By Robert Haugh
Dr. Tom Shanks set up Santa Clara’s award-winning ethics program from 1985 to 2015. He was the Executive Director of Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics from 1992 to 1999.
Shanks is currently doing a study on how Santa Clara went from a model of ethical decision making to one of the most corrupt cities in California. He’s focusing on City Hall, political campaigns and local media.
Why is the Santa Clara Ethics Pledge necessary?
While most candidates sign the state’s Code of Fair Campaign Practices, it’s often ignored, and campaigns turn negative without accountability. The Santa Clara Ethics Pledge goes further, reminding candidates to run campaigns based on truth, fairness, and trust. It ensures that campaigns focus on issues and facts, so voters have the information they need to make their best voting decisions.
With the City’s past denial that the City has a public trust problem, with independent groups, especially the 49ers whose independent expenditures dwarf all of the others—the pledge encourages candidates to reject harmful tactics and put the public’s interest first.
What qualifies as a negative campaign, and how should candidates respond?
A negative campaign misleads, distorts facts, or unfairly attacks a candidate’s character, policies, or record. Candidates should publicly reject such campaigns, whether they come from the team or other independent groups, if necessary to demonstrate accountability. Ethical campaigns can critique an opponent’s record, character or policies—so long as they are fact-based and the evidence is clear.
Should candidates condemn 49ers ads?
Yes, candidates should condemn 49ers-funded ads since they distort facts or mislead voters. These ads have previously targeted opponents with unfair attacks, making it essential for candidates to distance themselves to maintain public trust. The ads can criticize alliances, but lurid headlines, half facts, reinforcing stereotypes, and fear-mongering need to be called out.
Should candidates condemn POA ads?
From what I have seen so far, the ads are relying on evidence. It is appropriate for voters to know the facts about their candidates, even if those lead to hurt feelings. Again, it’s about giving factual and real information to voters that they need to know to make their best voting decisions.
Should candidates condemn Related ads?
Related has only produced positive communication to date. If Related’s ads include misleading claims or unfair attacks, candidates should repudiate them.
Any final words?
It’s not enough to say, “I don’t take special interest money.” Repudiation means taking steps to stand with your opponent and stand out enough that voters notice. A website statement in real time is appropriate.
Criticism is fair, but campaigns must be based on truth and accountability, regardless of who funds the message. I am continuing to review ads and information as I receive it. Check out my website.
WHAT!!!! “ethics pledge”? Feels like a McCarthy era re-boot. The pressure to sign a pledge is the beginning of socialists fascism. Not good for SC
I am the 49ers mascot, Sourdough Sam, and in honor of all Suds has done for the 49ers in his position as a council member, Jed York has proclaimed tomorrow “Sourdough Sudsie” day for tomorrow’s game. Come on out to the game and watch us collapse again.
That is correct. Vartan did seem supportive of Jain, and was kind at times to Park and Becker.
Vartan wants an ethics commission, but he could not serve on it. Seems Vartan is just interested for community good.
This continues my previous comment to Mr Jain and others who need more information about my commitment to Santa Clara ethics.
Thanks
…
However, reading your response to Irreconciliable Differences (available on the Civil Grand Jury website) shows me that you have not come to that place.
The City had delayed hiring a new ethics consultant since July 11, 2023, and although it recently contracted with a law firm, understanding ethics laws is only the floor, not the ceiling. True ethical governance, like public trust, requires higher standards.
Regarding the Santa Clara Ethics Pledge, I distributed it broadly on August 9, 2024, using publicly available emails. Prior to that, I reached out generally to promote the idea, but I did not engage with any individual candidate campaigns. The pledge’s purpose is to complement existing ethics efforts—not to replace them—and to address challenges such as negative campaigning, which are not always covered by other pledges.
While I respect your decision not to sign the pledge, my hope is that all candidates will conduct campaigns that are truthful, fair, and focused on the issues. Regardless of whether they sign this specific pledge, the goal is to foster accountability and trust in our community.
