Date: April 20, 2026
To: Thomas B. Modica, City Manager
From: Heather Van Wijk, Ethics Officer
For: Government Operations and Efficiency Committee
Subject: Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
On November 18, 2025, City Council approved a recommendation to prepare an ordinance that consolidates the City’s ethics policies, guidelines, and legal requirements into a single comprehensive ordinance called the Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR) Act, including proposed amendments to the City’s lobbyist ordinance to expand the scope of this policy to improve transparency within the City’s decision-making processes, and to refer to the Government Operations and Efficiency (GO&E) Committee for public input, discussion, and feedback on the proposed ordinance provisions.
On March 10, 2026, GO&E received a presentation from staff on the FAIR Act proposal. The discussion focused primarily on the proposed lobbying chapter and concluded with several questions for staff to research. These questions centered on clarifying definitions, applicable exemptions, calendaring requirements, associated staff impacts, and enforcement mechanisms, as well as anticipated fiscal implications. This memorandum reports back on the GO&E Committee’s initial feedback and questions.
Background
Ethics laws, City policies, and best practices do not currently live in a single ordinance. The City’s Ethics Commission originally developed recommendations to establish a comprehensive ordinance to consolidate these various regulations, and the FAIR Act builds on the Ethics Commission’s initial recommendations.
As drafted, the FAIR Act includes a total of ten chapters:
• Chapter 4.01 – General Provisions
• Chapter 4.02 – Code of Conduct and Ethics
• Chapter 4.03 – Conflict of Interest
• Chapter 4.04 – Use of City Resources
• Chapter 4.05 – Gifts, Meals, and Entertainment
• Chapter 4.06 – Outside Activities
• Chapter 4.07 – Political Activities
Memorandum
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
• Chapter 4.08 – Ex Parte Contacts and Fair Hearings
• Chapter 4.09 – Lobbying
• Chapter 4.10 – Donations, Sponsorships, and Fundraising The following sections provide staff responses to the questions and areas of focus identified by the GO&E Committee during its March 10, 2026 meeting. The Committee’s direction was focused primarily on the proposed lobbying chapter of the FAIR Act. Staff conducted additional research and analysis to clarify key provisions within this chapter. The sections below are organized to align with the Committee’s inquiries and are intended to support continued discussion and informed decision-making as the item returns to GO&E for further consideration.
Contact Lobbyist Definition
The Ethics Commission has recommended that “business or organization lobbyist” and “contract lobbyist” in LBMC Section 2.08.020 be combined into one category and rename it “contact lobbyist.” A “contact lobbyist” means any individual who makes three or more contacts in a calendar month with City officials on behalf of the individual’s employer or an organization that the individual is representing as a volunteer, member, officer or director, excepting an individual who is making the contact as an employee, volunteer, member, officer or director of an entity organized under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). The Ethics Commission’s recommendation was loosely based on benchmarking done in the City of San Diego and the City of San Francisco.
Committee discussion reflected overarching concerns about the justification and practical application of both the proposed contact and expenditure thresholds. The Committee questioned the rationale for establishing a three-contact threshold and emphasized the need for a clearer explanation of how that number was determined, particularly for public understanding. Similarly, while there was general recognition that advances in technology have reduced the cost of lobbying and support lowering the expenditure threshold from $5,000 to $2,500, the Committee sought greater clarity on what constitutes “cost efficiencies” and how the expenditure threshold operates in relation to the contact threshold. The Committee requested that staff conduct additional research on how different jurisdictions define several key terms in their lobbyist ordinances and regulations, including “contact lobbyist” and “expenditure lobbyist.”
City and County of San Francisco
Regulation 2.106-1 of the San Francisco Lobbyist Regulations defines a “contact” as “any communication for the purposes of influencing local legislative or administrative action with a member of the staff of an officer of the City and County when it is understood, or could be reasonably expected, that the staff member will transmit the terms of the communication to an officer of the City and County.” Regulation 2.106-2 provides that “contacts” include but are not limited to an in-person meeting, telephone call, video conference, letter, fax, e-mail, and text message.
