Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Romance ban for managers fails after contested hearing
Summary
An ordinance that would prohibit managers from pursuing romantic relationships with employees under their supervision did not pass the Board of Supervisors after extended debate about legal necessity, privacy and liability.
An ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit managers from pursuing romantic or sexual relationships with employees under their supervision failed to gain approval at the Nov. 20 San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting after an extended debate.
Supervisor Jake Daley (identified in the transcript as the sponsor) introduced the measure, saying it was intended to address city liability arising from superior-subordinate romantic relationships and to provide a tool — including reassignment — to avoid legal exposure. "This legislation, by no means prohibits two individuals from consensually having a relationship," Daley said. "What the legislation does do is it prohibits a manager and a subordinate where there's an uneven power dynamic and specifically liability to the city and county of San Francisco from having a relationship."
Opponents included Supervisor Ross Ellsberg and Supervisor Sandoval, who argued that existing state and federal harassment laws and internal procedures already protect employees and that the city should focus on stronger complaint procedures, ombudsperson access and enforcement of existing rules rather than an outright ban. "This legislation is not necessary to protect our employees," Ellsberg said. "We have more than enough protection in place."
Following competing procedural motions — including a motion to continue the item to Dec. 11 and a subsequent motion to table — the board proceeded to a vote on the ordinance. The roll call recorded a majority of supervisors voting no; the transcript roll call indicates Supervisor Daley voted aye while a majority of colleagues voted no. The ordinance did not pass.
Speakers repeatedly emphasized privacy concerns, union negotiation needs and existing remedies for harassment and discrimination. Supervisor McGoldrick cited a law firm letter and collective bargaining considerations as informing his opposition, and Supervisor Sandoval urged bolstering procedural protections and ombudsperson access instead of an outright prohibition.
Because the board rejected the ordinance, no reassignment or disciplinary framework under this proposed code change will be implemented. Supervisors urged that employee protections continue to be strengthened through existing harassment law enforcement and collective bargaining processes.
