When we refer to “the government” in this section, we are referring primarily to the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney—as individuals and as a group making decisions and setting direction for the City.
These City leaders are among over 1700 professional staff, other elected and appointed officials, volunteers, and others who provide public service to the people of Santa Clara. It used to be in Santa Clara that public trust was part of everyone's job description.
The analyses and conclusions you will find throughout this site are based on publicly available information, our own communications with City officials, and reporting from reputable news organizations.
A clear pattern emerges from these sources. When we look at Santa Clara through an ethics lens and a public trust perspective, we see:
At the highest levels, Santa Clara’s government treats ethics as an unnecessary constraint—or a political weapon—rather than as the standards that define how government earns public trust.
To understand what this Council really thinks about ethical leadership, one another, the public, and the Ethics & Values Program it has been dismantling, we encourage residents to watch—or read the transcript of—the July 11, 2023 Council meeting.
The agenda item was whether to establish an independent ethics commission, as recommended by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in Unsportsmanlike Conduct (October 2022).
The Council had already rejected the recommendation once for its January 2023 official response. It was brought back for discussion and reconsideration six months later.
The discussion was the final 50 minutes of a six-hour meeting. Only the Council and senior staff were present in Council Chambers.
Very few members of the public, if any, watched online. No media covered it.
City staff made no formal recommendation—an unusual occurrence.
As you watch or read, keep in mind that some statements reflect individual opinions or incomplete information, and may not fully reflect the City’s ethics program as it was actually designed and implemented. A question to guide your thinking:
Does it look like the Council received the information it needed to make a fully informed decision?
Watch the meeting or read the transcript.
Draw your own conclusions.
Read what was missing from the agenda report →
See the Candidate Guide to Running for Office →
Over the past several years, a clear pattern has emerged in Santa Clara’s most important decisions.
These examples show what happens when ethics and public trust are left out of decision-making.
Each of these decisions would likely have been very different if the City had asked—and answered honestly—two questions:
Why, if at all, is this the right thing to do for the people of Santa Clara?
How, if at all, is this likely to build public trust?
For additional details for each numbered story below, click on the + (plus) sign on the left. To close the details, click on the - (minus) sign.
49er-funded PACs have spent over $10 million in the last three elections helping to elect five of their preferred candidates to a 7 seat Council/Stadium Authority majority.
The 2022 Civil Grand Jury report found that these five members "can--and do--vote in a manner that favors the Team" rather than the public--without ever publicly addressing the conflict this creates.
Trust requires independence. Week after week, Council (and even senior staff) behave as if they are 49ers employees, supporting everything the Team wants--with no recusals, no Agency Counsel (City Attorney) advisories or warnings, no City Manager directives about Stadium Authority ethics.
Read full details →
Almost all candidates running for election in Santa Clara agree to spend no more than about $25,000 on their campaigns. Candidates get some incentives to join the program and stay within limits.
But here's the problem: Independent expenditures don't count toward the spending cap. That what the 49er PACs spend their money on. It's legal for them to spend as much money as they like--and the 49er-PAC supported candidates can still claim "I didn't take any special interest money" and "I didn't spend more than $25,000." It's like a college student who tells his parents that he stayed within his budget, but fails to mention his fairy godmother who spent 20 times his parent's budget on things she figured he needed.
The only people the voluntary campaign cap hurts are opponents of the 49er candidates.They are caught between a rock and a hard place: if they don't accept the cap, they get dinged in public opinion; if they do accept the cap, they get dinged throughout the campaign by the unlimited 49er spending.
Trust requires honesty in how elections are conducted. What we see instead misleads voters.
Self-government is a fundamental principle in our democracy. 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 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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
THE FACTS: Over 14 years, successive councils have quietly dismantled Santa Clara's nationally recognized ethics program—without a single public hearing, without resident input, and without anyone officially announcing what they were doing. Resident confidence collapsed from 91% to 40%.
The ethics code, the training program, the core values, the ethics consultant position and idependent advice, the Campaign ethics program, Vote Ethics —all either eliminated, weakened, or ignored. None of these required a public vote to cancel. That's the problem.
Charter-level protection means voters—not a council majority—decide whether ethics and public trust infrastructure stays or goes. Without it, the next council can finish what this one started: a City Hall culture that practices politics without principle, government without ethics, and, ultimately, a City without trust.
TRUSTWORTHY LEADERS WOULD: Embed a values-centered ethics Code for everyone, including the Stadium Authority and other public/private partnerships, training, expertise, advice, ownership, a development plan, funding, and other components of a best practices public trust regime. This also includes an independent, funded, staffed ethics or public trust commission, with subpoena power and a robust set of sanctions. It should also include a smaller appeals Board.
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.
