23 REVISED
Date: November 18, 2025
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Rex Richardson
Subject: Implementing the Long Beach “Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR) Act” to Support and Promote Ethical Governance, Transparency, and Public Accountability
RECOMMENDATION:
Request the City Attorney to begin preparing an ordinance that consolidates the City’s ethics policies, guidelines, and legal requirements into a single comprehensive ordinance called the Long Beach “Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR) Act,” and considers the proposed policy modifications outlined by the Long Beach Ethics Commission to enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust, and staff recommendations regarding those proposed changes; request the City Attorney to conduct any additional review as necessary to ensure the final recommendations and draft ordinance language are consistent with the City Charter, State law, City policies, rules, and regulations, operational and financial feasibility, and other public policy considerations as determined by City staff.
Request the City Attorney to incorporate within the proposed Long Beach “FAIR Act” ordinance framework key amendments to the City’s Lobbyist Ordinance (LBMC Ch.
2.08) to expand the scope of this policy to improve transparency within the City’s decision-making processes, taking into account the recommendations provided by the Long Beach Ethics Commission.
Refer to the Government Operations and Efficiency Committee for public input, discussion, and feedback on the proposed ordinance provisions.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Under the City Charter, the Ethics Commission is charged with making recommendations to the City Council concerning the effectiveness of laws and policies related to governmental ethics, including lobbying activities and their influence on government actions and decision-making.
Over the course of two years, the Ethics Commission conducted a holistic review of the City’s Ethics Guide for Long Beach City Officials and Employees and other local ethics policies in order to identify gaps and make recommendations to improve existing ethics laws and policies in Long Beach. Since its establishment, the Office of Ethics and Transparency (OET) has endeavored to create a centralized ethics program in which all its resources are accessible and digestible for the City government and its residents.
Currently, there is no single comprehensive City document or policy that reflects the standards of its ethics program, and the City’s relevant ethics guidelines and requirements are dispersed across a variety of different documents prepared by the City Attorney, the City Auditor, and the Human Resources Department.
In order to simplify the process of locating, understanding, and applying ethical standards for both employees and the public, the Ethics Commission worked alongside the OET and the City Attorney’s Office to develop a proposed consolidation of the City’s ethics policies and legal requirements into one comprehensive ordinance. This unified ordinance, which is being recommended by Mayor Rex Richardson for review and approval by City Council under the title of the Long Beach “Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR) Act”, aims to provide clarity and reduce confusion caused by overlapping or contradictory provisions scattered across various sources, while also ensuring that employees and the public can easily access a single, authoritative source for all ethical guidelines to reinforce trust, accountability, and transparency in our government operations.
During this period of time, the Ethics Commission also completed a compressive assessment of the City’s existing Lobbyist Ordinance in the Long Beach Municipal Code, reviewed ethics policy best practices from other jurisdictions, and solicited community feedback through public meetings and surveys to identify opportunities to update the current Lobbyist Ordinance in an effort to enhance public understanding and transparency around the City’s decision-making processes.
Lobbying and advocacy are important avenues through which residents and community organizations can exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, petition the government for redress, and help decision-makers understand the implications of proposed actions on neighborhoods and businesses. Meaningful disclosures that allow the public to better understand the complex decision-making processes of city officials are important ways to help build and improve trust in City government.
At a time when headlines across the nation are dominated by public concerns around corruption and misconduct at the highest levels of the United States government, it has never been more important for city leaders to reaffirm our commitment to ethical governance and transparency at the local level. Public trust is the foundation of any functioning democracy and when it is shaken, every level of government suffers. By proactively strengthening the city’s ethics and disclosure rules, Long Beach can lead by example, ensuring that all decisions continue to be made in the open and in the public’s best interest. This is fundamental to promoting accountability, reinforcing the public’s faith in government, and showing residents that integrity in government is not optional — it is essential.
In taking affirmative steps to develop an overarching ethics ordinance that centralizes all ethical standards and policies, and reinforcing transparency around local lobbying activities, Long Beach will continue to lead the way in ethical governance and effective oversight, providing a foundation that promotes public confidence and accountability, operational efficiency, and a culture of fairness and integrity in City governance.
In preparing the draft Long Beach ”FAIR Act,” city staff should consider all staff recommendations regarding the proposed policy modifications outlined by the Ethics Commissions and staff recommendations in the June 13, 2025 memo in order to address potential implementation issues and support the successful integration of the new ordinance into City operations. Staff should also consider the proposed revisions and clarifications recommended by the Ethics Commission in their August 2024 memo, summarized below and modified by City staff in this letter, which aim to strengthen the city’s Lobbyist Ordinance and improve transparency across City decision-making processes.
Additional review, input, and modifications of these preliminary recommendations from the City Manager, the City Attorney’s Office, and City staff will be integral to the evolution of the final ordinance and to clarify the application of the Long Beach “FAIR Act” and any enforcement mechanisms, especially in relation to existing progressive disciplinary systems that may already be leveraged to address employee infractions.
Recommendations
The City Attorney, alongside City staff, should consider the following recommendations when drafting the ordinance.