As for your specific requests: I have had no communication with Mayor Gillmor since 2014. I have had virtually no contact with Mr. Vartan since January, 2024. I am independent and call ethics as I see it. Ethics is a continuous education project. Alll of us are learners. Public ethics is an individual and organizational decision to earn the public’s trust. Ethics is not a political attack.
If you have further questions or would like to continue this conversation, I’m happy to discuss.
Best,
Dr. Tom Shanks
Dear Suds,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for engaging in this important conversation about ethics and governance. I value our past discussions, and I want to address your points transparently.
I began the Pledge project and Public Ethics Now.com as a public service and as an independent ethics advocate committed to fostering public trust and accountability in Santa Clara.
I am not affiliated with or receiving financial support from any campaign, candidate, or political group. Any member of the public can call on candidates to do more to earn public trust. Any member of the public also has a moral obligation to step in when they can do something to reduce harm. My Santa Clara experience, commitments, and relationships put me in a position to call on Santa Clara’s government to do more to earn the public’s trust.
I am disappointed by the perception that I am biased. You and I have communicated at length and in person, and I have always welcomed open dialogue. My intent is not to align with any faction, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary but to offer a unique perspective—one rooted in my 14 years as the City’s ethics consultant.
Unfortunately, Santa Clara has routinely avoided serious ethics discussions and rarely, if ever, considers the ethical issues involved in every decision the Council makes.
I understand your criticisms of the Grand Jury Reports, but I had hoped by now, you, especially as a former chair and current member of the Governance and Ethics Committee, had come to a position where you could learn from these reports, as flawed as they may be.
Continued
Once again, the Jain Ministry of Truth is using Orwellian tactics. At the end of the day, the voters will decide.
Suds,
I always enjoy your ramblings. They underscore that you are always on the defense and not offering solutions. That’s not what we expect from our representatives. Once in awhile some accountability would be nice. Finger pointing and accusations are your specialties.
I , like Kirk am looking forward to your final days in office.
After you’re out of office will Robert Haugh continue to live rent free in your head?
Asking for a friend…
Jain has Gghs. It is an emotional condition that I have seen for forty years. For the record, people I knew successfully sued Gary G. ON ONE ISSUE ONLY. 87% of the time they liked him and helped Lisa on a half dozen matters
But Jain has a serious mental problems.
Sudhanshu,
What day do you testify against your teammate (Anthony Becker)?
I appreciate that Dr. Shanks is willing to study and expose what’s going on in Santa Clara. I’ve noticed that anyone who stands up to the 49ers and their minions (such as Suds Jain) gets attacked. The line if attack was established by the team years ago. They attack Lisa Gillmor. She was the first person to stand up to them. But that does really work. The Grand Jury and the public is on the corruption and deception. Suds would rather attack others instead of honestly looking at his own actions. Many others on this site and on NextDoor have commented about his dishonesty. He continues to prove us right.
Judge. Jury. Executioner. That’s what SCPOA, Gillmor, and their alliances want Santa Clara residents to view Shanks as.
Everyone should be very clear on this FACT: Shanks is not contracted by the City of Santa Clara and he has not been commissioned by an official city committee to produce guidelines for elections or policy for community communication. Shanks’ self-imposed “pledge” is not an official document of conformity that candidates for public office should be using.
A good example of how local entities adopt initiatives is the Eight Can’t Wait program created by Campaign Zero. After peer review by civic organizations, law enforcement support organizations, and the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara’s Police Department committed to and adopted some of those policies. In fact, both the Mayor and Police Chief created a video message to announce the City’s official support of the program.
• https://8cantwait.org/
• https://campaignzero.org/about/what-we-do/
• https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/police-department/community/commit-to-action
The City of Santa Clara has a long established and approved Ethics & Values program: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/governance/ethics-values#:~:text=Santa%20Clara's%20Ethics%20%26%20Values%20program,highest%20standards%20of%20professional%20conduct.
As the City’s figurehead, it is malapropos for Mayor Gillmor to encourage the promotion and actively participate in a pledge that was not officially commissioned, has not been approved by the City Council, and has not been officially adopted by City Management.
