Santa Clara committee defers ethics commission decision, asks staff for options and expert input

Santa Clara’s Governance and Ethics Committee heard a consultant review of ethics‑commission models on Jan. 16 and voted unanimously to ask staff for a follow‑up report that lays out options, costs and the role of staff.

Maureen Jacob, managing partner in the San Francisco office of the law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, told the committee she focused her presentation on “the potential adoption of an ethics commission,” surveying models in San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and other U.S. cities and describing differences in investigative, advisory and enforcement authority. Jacob said commissions can be advisory or endowed with the power to hold hearings, issue subpoenas and impose fines depending on how a city structures them.

The committee’s request for more information grew out of concerns from members who said Santa Clara lacks data needed to decide whether a local commission would duplicate state oversight by the Fair Political Practices Commission, create new costs, or be perceived as politicized. Council members pressed Jacob on practical questions including who would be covered (staff, elected officials or contractors), whether a local body would duplicate FPPC or grand‑jury authority, subpoena power and likely budget and staffing needs.

“An ethics commission particularly if you choose to have members who have certain qualifications…can help ensure compliance with ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws,” Jacob said, while also warning that a commission can be “very expensive” and risks being politicized if appointments are not carefully designed.

Several committee members urged caution. One member criticized prior enforcement of existing city rules and said adding another body without clear accountability or remedies could worsen public distrust. The member argued the city should first demonstrate it will follow through on existing ordinances and censure or removal processes before adding a new oversight body.

Public commenters underscored both sides of the debate. Doctor Tom Shanks told the committee the agenda packet was confusing and asked for a continuance and clearer, side‑by‑side documents so residents could meaningfully review proposals: “This packet fails that test,” he said. Wanda Buck, a longtime local resident, urged the committee to pursue measures to improve ethics and public trust.

Rather than approve an ordinance or commission design, the committee unanimously adopted a motion asking staff to return with a report that presents: a range of options (including an ethics commission and alternatives), comparative budget and meeting schedules where available, examples of small‑jurisdiction approaches or professionalized third‑party models, in‑person expert witnesses the committee can question, and explicit descriptions of staff roles under each option. The motion passed with no recorded nay votes.

The committee also received a brief staff calendar report noting the committee generally meets quarterly and provided proposed 2026 meeting dates. Members discussed adding meetings to reduce a backlog of governance items.

The committee did not set a deadline for the staff report. Chair Hall closed the meeting after confirming the referral and adjourned.