Santa Clara City Government Pays Attention to Many Thing.
Ethics & Public Trust Haven't Made the List for 14 Years.
It's Time the People said, "Enough!"
First, the People of Santa Clara Need to Make a Decision
Rode $10+M in 49er PAC campaign funding into office, then voted to support virtually every major 49ers initiative with no discussion of apparent conflict of interest
THE FACTS: Over the last three elections, 49ers-funded PACs have spent more than $10 million to elect a compliant council super-majority (5 of 7). In 2022, they outspent one council challenger 43-to-1 and outspent the Mayor 8-to-1. Every candidate signed a pledge to "publicly repudiate" unfair attacks—none ever did. In public, they say they wish the 49ers wouldn't spend money on their campaigns. That's easy to say when you're the one benefiting.
Since taking office, this majority has voted to support virtually every major 49ers initiative—settlements, stadium deals, FIFA World Cup hosting—without ever publicly discussing the apparent conflict of interest created by the campaign spending that put them there. The 49ers' franchise value has grown from $1.4 billion to $8.6 billion during this period.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Publicly acknowledge the conflict. Discuss it openly. Recuse when appropriate. Demonstrate that their votes serve the people, not their campaign benefactors.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Silence on the conflict. No recusals. No discussion. Just 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
Fired City Manager and City Attorney who tried to hold the team accountable
THE FACTS: They first fired City Attorney Brian Doyle after the 49ers reportedly wanted him "gone." Five months later, and two days after City Manager Deanna Santana raised concerns about a 49ers executive's conflict of interest, the 49ers-backed majority fired her.
The city was left without a permanent City Attorney for 17 months and without a permanent City Manager for 14 months. During that leadership vacuum, the "49er Five" held 57 closed-door meetings with 49ers lobbyists in just nine months—one every four days. They met in groups of two and three: Hardy and Chahal at 3:30 p.m., then Jain, Becker, and Park at 5:00 p.m. the same day. Their calendars disclosed nothing more than "SCSA/49er matters."
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 (Becker for Mayor, Chahal, and Hardy).
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.
Elected indicted colleague as vice-mayor and allowed him to vote on 49er issues for 20 months until he was convicted of leaking a confidential document to the team so they could attack it
THE FACTS: In October 2022, Councilmember Anthony Becker leaked a confidential Civil Grand Jury report—"Unsportsmanlike Conduct," which was sharply critical of the Council majority's relationship with the 49ers—to the team's top lobbyist, Rahul Chandhok.
This gave the 49er crisis communication team four days to mount a campaign to discredit the the report as a "political hatchet job," to claim the District Attorney and the Civil Grand Jury were motivated by politics, to point out all the "errors" in the report and its methodology, and to claim the Mayor had already leaked the report to the S.F. Chronicle. There were also reports that the 49ers had hired opposition researchers to dig up dirt on the Civil Grand Jurors.
The District Attorney launched an investigation, which led to Rahul Chandook being granted immunity, testifying that Mr. Becker had leaked the report to Mr. Chandhook and the Silicon Valley Voice. Later, Mr. Becker was asked if he had leaked the report and he liked about it under oath. Mr. Becker pleaded not guilty, waived his right to a speedy trial, and twenty months later, he was convicted of felony perjury and a misdemeanor for failing to due his duty.
THE TIMELINE:
April 2023: Becker indicted on felony perjury and misdemeanor failure to perform duty. He refused to resign.
April 2023 – December 2024: His colleagues made him Vice Mayor and let him vote on every 49ers issue for 20 months—citing "innocent until proven guilty." That's a legal standard. Public trust asks: Can this Council Member act independently?
July 11, 2023: Three months after indictment, Becker participates in the Council's last substantive discussion of ethics, an hour-long conversation at the end of the meeting. No public present. Staff made no recommendation. The agenda item was unclear — revisit the ethics commission they'd already rejected.
What followed revealed what this Council really believed/believes about ethics, the former ethics program, Santa Clara residents, public trust, and themselves. Becker moved to reject the commission because it would "just be used as a political weapon."
