Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Gifts District Attorney topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves District Attorneys acceptance of donated office furniture after ethics debate
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to authorize the District Attorneys office to accept roughly $26,000 in donated design services and furniture after extended discussion about whether the gift required a different state disclosure form or additional local reporting.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 14 approved a resolution authorizing the District Attorneys office to retroactively accept donated interior design services and furniture valued at about $26,000.
The vote to adopt the resolution was 10 in favor, 1 opposed (Supervisor John Avalos). The measure authorizes acceptance of the donated goods and places the donation on the public record via the resolution and the disclosure forms the office filed with state regulators.
Why it matters: Supervisors spent nearly two hours debating whether the donated furniture should have been reported on Californias Form 801 (a disclosure for gifts that bestow a personal benefit on an official) rather than the Form 803 the District Attorneys office filed. The discussion raised larger questions about consistent local practice for accepting and reporting gifts to offices that serve the public and whether the Board should set a city-level rule going forward.
The debate and legal advice Deputy City Attorney John Giffner told supervisors that state law and advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) guide when a Form 801 should be filed. The city attorneys offices general advice to elected officials, Giffner said, is that when furniture or other items are donated and are used in a particular officials office, the donation often conveys a personal benefit and should be reported on Form 801. Giffner said the board could, if it wished, create a third-party fund and procedures to reduce the risk of gifts creating perceived personal benefits.
District Attorneys office representative Christine Sauter De Berry said the FPPC had reviewed a complaint about the donation and determined, in the FPPCs letter to the city, that the facts supported use of the Form 803 and that no enforcement action would proceed. De Berry said the office had posted the donation report online and provided full donor lists even where the Form 803 requires less detail.
Several supervisors proposed requiring a Form 801 be filed before the city clerk places the donation on the Boards file, or that the Board conditionally approve the acceptance pending filing of Form 801. That amendment failed on a roll call of 3 ayes, 8 noes. Supervisor Campos then moved to adopt the resolution but requested that the District Attorneys office submit a copy of a Form 801 within 30 days; the Board rejected an amendment and ultimately approved the underlying resolution without that contingency.
Dissenting views and policy questions Supervisor Norman Yee, Supervisor Kim and others pressed for uniformity: if city attorney advice to elected officials is to file a Form 801 in similar scenarios, they argued the city should adopt a consistent local practice so different elected officials are not treated differently. Several supervisors said they supported the DAs disclosure as filed and acknowledged the FPPCs conclusion in this case, while reserving the broader question of whether the city should adopt its own stricter local filing rules.
Supervisor David Campos said his preference would be a Form 801 filing as a matter of policy to ensure all elected officials follow the same practice, but said he would support the resolution after the FPPCs letter.
Outcome and next steps The resolution passed 10-1 (Avalos opposed). Several supervisors asked the city attorneys office to examine whether the Citys administrative code should be amended to reduce reliance on retroactive accept-and-expend approvals and to consider creating a mechanism (a third-party fund or other process) to handle future non-city donations intended for offices.
The Boards action approves the District Attorneys posted disclosures and places the donation on the official record; it does not change state law or the FPPCs enforcement decision. Several supervisors said they will pursue separate legislation or administrative changes to clarify future reporting and acceptance procedures.
Ending note: The discussion elevated a recurring issue for local government: how to balance transparency and the practical needs of city departments with the limits of state gift law and the appearance concerns that follow when private donors furnish items for official spaces.
