Supervisors debate charter amendment on minimum qualifications for oversight boards; measure not submitted after rescission votes

Supervisor Sophie Alioto-Pier introduced a charter amendment for the board on Oct. 23 that would create minimum qualifications for members of city bodies that oversee and administer election, campaign finance, lobbying, conflict-of-interest, open meetings and public records laws.

Alioto-Pier said perceptions matter in governance and cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo in discussing the need to avoid the appearance of improper representative government. The draft was revised in committee to raise a proposed felony-related disqualification period to 10 years; a later amendment proposed shortening certain post-candidacy or registrant disqualifications to two years for people who had been candidates for local elected office, treasurers for committees that must file campaign reports, campaign consultants or registered lobbyists.

The measure passed an early roll call in committee and then on the full board, but board members later took procedural steps to rescind prior action and re-vote. After the rescission motion and re-vote on the charter amendment, the board’s later roll call resulted in the item ultimately not being submitted (final recorded tally on the later roll call: 5 ayes, 4 noes). A subsequent motion to rescind that later result failed on a tied 5–5 vote.

Why it matters: The proposal would change the city charter’s rules for who can sit on bodies that oversee election and ethics laws in San Francisco. Proponents argued it would improve public confidence; opponents raised concerns about disqualifying people and about the appropriate duration of any restrictions.

What was said

- Supervisor Sophie Alioto-Pier (introducing the measure): “When this was before the Ethics Commission, we received feedback... one of the most welcomed suggestions was to change the time limits that would preclude someone from participating in any of these committees for felons.” (paraphrased from remarks during the meeting).

- The transcript records committee changes including raising a felony disqualification period to 10 years and a board amendment shortening some categories to two years, as moved by a colleague.

Board action and procedural outcome

- Initial roll call on the charter amendment recorded 7 ayes and 3 noes and the amendment was, at that moment, submitted for further consideration. - Later in the meeting a motion to rescind the prior vote was made and a re-vote on the charter amendment resulted in a roll call that left the charter amendment not submitted (final recorded count: 5 ayes, 4 noes). The board later considered, and failed to pass, an additional motion to rescind the rescission (tied 5–5), leaving the charter amendment without submission.

Speakers (relevant): - Supervisor Sophie Alioto-Pier, introducer of the charter amendment. - Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who moved to rescind an earlier vote. - Supervisor Chris Daly, who voted no on the measure in recorded roll calls. - Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick (excused at roll call), Supervisor Peskin, Supervisor Maxwell and Supervisor Mercarini (names appear in roll calls and debate).

Authorities referenced

- Buckley v. Valeo (U.S. Supreme Court case) — cited in remarks on the importance of avoiding the appearance of improper representative government (citation corrected from the spoken transcript). - The item was introduced as a charter amendment (Item 23 on the Oct. 23 board calendar).

Clarifying details

- Committee edits: the draft was revised in committee to raise felony-related disqualification to 10 years; Supervisor McGoldrick proposed, and the board accepted in committee, an amendment shortening some eligibility restrictions to two years for people who had been candidates or certain registrants. - Final procedural status: not submitted following rescission and re-vote during the Oct. 23 meeting; a later motion to rescind that result failed on a tie.

Next steps

- Because the board did not submit the charter amendment after the rescission and re-vote, the measure will not proceed to the ballot or further drafting as a submitted board item on Oct. 23. If supporters wish to revive the idea, they would need to reintroduce revised language or pursue it in a subsequent meeting or committee process.

Provenance: discussion and roll-call sequences for this item appear in the Oct. 23 transcript (discussion and votes recorded roughly between transcript timecodes 419–668 and the later rescission discussion at 1,170–1,225).