November 5, 2024: Lost re-election bid.
November 6, 2024: Trial began—the day after he lost.
December 5, 2024: Convicted. Jury deliberated less than three hours.
December 6, 2024: Resigned—one day after conviction, 11 days before his term ended.
April 4, 2025: Sentenced to 40 days in a county work program picking up trash.
The 49ers had spent over $3 million supporting his campaigns.
After his conviction, Becker told his probation officer the whole thing was "about politics."
The DA said: "Some may have grown used to public officials lying. Committing perjury to the civil grand jury is not a white lie, an exaggeration, or politics. It is a crime and a serious abuse of the public trust."
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: After indictment, at the very least, he should recuse himself from 49ers-related votes to protect the integrity of City decisions. Having supported him through two elections, and having met dozens of times with him, could anyone, including the 49ers, think he could make an independent judgment about them. Demand his resignation to protect public trust.
WHAT WE GOT: They made him Vice Mayor. They let him vote on every 49ers issue for 20 months. During depositions, one colleague testified Becker had told him that he leaked the report. During the trial, that colleague changed his testimony and said he must have been “confused.” Two colleagues spoke at his sentencing asking the judge for no jail time.
Had legal ethics "training" where the City Attorney told them: "If you don't feel like you have a conflict, it's ok to vote." Wrong!
TITLE: Had legal ethics "training" where the City Attorney told them: "If you don't feel like you have a conflict, it's ok to vote." Wrong!
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 $10+ million in PAC support vote on 49ers matters without recusal, it looks like a conflict—regardless of how they feel inside.
Every ethicist knows we are terrible judges of our own bias. That's why appearance standards exist—because the public can only see what you do, not what you feel. "I don't feel conflicted" is exactly what conflicted people say.
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.
Are now gutting the integrity-focused ethics code and behavioral standards behind closed doors, with no review, and no public input
THE FACTS: In July 2023, the Council approved hiring a consultant to "review ethics documents."
8-month unexplained delay before City staff created an RFQ for a document review of current ethics document and recommendations for next steps.
City posted RFQ on normal posting site; send separate letter to eight law firms; hired LCW and lawyer the City worked with frequently before. Rushed responses and contract by March 2024. October 15, 2025 public records request for the contract was delayed five times until January 16 when it was closed. Contract sent was a 2021 contract and an extension in 2024. Neither was for the ethics RFQ. Also requested and not sent were communications with the consultant changing “review ethics documents” to “replace ethics code.”
1 year of work behind closed doors
Zero public input
March 2025: Consultant presented a "replacement" code—not a review at 10 a.m. on a weekday morning at a public meeting of the Governance & Ethics Commission which typically has one or two members of the public in chamber or participating virtually.
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.
Have let the Stadium Authority operate for a decade with no ethics code and no ethics oversight
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.
Know the political game is rigged in their favor, but they shrug and say, "It's all legal. What can we 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 supposed to done for the community's 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 media channels—all while claiming to play by the rules.
As it stands, the voluntary spending cap creates a false appearance of fairness, disadvantages candidates without PAC support, and 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.
Are doing nothing to protect the City from 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.
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.
Santa Clara has detailed plans for disasters that might happen—earthquakes, floods, fires. But there is no plan for a disaster the city knows will happen, because it has happened in each of the last three elections. The Levi's Stadium lease runs through 2054, with options to 2074. That's potentially 15 more election cycles.
WAIT & SEE:
Will 49er PACs now try to buy the mayor's office, 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 are they selected?
Who, if anyone, will run against them?
How much money, if any, will the PACs spend?
What's the 49er attack strategy?
Have all candidates signed the State Code of Fair Campaign Practices?
Is anybody publicly repudiating any of the attacks, including what will happen if they continue to attack?
What are the facts, if any, behind the attacks and the rebuttals?
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD:
Address the threat head-on and on-going.
No silence or going dark.
Publish a timeline.
Set a planning deadline.
