Welcome
Santa Clara City Government Has Ignored Public Trust for 14 years.
It's Time the People said, "Enough!"
The Key Question for the People of Santa Clara:
Will We Settle for City Officials Who Damage Public Trust When They--
Do nothing to prepare for a known threat to city self-government?
SELF-GOVERNMENT? In self-governing cities, residents—not a single powerful corporation—decide who governs, what information voters receive, and whose interests City Hall serves.
THE FACTS: For three elections since 2020, 49er-funded PACs have spent $10+ million to secure 5 of 7 Council and Stadium Authority seats. The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that "...these five members can—and do—vote in a manner favorable to the team." The upcoming 2026 election has three open seats: Mayor, District 2, and District 3.
WAIT & SEE:
**Will 49er PACs now try to buy the mayor's office—an at-large seat that speaks for all the people? The current Mayor has been a clear team critic.
**Will the PACs keep their hold on District 2 & 3?
**Who are the PAC-selected candidates?
**How much money will the PACs spend?
**Who, if anyone, will run against them?
**What's the PAC attack strategy?
**Has anyone repudiated attacks made on their behalf?
**What's the truth, if any, of the attack?
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Address this threat head-on and on an ongoing basis. No silence. No going dark. Publish a timeline. Set a planning deadline.
FIRST STEP: Engage residents, experts, and ethical campaign specialists to develop an effective response that builds public trust—before the damage is done.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Nothing. No planning. No public discussion. Just 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
Know the political game is rigged in their favor, but shrug and say, "It's all legal. What can I do?"
POLITICS? Politics is the way we negotiate, make decisions, handle conflicts, elect representatives, and plan our future in community. It belongs to all of us and is done for our benefit.
THE FACTS: The City's voluntary campaign expenditure program sets a limit on what candidates can spend on their political campaigns. It was $25,111 in 2024. The City asks candidates to agree voluntarily to that limit.
If they accept: They get some perks (e.g., half the cost of the ballot statement)
If they exceed the cap: Penalties apply
If they don't sign: It hurts their reputation
So most candidates sign.
THE FINE PRINT: Independent expenditures don't count toward the cap.
So PAC-backed candidates can: Sign the voluntary cap. Claim they "kept their promise" to limit spending. Sit back and watch the PAC spend unlimited amounts on their campaigns—money they say they know nothing about.
THE REAL IMPACT: PAC opponents struggle to get their messages out while their opponents flood the airwaves—all while claiming to play by the rules.
This good program turned bad when major PAC spending took over campaigns, but the rules stayed the same.
2024 MINI CASE STUDY: Kelly Cox — Outspent 56 to 1
PAC spending to defeat Kelly Cox: $391,000
Kelly Cox's available campaign funds: $7,000
Ratio: 56 to 1
She won anyway. How did a candidate outspent 56-to-1 still win? Understanding this matters—it may show what breaks through when money can't buy trust.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Suspend or cancel this program until independent expenditures are addressed. As it stands, the voluntary spending cap:
**Creates a false appearance of fairness
**Disadvantages candidates without PAC support
**Rewards those who benefit from the loophole while claiming clean hands.
A program that enables deception kills public trust.
WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW: Nothing. But cancelling this program should be on any review of City election programs or election resolutions. Such a review should be part of the plan to protect self-government discussed above.
Fire the City Manager and City Attorney who tried to hold the 49ers accountable?
THE FACTS: In September 2021, the Council majority fired City Attorney Brian Doyle—after a councilmember publicly admitted that 49ers lobbyists had said they "would like to see him gone." Doyle had won a $180 million rent dispute against the team.
Five months later, in February 2022, they fired City Manager Deanna Santana—two days after she raised conflict-of-interest concerns about a 49ers executive's role in the FIFA World Cup bid.
THE RESULT: The city operated without a permanent Agency Counsel for 17 months and without a permanent Executive Director for 14 months—during the most critical 49ers negotiations.
During that leadership vacuum, the 49ers got virtually everything they wanted, with consistent encouragement from 49er-friendly press. The August 2022 settlement was signed with no permanent senior staff to push back. The SF Chronicle reported the deal was worth a fraction of what the 49ers said it was worth. The majority rejected a motion to hire an independent consultant to look over the deal. They also rejected the public pleading with them for transparency. The day after they signed, 49ers PACs sent $700,000+ to support the Council majority's campaigns (Becker for Mayer, Hardy, and Chahal).
