I expect this work to draw attacks. It already has.

In 2022, I wrote an op-ed for the Mercury-NewsSilicon Valley Voice published a hit piece with the headline: "Tom Shanks: Situation Ethics or Ethics for Hire?" The headline made no logical sense—"situation ethics" means having no fixed principles; "ethics for hire" means rigidly following whoever pays you. You can't be both, but coherence wasn't the point. The smear was.

Silicon Valley Voice also published another piece questioning my compensation over 15 years with the city: $250,000 total, or roughly $14,700 per year—for a consultant with a Ph.D. and decades of experience who created an internationally recognized, UNESCO-cited program that achieved 91% resident approval and won two state awards.

For context:

• The 49ers spent $13+ million buying council seats
• The property tax cut gave the 49ers a $180 million windfall
• My compensation was 0.14% of what the 49ers received in tax breaks alone

When the city had the ethics program: 91% right direction, UNESCO recognition, two state awards, fiscal responsibility.

After dismantling it: 45% right direction, three Civil Grand Jury reports, $180 million handed to billionaires, national embarrassment.

Was $14,700/year worth it? The city got a bargain.

Silicon Valley Voice claimed they tried to interview me for that story. My email and voicemail records show no contact attempt. They lied in print about attempting journalistic balance.

My Policy on Responding to Smears

I didn't respond to those attacks in 2022 because I thought engaging would amplify garbage. I've since learned those smears live forever on search engines, appearing alongside legitimate journalism.

So here's my policy going forward:

Every factual error, every documented lie, every smear will be methodically rebutted with evidence. I won't ignore attacks. I'll document them.

Critics can question my work. They can disagree with my analysis. But they'll need to use facts. And when they don't, I'll show the receipts.

My work with Santa Clara (1998-2015) is a matter of public record. The ethics program's results speak for themselves.

[Read detailed rebuttals on the "Setting the Record Straight" page →]

What to Expect from This Site

Content Schedule: Two articles per week, Tuesdays and Fridays at noon.

Coverage Focus:

• Charter review process and proposals
• Ethics commission development
• Ethics code revision
• 49ers political influence and financial impact
• Civil Grand Jury report analysis
• Local media coverage (and lack thereof)
• Resident voices and community organizing

Approach:

• Evidence-based analysis with citations
• Original research and document review
• Comparative examples from other cities
• Practical recommendations for residents

Tone: Direct, factual, and unsparing when documenting failures. But always focused on solutions and the path forward.

Contact

Have information to share? Want to contribute analysis? See an error that needs correction?

Email: [contact information]

Anonymous Tips: [secure submission method if you set one up]

A Note on Independence and Support

This site accepts no advertising, no sponsorships, and no funding from any party with interests before the Santa Clara City Council or Stadium Authority. I'm not seeking consulting work, city contracts, or any position with Santa Clara government.

My only commitment is to factual accuracy and the public interest.

How This Site is Funded:

I'm doing all the work for this site myself—research, writing, analysis, website management. The 2024-2025 relaunch and expansion is possible because of AI tools that make it feasible for one person to produce professional-quality content and maintain a sophisticated platform.

The site operates on a membership support model. If you find this work valuable, I'll ask you to support it in a reasonable way—whether that's a monthly contribution or a one-time donation. Those who can't contribute financially can still access everything; public accountability journalism should be available to everyone.

If I get membership support, the site can expand and sustain. If I don't, this was still a worthwhile way to spend my time during a critical moment in Santa Clara's history. Either way, the work continues as long as it's needed.

[Support Public Ethics Now →] (link to membership/donation page)

The difference between this model and traditional consulting or advertising:

• No one can buy influence over coverage
• No conflicts of interest with parties I'm covering
• Readers support the work, not the entities being held accountable

Public Ethics Now: Because ethical government isn't radical—it's the foundation of public trust.