Is Santa Clara Moving
in the Right Direction?
Santa Clara once led California in municipal ethics. Its nationally recognized ethics program was studied, copied, and trusted by residents.
In 2008, ten years into the program, 87% of Santa Clara residents said the City was going in the right direction. Today, just 40% said the same.
Santa Clara now faces four decisions that will either rebuild public trust -- or deepen a City Hall culture that ignores ethics, rejects criticism, excludes the public, and avoids accountability.
The choice is now in the hands of the people of Santa Clara. What kind of city do you want to build?
In Two Minutes, What You Need to Know
• Santa Clara once led California in municipal ethics
• Belief in the City's direction dropped from 87% to 40%
• The award-winning Code of Ethics & Values has been discarded and the Ethics & Values Programd
• Major decisions are now being made without asking "Why is this the right thing to do for the people?" and "How, if at all, will this decision build Public trust?
The City and the People Were Partners
City government and residents began working together as partners to define what trustworthy government looked like in practice. That partnership is one of the main reasons the program succeeded.
The Mercury News called it Soul Searching in Santa Clara.
Santa Clara asked its people a question most cities are afraid to ask:
When city government is at its best earning the public's trust, how does it act?
How do trustworthy officials treat residents, each other, and City staff? How do they make decisions when what's best for the people conflicts with what's best for their donors, their businesses, their political agenda, their family and friends?
What do they promise residents — and how do they hold themselves accountable for keeping those promises?
Beyond Legal Compliance
To answer those questions, the City first looked to its 1960's era "follow the law" compliance ethics code. Surely that would describe trustworthy government?
It didn't. Santa Clara's Code, like most codes at the time, just said: "Follow the law." "The law" was described pretty much as a set of "Do Nots." (As in "Do not lie, cheat, or steal.")
Santa Clara knew from experience that breaking the law destroys public trust. It had also learned that earning trust requires more than simply following the law. Law is the minimum standard of public service, not the definition of ethical leadership. Law is what we must do. Ethics is what we ought to do to fulfill our sworn duty to the public's best interests.
Ethical leadership is a prerequisite for public trust. Ethical leadership means making decisions in the best interests of the public — with honesty, transparency, impartiality, and accountability. These are the fiduciary duties every elected and appointed leader promises to fulfill.
Santa Clara rejected its old compliance-based code because it provided no vision or standards for trustworthy government.
The Code of Ethics & Values
Working with Dr. Tom Shanks, the Executive Director of SCU's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, the City developed the first consensus-driven, integrity-based Code of Ethics and Values in California.
Instead of legal rules and "do not's," this Code described what ethical leadership looked like in practice when public officials are at their best earning the people's trust.
Every official pledged: As a representative of Santa Clara, I will be ethical, professional, service-oriented, fiscally responsible, organized, communicative, collaborative, and progressive.
Those core values were translated into real-world behaviors that showed city officials and residents alike what trustworthy government looks like in practice. The City then turned those into ethical standards, which prescribed how trustworthy City officials ought to act to earn the people's trust.
The City adopted the Code in 2000 and immediately began a continuous "Make It Real" implementation program for elected and appointed officials and city staff across the organization.
For more than a decade, Santa Clara was a role model for cities throughout California.
Accountability: In the Hands of the Voters
Even twenty-five years ago, the research was clear: no ethics code works effectively unless it is paired with accountability and, when necessary, enforcement. It was equally clear that accountability must be independent — when an ethics environment breaks down, a Council majority censures the minority. It never censures its own.
Santa Clara also adopted a new way of thinking about accountability: it is the opportunity to present evidence of promises being kept, not to bash someone for promises broken.
In most cases, when a public official falls short, it reflects a skill deficit more than a character flaw. The goal is to take responsibility, identify the stumbling block, and build the capacity to do better.
The City put that accountability in the hands of voters. For eight election cycles, it taught candidates how to run an honorable campaign — and ran a comprehensive nonpartisan ethics education program so residents could recognize honorable campaigns and hold candidates accountable at the ballot box.