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 NOW:
Nothing. No planning. No public discussion. No asking for public input on what to do to honor first amendment rights and at the same time build public trust that the voters choose who governs, information that gets sewnt out, and how City Hall act. None of that is included in the regular 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
Are excluding the Stadium Authority from comprehensive Charter review and are expecting people to vote for it.
THE FACTS: The City is conducting a Charter Review—the first comprehensive update in years. But the Stadium Authority, which manages a $1.3 billion public asset, has been excluded from the scope of the review.
Three Civil Grand Jury reports documented governance failures tied to the Stadium Authority. The same five council members who vote as a bloc for 49ers interests on City Council also control the Stadium Authority. The Authority has operated for over a decade without an ethics code, without independent oversight, and without meaningful public accountability.
A Charter Review that ignores the Stadium Authority is like a home inspection that skips the foundation. Voters are being asked to approve changes to how the City operates while the entity at the center of the City's biggest governance failures gets a pass.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Include the Stadium Authority in any comprehensive Charter Review. Address the governance failures documented by three Grand Juries. Give voters a complete picture before asking for their approval.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: A Charter Review designed around the problem, not through it.
Are not now planning to embed ethics and a public trust infrastructure in the charter and leaving it up to this and future Councils who over 14 years have quietly killed the ethics program and created a City Hall culture that does not practice independence, impartiality, transparency, or accountability.
THE FACTS: Over 14 years, successive councils have quietly dismantled Santa Clara's nationally recognized ethics program—without a single public hearing, without voter input, and without anyone officially announcing what they were doing. Resident confidence collapsed from 91% to 40%.
The ethics code, the ethics training program, the ethics values, the ethics consultant position, the Vote Ethics program—all either eliminated, weakened, or left to wither. None of these required a public vote to destroy. That's the problem.
Charter-level protection means voters—not a council majority—decide whether ethics infrastructure stays or goes. Without it, the next council can finish what this one started: a City Hall culture that is not independent, not impartial, not transparent, and not accountable.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Embed ethics standards, a public trust code, and an independent Good Governance Commission in the Charter where they can't be quietly dismantled. Let the people decide.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: No plans to include ethics in the Charter. No public trust protections. The same approach that produced 14 years of decline—and hoping nobody notices.
Rode $10+M in 49er PAC campaign funding into office, then voted to support virtually every major 49ers initiative with no discussion of apparent conflict of interest
THE FACTS: Over the last three elections, 49ers-funded PACs have spent more than $10 million to elect a compliant council super-majority (5 of 7). In 2022, they outspent one council challenger 43-to-1 and outspent the Mayor 8-to-1. Every candidate signed a pledge to "publicly repudiate" unfair attacks—none ever did. In public, they say they wish the 49ers wouldn't spend money on their campaigns. That's easy to say when you're the one benefiting.
Since taking office, this majority has voted to support virtually every major 49ers initiative—settlements, stadium deals, FIFA World Cup hosting—without ever publicly discussing the apparent conflict of interest created by the campaign spending that put them there. The 49ers' franchise value has grown from $1.4 billion to $8.6 billion during this period.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Publicly acknowledge the conflict. Discuss it openly. Recuse when appropriate. Demonstrate that their votes serve the people, not their campaign benefactors.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: Silence on the conflict. No recusals. No discussion. Just 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
Fired City Manager and City Attorney who tried to hold the team accountable
THE FACTS: They first fired City Attorney Brian Doyle after the 49ers reportedly wanted him "gone." Five months later, and two days after City Manager Deanna Santana raised concerns about a 49ers executive's conflict of interest, the 49ers-backed majority fired her.
The city was left without a permanent City Attorney for 17 months and without a permanent City Manager for 14 months. During that leadership vacuum, the "49er Five" held 57 closed-door meetings with 49ers lobbyists in just nine months—one every four days. They met in groups of two and three: Hardy and Chahal at 3:30 p.m., then Jain, Becker, and Park at 5:00 p.m. the same day. Their calendars disclosed nothing more than "SCSA/49er matters."
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 (Becker for Mayor, Chahal, and Hardy).
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.
