By Robert Haugh
The Santa Clara City Council discussed the Civil Grand Report “Irreconciable Differences” at last night’s City Council meeting.
The 49er Five were unhappy that they were called out for “abusive and belittling behavior.” For about two hours, they criticized the report and the Grand Jurors.
Councilmember Suds Jain started the Council comments by reading a lengthy statement about the flaws he saw in the 2022 Grand Jury Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.” That Grand Jury Report from two years ago concluded that Jain and his colleagues frequently side with the 49ers over Santa Clara residents.
Yup, Jain criticized a two-year report in detail before he criticized the current one. Jain also raised questions about the potential personal bias of current Grand Jurors.
But Jain, who is up for re-election in November, said he would support an independent Ethics Commission. Jain opposed an Ethics Commission two years ago when he was not on the ballot.
Councilmember Kevin Park initially agreed with the report’s conclusions but he didn’t like their process. But later in the meeting, Park looked like he soured on the report after about a dozen residents spoke supporting the Grand Jury.
Park made long rambling statements criticizing Mayor Lisa Gillmor, Councilmember Kathy Watanabe, the Grand Jury, Santa Clara residents, and Santa Clara News Online.
Vice Mayor Anthony Becker read a prepared statement attacking the Grand Jury and the accuracy of their findings.
Councilmember Raj Chahal also was unhappy with the Grand Jury and the report. He said that he would only accept the recommendations that apply to the Council as a whole but not to the ones that refer to him specifically.
Councilmember Karen Hardy did not say anything about the Grand Jury or the report. However, she did not like the motion made by Councilmember Watanabe to accept the report and to have City staff begin the process of establishing an independent Ethics Commission.
Hardy made a substitute motion because she wanted the City staff to bring back to the Council draft responses to the Grand Jury findings before any further action could be taken. That way the Council majority can determine whether or not to accept certain findings.
Mayor Gillmor opposed Hardy’s move because she said she wanted the Council to establish an independent Ethics Commission and program immediately.
Hardy’s motion to delay action prevailed 4-3. Becker, Chahal, Hardy and Park voted yes. Jain, Gillmor and Watanabe voted no.
The only person who seemed to like the report was City Manager Jovan Grogan. When he discussed the finding that complimented City staff for professionalism he said it was the best part of the report.
When Grogan discussed the report’s recommendation that the Council should compliment City staff, Grogan said they could do it now then added: “A little jocularity on a tough subject.”
City staff will bring a draft response in August and may schedule a special meeting to discuss this Grand Jury Report and another one entitled “Outplayed.”
I urge residents to vote no on any bond measure because you can’t trust the 49er five who put their own selfish interest above the beautiful and blessed City of Santa Clara. They have finally admitted they need ethics training yet want even more delay for political reasons. Let’s vote the scoundrels out!
Suds, your typical response is to demean others who you don’t agree with. This is the main reason you need ethics training. You don’t seem to understand that there are people who will not agree with you. When they don’t, you don’t take the time to understand their point of view, you go on the attack, file a public records request or an FPPC complaint. This is not what a public servant should be doing. I emphasize the word “servant” as that’s what you were elected to do yet your actions continually are the opposite of what the majority of the public wants.
You simply don’t get it and sadly never will.
[…] it was Wednesday morning. The meeting ended after 2 a.m. When you attack the Grand Jury, it takes up a lot of […]
Listening to the incredible whinging of 5 grown “adults” last night was terrifying. These are our city leaders? Did they have bad childhoods and cling to all things that bother them in their lives and just not grow up? This was so sad to observe and equally sad to listen to the mayor and councilmember be attacked from all sides. So much for getting along. SMH.
I think the bigger and more important news from the meeting last night was the approval of sending the bond measure to a public vote. This is very big city business while the issue of ethics training is I think a side issue in the end. I think ethical behavior is important and I think that ethics training could be beneficial. But I do not expect ethics training to be beneficial as I do not think that lapses in behavior whether unethical or just plain old rude have been made due to ignorance of ethical standards.
