Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonprofit Reporting Redaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ordinance to limit public disclosure of certain nonprofit filings for safety reasons
Summary
The Rules Committee advanced amendments to an ordinance amending Administrative Code section 10.1 that raises reporting thresholds and allows redactions when disclosure poses a safety risk to organization staff and volunteers.
Get email alerts on the Nonprofit Reporting Redaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rules Committee voted to amend and continue to the next Rules Committee meeting an ordinance amending Administrative Code section 10.1 to adjust nonprofit reporting requirements and permit certain redactions when disclosure could jeopardize personal safety.
Board President Rafael Mandelmann described three major changes proposed in the amendment: raising the reporting threshold to $1,000,000 (aligned with the federal single‑audit standard), removing a set of itemized disclosures (items 1–5 in the current draft) from the public filing so that those details remain disclosed elsewhere but are not consolidated in an easily searchable public file, and changing the redaction standard under section 10.1(b)(2) so organizations can redact information when they have a reasonable basis to believe disclosure "may lead to harm to their agents, employees, or officers." Mandelmann said the reforms respond to concerns from organizations serving communities under threat, including LGBTQ‑serving groups and domestic‑violence service providers.
Beverly Upton of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium spoke in favor of the amendments, saying the change would allow survivors and organizations to provide services without fear. President Mandelmann said the amendments are substantive and therefore will be continued until the next Rules Committee meeting (two weeks), when the committee may consider the changes again.
A member of the public who identified concerns about earlier repeals and broader political matters spoke during public comment but did not change the committee’s action. The committee voted to accept the amendments and continue the ordinance to the April 7 Rules Committee meeting; the motion passed without objection.
