This article was originally posted to LinkedIn on October 29, 2025
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!An Important Discussion Today
Today (Thursday, October 30, 2025) at 10 a.m. via Zoom, Santa Clara’s Governance & Ethics Committee will review the city’s Gift Policy and a new policy on event/seat tickets. If the city gets these right, trust can begin to rebuild. If not, it’s more bad business as usual.
The Law is the Floor, Not the Ceiling
At Public Ethics Now, we argue that local governance must rest not only on legal compliance but also on ethical leadership and public trust. Compliance asks, “Is this legal?” Ethical leadership asks, “Is this right?” and “Are we trustworthy?” When policy focuses on gifts, tickets, hospitality, or access to government, the question isn’t just “What does the law require?” but “What do the people require to believe we put their interests above any private or special interests?” A credible gift/ticket policy must make clear—by rule and by practice—that no gift, favor, hot ticket, independent political spending, or special access will buy influence.
Why State Law Isn’t Enough
Staff may suggest state FPPC rules are sufficient. They aren’t.
- The state’s per-source gift limit (currently $630) and disclosure rules emphasize compliance, not the appearance of influence.
- State rules don’t fully cover local risks—tickets and hospitality, backstage access, independent expenditures, or entities with business before the city—as precisely as a local policy can.
- Cities adopt stronger local policies not because state law is weak, but because local contexts demand a higher bar: sharper definitions, lower thresholds, stricter source restrictions, public registries, real enforcement, and a visible commitment to ethical leadership. The law is the minimum standard—Santa Clara must aim higher.
What the Policy Should Include
As you review the draft, ask:
- Does it prohibit or tightly restrict gifts from entities with business before the city or those who may come before the city?
- Does it require officials to consider the appearance of influence, even for modest gifts?
- Are disclosures robust, searchable, and timely—and are they enforced?
- Is “gift” defined broadly (tickets, hospitality, tours, access)?
- Are thresholds lower or sources stricter than the $630 state minimum?
- Is there real accountability (audits, periodic review, sanctions) and required training?
- Does it clearly state that officials and staff are custodians of community trust, not mere rule-followers?
Why This Matters for Santa Clara
These policies will shape how the public views decision-makers, how developers and contractors assess access, and whether the Council and senior staff internalized the lessons of three negative Civil Grand Jury reports. Whatever those reports got wrong, they tried to speak truth to power. Policies written after them deserve special scrutiny. Ethical leaders improve their practice and write policies that help everyone get better at fulfilling their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, impartiality, and transparency. Judge for yourself.
Final Word
Let’s also keep the bigger picture in view: the gift policy can’t regulate constitutionally protected independent expenditures—the largest source of perceived influence here. Candidates have said they wish such spending wouldn’t happen; none has publicly led a concrete city process to address what can be done within the city’s jurisdiction.
The next step is clear: when will Santa Clara design a companion policy that meaningfully addresses independent expenditures and their effects on public trust?
