no conflict.

Here’s Larsen’s full statement from the Council meeting.

On Tuesday, July 12, Larsen came before the City Council and said that Park had amended his two Form 700 statements.

But Larsen still wants Park to explain himself.

“While these amendments may correct prior submitted data, they do not address the nature of the inconsistent data,” said Larsen.

“There is the matter of the data and there is the matter of the ethics and restoring the public trust. Why did it take so long to correct them?”

“It should not take petitions from the public for electe officials to do the right thing.”

Park remained silent.

Santa Clara Councilman Kevin Park
Santa Clara Councilman Kevin Park

Councilmembers Raj Chahal and Karen Hardy argued that Park’s issue is an FPPC one, not the Council’s jurisdiction.

But Acting City Attorney Steve Ngo disagreed.

“There’s a Code of Ethics and Values that the City relies on and plausibly there’s jurisdiction,” said Ngo.

“For questions like these we err on a broader view of jurisdiction, especially when the intent of it is to all the public to participate in asking that agenda items be considered.” 

Despite that, the 49er Five decided they wanted to keep Park from publicly addressing his missing income and lack of transparency again. 

Gillmor and Watanabe voted to allow for public discussion but lost.

Editor’s Note: The 49er Five are Councilmembers Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal, Suds Jain, Karen Hardy and Kevin Park.

Jed York spent $3 million in November 2020 to elect Becker, Jain and Park. They were previously 0-6 in Santa Clara elections. Chahal and Hardy have received gifts from the team recently without reporting them.

The 49er Five meet with the team on an almost weekly basis and have voted to help the team win millions of dollars in concessions from the City since December 2020.


  1. The 5 dishonest council members supporting Jed are like a huge cancer on our city. The cancerous 5 need to be removed before they kill our city.

    Please support removing these liars..

  2. It is no surprise Becker is running for mayor again. He says the mayor has been in office too long, but he is the one that has been in office too long.
    Becker, do you think people will ignore your voting record when they consider giving you even more influence in the city govt? You just demonstrated you don’t believe in transparency but do you think you can hide your voting record? A record that literally stinks.

    • Guess Jed thinks Becker is the city’s new quarterback. What happened to that PAC Jed funded calling Santa Clarans racist? The shout to diversify? Guess Jed, Mahan, Honda sellers oh yeah and Asian law alliance forgot about that bogus campaign! Becker and Mukayama are crowing about CVRA? Gee! What box does Becker check to describe his race?

      Hypocrites. All of them. Liars! The CVRA lawsuit turned into an opportunity to create districts that Jed could control and to control the vote of Councilmembers that would only benefit HIM!

      Wake up Santa Clara! Jed is now worth $4B thanks to these 5 clowns and their teachers. Becker will drown the city!

      There’s only one reason Becker got the nod. He is nasty. A liar. And like a good puppy do everything asked to please his masters, Jed, Patty, Mike, Mike and Asian law alliance. They should be ASHAMED of themselves!

  3. Once again Robert Haugh’s extreme biases get the better of him. I voted to have Kevin Park explain his situation. Kevin Park recused so the vote was actually 3-3-1 and so it failed. Also Robert Haugh’s biases surfaced again when he wrote a fawning article about KTVU’s Zip Trip to Santa Clara with 3 photos of Lisa Gillmor and none of the other 4 councilmembers who were also present: Raj Chahal, Karen Hardy, Anthony Becker and Kevin Park.

    • Suds – You are speaking a half-truth. The initial vote on the Doyle request you, in fact voted NO. The second vote was a yes. Don’t play semantics with the public who understand very clearly what you were doing – hiding behind the City Attorney to protect your political ally. This is simply a modern version of the ol’ boys club. Sickening.

    • Omg! Suds this is bizarre! Obscene! You are obsessed about pictures of the Mayor! Just watch it! I see a divorce or restraining order in your future!

    • What was the subject of the June 6 meeting of Becker, Jain, Park with 49ers? Why are there 4 active fppc cases on Park? So ktvu highlighting santa clara is bad? What is a qualified elector? Why are you and becker fascinated by coffee cups?

      Why is a middle aged man running events with a camera?? Was Lisa Gillmor invetigated in 2020 for the weickowski event?

      Dominic Caserta, hmm, why would anyone encourage a person who disrobed in front of a campaign worker?

      Is Hazel still a deity??

    • It’s easy to throw votes when you know the motion is preplanned to fail!

  4. I found it interesting that some Councilmembers cited the Acting City Attorney’s advice regarding the ongoing litigation between Mr. Doyle and the City as a reason to vote “no” on Mr. Doyle’s original petition. On my petition (identical to Mr. Doyle’s), they did not follow the advice of the Acting City Attorney. I made it VERY clear the distinction between the FPPC complaint and the responsibility of our elected officials to be transparent and accountable to restore the public trust. Citing the FPPC complaint as a reason to vote “no” is just a lame excuse.

    Clarification: Suds Jain voted “yes” on my petition. Park abstained after I pointed out he should have abstained on Mr. Doyle’s petition.

    • There are FOUR active fppc complaints on Park. In 2016 he was told any sustained conviction would result in a 5k fine

  5. Don’t you know that these wolves In sheep’s clothing are above the law? They are above reproach. They know the law better especially since they are engineers. They must enjoy living in their heads.

  6. The 49er 5 would rather protect Jed York from legal issues or throw residents under the bus. But when it comes to one of them they can do no wrong.

    One word: Narcissists.

Leave a Reply