Santa Clara council admonishes two of its members

Ex-mayor Mahan, Councilman Kolstad reprimanded for not appointing someone to fill vacant seat

In a move that could complicate policymaking in an already bitterly divided city, four members of the Santa Clara City Council formally admonished the remaining two council members for failing to appoint someone to fill the seventh council seat left vacant by Dominic Caserta’s resignation earlier this spring.

Mayor Lisa Gillmor and her allies on the council — Kathy Watanabe, Teresa O’Neill and Debi Davis — voted Tuesday to reprimand former mayor and sitting Councilwoman Patricia Mahan and Councilman Pat Kolstad, a step down from the censure vote some angry residents originally requested.

After then-Councilman Caserta was accused of sexually harassing numerous women, the City Council adopted a framework in May defining its censure and admonishment policies. According to its policy, a censure requires an outline of how someone allegedly violated laws or policies. An admonishment “may be issued by the City Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or re-

minder, would not necessary require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true.”

The decision, which is unlikely to have any real implications but adds to a sense of acrimony already bubbling at City Hall, came in response to a June meeting where Mahan and Kolstad said they would not cast votes to appoint any of the candidates vying for Caserta’s seat. In May, the pair opposed the council’s decision to move forward with an appointment rather than wait for an election.

“I really feel strongly we must go out to an election,” Mahan said at the time.

Their decision not to vote for any candidates in June ultimately halted the appointment process because the council needed five votes to confirm a new council member.

“In office, it’s my duty to act in our city’s best interest,” Mahan said, adding that she’d heard from residents who wanted the seat to be determined in an election and didn’t feel comfortable moving forward. “What I did was just follow our charter. I did not violate any rule.”

Gillmor and others accused Mahan and Kolstad of failing to make clear at the outset of the June meeting that they would not be supporting any of the candidates and for giving the impression that they were open to an appointment by actively participating in a candidate question-and-answer session that stretched six hours.

“They disappointed good people who wanted to help our city,” Gillmor said, worrying the move could send a “chilling message” to members of the community.

“It’s important that we set a standard,” the mayor continued, by way of explaining her vote to admonish Mahan and Kolstad.

Mahan also had expressed concerns about giving an appointee an unfair advantage in a later election because the person would have name recognition. But Watanabe accused Mahan of hypocrisy, arguing Mahan had said she wouldn’t run again in 2016 and then changing her mind at the last minute after several other people had stepped forward.

“To me what she did was unfair,” Watanabe said. “She took advantage of the fact that she had a base, she had name recognition and took away the opportunity for a new person to be on this council.”

Eight of the 13 public speakers who addressed the council expressed concerns about the admonishment.

“I’m sort of surprised that we’re here doing this because I think the City Council should be spending their time on more important things,” resident, Kathy Kelsey said. “I don’t see how you can get back together to work as a unified City Council.”

Guyton Jinkerson, an attorney for Kolstad, said the councilman had “voted his conscience” and dismissed the admonishment as “purely a political fabrication.” Davis was particularly offended by such accusations.

“I resent being called corrupt; I resent people saying, ‘Oh, you’re doing the wrong thing,’ whatever, constantly coming up and saying this to us when our job clearly is about policy decisions,” Davis said. “Whatever happens, nothing’s really going to happen. I just want the residents to know that I supported them and I cared for what they went through.”

Another resident, Dorothy Rosa, criticized Kolstad and Mahan for failing to serve the city well.

“If the council does nothing,” Rosa said, “that would be a negative message.”

Several other speakers, including one who said she had suffered from ovarian cancer, chastised Mahan for bringing up her battle with cancer during the meeting.

“Cancer has been the greatest gift of my life because it has changed my perspective and made me understand what’s important in life,” Mahan said. “I can take the heat. There’s nothing that anyone can do to me here tonight that can cause me harm.”

Ultimately, the council voted 4-1-1, with Kolstad voting no and Mahan abstaining, in favor of the admonishment.

“We believe it’s important for Santa Clara residents to know that our council has standards,” Gillmor said, “and policies that reflect the goodness of our community.”