Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights Municipal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board urges boycott of Arizona over SB 1070; two enforcement clauses approved separately
Summary
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution condemning Arizona's SB 1070 and urging city departments, to the extent practicable, to avoid contracts and expenditures in Arizona; the board approved the main body of the resolution unanimously and approved two more-directive clauses by a 10-1 vote.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on a May 2010 meeting adopted a resolution calling for a boycott of the state of Arizona in response to Arizona's Senate Bill 1070. The Board first approved the primary portions of the measure unanimously, then voted separately on two stronger "resolve" clauses; those clauses passed 10-1, with Supervisor Ellsburn recorded as the sole no vote on that portion.
Why it matters: The resolution is a political and procurement-level statement from the city's legislative body opposing state-level immigration enforcement policy. While the resolution uses language urging departments to act "to the extent practicable" and without "significant additional cost to the city," supervisors and community members framed it as part of a broader national response by cities and institutions to SB 1070.
What the board voted: The board took two roll-call votes. The main body of the resolution (excluding the two contested resolve clauses) was adopted by an 11-0 roll call. On the two clauses severed for separate consideration (described during the hearing as lines on Page 2 and Page 3 of the draft), the board approved those passages by 10 ayes and 1 no.
Arguments and framing: Supervisor Ellsbourne (who introduced the measure) said the resolution was a measured response and thanked City Attorney Dennis Herrera for assistance in drafting language that reduces the chance of financial consequences to the city while signaling strong opposition to SB 1070. "This is really about sending a very clear message," Ellsbourne said, arguing that other jurisdictions had taken similar actions.
Several supervisors emphasized the restrained, non-binding framing of the resolution. One supervisor noted the text uses words such as "urge" and "encourage" and phrases limiting action to "to the extent practicable" and "no significant additional cost to the city," and said the item was suitable for the adoption-without-committee-reference calendar because it did not require immediate fiscal changes.
Context: The measure was introduced amid similar actions or proposals in other U.S. cities; the board referenced actions by Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. The Board also discussed the legal and fiscal limits on city authority to redirect existing contracts and the need to avoid violating existing contract terms.
Ending: The resolution passed in two parts. The board adopted the general resolution unanimously and approved the two stronger, severed resolve clauses by a 10-1 vote, handing San Francisco a formal expression of disapproval of Arizona's law while preserving fiscal safeguards in the language instructing departments to act only where practicable and legal.