Elected indicted colleague as vice-mayor and allowed him to vote on 49er issues for 20 months until he was convicted of leaking a confidential document to the team so they could attack it
THE FACTS: In October 2022, Councilmember Anthony Becker leaked a confidential Civil Grand Jury report—"Unsportsmanlike Conduct," which was sharply critical of the Council majority's relationship with the 49ers—to the team's top lobbyist, Rahul Chandhok.
This gave the 49er crisis communication team four days to mount a campaign to discredit the the report as a "political hatchet job," to claim the District Attorney and the Civil Grand Jury were motivated by politics, to point out all the "errors" in the report and its methodology, and to claim the Mayor had already leaked the report to the S.F. Chronicle. There were also reports that the 49ers had hired opposition researchers to dig up dirt on the Civil Grand Jurors.
The District Attorney launched an investigation, which led to Rahul Chandook being granted immunity, testifying that Mr. Becker had leaked the report to Mr. Chandhook and the Silicon Valley Voice. Later, Mr. Becker was asked if he had leaked the report and he liked about it under oath. Mr. Becker pleaded not guilty, waived his right to a speedy trial, and twenty months later, he was convicted of felony perjury and a misdemeanor for failing to due his duty.
THE TIMELINE:
April 2023: Becker indicted on felony perjury and misdemeanor failure to perform duty. He refused to resign.
April 2023 – December 2024: His colleagues made him Vice Mayor and let him vote on every 49ers issue for 20 months—citing "innocent until proven guilty." That's a legal standard. Public trust asks: Can this Council Member act independently?
July 11, 2023: Three months after indictment, Becker participates in the Council's last substantive discussion of ethics, an hour-long conversation at the end of the meeting. No public present. Staff made no recommendation. The agenda item was unclear — revisit the ethics commission they'd already rejected.
What followed revealed what this Council really believed/believes about ethics, the former ethics program, Santa Clara residents, public trust, and themselves. Becker moved to reject the commission because it would "just be used as a political weapon."
November 5, 2024: Lost re-election bid.
November 6, 2024: Trial began—the day after he lost.
December 5, 2024: Convicted. Jury deliberated less than three hours.
December 6, 2024: Resigned—one day after conviction, 11 days before his term ended.
April 4, 2025: Sentenced to 40 days in a county work program picking up trash.
The 49ers had spent over $3 million supporting his campaigns.
After his conviction, Becker told his probation officer the whole thing was "about politics."
The DA said: "Some may have grown used to public officials lying. Committing perjury to the civil grand jury is not a white lie, an exaggeration, or politics. It is a crime and a serious abuse of the public trust."
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: After indictment, at the very least, he should recuse himself from 49ers-related votes to protect the integrity of City decisions. Having supported him through two elections, and having met dozens of times with him, could anyone, including the 49ers, think he could make an independent judgment about them. Demand his resignation to protect public trust.
WHAT WE GOT: They made him Vice Mayor. They let him vote on every 49ers issue for 20 months. During depositions, one colleague testified Becker had told him that he leaked the report. During the trial, that colleague changed his testimony and said he must have been “confused.” Two colleagues spoke at his sentencing asking the judge for no jail time.
Had legal ethics "training" where the City Attorney told them: "If you don't feel like you have a conflict, it's ok to vote." Wrong!
TITLE: Had legal ethics "training" where the City Attorney told them: "If you don't feel like you have a conflict, it's ok to vote." Wrong!
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 $10+ million in PAC support vote on 49ers matters without recusal, it looks like a conflict—regardless of how they feel inside.
Every ethicist knows we are terrible judges of our own bias. That's why appearance standards exist—because the public can only see what you do, not what you feel. "I don't feel conflicted" is exactly what conflicted people say.
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.
Are now gutting the integrity-focused ethics code and behavioral standards behind closed doors, with no review, and no public input
THE FACTS: In July 2023, the Council approved hiring a consultant to "review ethics documents."
8-month unexplained delay before City staff created an RFQ for a document review of current ethics document and recommendations for next steps.
