"A sense of compassion for the community"

When Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan was interviewed for Santa Clara Magazine (published by Santa Clara University) in 2005, Mahan, who received a law degree from SCU in 1980, had this to say about her alma mater:

“They just imbue you with such a sense of compassion for the community ... the higher values and the better values of why you’re doing what you’re being trained to do. It’s not to make a million dollars a year. It’s to be of service.”

Mahan's actions in recent City Council meetings, however, speak far louder than her words.

On several occasions in City Council meetings over the last few months, Mahan has used her position as Mayor to attempt to silence, demean, and disrespect Santa Clara residents who have taken the initiative to come forward and speak publicly about their concerns regarding the proposal to spend $287,000,000 in public assets on a football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers.

Usually, her biases are quite evident to everyone in attendance.

At the City Council meeting on July 17, however, the Mayor made an additional comment that was not heard in the Council chambers, but was quite audible to those watching from home.

"You're wasting your time."

The comment was directed at a resident who had wanted to speak to a report, but the Mayor rushed through the call for public comment without a pause. Instead of acknowledging that she had missed the resident's request, the Mayor blamed the resident.

You can see the full clip here:




Not only is such a reaction from the Mayor disrespectful, it's also a clear violation of Santa Clara's Code of Ethics & Values, which requires "all elected and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the city's government" to agree, in part, that:

3. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be service-oriented. . . . :

a. I provide friendly, receptive, courteous service to everyone.
b . I am attuned to, and care about, the needs and issues of citizens, public officials, and city workers.
c. In my interactions with constituents, I am interested, engaged, and responsive.

6. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be communicative. . . . :

a. I convey the City's care for and commitment to its citizens.
b. I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded and willing to participate in dialog.
c. I engage in effective two-way communication, by listening carefully, asking questions, and determining an appropriate response which adds value to conversations.

7. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be collaborative.
In practice, this value looks like:

a. I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals, working together in a spirit of tolerance and understanding. . . .

The real test of the City's commitment to ethics will be how they respond to the Mayor's actions, which certainly do not demonstrate "a sense of compassion for the community."

Citizens speak out

We've pointed out before that the 49ers are pouring a lot of money into this campaign to win over the "hearts and minds" of Santa Clara. The Support "Our" Niners website is run by the 49er's PR firm. The glossy stadium campaign flyer is distributed as an ad insert in the Santa Clara Weekly -- its publisher, Miles Barber, just happens to be a "truthy" stadium proponent.

We at StadiumFacts.org don't have that kind of money. But we do have lots of people on our side. There are the 55% of Santa Clarans who told CBS5 that they oppose a stadium if it means giving the 49ers a subsidy. Then there are the citizens who have published serious arguments against the stadium.

We have added a new section to our front page to link to these articles and papers. Scroll down and look for "Citizens speak out" in the column on the right. The first link is to a paper from Erlinda Estrada. Ms. Estrada is the retired Interim Library Director at Mission College, and a lifelong Santa Claran. The second link is to a SJ Mercury News opinion column from Kate Grant, a community activist.

We will add more links to this section as the groundswell continues. If you are aware of other papers from residents, please let us know.

Misplaced loyalties?

I’ve been reading some disturbing quotes coming from our Mayor and certain council members. They make me wonder for whom they work, and ultimately where their loyalties lie.

Here’s a sampling from our Mayor, Patricia Mahan:

• “I'm a 49er faithful going back to John Brodie and Kezar Stadium" (Nov 9, 2006)

• “[T]hat's what it's all about: doing what's best for the 49ers and doing what's best for the fans." (June 19, 2007)

Really? I thought it’s all about doing what's best for Santa Clara residents and taxpayers. Does the Mayor’s “faithfulness” to the 49ers trump her responsibility to the city of Santa Clara?

Another quote, this time from council member Kevin Moore:

• “It's really good to have the 49ers eating at your restaurant. You know why? They spend a lot of money, eating a lot of food." (at Seniore's Pizza in June 2007)

As the KMA report proves, a more cost-effective use of the land would be Class A offiice project. Not only would this generate more taxes for the city, but an office building full of workers would spend more money … and eat more food, I guess, if that’s council member Moore’s standard for success. Do the 49ers eating habits really impact the economy in any significant way? I know they're big guys, but geez.

But this is potentially the most disturbing: Dominic Caserta is running for the California State Assembly, District 22. This district covers parts of Santa Clara, but also Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. Will council member Caserta attempt to curry favor with this larger electorate by having Santa Clara residents foot the bill for the rest of his district? I've heard from non-Santa Clara 49er fans who would love to have the 49ers in town. Even better if they don't have to pay for it!

Also, one wonders about the funding for his campaign. I wonder if the Yorks might be willing to fund an office seeker who so generously greased the skids for their corporate welfare project.

So Santa Clara City Council, let's see you represent the people who put you in office. And not by simple platitudes whereby you pretend to carefully weigh the pros and cons of a huge white elephant of a stadium. Do it by not giving a dime of our money to a business that can fund their own project itself.