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
Under San Francisco law, a “contact lobbyist” means any individual who either:
(1) Makes five or more contacts in a calendar month with officers of the City and County on behalf of the individual’s employer (i.e., an in-house lobbyist); or (2) Makes one or more contacts in a calendar month with an officer of the City and County on behalf of any person who pays or who becomes obligated to pay the individual or the individual’s employer for lobbyist services (i.e., a paid professional lobbyist).
Further, an individual is not a contact lobbyist if that individual is lobbying on behalf of a business of which the individual owns a 20% or greater share. (San Francisco Campaign and Government Conduct Code § 2.105.)
City of San Diego
The San Diego Municipal Lobbyist Ordinance defines “contact” as “the act of engaging in a direct communication with a city official for the purpose of influencing a municipal decision.” The ordinance further explains how direct communications are treated as separate contracts:
(1) Each discussion with a city official regarding a different municipal decision is considered a separate contact;
(2) Each discussion regarding a municipal decision with a city official and members of that official’s immediate staff, or with multiple immediate staff members of the same city official, is considered a separate contact; and
(3) Multiple identical or substantially similar written communications made by letter, facsimile or electronic mail to one or more city officials pertaining to a single municipal decision may be considered a single contact for that municipal decision.
A “direct communication” means either (1) talking to, either by telephone or in person; or (2) corresponding with, either in writing or by electronic transmission or facsimile machine. (San Diego Municipal Code § 27.4002.)
The San Diego lobbyist ordinance does not include “contact lobbyist” as a type of lobbyist.
Rather, the ordinance categorizes the types of entities that are subject to the lobbying disclosure and registration requirements as either a “lobbying firm,” “organization lobbyist,” or “expenditure lobbyist”:
• A “lobbying firm” is defined as a firm that has clients and is paid to contact a city official to influence a municipal decision on behalf of a client. A single paid lobbying communication by a lobbying firm triggers the ordinance’s registration requirement. • A business or organization, including nonprofit or charitable organizations, qualifies as an “organization lobbyist” if its owners, officers, or employees have an aggregate total of 10 or more lobbying contacts with a city official on behalf of the business or organization within any 60-day calendar period.
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
• An “expenditure lobbyist” is defined as any person or entity that spends $5,000 or more within a calendar quarter on activities designed to influence one or more municipal decisions.
(San Diego Municipal Code § 27.4002; San Diego Ethics Commission Lobbying Manual, pp. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.)
State of California
State-level lobbying is governed by the California Political Reform Act. An individual who engages in “direct communication” with a state official for the purpose of influencing state governmental decisions qualifies as either an in-house lobbyist or a contract lobbyist, as defined by the Political Reform Act. An individual engages in “direct communication” when they appear as a witness before, talk to (either by telephone or in person), correspond with, or answer questions or inquiries from a state official. The Political Reform Act does not include a “contact lobbyist” as a type of lobbyist. (Gov. Code § 82039.) Considerations for the Committee
The approaches outlined above demonstrate that jurisdictions vary in how they define “contacts” and structure thresholds for lobbying registration and disclosure. Some jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, rely on a defined number of contacts within a specific timeframe, while others, such as San Diego, categorize lobbying activity based on the type of entity and level of activity or expenditures. Additionally, the cost of lobbying—particularly through digital outreach and coordinated campaigns—has decreased over time due to advances in technology, allowing individuals and organizations to reach broader audiences with fewer resources, which may have implications for how expenditure thresholds are evaluated.
These examples are provided to support the Committee’s discussion and to inform a policy determination regarding how the City may wish to define “contact” and establish appropriate thresholds within its own ordinance, if it would like to recommend changing what is currently drafted in the FAIR Act.
Grassroots Lobbyist and Expenditure Lobbyist
Under the City’s current ordinance, an “expenditure lobbyist” refers to an individual or entity that organizes or funds campaigns encouraging others to contact City officials on a particular issue. The Ethics Commission recommends renaming this category to “grassroots lobbyist” to better reflect its function and lowering the registration threshold from $5,000 to $2,500 in annual spending. This adjustment recognizes that modern digital tools have made outreach more affordable, while still maintaining a threshold high enough to avoid capturing routine community engagement. Existing exclusions, such as compensation and dues, would remain unchanged.