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Protect officials who fulfill their fiduciary duties for the public—even when it's inconvenient and even when you may not have a close personal relationship with the officials. Ensure continuity during sensitive negotiations. Do due diligence to be sure you know what the deal actually is. No excuse for refusing an independent analysis.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Officials who challenge 49ers interests don't last long. Officials who cooperate get campaign support. City Manager and City Attorney get salary increases. The public gets a fraction of what it should if City representatives had not been eager and impatient for a deal.
Hire replacements who haven't begun to build an ethical culture in almost three years.
THE FACTS: In September 2021, the Council majority fired City Attorney Brian Doyle—after a councilmember publicly admitted that 49ers lobbyists had said they "would like to see him gone." Doyle had won a $180 million rent dispute against the team.Five months later, in February 2022, they fired City Manager Deanna Santana—two days after she raised conflict-of-interest concerns about a 49ers executive's role in the FIFA World Cup bid.
THE RESULT: The city operated without a permanent City Attorney for 17 months and without a permanent City Manager for 14 months—during the most critical 49ers negotiations.
During that leadership vacuum, the 49ers got virtually everything they wanted. The August 2022 settlement was signed with no permanent City Manager and no permanent City Attorney to push back. The next day, 49ers PACs sent $700,000+ to support the Council majority's campaigns.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Protect officials who fulfill their fiduciary duties—even when it's inconvenient. Ensure continuity during sensitive negotiations.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Officials who challenge 49ers interests don't last long. Officials who cooperate get campaign support.
Undermine ethics standards in mandatory training?
THE FACTS: During state-required ethics training, the City Attorney's office told council members: "If you feel like you are not being influenced by personal interests, why should you remove yourself?"This directly contradicts the "appearance of impropriety" standard cited on the same training slide.
WHY THIS MATTERS: The appearance standard exists because the public cannot see inside officials' minds. We can only see their actions. When officials who received $13 million in PAC support vote on 49ers matters without recusal, it looks like a conflict—regardless of how they feel inside.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Teach the actual standard: Appearance of conflict damages public trust as much as actual conflict, because appearances are all the public has.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Training that gives conflicted officials permission to vote anyway.
Elect an indicted colleague Vice Mayor after he refused to step down—and let him vote on every 49ers issue after being charged with leaking a confidential negative report to the team?
THE FACTS: Councilmember Anthony Becker leaked a confidential Grand Jury report to the 49ers, then lied about it under oath. He was indicted, tried, and convicted of felony perjury in December 2024. The jury deliberated three hours.The 49ers had spent $3.2 million supporting his campaigns.
WHAT THE COUNCIL DID: After his indictment, they made him Vice Mayor. They let him vote on every 49ers-related issue until his trial. They took no action to protect the integrity of City decisions from someone actively accused of lying to help the 49ers.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: After indictment, remove him from leadership positions and 49ers-related votes to protect the integrity of City decisions.
WHAT WE GOT: They made him Vice Mayor and let him vote on every 49ers issue until his conviction forced his resignation.
Are gutting the ethics code and behavioral standards behind closed doors with no public input?
THE FACTS: In July 2023, the Council approved hiring a consultant to "review ethics documents."8-month unexplained delay before hiring
1 year of work behind closed doors
Zero public input
March 2025: Consultant presented a "replacement" code—not a review
WHAT THE REPLACEMENT CODE DOES:
Covers only City Council (not the elected Police Chief, elected City Clerk, commissioners, or staff)
Reduces 8 values to 6
Eliminates all behavioral standards
Requires only that Council "obey the law"
Does not apply to Stadium Authority
If approved, it's unclear whether anyone else remains covered by any ethics code at all.
RECORDS REQUESTS: A public records request for the contract and communications showing how "review" became "replace" was delayed six times over three months and closed without providing the documents.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Follow the open, inclusive process that made the original code a state model. Engage stakeholders. Build consensus.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: A closed-door rewrite that abandons 25 years of progress.
Let the Stadium Authority operate without any ethics code?
THE FACTS: The Stadium Authority manages Levi's Stadium—a $1.3 billion public asset generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue.It has never adopted an ethics code.
Three Civil Grand Jury reports recommended ethics reforms for stadium governance. The recommendations have not been implemented.