As Mayor Pat Mahan put it: "Our goal was not to influence the outcome of elections. It was to improve the behavior of candidates."
It Worked...Then It Didn't
For more than a decade, it worked. Residents trusted their government — and the numbers showed it. In 2008, ten years into the program, 87% said Santa Clara was going in the right direction.
That same year, the San Francisco 49ers announced they planned to build their new stadium in the City of Santa Clara. They bedazzled the City Council with celebrity and financial possibilities for the City.
Quietly, the Ethics Program began to unravel.
Stadium Ethics Proposal--Rejected Three Times
It would be easy to blame the decline on a shift in priorities, but that would be an injustice to the truth.
By 2009, the Ethics Consultant was alarmed. Newspapers reporting on the stadium negotiations continued to raise new ethics issues--almost every public ethics issue municipalities ever face--but the Council routinely ignored them. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, Dr. Shanks submitted a proposal to staff for a special initiative to identify and resolve stadium ethics issues as they arose.
He proposed training staff to prepare a Public Ethics Impact Report as part of each staff recommendation — identifying the ethics and values issues and good governance principles at stake with each decision. Not to block the stadium. To protect public trust.
Without public discussion, the proposal was rejected all three years.
Why This Matters
In retrospect, it is clear that someone or some group decided as early as 2009 that ethics would have no role in Stadium negotiations.
That decision became an informal "ethics exemption" for the Stadium Authority, ManCo, and StadCo — one that has never been reversed. The Council, staff, and city contractors were all held to the Code of Ethics & Values and Behavioral Standards. The Stadium Authority, the 49ers, ManCo, and StadCo were not.
The Stadium Authority's governance policy posted on the City's website: contains 26 words about ethics in a vague bullet committing the Authority to "integrity" — with no definitions, no measures, no training, and no enforcement. In contrast, the financial policy runs over 2,000 words about obligations to lenders, the team, and ManCo. The people of Santa Clara are mentioned, again almost as an afterthought.
The practical consequences of that exemption are documented in the Grand Jury report Outplayed and in the terms the majority accepted in the 2022 and 2024 Stadium Settlement Agreements.
[Read the Full Stadium Authority Analysis]
Meanwhile, Back In the City
The ethics consultation budget disappeared. The Vote Ethics accountability program — eight election cycles of nonpartisan candidate and voter education — ended after 2016 without explanation. The "Make It Real" implementation program that kept the Code alive in daily practice quietly stopped.
The Ethics Ordinance Committee, a fierce advocate for the ethics code from 1998 through 2012, struggled on until 2019, when it was folded into a new "Governance and Ethics Committee" (GEC)— combining the Ethics Committee, the Governance Committee, and the Facilities Naming and Honorary Recognition Ad Hoc Committee.
Residents were no longer part of the committee. The voting members were three council members (currently Chair Jain and Members Chahal and Park), staffed by the City Manager and City Attorney and a couple of other staff.
Part of GEC's mission was "further implementation of the City's Ethics & Values Program." This Committee has never handled ethics accountability, as the Council claimed in its official response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report. The only thing it has done with the Ethics & Values Program is to dismantle it.
One by one, the pillars of the program were removed — not in a single dramatic decision, but in a series of small ones across the last five Councils, easy to miss unless you were watching closely.
By the time most residents noticed, there was nothing left to save — only something to rebuild.
Santa Clara City Government Pays Attention to Many Things. Ethics & Public Trust Haven't Made the List for at Least Ten Years
What happens to a city when its leaders treat ethics as optional — or worse, as a political weapon — and ignore residents' calls for reform?
Below are ten examples drawn from the public record. They come from City Council meetings, Civil Grand Jury reports, city contracts, and other public documents.
These are not allegations. They are documented decisions and patterns of behavior measured against Santa Clara’s own Code of Ethics & Values, which remains the city’s official ethics code today.