The City Council-adopted recommendation, alternatively, recommended simplifying the terminology by using the broader term “lobbyist”. However, Committee discussion suggested a preference for maintaining a distinct label, consistent with the Commission’s recommendation, to avoid confusion between different types of lobbying activity, and requested Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
staff to research how different jurisdictions define “expenditure lobbyists.” The Committee also requested to know how different jurisdictions define expenditure lobbyists.
City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco law defines an “expenditure lobbyist” as any person, other than a governmental entity, who makes payments totaling $2,500 or more in a calendar month for activities to solicit, request, or urge other persons to communicate with officers of the City and County in order to influence local legislative or administrative action. (San Francisco Campaign and Government Conduct Code § 2.105.)
City of San Diego
As discussed above, an “expenditure lobbyist” under San Diego law means as any person or entity that spends $5,000 or more within a calendar quarter on activities designed to influence on or more municipal decisions. Expenditure lobbyists include persons or entities that use indirect methods of influencing municipal decisions. Direct lobbying efforts, such as meeting with a city official, are disclosed as contacts under San Diego law. (San Diego Municipal Code section 27.4002; San Diego Ethics Commission Lobbying Manual, pp. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.) State of California
The Political Reform Act does not use the term “expenditure lobbyist.” An individual is a lobbyist if they (1) lobby on behalf of their employer only and spend at least one-third of their compensated time in a calendar month engaging in direct communication with qualifying officials; or (2) lobby for someone other than their employer and receive or are entitled to receive $2,000 or more in a calendar month engaging in direct communication with qualifying officials. (Gov. Code § 82039.)
Considerations for the Committee
During its meeting on March 10, 2026, the Committee asked questions about the definitions relating to the different types of lobbyists. Staff recommends maintaining definitions that establish a clear distinction between the different types of lobbying, as proposed by the Ethics Commission.
Nonprofit Exemptions and Applicability
Another area of discussion at the Committee meeting was related to proposed nonprofit exemptions to lobbying requirements. In considering potential exemptions for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, it is important to recognize that these entities are already subject to significant federal limitations on lobbying activity. Under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, a 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in lobbying as a substantial part of its overall activities without risking its tax-exempt status. Additionally, such organizations are required to disclose their lobbying activities annually in federal tax filings, providing an existing layer of transparency and accountability.
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
As a result, these federal requirements function as built-in guardrails that inherently limit the scope and frequency of lobbying conducted by 501(c)(3) organizations. Based on discussions at Ethics Commission public meetings, many nonprofit representatives characterize their interactions with City officials as permissible advocacy rather than lobbying, in part due to IRS rules and concerns about maintaining their tax-exempt status.
Accordingly, a local exemption from municipal lobbying requirements would not materially alter the underlying limitations on these organizations. Rather, 501(c)(3) entities already operate within a regulated framework that restricts lobbying activity and requires disclosure at the federal level, independent of any City-specific exemption. Maintaining this exemption helps manage administrative and staffing impacts. Without a clear exemption, the potential to expand the pool of registrable lobbyists to include a large number of additional nonprofit entities could require significant additional resources from the City Clerk to monitor activity, process filings, and support compliance.
Calendaring and Disclosure Requirements
The FAIR Act proposes to require public calendar disclosures for elected officials and select staff. During City Council discussion of this item on November 18, 2025, and during the Committee item on March 10, 2026, members expressed concerns about the staffing impacts and potential security challenges with this aspect of the proposal.
Operational and Staff Impacts
Staff consulted with the Technology and Innovation Department (TID) to evaluate feasible approaches for implementing calendaring and disclosure requirements, comparing the Ethics Commission’s recommendation of using either the Santa Clara model or the San José model.
TID recommends a process similar to the City of Santa Clara—where calendar entries are exported into an Excel sheet or CSV, reviewed, formatted, and uploaded as a final document (e.g., PDF)—as operationally feasible within the City’s current systems. This approach would require the development of standardized procedures to ensure consistency across offices, including uniform formatting, required data fields, and clear guidance on what must be disclosed. TID also noted that all published materials would need to meet accessibility standards, including ADA and WCAG compliance, which may require additional formatting and review prior to posting.