Recommendation #1: Simplify the Threshold for Disclosure of Lobbying Contacts • Simplify lobbying registration/reporting thresholds: Focus on the number of contacts with City Officials rather than dollar amounts or hours spent. In cities like San Francisco, registration is based on the number of contacts made, making it simpler to measure and report. This should also include the addition of a clear working definition for “contacts” under LBMC Section 2.08.020 based on operational feasibility and industry standards (e.g., email, phone calls, virtual meetings) • Combine lobbying categories: Merge "business or organization lobbyist" and "contract lobbyist" into a single new category called "contact lobbyist." • Definition of a contact lobbyist:
o Any individual who makes three or more contacts in a calendar month with City Officials on behalf of their employer, or
o Makes one or more contacts on behalf of any person who pays or becomes obligated to pay for lobbying services.
o Excludes individuals lobbying on behalf of a business they own 20% or more of.
• Aggregate contacts for reporting: Add a requirement that contacts made by agents (e.g., owners, employees) on behalf of a non-individual entity (e.g., corporation) are aggregated for registration purposes. For example, multiple contacts made by different representatives of a single company would require the company to register as a contact lobbyist.
• Independent contractors: Independent contractors retained to contact city officials on behalf of a client must register and report after their first contact. • Impact of the proposed change: This change would simplify filing requirements and capture important contacts not covered by the current ordinance.
Recommendation #2: Replace “Expenditure Lobbyist” with “Lobbyist” and Reduce the Expenditure Threshold
• Rename the category: Change the term "Expenditure Lobbyist" to "Lobbyist." • Registration requirement: Triggered when an individual or entity spends or incurs $2,500 or more in a calendar year on lobbying efforts.
• Definition of lobbying: Encouraging community members or groups to influence City Officials to take specific actions.
• Current exclusions remain: Exemptions for compensation, dues payments, etc., still apply.
• Lower expenditure threshold: Reduced from $5,000 to $2,500 to reflect cost efficiencies available through digital communications and social media. • Threshold balance: The new threshold is high enough to avoid affecting residents seeking to communicate on neighborhood issues.
• Importance of transparency: Ensures the public understands that the contacts are part of a coordinated advocacy campaign.
Recommendation #3: Require Additional Information and Quarterly Reports • Amend section title: Change LBMC Section 2.08.090 to “Registration and Reporting Requirements.”
• Additional information required from lobbyists:
o Mailing address in addition to the business address.
o Specific descriptions of each municipal question, administrative action, or contact subject.
o Property address or legal description of the property if real property is involved in the contact.
o The position taken (for/against) on the matter.
o Names of all individuals involved in the contact, including those preparing reports or other materials for the lobbying contact (excluding clerical/administrative roles).
o Copies of materials provided to City Officials.
• Redaction of proprietary information: Allowed in reports but must indicate redactions on the filing. Full disclosure may still be required under the CA Public Records Act if the information is provided to a City Official. • Consolidate reporting categories: Combine Sections 2.08.090.A. and B. into one category for "contact lobbyists."
• Website enhancements:
o Recommend that the City Clerk explore improvements to the registration and reporting website, based on market software availability and financial feasibility, that may include drop-down menus with agenda item numbers, license, or application numbers.
o Make copies of materials provided to City Officials available to the public. o Allow single filing for multiple reportable roles.
• Registration and reporting deadlines:
o Lobbyists should register within 5 days of a qualifying contact. o Lobbyists should file quarterly disclosure reports, rather than semi-annual reports, to be filed within 10 business days after the conclusion of the quarter during which the contact was made .
• Transparency goals: These measures will help ensure residents can receive timely and comprehensive information about potential influences on City decision-making.
Recommendation #4: Maintain Exemption for 501(c)(3) Non-Profits and Eliminate Exemption for Other Types of Non-Profits
• Balance influence and burden: To improve transparency around non-profit advocacy efforts while minimizing compliance burdens on non-profits with limited resources, the Commission suggested the alternative of disclosing City Officials' calendars.
• Retain 501(c)(3) exemption:
o Maintain the current exemption for 501(c)(3) non-profits. o Amend Section 2.08.020.K.4.h to include officers and unpaid volunteers/members of 501(c)(3) non-profits within this exemption. • Eliminate exemptions for other non-profits:
o Remove the exemption for non-profits organized under IRC sections other than 501(c)(3) (e.g., 501(c)(4)–(7) organizations like industry trade associations).
Recommendation #5: Clarify that Any Contact to Influence a Legislative or Administrative Action is Considered Lobbying, Regardless of Pending Agenda Items
• Identified Issue:
o Lobbying registration typically occurs only when there is a specific pending legislative or administrative matter.
o Many lobbying efforts aim to support or oppose issues not yet under consideration by City Officials and are often not registered as lobbying as a result.
• Consistency with Internal Revenue Code (IRC):
o The IRC defines lobbying to include proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, regardless of whether it is pending (e.g., Treasury Regulation
1.501(c)(3)-1).
• Public Perception:
o The community may believe that lobbying only involves influencing specific pending agenda items, leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes lobbying. The current Ordinance does not explicitly state that lobbying includes influencing any legislative or administrative action, regardless of its pending status.
