Dear Editor,
Three years ago, Mayor Lisa Gillmor raised serious concerns about the influence of the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report, Unsportsmanlike Conduct—and later the 2024 reports Irreconcilable Differences and Outplayed—on local elections and city governance. More recently, questions have also surfaced about her possible influence over earlier reports from 1987, 1991, and 2016. Now with the 2026 elections around the corner most expect an election timed grand jury report and still wonder how much influence Gillmor still has on the current Civil Grand Jury.
A lot was learned in court. In her own statements in 2022, Mayor Gillmor openly acknowledged how central the report was to her campaign, stating it helped her “tremendously” and that she “could have lost without it.” She repeatedly described the timing of the report’s release in relation to early voting in Santa Clara, noting that voting began in the second week of October and that “most people vote when they get their ballot.” Gillmor admitted she was aware of “all of the dates” and local voting patterns, using that knowledge to plan her campaign mailings accordingly.
Gillmor also stated that when the report was released, “it was the talk of the town.” The Mayor confirmed she was making campaign decisions and deciding what to include in mailers to voters while the report was circulating, and that she sent out two campaign letters. Gillmor even mentioned serving on a grand jury herself in 1991, something she referenced while simultaneously denying that she leaked the report.
Gillmor further described how she “concurred with most of the report,” calling it “very factual” and “on point.” She said she was “very pleased” that what she called “an independent body recognized what was happening in our city,” adding that she “needed to come up with a plan to address the issues described in the report.” A plan she conveniently had, called The Anti-Corruption Plan that included an ethics commission. When asked how the report might impact her campaign, Gillmor admitted: “I certainly thought that it would be beneficial to always have a third party to really, really validate the craziness that is happening in our city right now. So I thought that it would help my campaign certainly.” However Gillmor was never asked if she knew anyone on the civil grand jury or had any influence on the members of the topics in the report. Even to this day Gillmor is ‘mum’ on who she knows on the civil grand juries, which she considers a validating third party.
Gillmor acknowledged that she received the report from then–Interim City Attorney Steve Ngo at 5:38 p.m on October 5th then later forwarded it to her personal Gmail account that evening. Gillmor emphasized her respect for the grand jury process, saying she understood “all that has to happen in order to publish a report, including fact checking,” given her prior civil grand jury service that came out with a report that lacked facts in 1991. Yet, despite being one of the few to receive the confidential document before its release, she claimed she could not recall how she was alerted to the report’s publication or when she accessed the public version. However, Gillmor did send a text message to Related Company and POA political advisor Jude Barry to “check his email” shortly after 7:15pm.
Shortly after Gillmor’s statements, her search history brought up “consequences for perjury, “ceiling of a misdemeanor” and “contempt of court.” What is Mayor Gillmor hiding and why is she not being held accountable?
Former Councilmember Kathy Watanabe shedded further light. Watanabe confirmed she also received the confidential report on October 5th, and was instructed not to disclose it. She admitted feeling “happy to receive it,” telling her husband at the time, “I think the ‘cavalry’ has finally arrived.” Watanabe explained that she viewed the report as long-awaited “help” for her and the Mayor, believing it “played a significant role” in the election by allowing the public to “really understand the frustrations” she had faced as a Councilmember.
When asked about the leak, Watanabe said she believed it was done “to hurt Mayor Gillmor,” but admitted that leaks of confidential city information had happened before “Oh yes, there definitely has been,” and that it was “pretty commonplace”, while never admitting that her side ever has leaked anything. By saying this, is Kathy Watanabe admitting to the history of leaks? Watanabe admitted she leaked it to her husband and let him read it. However, when Watanabe’s husband was questioned by authorities that his wife Kathy shared it with him he lied that she didn’t. Both were never charged.
All the statements paint a troubling picture. Mayor Gillmor described how closely her campaign strategy aligned with the timing of the grand jury report—one she praised, used, and credited for her political success—while Councilmember Watanabe celebrated its arrival as the long-awaited “cavalry” and leaked it to her husband who was not transparent with the investigators, yet all these three individuals are still elected officials?
The pattern revealed by these statements is alarming. A report intended to serve as an independent civic document appears to have been leveraged for electoral gain by those who stood to benefit from its contents. The timing, the Mayor’s own admissions, Watanabe’s admissions and Gillmor’s coordination of campaign messaging around the report’s release all point to a serious breach of public trust. Gillmor knew voting patterns and knew how civil grand juries operated. Additionally, both Gillmor and Watanabe submitted a dissenting response to the grand jury report that called for the anti-Gillmor Councilmembers to be put under oath with the threat of perjury. Projection much? How can anyone trust someone who knows the systems like Gillmor does? Santa Clara deserves better.
The people of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County deserve a full and transparent accounting of how the grand jury report was handled, who had access to it prior to its release, and whether it was used to influence an election. Public confidence in our institutions depends on ensuring that justice and accountability are not subordinated to political ambition. Fate and the district attorney’s office have been nursing the political wounds of the ones who survived the mess like Mayor Gillmor and Former Councilmember and Current School Board Member Kathy Watanabe.
It is deeply concerning that a grand jury report, meant to serve as an impartial civic document, appears to have been used for political advantage. Santa Clara residents should not have to wonder whether justice and accountability were sacrificed for campaign gain.
Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen, in campaign mailers supporting Santa Clara County’s Measure A, says, “Safer communities require holding criminals accountable,” and urged a yes vote to fund his office. But does this mean Rosen will use Measure A funds to politically prosecute enemies and protect allies? He has even suggested he may investigate the County’s Measure A campaign because his office is not receiving a share of the funds.
Can the public trust Rosen’s judgment when he declared “they got their guy” in the Grand Jury leak case and said the “pursuit for information is over,” despite leaving unanswered who leaked the report to the San Francisco Chronicle—a leak he called a “very serious situation” that demands accountability?
Meanwhile, Rosen appeared far less concerned when his own office leaked information to a blogger aligned with Mayor Gillmor, claiming in an April Fool’s joke blog entry that the entire anti-Gillmor City Council was indicted by District Attorney Jeff Rosen just days before an actual anti-Gillmor councilmember was really indicted. Rosen also insists he does not investigate one Councilmember over another and that his office has “no opinion” on who gets elected in the City of Santa Clara. Yet why, then, was his office involved in crafting assistance of Grand Jury reports that critics say misrepresented Anti-Gillmor Councilmembers and subtly boosted the pro-Gillmor agenda?
Mayor Gillmor clearly benefited from the Grand Jury reports, as did the Santa Clara POA. Kathy Watanabe—now a school board member—even described the Grand Jury as the “Cavalry” arriving to rescue Gillmor and her allies. The fact that both officials remain in elected office, while District Attorney Jeff Rosen declines to further examine potential misconduct, raises serious questions about the consistency of his office’s commitment to accountability and Gillmor and Watanabe’s ethics and transparency.
To many observers, the evidence that could implicate Gillmor or Watanabe appears largely dismissed under a “nothing to see here” approach. The message this sends is troubling and chilling: that certain political figures may be effectively insulated from scrutiny, and that District Attorney Rosen is willing to shield those aligned with the Gillmor faction. Remember everyone, Jeff Rosen endorsed Pat Nikolai for Police Chief in 2020 and Nikolai was the first to send a letter to the District Attorney to investigate the anti-Gillmor Councilmembers following the reports release.
Demand accountability and the truth.
Sincerely,
Roger Kint