I do not think that training on ethical standards is going to help Anthony Becker behave more ethically. If there was training for how to behave warmly and collegially toward other councilpeople behind the scenes no matter how tense council debates get I do not think that this would help Kathy Watanabe treat council adversaries with more warmth and collegiality.
If the city moves forward with ethics training then I hope that everyone and I do mean everyone takes it seriously and improves. But I am not going to be holding my breath for this.
I’m not confused. I think my statement was malformed. My point was that you, Robert, didn’t refute any of my statements about flaws/errors in the 2022 grand jury report.
Suds,
Robert did not do detailed fact checking on the grand jury report it seems and I agree with you on this. I also do not expect a one man blog to do this.
You have never to my knowledge explained why it is that you and your council allies met in twos and threes on purpose to keep meetings with the Forty Niners unrecorded. Why you chose to conduct these meetings in private and without the benefit of professional city staff or any public oversight. Why you could not discuss whatever stadium business there was to discuss within the structure of stadium board meetings as they should be.
You also have never to my knowledge explained how you expect the public to be anything but suspicious of the council majority’s stadium management when they conducted these private meetings by circumventing the brown act and virtually always vote on stadium issues the way that the Forty Niners would want votes to go and together have received millions of dollars in campaign support.
I do expect an elected city official to do this.
Note to Suds. 2022 is past. Focus on the present cause you ain’t got no future in Santa Clara.
Suds – Your ethics have been confused for years now. I genuinely believe you no longer have the best interest of Santa Clara as your guiding principal. You only exist to serve a special interest group. Don’t be confused about your role.
So what’s the obvious short term benefit of all of this “free” negative publicity.
First off, a lot more residents, are now educated and aware of just how badly our City has been used and abused over the last 10 years.
Turns out, it’s been really easy for them to do this.
Enlist Sock Puppets (We currently have 5)
Fire City Attorney (7-0 vs The 49ers), Mr. Brian Doyle
Fire City Manager Mrs. Santana who had the audacity to ask a few questions.
Spend money to flood the market with “their” views and opinions.
Crazy but it is well known…
“Chaos creates Opportunity”
Now the good news.
Register to vote on or before Oct 21st.
Then vote early.
Make it a goal to get at least one or two others vote as well.
Then continue to educate your friends and family on what we have been dealing with over the last few years.
Worse case on November 5th vote to remove any and all “49er Sock Puppets” who are up for Re-Election.
Bottomline trust your Mayor and lone Santa Clara City Councilmember. They have earned that from me.
Do not trust anything the 49ers are saying or selling.
Remember…..
When in doubt
Do the exact opposite what the 49ers are asking you to do.
Trust them with nothing. Seriously trust them with nothing.
They have had their chance to do it right, and this what they have chosen to give us.
Thanks Burt Field
burt.field@gmail.com.
It is interesting that Gillmor mouthpiece, Robert Haugh, failed to provide any details regarding what he thought was incorrect in my statements. It is his typical style to make generalized accusations or allegations. My speech was long so I’m simply providing my statements regarding the flawed 2022 Grand Jury report titled “Unsportsmanlike Behavior”. Please let me know if any of these statements are incorrect.
———————–
The October, 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report titled “Unsportsmanlike Behavior” was full of errors.
That report missed the crucial fact that we had a new Financial Management System in place since April 2022 which allows certain City Staff to look at all bills and receipts for non-NFL events.
Another gross mistake was that the report claimed QUOTE “that two members of the Council Voting Bloc who are up for re-election, and one who is challenging the current Mayor, received almost $750,000 in DONATIONS from 49ers PAC”. That is clearly false and misleading. There is a big distinction between independent expenditures and donations to a campaign. Furthermore, the report repeats this error in the conclusion QUOTE “but it is very concerning to the Civil Grand Jury that several councilmembers received large campaign DONATIONS from 49ers-backed PACs within days after the decision to settle.” Did the CGJ discover those “donations” in the financial reports by the candidates (Form 460)?
Another thing the report clearly got wrong was that it claimed that the vote to fire the City Manager was 5-2 which is incorrect as I was out of the country and did not attend the meeting.