• Recommendation:
o Explicitly clarify the Ordinance to state that lobbying occurs any time a contact is made with a City Official to influence an administrative or legislative action, irrespective of whether that action is pending before a City body. • Impact of the proposed change:
o Ensures all relevant lobbying activities are captured under the Ordinance, not just those related to pending agenda items.
o Aligns the Ordinance's definition of lobbying with broader standards and public expectations.
Recommendation #6: Change the Title of the Ordinance to “Lobbying and Transparency in Government Decisions” and Require Disclosure of Calendar Information by “City Leaders”
• Expand the Ordinance Title: Change to “Lobbying and Transparency in Government Decisions” to reflect new focus on transparency measures. • Define “City Leaders”:
o May include the Mayor, City Council members, elected officials, City Manager, Assistant/Deputy City Managers, City Clerk, Department Heads, bureau managers, Council Chiefs of Staff, and Commissioners on Charter Commissions (e.g., Civil Service, Harbor, Utilities, Ethics). • Require Calendar Disclosure:
o City Leaders (Mayor, City Council, elected officials, City Manager, non-City Manager Department Heads) must upload their City-provided electronic calendars to the City website by the 10th of each month for the previous month.
o Remaining City Leaders must maintain calendars as public records, subject to inspection and disclosure under the Public Records Act, starting the 10th of each month for the prior month.
• Calendar Disclosure Details:
o Modeled after Santa Clara’s Ordinance No. 1950.
o Calendars should include all non-internal meetings, public events, speaking engagements, and non-scheduled meetings related to City business.
o Exemptions should mirror those in the Santa Clara ordinance and the California Public Records Act (e.g., information protected by attorneyclient privilege, personal appointments, including personal business appointments, matters related to personal safety and security, personnel issues, investigations).
o Include calendar disclosure requirements in LBMC Chapter 2.08. • Online Form for Commissioners:
o Recommend that the City Clerk explore the development of an online form for Commissioners without City computer access to maintain records of meetings related to Commission business.
o Other City Leaders may use this form or upload specified calendar information to a uniform report.
• Impact of the proposed change:
o Calendar disclosures will demonstrate the City’s commitment to transparency and help build community trust, while also providing data to assess the adequacy of lobbyist filings, acting as a check on compliance. o This data could inform future improvements to the Ordinance and related regulations.
o Not intended to capture casual, brief interactions but rather substantive discussions influencing City decisions.
Recommendation #7: Evaluating Capacity to Ensure Compliance with the Changes and Education Efforts
• Assessing Enforcement Capacity Needs:
o Evaluate potential resources needed by the City Clerk's office to support education efforts on the new requirements upon approval and annually thereafter, audits of lobbying registrations and reports to ensure accuracy and compliance, and the implementation of new calendar disclosure requirements.
o Explore opportunities in the city’s budget development process to ensure support for identified capacity needs.
• Expanded Enforcement Options:
o Recommend expanding enforcement options beyond the current misdemeanor or infraction penalties under Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 1.32.
o Explore the introduction of new civil and administrative remedies, such as administrative citations, to provide more enforcement remedies and additional options to ensure compliance with registration and reporting requirements.
Recommendation #8: Clarify Certain Requirements of the Ordinance • Enforcement Clarity:
o Clarify that the Ordinance allows enforcement against businesses or organizations and their employees or agents who fail to comply with its provisions.
• New Exemption for Contract/Grant Communications:
o Add an exemption for communications by a party or prospective party to a contract or grant, as long as the contact follows City rules governing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and the contracting or grant-making process.
• Remove Unused Definitions and References:
o Delete the definition of “activity expenses” since it is not used in the Ordinance.
o Eliminate references to the now-defunct Redevelopment Agency.
Recommendation #9: Ethics Commission Review of the Lobbying Ordinance • Scheduled Review:
o Amend Section 2.08.220 to mandate that the Ethics Commission review the effectiveness of the amended Lobbying Ordinance no later than the fifth anniversary of its effective date. The Ethics Commission should continue to review the Ordinance as necessary after the initial review. The Ethics Commission should make recommendations to the City Council regarding any needed changes or improvements based on their review.
To help inform the scope of the proposed ordinance, the City Council will receive public input on the recommended policy changes through the council’s Government Operations and Efficiency Committee.
Fiscal Impact
This recommendation requests the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance consolidating the City’s ethics policies, guidelines, and legal requirements into a single comprehensive ordinance called the Long Beach “Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR) Act.” The recommendation further requests the City Attorney to conduct additional reviews with appropriate staff to finalize the draft ordinance. This is anticipated to have a significant staffing impact beyond the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with existing City Council priorities. In order to prepare the draft ordinance, the proposal will require meet and confer with impacted labor unions. Staff will return with details about the additional fiscal impact of implementing this policy, which would include the development of new technological capacities for calendar disclosures and filings, staff time to manage ongoing calendar uploads, staff training materials, policy guidance and resources, and ongoing support.
There is no local job impact associated with this recommendation.
Suggested Action
Approve recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor Rex Richardson