City posted RFQ on normal posting site; send separate letter to eight law firms; hired LCW and lawyer the City worked with frequently before. Rushed responses and contract by March 2024. October 15, 2025 public records request for the contract was delayed five times until January 16 when it was closed. Contract sent was a 2021 contract and an extension in 2024. Neither was for the ethics RFQ. Also requested and not sent were communications with the consultant changing “review ethics documents” to “replace ethics code.”
1 year of work behind closed doors
Zero public input
March 2025: Consultant presented a "replacement" code—not a review at 10 a.m. on a weekday morning at a public meeting of the Governance & Ethics Commission which typically has one or two members of the public in chamber or participating virtually.
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.
Have let the Stadium Authority operate for a decade with no ethics code and no ethics oversight
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.
Know the political game is rigged in their favor, but they shrug and say, "It's all legal. What can we 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 supposed to done for the community's 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 media channels—all while claiming to play by the rules.
As it stands, the voluntary spending cap creates a false appearance of fairness, disadvantages candidates without PAC support, and 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.
Are doing nothing to protect the City from 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.
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.
Santa Clara has detailed plans for disasters that might happen—earthquakes, floods, fires. But there is no plan for a disaster the city knows will happen, because it has happened in each of the last three elections. The Levi's Stadium lease runs through 2054, with options to 2074. That's potentially 15 more election cycles.
WAIT & SEE:
Will 49er PACs now try to buy the mayor's office, 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 are they selected?
Who, if anyone, will run against them?
How much money, if any, will the PACs spend?
What's the 49er attack strategy?
Have all candidates signed the State Code of Fair Campaign Practices?
Is anybody publicly repudiating any of the attacks, including what will happen if they continue to attack?
What are the facts, if any, behind the attacks and the rebuttals?
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD:
Address the threat head-on and on-going.
No silence or going dark.
Publish a timeline.
Set a planning deadline.
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 NOW:
Nothing. No planning. No public discussion. No asking for public input on what to do to honor first amendment rights and at the same time build public trust that the voters choose who governs, information that gets sewnt out, and how City Hall act. None of that is included in the regular 5-2 votes for the 49ers agenda.
Are excluding the Stadium Authority from comprehensive Charter review and are expecting people to vote for it.
THE FACTS: The City is conducting a Charter Review—the first comprehensive update in years. But the Stadium Authority, which manages a $1.3 billion public asset, has been excluded from the scope of the review.
Three Civil Grand Jury reports documented governance failures tied to the Stadium Authority. The same five council members who vote as a bloc for 49ers interests on City Council also control the Stadium Authority. The Authority has operated for over a decade without an ethics code, without independent oversight, and without meaningful public accountability.
A Charter Review that ignores the Stadium Authority is like a home inspection that skips the foundation. Voters are being asked to approve changes to how the City operates while the entity at the center of the City's biggest governance failures gets a pass.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Include the Stadium Authority in any comprehensive Charter Review. Address the governance failures documented by three Grand Juries. Give voters a complete picture before asking for their approval.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: A Charter Review designed around the problem, not through it.
Are not now planning to embed ethics and a public trust infrastructure in the charter and leaving it up to this and future Councils who over 14 years have quietly killed the ethics program and created a City Hall culture that does not practice independence, impartiality, transparency, or accountability.
THE FACTS: Over 14 years, successive councils have quietly dismantled Santa Clara's nationally recognized ethics program—without a single public hearing, without voter input, and without anyone officially announcing what they were doing. Resident confidence collapsed from 91% to 40%.
The ethics code, the ethics training program, the ethics values, the ethics consultant position, the Vote Ethics program—all either eliminated, weakened, or left to wither. None of these required a public vote to destroy. That's the problem.
Charter-level protection means voters—not a council majority—decide whether ethics infrastructure stays or goes. Without it, the next council can finish what this one started: a City Hall culture that is not independent, not impartial, not transparent, and not accountable.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Embed ethics standards, a public trust code, and an independent Good Governance Commission in the Charter where they can't be quietly dismantled. Let the people decide.
WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW: No plans to include ethics in the Charter. No public trust protections. The same approach that produced 14 years of decline—and hoping nobody notices.