The same five council members who vote as a bloc for 49ers interests on City Council also control the Stadium Authority.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Apply the same ethical standards to stadium governance. Include good governance protections in the Charter Review. Establish independent oversight.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: A decade of operating a billion-dollar public asset with zero ethical guardrails. The same conflicts. The same closed-door decisions. The same 5-2 votes.
-
Do nothing to prepare for a known threat to self-government?
SELF-GOVERNMENT? In self-governing cities, residents--not a single powerful corporation--decide who governs, what information voters receive, and whose interests City Hall serves.
FACTS: For three elections since 2020, 49er-funded PACs have spent $10+ million to secure 5 of 7 Council and Stadium Authority seats. The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that "...these five members can--and do--vote in a manner favorable to the SF 49ers." The upcoming 2026 election has three open seats: Mayor, District 2, and District 3.
WAIT & SEE: Will 49er PACs now try to buy the mayor's office, who is elected at-large to speak for all the people? She has been a clear team critic. Will the PACs keep their hold on District 2 & 3? Who are the PAC-selected candidates? How much money will they spend? Who, if anyone, will run against them? What’s the 49er attack strategy? Anybody responding to the attacks? Rebuttal facts?
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES: (No candidates yet announced.)
WHAT WOULD TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS : Address threat head-on and on-going. No silence or going dark. Publish timeline. Plan deadline.
FIRST STEP: Engage residents, experts, and ethical campaign specialists to develop an effective response that builds public trust--before the damage is done.
WHAT WE ARE GETTING FROM THE COUNCIL NOW: Nothing. No planning. No public discussion. Just 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
2. Know the political game is rigged in their favor, but shrug and say, 'It's all legal'?
POLITICS is the way we negotiate, make decisions, handle conflicts, elect representatives, and plan our future in community. It belongs to all of us and is done for our benefit.
The Facts: The City's voluntary campaign expenditure program sets a limit on what candidates can spend on their political campaigns. It was $25,111 in 2024. The City asks candidates to agree voluntarily to that limit.
- If they accept: They get some perks (e.g., half the cost of the ballot statement)
- If they exceed the cap: Penalties apply
- If they don't sign: It hurts their reputation.
So most candidates sign.
The Fine Print: Independent expenditures don't count toward the cap.
So, PAC candidates can:
- Sign the voluntary cap
- Claim they "kept their promise" to limit spending
- Sit back and watch the PAC spend unlimited amounts of money on their campaigns, money they say they know nothing about.
The Real Impact: PAC opponents struggle to get their messages out.
This good program turned bad when major PAC spending took over campaigns, but the rules stayed the same.
Ratio: 56 to 1. She won.
How did a candidate outspent 56-to-1 still win? Understanding this matters—it may show what breaks through when money can't buy trust.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Suspend or cancel this program until independent expenditures are addressed. As it stands, the voluntary spending cap:- Creates a false appearance of fairness
- Disadvantages candidates without PAC support
- Rewards those who benefit from the loophole while claiming clean hands
A program that enables deception kills public trust.
WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW?Nothing, but cancelling this program should be on any review of City election programs or election resolutions. Such a review should be part of the plan to protect self-government discussed above.
3. Fired the City Attorney and City Manager who tried to hold the team accountable.
In 2021, the council majority held 57 meetings with 49ers lobbyists—then fired City Attorney Brian Doyle after the team reportedly wanted him "gone." Five months later, they fired City Manager Deanna Santana two days after she raised conflict-of-interest concerns.
The city went 14 months without a permanent City Manager and 17 months without a permanent City Attorney—while the 49ers got virtually everything they wanted in settlements.
In 2021, the council majority (CM Becker, Hardy, Jain, Chahal, and Park) held 57 secret meetings with 49ers lobbyists—then fired City Attorney Brian Doyle after, it was widely reported, the team said they wanted him "gone." Five months later, they fired City Manager Deanna Santana two days after she raised conflict-of-interest concerns. The city went 14 months without a permanent City Manager/SCSA Executive Director and 17 months without a permanent City Attorney/SCSA Counsel.
Building and sustaining an ethical organization is one of the key responsibilities of public sector leaders. It is the obligation of the City leadership to cultivate an organization where ethical behavior is encouraged, identified, rewarded, and sustained. —Former Palo Alto City Manager James Keene, 2008.
