Two proposed ethics reforms that would require political consultants to disclose their clients and establish a commission to investigate complaints against city officials will become part of a broader City Council discussion on outstanding civil grand jury recommendations, rather than advance separately for approval.
The City Council’s Legislation and Environmental Committee agreed Monday to incorporate both proposals into the city’s larger review of recommendations from two civil grand jury investigations, leaving their final details and a timeline for adoption unresolved.
The discussion came just two days before Stockton’s Sept. 23 deadline to formally respond to the latest grand jury report, which found that public infighting, leadership instability and repeated failures to address previous recommendations had weakened city governance.
Committee Chair Mario Enriquez said the proposed measures, along with outstanding recommendations involving political campaign signs, should become part of the mayor’s broader plan for addressing the grand jury’s findings.
Vice Mayor Jason Lee supported consolidating the recommendations so the full council could consider them together rather than revisit individual proposals at separate meetings.
“I feel like we keep talking about this report, and this is now two years later,” Lee said.
Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin agreed with the approach but cautioned that the city may need another extension to complete its response to the grand jury.
The committee did not formally approve either proposal Monday. Instead, Enriquez said members would incorporate the drafts into the broader discussion, where the full council could consider changes before deciding whether to adopt them.
Mandatory registration for political consultants
Under the proposed policy , Stockton would require political consultants and campaign managers working on city elections to register with the City Clerk’s Office and disclose the candidates they represent.
Consultants would need an active city business license, authorization from their clients and a registration fee of at least $50 per client. They would also have to attend an orientation covering local election rules, political signs, campaign disclosure requirements and the city’s code of conduct.
The city would publish the registry on its website and require consultants to submit quarterly reports detailing their clients, campaign activities, money received or spent and in-kind support. Late reports would trigger fees, while consultants who fail to meet registration requirements would appear as inactive.
In July, the legislation committee agreed that registration should be mandatory , reversing an earlier voluntary proposal. Members also requested additional reporting requirements and further research into creating an ethics commission.
The proposal stems from the 2023-24 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s investigation, which recommended greater transparency about political consultants following allegations involving people associated with 209 Times, a local social media platform operated by political consultant Motecuzoma Sanchez.
Sanchez previously dismissed the grand jury’s report as “illegitimate.”
The committee initially declined to pursue the proposal in September 2024, citing financial constraints, before Enriquez revived discussions earlier this year.
Although the latest draft includes mandatory registration and quarterly reporting, it does not specify how quickly consultants must register after accepting a client.
Enriquez asked staff to research deadlines used by San Francisco and Sacramento and include a more specific timeline, potentially 30 or 60 days, before bringing the proposal to the full council.
San Francisco already requires consultants who receive or are promised at least $1,000 annually for covered campaign services to register and submit quarterly activity reports.
Enriquez said Stockton’s proposed rules would not take effect until 2028, after the current election cycle. The committee has not established an implementation date in the draft.
Larkin also identified a conflict between the two proposed measures. The registry policy directs ethics complaints to the legislation committee, while the proposed ethics commission ordinance would place qualifying complaints under the new commission’s jurisdiction.
He recommended revising the language to ensure the policies work together.
Ethics commission raises questions about cost and independence
The second proposal would create a five-member Stockton Ethics Commission empowered to review and investigate complaints against elected officials, candidates, certain political committees, appointed commissioners and senior city officials.
The commission would oversee complaints involving campaign disclosures, conflicts of interest, conduct policies, travel expenses and political activity at City Hall.
Under the draft ordinance, an independent evaluator would investigate complaints and recommend action to the commission. The commission could impose administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per violation or, for certain campaign contribution violations, three times the amount improperly reported, contributed or accepted, whichever is greater.
Stockton’s proposal draws from the existing ethics commissions in Sacramento and San Francisco, although city officials said they sought a smaller model that would better reflect Stockton’s financial resources.
Unlike San Francisco, which operates a separate Ethics Commission with professional staff, Sacramento uses an independent evaluator to investigate complaints and make recommendations to its five-member commission. Stockton’s proposed investigative process closely resembles Sacramento’s.
“I don’t know if we can afford an ethics commission,” Lee questioned.
Larkin said staff had reviewed both cities’ approaches and developed a more streamlined version, although he could not provide a detailed comparison because he had not prepared the draft ordinance then.
Asked about the potential cost, Larkin said he anticipated no additional financial impact beyond staff time.
However, the proposed ordinance requires the city to retain an independent evaluator, and the materials presented Monday did not identify the cost of those services or a specific funding source.
The proposed commission’s appointment process also drew questions about its independence.
Unlike Sacramento, where the Personnel and Public Employees Committee recommends all five commissioners for appointment, Stockton would divide appointments among five city offices and bodies: the city attorney, city manager, city clerk, city auditor and City Council. Each would select one member.
Commissioners would have to live in Stockton, and at least three would need experience in law, ethics, local government or a related field. The proposal also establishes restrictions on political contributions, campaign involvement and employment relationships.
During public comment, Stockton resident Mary Elizabeth questioned whether the appointment structure could create conflicts because the same officials selecting commissioners would fall under the commission’s oversight.
She described the arrangement as potentially “open to the possibility of cronyism” and urged the committee to establish clearer procedures before advancing the ordinance.
Councilmember Michele Padilla also questioned how the commission’s responsibilities would overlap with the city’s existing censure process, which allows the council to address alleged misconduct by its members.
Elizabeth noted that the proposed commission’s authority would extend beyond elected officials to include appointed commissioners and senior city administrators.
Padilla said the full council should have an opportunity to discuss the proposal as part of the city’s broader response to the grand jury.
What’s next for the proposed reforms?
The proposals return to a City Council already facing scrutiny over its handling of previous grand jury recommendations.
The 2025-26 grand jury’s “Governance in Turmoil” report found that Stockton had not fully addressed recommendations from earlier investigations and called for stronger ethics rules, campaign contribution limits and an independent ethics commission or similar body.
It recommended that the city begin work on the oversight body by the end of 2026, with the goal of launching it by January 2028.
Enriquez said he wanted to ensure the earlier recommendations did not remain unresolved while the council considered the latest report.
“I’m happy that there is now the draft legislation for both [items],” Enriquez said.
He said the full council would have an opportunity to consider the proposals alongside other outstanding recommendations, hear additional public input and make amendments.
The committee did not establish a date for that discussion or specify when either proposal would return for formal consideration.