On Tuesday, Richmond city council will discuss a ballot initiative to adopt an ordinance that could begin the process to establish an independent ethics commission.
The proposed Richmond Gate Act ballot measure would go before City of Richmond voters in November 2026. If approved, the Commission would be armed 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.
The item is being brought forward by councilmembers Cesar Zepeda, Soheila Bana and Jamelia Brown. It first needs council approval to direct the attorney to work on ballot language and return to council for final approval. To move forward, with three working on the measure, it would need support from one other member of the city council — Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor Doria Robinson, or councilmember Sue Wilson or Claudia Jimenez.
Financial Impact if approved:
- 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.
Richmond is looking to follow Los Angeles who established a commission back in 1990 – followed by San Francisco (1993) and Oakland (1996), while San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach and San jose have all created commissions with investigative authority, lobbyist registration requirements, and conflict of interest enforcement.
According to the staff report, this is about best practices, not creating new bureaucracy because it gives Richmond residents 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.
Per the staff report: Why It 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.
Per Staff Report: 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.
Richmond says 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
November 2026 Ballot
On Tuesday, the item will need 4 votes that would direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance and ballot measure language and resolution, and be authorized to retain outside counsel as needed, for Council consideration at the July 21 or July 28 meeting. Placing this measure on the ballot requires four affirmative votes.
Per the city, a vote in favor of the Recommended Action does not constitute a vote on the merits of the proposed ordinance, it is solely a vote to direct preparation of the necessary documents.
If You Go
Richmond City Council Meeting
July 7, 2026
5:00 pm
Full Agenda: Click Here