Yet another thing the report got very wrong was the claim that QUOTE “some members of the City Council Voting Bloc have failed to follow City protocol regarding “operational tours” of the Stadium.. The report states that QUOTE: “The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has opened a case into whether two councilmembers violated state law regulating gift limitations related to these operational tours.” It is surprising to me that Recommendation 5A in the report is QUOTE:“The City/Stadium Authority should adopt a policy and outline procedures for elected and appointed officials to conduct operational tours of the Stadium.” So is the report claiming that Councilmembers Hardy and Chahal violated a non-existent policy? Finally, while it took two years, the FPPC ultimately cleared Hardy and Chahal of any violations. What the Grand Jury report got wrong is that just because the FPPC has opened a case, that doesn’t mean there is any proof of wrong doing. In fact, a strong supporter of Mayor Gillmor’s regularly files FPPC complaints and the two against me were immediately dismissed but there were case numbers and the FPPC was asking questions.
Another thing the 2022 report got wrong was it claimed that meetings with the 49ers QUOTE: “are primarily scheduled the day before or the day of regular City Council meetings.” In reality, Councilmembers Chahal and Hardy met on Wednesdays, after the Council meetings since May 2021 so well before any settlements.
Recommendation 3a in the 2022 report states:
“The City/Stadium Authority should hire a certified public accounting firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Stadium Authority finances and the financial documents submitted by ManCo, to begin no later than February 1, 2023 and annually thereafter.” What the CGJ report gets very wrong is that KPMG has been auditing Stadium Authority finances from fiscal year 2012-13 to the present. In case anyone is not aware, Wikipedia says: KPMG is a multinational professional services network, and one of the Big Four accounting organizations, along with Ernst & Young (EY), Deloitte, and PwC.
Why did I outline these errors, because there are similar errors and biases in the report we are discussing tonight: “Irreconcileable Differences” . This report makes many references made to the very flawed 2022 report.
Additionally, I have serious concerns about how the grand jurors were recruited and longstanding biases on the Grand Jury. Two Grand Jurors recused themselves but I don’t know which ones or why. My opponent in the last election was on this Grand Jury and I don’t know if he recused himself nor whether he spoke to or had any influence on the other jurors. Finally, several jurors from the flawed 2022 report were also jurors on the report we are discussing tonight.
Suds,
I didn’t write that there was anything incorrect in your statement. Maybe you’re getting confused. Let me help you out by reminding you what I wrote:
Councilmember Suds Jain started the Council comments by reading a lengthy statement about the flaws he saw in the 2022 Grand Jury Report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.” (CORRECT)
That Grand Jury Report from two years ago concluded that Jain and his colleagues frequently side with the 49ers over Santa Clara residents. (CORRECT)
Yup, Jain criticized a two-year report in detail before he criticized the current one. (CORRECT)
Jain also raised questions about the potential personal bias of current Grand Jurors. (CORRECT)
But Jain, who is up for re-election in November, said he would support an independent Ethics Commission. (CORRECT)
Jain opposed an Ethics Commission two years ago when he was not on the ballot. (CORRECT)
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
Hamlet, Act III, Scene II
Oh so now what their constituents think they MAY act on???? Tells us a lot about what they think of the voters!! Remember this when there’s another election for them!!!
That was my first ever council meeting. I’d read about this, but seeing it in person was truly shocking. It’s so obvious to an outside observer exactly what the problem is (or with whom). No one is fooled.
Everyone benefits from ethics training, especially from an independent source. Literally every company I’ve worked for in the Valley requires it, and I’m in high tech.
Watching the smug satisfaction on some of their faces when council members disagreed with the report, or made feeble attempts to refute it was like watching a child when their brother or sister get blamed for something they did. Immature and completely petty behavior. One resident said it best: “aren’t you embarrassed?”.
Imagine what the council could accomplish if these 5 actually had the best interests of their community and constituents in mind?
You should attend more council meetings, Holly. Your take is spot on. The City needs more involved folks.
I plan to.
But I’ll be prepared with snacks next time. I sat there with a growling stomach for 3 hours.