FS: Councilmembers, like new, $___ each

The 49ers came to Santa Clara last night for a question-and-answer session with concerned residents.

OK, quick show of hands, how many people know what is the maximum contribution you can make to a City Council candidate?

John York and Larry MacNeil (the 49ers owner and CFO, respectively) both contributed to Mayor Mahan's 2006 campaign. Both men gave the maximum amount.

Legal? Yes. Ethical? You decide.

It gets better. Jed York claims to be unaware of the contributions from his father and the 49ers CFO. However, he just happens to know exactly what the maximum allowed amount is. What's more, Mr. York also said:

If a politician can be bought for only $500, I would hate to be represented by them.

FOR SALE: Councilmembers, like new, $500 each.

--

Campaign contributions are public records. You can look at them here. Search for "Mahan" or any other candidate, or browse by election. The contributions referenced above can be found in the filing from "Mahan for Mayor," dated 10/31/2006, which is an FPPC Form 460, covering the period from 10/22/2006 to 10/27/2006. Look at page 5 of 6. Click on the small copy below for a larger version:

.

Let the sunshine in . . .

Many cities and states have enacted what are often called "sunshine laws" that help to ensure that the public has full access—with very limited exceptions—to government meetings and information.

In fact, California has open meeting laws that require “governing and other bodies of local government agencies—for example, city councils and school boards—to conduct business in a way that enables the public to scrutinize and, to a slightly lesser extent, participate in, government decisions, actions and policy choices.”
[From the California First Amendment Coalition website.]

But there have already been reports that at least some members of the Santa Clara City Council have come close to crossing—and perhaps have already crossed—the legal line in their meetings with the San Francisco 49ers.

The San Jose Mercury News first reported on this issue back on December 21, 2006—“City treads fine line in Niners meetings”—and more recently on May 4, 2007—“Santa Clara, 49ers sign confidentiality agreement”.

Byron Fleck and Karen Hardy touched on these important issues in one of their recent reports on this proposal. We’re reprinting it here with their permission.

BILLIONAIRE YORKS WANT YOUR MONEY, BUT WON’T LET YOU ASK QUESTIONS!

by J. Byron Fleck and Karen Hardy

Draw your own conclusion. We have.

Since January 2, 2007, the Mayor, Santa Clara City Council and City Manager have repeatedly assured residents that we would have ample opportunity to present our views and ask questions to the Yorks’ 49er representatives and the City Council, regarding billionaire Yorks’ request for YOUR money, to build THEM a football stadium.

One of those public opportunities was supposed to be this Tuesday, April 24. This was to be the critical council meeting where the Yorks would tell residents how much of YOUR money they want. Problem is, we residents are effectively precluded from asking questions about their request.

Why?

Because, contrary to established practice when presenting before the City Council, the Yorks elected not to distribute their financial proposal/subsidy request by the Friday before Tuesday’s Council meeting.

Because the Yorks decided to hide their request until Tuesday’s meeting, neither the Mayor, nor City Council, nor City Staff nor (most importantly) YOU, have a meaningful chance to review their request and formulate questions and comments to the people asking for YOUR money.

Meanwhile, billionaire Yorks will make their pitch in the light most favorable to them, then, presumably, jet back to Ohio or wherever, in a calculated move intended to leave us with no time to ask meaningful questions or present thoughtful views.

A billionaire “Dump and Run” is how I describe it. Perhaps Karen describes it better. “Loot and Scoot.”

Just how outrageous is the Yorks tactic?

Well, consider this. The next time you present a request to City Council for a simple garage conversion or backyard fence, just see how far you get when you refuse to present your application and drawings until the night of your hearing.

We find it inconceivable that the City of Santa Clara would allow such disrespectful tactics, and yet expect (and require) so much more from its own residents for relatively insignificant matters.

On January 29, 2007 City Staff recommended, and Council adopted on February 6, 2007, the following principle concerning the Yorks request:

“1. City Staff and 49ers staff will have the opportunity to participate in public meeting Study Sessions...These Study Sessions...[will] update and inform the Council and community of issues pertaining to the ongoing feasibility analysis.”

On December 21, 2006, The San Jose Mercury News broke a troubling report of private meetings between the Mayor, certain City Council members and 49er representatives concerning a proposed stadium in Santa Clara, thereby raising questions about possible violations of California’s open meeting rules.

Presumably stung by public concern about the private conversations, Santa Clara City Council unanimously voted on January 2, 2007 to adopt the following guideline:

“Any proposed or approved stadium project in the City of Santa Clara will be the result of a visible, public process, open to the community.”

It is clear to us that the Yorks are actively scheming to intentionally avoid public scrutiny of their subsidy request from YOUR money. That scheme is inconsistent with the principles espoused by the Santa Clara City Council, an insult to the residents they expect to fund their subsidy and a breach of good faith with our City.