Richmond Government Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics Act (Richmond GATE Act) Placing a Ballot Initiative on the November 2026 Ballot to Adopt an Ordinance that Establishes an Independent Ethics Commission

RECEIVE a presentation on the Richmond Government Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics Act (Richmond GATE Act); DIRECT the city attorney to prepare an ordinance and related ballot measure documents for City Council consideration; and DIRECT staff to calendar this item to adopt the ballot initiative resolution on July 21, 2026 and in no event later than July 28, 2026, to meet the November 2026 ballot deadline, this item must be heard before final adjournment — Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6590)/Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672-3490)/Councilmember Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).

This item was continued from the July 7, 2026, meeting.

Financial Impact

Year 1: $1,000,000 absolute mandatory floor appropriated from the General Fund, beginning the first full fiscal year following adoption ($550,000 for two positions; $450,000 for services).

Year 2: the greater of $1,000,000 or 0.5% of General Fund revenues (approximately $1,620,000 based on projected FY2026-27 revenues of $324 million).

Year 3 and beyond: the greater of $1,000,000 or an amount between 0.5% and 1.0% of General Fund revenues (approximately $1,620,000–$3,240,000), as proposed by the Commission Investigator and submitted directly to the City Council. The $1,000,000 floor is absolute and may not be reduced under any circumstances.

Staff time required to prepare ballot measure language and related documents.

Previous Council Action

None

Statement Of The Issue

Richmond residents deserve a government they can trust. This measure would place a ballot initiative before Richmond voters in November 2026 to adopt an ordinance which establishes an independent Ethics Commission with a dedicated Investigator, subpoena power, an absolute minimum budget floor, and jurisdiction over elected officials, appointed officials, commissioners, lobbyists, contractors, and nonprofits doing business with the City.

Recommended Action

RECEIVE a presentation on the Richmond Government Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics Act (Richmond GATE Act); DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and related ballot measure documents for City Council consideration; and DIRECT staff to calendar this item to adopt the ballot initiative resolution on July 21, 2026 and in no event later than July 28, 2026, to meet the November 2026 ballot deadline, this item must be heard before final adjournment — Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510- 620-6590), Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-672- 3490), and Councilmember Jamelia Brown (510-412- 2050). This item was continued from the July 7, 2026, meeting.

Discussion

Richmond is one of the few cities in the Bay Area, and among the largest cities in California, without an independent ethics commission. Los Angeles established the first such commission in California in 1990; it has now operated for 35 years. San Francisco and Oakland followed in 1993 and 1996, respectively. San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, and Sacramento have all since established their own standing ethics bodies with defined investigative authority, lobbyist registration requirements, and conflict of interest enforcement. Richmond does not. By any measure of comparability, population, budget size, or civic complexity, Richmond is an outlier. This measure would bring Richmond into alignment with best practices in California municipal governance, not by creating a new bureaucracy, but by giving Richmond residents what every comparable city already has: an independent, adequately funded body that can receive complaints, investigate alleged violations, and issue findings without being subject to political interference from the officials it oversees.

Why This Is Needed Richmond’s current structure has no independent mechanism to investigate alleged violations by elected officials; appointed commissioners, board members and task force members; lobbyists, or contractors; staff members, nor by unelected City management, including the City Manager and City Attorney. Currently, complaints must be routed through the City Attorney’s Office or Human Resources (HR). HR reports into the City Manager. The City Manager and City Attorney both report directly to the City Council, the same body whose members may be the subject of a complaint. Alternatively, complainants may file with the state FPPC or District Attorney’s office, which have limited local jurisdiction and significant case backlogs. This layered reporting structure creates an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be resolved from within the existing system. The only solution is a fully independent body structurally untethered from the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney alike, akin to the Richmond Rent Program and Rent Board, which operates independently of City Hall to administer and enforce the City’s Rent Control Ordinances. This measure applies the same principle of structural independence to government ethics oversight.