Taken together, they show what happens when a city dismantles its ethics infrastructure and normalizes governance without accountability.
These ten examples illustrate the track record this Council brings into decisions about Santa Clara’s future. (Click on the + sign below to read more of each story.)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 and help him with his unsuccessful bid to become mayor.
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.
4. 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?" (See image below of actual slide used.)
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.
5. 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.
6. Have given the Stadium Authority and its partners an "ethics exemption" to 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.
7. 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.
8. Are doing nothing to protect the City's self-government from a known threat.
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.
9. 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.
10. 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 gutted 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 87% 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.
Four Once-in-a-Generation Decisions
Now Santa Clara faces four decisions that present a genuine opportunity to rebuild public trust — perhaps the most significant opportunity in a generation.
The 49er PAC majority and the senior City staff who have enabled them are approaching two of those decisions — the ethics code and the ethics commission — the same way they have approached ethics, accountability, and public participation since taking office: hire a consultant they control, structure the process to limit public input, and reach a predetermined conclusion after consulting with City staff and GEC members.
A third decision —the Stadium "put right," a 13th year (2026-2027) provision buried in the Stadium Lease that would give the 49ers year-round operational control of Levi's Stadium and all of its revenues for the remaining 27 years of the lease — they are not discussing at all.
The fourth, the Charter Review, is the one process that has genuinely involved the public. But two critical questions are not on the agenda — the Stadium Authority and ethics and public trust protections—and without them, the Charter cannot be the governing document Santa Clara needs now and into the future.
The window to change these outcomes is open. It will not stay open long. This Council and staff have demonstrated time and again that they will not change. Only the people can bring about the change Santa Clara needs now. Here's what's going on.
Charter Review
The City Charter is being updated.
But the Stadium Authority—which shares leadership, staff, and legal counsel with the City—has been excluded from the review.
Without addressing the Stadium Authority, the Charter cannot fully resolve Santa Clara’s most significant governance and ethics issues.
Without including the Stadium Authority, the Charter can not accurately describe the roles of the Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Finance Director.
The Charter functions as Santa Clara’s constitution. Excluding the Stadium Authority would be like writing the U.S. Constitution but leaving out the presidency—ignoring one of the most powerful institutions shaping public decisions in the city.
Public Trust and ethics infrastructure protections (values-based code for all, independent ethics and public trust accountability system) should also be embedded in the Charter so future Councils or staff cannot ignore or dismantle them—only strengthen them.
Key Questions
• How should the Charter address Stadium Authority governance and conflicts of interest?
• How can city elections, initiatives, recall, referendum be changed so voters can counter the negative power of independent espenditures?
• Which ethics protections should be embedded in the Charter?
Ethics Code Red
Santa Clara’s nationally recognized Code of Ethics & Values may soon disappear, and be replaced by a weak "folliow the law" compliance code.
The City has developed the proposed replacement largely behind closed doors over the past two years, working with a lawyer whose firm has been defending the City against employee lawsuits for 40 years. So much for hiring an independent ethics consultant using the City's regular RFP (or RFQ) process.
By scheduling two public meetings before an obscure Council subcommittee that meets quarterly on Monday mornings, City staff have shown precious little regard for public trust.
Early drafts show a major shift from a values-based ethics code that aims for at-our-best behavior to a minimal compliance document focused mainly on following existing laws.
Santa Clara adopted a values-based code in 2001 because the old compliance code provided little help when officials faced difficult decisions involving public trust. A strong ethics code should guide judgment, not simply repeat minimum legal requirements.
Key Questions
• Why replace the current Code instead of expanding it?
• Why was the process conducted without public participation?
•Why were ethics consultants not invited to apply?
•Why is the Code a compliance code?
Ethics Commission
Two Civil Grand Jury reports recommended an independent ethics commission to provide oversight this Council cannot provide for itself. The Council has now agreed to study creating one—but has also directed its consultant to include an independent ethics program and other “alternatives” to a commission.
