I’ve lived in Santa Clara long enough to watch a lot of people talk about “putting residents first.” Most of them don’t actually have to choose between residents and their paycheck.
Gary Ferraris used to work for the city. Then he became president of the AFSCME local that represents city field and maintenance workers. He led the negotiations that almost led to a strike a few years ago. Now he works as a union representative for AFSCME Council 57. His campaign leans hard into that experience. Fair enough. Unions do real work.
But if he becomes mayor, he doesn’t stop being a union employee. The city still has to negotiate contracts, benefits, and working conditions with the same groups he has spent years representing. California has a law (Government Code 1090) that says public officials can’t be financially interested in contracts they help make. The FPPC has written a lot about how seriously they take both real conflicts and the appearance of them. Even when technical exceptions exist, the basic idea is that the public should be able to trust the person at the table isn’t also employed by the other side.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not saying he would automatically be breaking the law the day he takes the oath. I’m saying the setup looks messy. When the city is deciding how much to pay workers, what benefits to offer, or how to handle labor issues, do we want the mayor employed by the union sitting across the table? Or do we want someone whose only job is looking out for the city and the people who pay the taxes?
I’ve seen plenty of candidates talk about experience. Experience is useful. But experience that creates an ongoing divided loyalty is something else. If Ferraris wants the job, he should explain clearly how he plans to handle labor contracts and any other decisions that touch the union that signs his paycheck. Voters deserve to know that before they decide.
Curious what other people think. Am I overthinking this, or does this feel like a real problem?
