Santa Clara committee reviews overhaul of city ethics policies, debates censure process and staff-contact rules

An outside consultant presented proposed revisions to Santa Clara's ethics policies and training during a Governance and Ethics Committee meeting, prompting debate over how council members may contact staff, when the council should refer alleged criminal or Political Reform Act violations to outside authorities, and whether to establish an independent ethics commission.

The consultant, Maureen Jacobson of LCW (Lieber Cassidy Whitmore), told the committee the draft code of ethics and values would require elected officials to "conduct their official and private affairs so as not to give a reasonable basis for the impression that any such official can be improperly influenced in the performance of their public duties." Jacobson said she also recommends that each elected official sign an acknowledgement that they have read and will abide by the code.

The revisions presented include: a replacement city code of ethics and values with expanded guidance on relations between council members and staff; an updated admonition-and-censure policy that defines admonitions and censures and proposes a multistep procedure for investigation and council action; a suggested ad hoc committee to investigate allegations; a modest change to ordinance chapter 2.145 to add the vice mayor to the definition of "city official"; and recommendations to update AB 1234-required ethics training and consider annual refreshers during a transition period.

Why it matters: The committee's choices will determine how quickly the city refers potential criminal or campaign-law violations to prosecutors or the FPPC, how the council polices its own members, and whether the city creates a permanent independent ethics commission in a later phase. Committee members repeatedly warned that poor drafting could lead to 'weaponization' of admonitions or censures for political reasons.

Major proposals and points of debate

- Council-staff communications and the "10-minute rule": City Manager Jovan Grogan described an existing communications memo that allows brief contacts with department heads for quick questions provided the city manager is copied, but he told the committee that prolonged inquiries or multiple short requests could be curtailed: he said staff would "pull back" the practice if it began to divert resources. Council Member Amber Chahal asked for clearer language so members know when they may contact department heads directly and how that interacts with the city manager's role.

- Definition of "prepare any report": Committee members asked whether the policy's proposed prohibition on preparing "any report without approval of the council" would bar a council member from seeking or presenting short informational materials. Jacobson said the intention was to prohibit an individual from producing a document purporting to be issued by the council; she offered to revise the language (committee members suggested phrasing such as "formal report") to make that distinction explicit.

- Admonition and censure process: Jacobson proposed clearer definitions and a procedure that would require an investigation before the council considers censure. She asked the committee whether allegations of criminal conduct or FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) violations should "may" or "shall" be referred to the district attorney or FPPC. Committee members favored keeping referral language permissive ("may") but asked staff to provide explicit criteria by which a permissive referral would become mandatory.

- Investigative body: The consultant recommended an ad hoc ethics committee to screen complaints and make findings before a censure goes to full council. Several members, including Council Member Park, expressed skepticism about a council-controlled ad hoc panel and urged exploration of an independent ethics commission (phase 2). Park warned volunteer panels and ad hoc bodies can reflect political bias and said he wants any investigative body to be demonstrably independent.

- Safeguards against 'weaponization': Multiple members stressed the need for findings and thresholds to limit politicized censure motions. Council Member Park said, "if something is a criminal matter, then it's kind of like putting the cart before the horse if you also do a censure action," arguing the council should generally defer to formal investigatory bodies while retaining the ability to act if facts warrant.

- Training and compliance: Jacobson recommended integrating revised local policies into the AB 1234 ethics training required for elected officials and suggested considering annual refreshers during the transition. Staff confirmed existing tracking of training attendance and that certificates are issued when officials attend in person.

Other changes noted

- Ordinance update: Jacobson said she added the vice mayor to the definition of "city official" in ordinance chapter 2.145 and made no other substantive changes to that ordinance in her review.

- Signing the code: The draft would add an affirmation that each elected official signs to acknowledge they read and will adhere to the code; Jacobson described that as a new recommendation.

Votes and next steps

- Consent calendar: The committee approved the minutes for the Dec. 2, 2024 Governance and Ethics Committee meeting (motion and second not named). The transcript records the consent calendar passing by voice vote, "passes 2-0."

- Scheduling: The committee voted to defer three remaining agenda items to a special meeting. The motion to "defer the 3 balance items to a special meeting" was moved and seconded; the committee recorded the motion as approved by voice vote (all in favor, no opposition). The transcript does not record the names of the mover or seconder; vote recorded as unanimous of members present.

Staff and consultant commitments

City Manager Jovan Grogan and outside counsel said they will return with revised draft language (including a redline version) that clarifies: the 10-minute rule and when direct staff contacts are permitted; a narrower definition of "report" (e.g., "formal report"); clearer criteria for when a permissive (may) referral to the DA or FPPC should be mandatory (shall); alternative procedures if the committee declines to establish an ad hoc investigative panel; and how the proposed rules would dovetail with existing personnel and Brown Act constraints. The city manager and consultant said phase 2 work on an independent ethics commission is still forthcoming and is expected later this year.

What's next: Staff will revise the drafts and return to the committee with tracked changes and proposed thresholds/criteria for referrals and censure findings. The committee asked staff to schedule a special meeting to finish the remaining items on the agenda and requested the consultant provide the behavioral-standards draft and a redline of proposed changes at the next appearance.

Ending: The committee ended the session after votes to approve the consent calendar and to schedule a special meeting; the consultant and staff will return with revised drafts and clarifying language before the committee advances final recommendations to the full City Council.