The consultant designing the commission is the same employment defense attorney who drafted the proposed replacement ethics code. Defense attorneys are trained to protect organizations from liability, which naturally emphasizes limiting jurisdiction and minimizing exposure.
Designing an ethics commission to succeed requires the opposite approach: genuine independence from the officials it oversees, impartial appointments no council can control, adequate resources to investigate when needed, and a strong focus on prevention, advice, training, and ethical culture—not just enforcement.
Before a design emerges, the public deserves to understand what kind of oversight Santa Clara is actually being offered.
Key Questions
• Why spend $78,000 on an idea Council has rejected twice?
• Why hire an employ- ment defense attorney with no commission experience?
• Why has the public been kept from meaningful participation?
The Code of Ethics & Values
Why Public Trust Now
For four years, residents have complained. Three Civil Grand Jury reports have documented ethics and governance failures. An ethics expert has been raising the alarm publicly since 2022. The City's own survey shows 60% of residents believe Santa Clara is going in the wrong direction.
Nothing changed. If anything, the complaints and reports have only sped up what we can only describe as an anti-ethics and anti public trust agenda.
We hope there is another explanation and are open to hearing it. But right now it looks like:
- Someone realized the easiest way to stop ethics complaints is to eliminate the ethics code — so they are about to replace Santa Clara's comprehensive, values-centered Code with a follow-the-law compliance document, drafted behind closed doors by a law firm.
- Someone realized the more they rejected an independent ethics commission, the more the Civil Grand Jury would keep recommending one — so now they are studying it, asking questions that cities of every size have already answered, looking at alternative independent ethics programs, until they can say: we studied it, and it's just not right for Santa Clara; or we studied it and now we will set it up to fail. Then we can say, "It's just not right for Santa Clara."
- Someone realized that if the Stadium is excluded from the Charter Review and ethics protections are left to the City Council, the City can continue exactly as it is; the Stadium Authority can continue to meet the needs of the 49ers at the expense of the public, and no one can do anything about it because there is no ethics or public trust guardrails, no independent oversight or accountability, and no independent analysis of the Stadium "put right." The decision will undoubtedly be made in closed session without public deliberation.
That is what this site does. Here is what we promise:
We will be fact-based. Our analyses ask what a reasonable person would conclude with access only to what the public can access: what does this document actually say, and what does it mean for public trust? We follow the evidence. We correct errors when we find them.
We will cover what is happening — the ethics code revision, the ethics commission study, the Charter Review — through an ethics lens, so residents are informed about what their government is doing, or failing to do.
We will tell you what the documents mean — not just what they say. Grand Jury reports, contracts, meeting transcripts, public records. Translated into plain language, analyzed for their ethics and public trust implications.
We will create space for genuine democratic dialogue — because the City has been steadily removing opportunities for residents to speak to their government, much less to one another. That space needs to exist somewhere.
We will not tell you what to think — but what to think about, how to think it through, and how to turn thought into practical and effective action for the common good.
We will be honest about what we don't know — and rigorous about what we do.
The Bulldozer Is Already In the Yard
Twenty-five years ago, a long-time Santa Clara resident on the ethics ordinance committee pulled Dr. Shanks aside after one of the committee meetings. He didn't want Dr. Shanks to be disappointed if other residents didn't respond to the request to participate in the ethics development process.
"You've got to understand," he said. "Santa Clara residents won't respond to City Hall unless there's a bulldozer with the City's name on it in their front yard. It's already knocked down the fence and it's on its way to the front door. Then they'll respond."
After working on this site for the past three months, we believe that bulldozer has arrived. It has already knocked down the front fence, and it's on its way to the front door. There is no time to lose.
The people are the only force with the political power to change a city's direction. Thomas Jefferson understood what this moment requires:
Whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
Article II Section 1 of California's Constitution makes it law:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
The public good needs your attention. Public Trust Now is here to help.
What You Can Do
Santa Clara was once a role model for ethical leadership and public trust. Residents can help the City become that again. Here's how to start.