Richmond also lacks enforceable lobbyist registration requirements, contractor contribution disclosure rules, behested payment tracking, and any formal whistleblower intake function. All of these are standard features of ethics commissions in comparable California cities and are included in this proposal.

It is also worth noting that an independent ethics commission protects elected officials and City management as much as it holds them accountable. A credible, independent body that reviews a complaint and clears an official carry far more weight than any Council vote or internal determination could. For those who serve the public, this Commission is a fair, impartial process that puts findings beyond political dispute.

What the Proposed Ordinance Would Do The Richmond Government Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics Act (Richmond GATE Act) is intended to be an voter-adopted ordinance that would:

• Establish a seven-member independent Ethics Commission, operational by June 1, 2027, with staggered terms, term limits, and automatic removal triggers for conflicts of interest, nepotism, or absences.
• Appoint Commissioners through a distributed model:
• Mayor with Council confirmation (1),
• Personnel Board (1),
• General Employee Unions (1),
• Public Safety Unions (1),
• The remaining three appointed unanimously by the first four — ensuring no single official controls the Commission.
• Create a full-time, at-will Investigator position, who is a licensed California attorney in good standing with the State Bar. Who reports solely to the Commission, is exempt from civil service and collective bargaining (as with all other commissions around the state), and has sole discretion to retain outside counsel when the City Attorney has a conflict.
• Provide the Commission with subpoena power enforceable through court contempt proceedings, authority to self-initiate investigations, and exclusive administrative enforcement authority over ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying violations.
• Establish a $1,000,000 absolute budget floor in Year 1; indexed in Year 2 to 0.5% of General Fund revenues; and in Year 3 and beyond to between 0.5% and 1.0% of General Fund revenues, with any reduction from the indexed amount requiring a 5-of-7 Council supermajority, a public hearing, and written findings; the $1,000,000 floor may never be reduced under any circumstances.
• Cover elected officials, appointed officials, board and commission members, candidates, lobbyists, City contractors, staff members, and nonprofits and NGOs doing business with the City.
• Enforce campaign finance disclosure, lobbyist registration, conflict of interest rules, gift limits, behested payment disclosure, post-employment restrictions, Sunshine Ordinance compliance, Brown Act violations, and whistleblower protections.
• Require a dedicated Ethics Helpline and publicly accessible complaint log, with all decisions to review or decline complaints made at public Commission meetings.
• Prohibit use of personal email, disappearing message applications, or any non-City- issued communications platform for City business — with a seven-year records retention requirement after leaving office.

Fiscal Impact

Year 1 funding of $1,000,000 covers two positions (Investigator and paralegal support staff, approximately $550,000) and operating services ($450,000). Beginning in Year 2, the minimum appropriation rises to the greater of $1,000,000 or 0.5% of General Fund revenues, approximately $1,620,000 based on projected FY2026-27 revenues of $324 million. Beginning in Year 3 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Investigator proposes a budget within the range of 0.5% to 1.0% of General Fund revenues (approximately $1,620,000 to $3,240,000) and submits it directly to the City Council, not through the City Manager or City Attorney. Any Council reduction below the Investigator’s request

requires a 5-of-7 supermajority vote with written findings. The $1,000,000 floor is absolute and may not be reduced under any circumstances, including a declared fiscal emergency.

Los Angeles, the only California city with a voter-mandated budget floor for its ethics commission, adopted that floor specifically in response to documented political defunding following City Hall corruption scandals. Richmond can build that protection in from day one.

Beyond the direct cost of the Commission, there is a broader economic case. It appears that Cities with credible, independent ethics oversight attract more grant funding, stronger state investment, and greater business confidence. An independent ethics commission signals to outside partners and investors that Richmond is a city that takes good governance seriously, making Richmond more competitive with other Bay Area cities that have had these independent oversight and accountability measures in place for decades. The councilmembers who bring this measure to voters will have helped position Richmond for that future.

Path to the Ballo