The City of San José follows a different model: maintaining a separate, public-facing Outlook calendar that can be uploaded directly to a webpage. While this may seem more efficient than the Santa Clara approach, TID highlighted potential risks with this approach, specifically the increased likelihood of inadvertent disclosure of non-reportable or sensitive information, particularly given that elected officials and staff often manage both personal and official commitments within a single calendar system. TID expressed concern that direct calendar integration could unintentionally expose personal or otherwise exempt entries.
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
Operationally, implementation would require clarity on roles and responsibilities, including whether individual offices or departments (e.g., Council District Offices, Mayor’s Office, City Manager, Harbor, etc.) will be responsible for preparing and submitting calendar disclosures on their web pages, or whether a centralized function will compile and post entries.
Alternatively, the Clerk’s Office is open to hosting this calendaring system on a dedicated page on the City Clerk’s website.
In response to concerns about administrative burden, staff note that both the City of Santa Clara and the City of San José models are designed to be relatively low-impact from a staffing perspective. While there is an initial learning curve, once officials and their staff are trained on how to appropriately code and categorize calendar entries, the process becomes routine and can be incorporated into existing workflows. In practice, this front-end approach is often more efficient than the current reactive process, where staff must review, redact, and prepare calendar records in response to Public Records Act requests. By standardizing entries at the outset, much of the time-intensive back-end work is reduced, resulting in a more streamlined and predictable process overall.
Current resources and budgeting constraints restrict City Clerk staff from auditing the calendar against lobbyist reporting on a monthly basis. The department will continue to collect reports and direct enforcement inquiries to the City Prosecutor’s Office.
Disclosure Requirements and Security Concerns
Modeled after the City of Santa Clara’s approach, the proposed calendaring requirements would include all scheduled and unscheduled non-internal, City-related meetings and interactions - such as City Council meetings, public events, and meetings or discussions with constituents including developers, union representatives, consultants, and lobbyists, while excluding internal City business. For each applicable entry, general information would be disclosed, including the names, titles, and affiliated organizations of participants, along with a high-level description of the issues discussed.
However, consistent with the California Public Records Act, any disclosures would be made in accordance with applicable legal standards, including exemptions for personal appointments, privileged communications, personnel matters, recruitment activities, sensitive site-specific business information, criminal or security-related matters, whistleblowers, negotiations by authorized personnel or personnel issues, and individuals who may fear retaliation, among others. Importantly, the intent of this requirement is to provide transparency into the frequency and nature of external contacts—not to disclose sensitive logistical details. As such, there is flexibility to withhold or redact specific information, such as meeting locations or recurring schedules, where disclosure could raise legitimate security concerns, consistent with Public Records Act guidelines.
Commission Requirements
The Committee also inquired about how this calendaring requirement applies to commissioners. The Ethics Commission’s recommendation to extend the calendar disclosure Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
requirement to City commissioners would apply specifically to commissioners serving on Charter commissions. Under this approach, commissioners would maintain calendars that are subject to the Public Records Act and available for inspection upon a formal request. It should be noted that City commissioners should not be meeting with lobbyists outside of an agendized, public meeting.
Considerations Regarding Conflict of Interests
The issue of conflicts of interests was not a central focus of the Committee’s discussion; however, it is important to discuss given its broad applicability throughout the FAIR Act. The definition referenced below has implications across multiple provisions and may warrant further discussion to ensure consistency and understanding.
Under the California Political Reform Act, members of a legislative body are required to recuse themselves from participating in any matter in which they have a qualifying conflict of interest.
A public official must recuse themselves from participating in a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on themselves or any of their economic interests. Under the City’s proposed FAIR Act, a financial interest would include an interest of a public servant’s “Close Personal Relation” (Section 4.03.010). • A “close personal relationship” is defined to include three categories: (1) an intimate partner, (2) a business partner, or (3) an immediate family member. (Section
4.01.030(I)).
• "Immediate family” is defined as “a public servant's intimate partner and dependent children.” (Section 4.01.030(W)).
• “Intimate partner” is defined as “a spouse, domestic partner, or any person who regularly cohabits with, or uses the domicile of, the public servant as their residence”. (Section
4.01.030(V)).