“Judge. Jury. Executioner. That’s what SCPOA, Gillmor, and their alliances want Santa Clara residents to view Shanks as.”
That is a very overdramatic characterization of the actual situation. There are people who want Shanks to continue to study and comment on political ethics in Santa Clara as he has done during his entire career.
He is making personal judgements just like we all do. None of them carry any weight of law or consequences beyond what consequences people want to take part in if they agree with his opinion.
If Shanks is “judge.jury.executioner” then so is Miles Barber. But he is not and neither is Shanks.
I do agree that voters should understand that Shanks’ ethics pledge is something he made as a local citizen and professional ethics expert but is not any kind of official pledge and that the city has its own official ethics programs as does the state.
But as with anything it is within the rights of anyone to think that the programs officially in use are not as good as they could be and to promote and take part in one that they think is better. So it is not malapropos for the city’s mayor to take part in Shanks’ ethics pledge or to promote it. This is especially true as she has publicly spoken about making efforts to bring ethics more to the forefront and improve what is officially done.
And I say this all as someone who does not care much at all about Shanks’ ethics pledge or the city’s ethics commission does.
I have serious questions about Tom Shanks motivations and why he’s so closely aligned with Lisa Gillmor acolytes Kirk Vartan and Robert Haugh.
When Shanks asked me to sign HIS ethics pledge which he misleading calls the “Santa Clara Ethics Pledge” as the City already has an official pledge. I sent him the following email to which he has yet to respond.
—————————–
Mr. Shanks,
I just read through the candidate statements for the ballot. I see that
Satish Chandra submitted his nomination papers on 7/30/2024
David Kertes submitted his nomination papers on 8/5/2024
Kelly Cox submitted her nomination papers on 8/1/2024
I submitted my nomination papers on 8/2/2024
They also submitted their ballot statements on those dates and their ballot statements say they signed the ethics pledge
Ballot statements available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-clerk-s-office/election-information/november-5-2024-election
Satish writes that he has taken the Santa Clara Ethics Pledge
David Kertes says that he has taken the Ethics Pledge
Kelly Cox says that she has signed the Santa Clara Ethics Pledge
BUT the first email I received from you asking me to sign the ethics Pledge was August 9th at 2:21 PM well after I submitted my nomination papers and ballot statements.
How is it that these Gillmor supported candidates received your ethics pledge in time to put it on their ballot statements but the rest of us did not? Seems unethical to me.
Also I don’t consider you to be an unbiased participant since you are so closed aligned to Kirk Vartan, special advisor to Mayor Lisa Gillmor.
You have produced podcasts together and written Op-Eds on Robert Haugh’s extremely biased opinion website that claims to be “news” .
How is it that Lisa Gillmor who approved the management contract with the 49ers has never received a Jabroni award from Robert Haugh? Maybe it is because she has supported him financially.
Finally how is it that you never responded to me when I gave you the attached email thread between me and Kirk Vartan, questioning her transparency on her public calendar and in PRAs?
The Grand Jury reports are full of bias and errors. I never voted to fire Deanna Santana, for example. How can I sign a pledge to accept such flawed reports verbatim?
— Suds
Looking forward to your final days as an elected official Suds. You take no responsibility for your actions and love to deflect whenever you can. I supported you for years and encouraged you to run for office. I coached you on engaging community. I am sad to see how power has blinded and corrupted you.
Care to comment on why you remained silent when Becker told you he broke the law?
That’s what I thought.
If Doctor Shanks’ ethics pledge was sent to some candidates earlier than other candidates then that is something that should be explained by Shanks. This is especially true if the timing of his sending differed along partisan lines.
Suds should also explain some of his actions. Such as why he saw fit to vote to give the honorary position of vice mayor to a man he knew had lied under oath and committed the crime of perjury.
How many times have you asked a question at a council meeting only to be told by staff that you’re wrong, but staff are much more diplomatic about your misinterpretation of facts than you are of them. Same holds true for potential erroneous facts by the grand jury. It’s a fact of life. People make mistakes and we give grace. You on the other hand just want to condemn. You are, indeed, Mr. Jain, the judge, jury and executioner.