State law already recognizes spouses and domestic partners as immediate family members under the context of the conflict of interests regulations. However, the City’s definition of “intimate partner” differs in that it creates new terminology adding persons the public servant cohabits with, or uses the domicile of the public servant as their residence. As a result of this expansion, an “intimate partner” is incorporated wherever the Act applies standards or obligations based on “close personal relationships”, including in contexts where “immediate family” would otherwise be the operative category. This new definition of “close personal relations” or “close personal relationship” is used throughout the FAIR Act in the following chapters: Conflicts of Interests; Use of City Resources; and Gifts, Meals and Entertainment.
Because this definition expands beyond traditional state law concepts, enforcement would be extremely challenging, and potentially non-existent, as the City has no resource to identify individuals with whom a public servant regularly cohabits with, thereby necessitating reliance on self-disclosure.
Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
Accordingly, the Committee may wish to consider whether further clarification of this definition is necessary to ensure consistent application and alignment with state law principles.
Alternatively, GOE could place the responsibility on individual public servants whether a relationship qualifies as an “intimate partner” under the City’s definition.
Enforcement
The proposed FAIR Act framework includes provisions that contemplate criminal enforcement applicable to lobbyists as well as City officials and employees. Given the potential implications of these provisions, further legal and operational review is warranted prior to adoption.
Specifically, input from the City Attorney, City Prosecutor, and City Clerk is necessary to assess legal sufficiency, prosecutorial authority, and alignment with existing enforcement mechanisms.
This review should also evaluate whether the City Prosecutor’s Office would be the appropriate entity to pursue such cases and, if so, the extent to which additional staffing, resources, or budgetary support may be required to effectively implement and sustain this enforcement approach.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The FAIR Act proposal is anticipated to have a significant impact on staff beyond the currently budgeted levels. Implementation would require additional administrative and operational capacity across multiple functions. To advance the draft ordinance, the City would also need to engage in a formal meet-and-confer process with affected labor unions, given the potential impacts on employee roles and responsibilities.
Additionally, the City is currently working to identify a 3% savings in the current fiscal year and are anticipating cut scenarios to address the estimated $61.3 million deficit in Fiscal Year 2027.
At present, staff resources in the Clerk’s office related to monitoring lobbying requirements are allocated to meet the state and local legal requirements. There is currently no capacity to do additional oversight of lobbying and calendaring systems. Any proposed enhancements to staff’s responsibilities as a result of the FAIR Act would need to be incorporated in the FY 27 budget discussions.
The Municipal Code currently directs the Clerk’s Office to recoup monetary fines for any Lobbyist that fails to comply with their lobbyist registration. The current process of assessing delinquent fees on a daily basis requires extensive staff resources that could be allocated to other areas within the department.
The overall fiscal impact will extend beyond personnel considerations and should account for the development and maintenance of technological capabilities to support calendar disclosures and filings. The City Clerk explored alternative technology solutions, with initial implementation estimates of approximately $74,000 (including annual maintenance, hosting, and data migration) and approximately $350,000 over five years. In contrast, the City of Santa Clarastyle approach that our TID staff recommends, utilizing a standardized Excel/CSV spreadsheet, represents the most cost-effective option within current capacity. Resources will still be needed Responses to Government Operations and Efficiency Committee Questions on the FAIR Act Proposal
April 20, 2026
to develop and deliver staff training, create clear policy guidance and supporting materials, and provide ongoing program administration and user support.
The Committee will hear an item on April 21, 2026, to continue discussing components of the FAIR Act, and staff will continue to refine and provide recommendations on the proposal based on that input, including potentially bringing forward additional recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. Should the Committee wish to advance formal recommendations back to the City Council for further direction, it may agendize them for consideration at a future City Council meeting.
CC: DAWN MCINTOSH, CITY ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS P. HAUBERT, CITY PROSECUTOR
LAURA L. DOUD, CITY AUDITOR
APRIL WALKER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
TERESA CHANDLER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
MEREDITH REYNOLDS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
GRACE YOON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
TYLER CURLEY, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
KEVIN LEE, CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER
MONIQUE DE LA GARZA, CITY CLERK
DEPARTMENT HEADS