Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifts And Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller flags gifts routed through Parks Alliance, urges stricter rules on solicited payments
Summary
A Controller's Office preliminary assessment presented Oct. 9 found that nearly $980,000 flowed through Parks Alliance subaccounts for Public Works between 2015 and 2020, much of it spent on staff events; the office recommended expanding disclosure rules for "behested" solicitations, broadening the definition of "interested party," and strengthening MOUs and audit oversight.
The San Francisco Controller's Office on Oct. 9 told the Ethics Commission that the city's handling of donations routed through non-city organizations, particularly subaccounts maintained by the San Francisco Parks Alliance, lacked consistent oversight and posed risks for conflicts of interest.
Mark De La Rosa, acting director of audits, told commissioners the office's preliminary assessment of July 2015 through January 2020 records identified four Public Works-related subaccounts at the Parks Alliance (DPW special projects, Clean Team, Giant Sweep and the Fix It Team) and roughly $980,000 in expenditures tied to those accounts. The Controller's Office reported that many payments funded employee appreciation events, training, merchandise and volunteer programs rather than direct public capital work.
The report singled out so-called "behest of payments" ' solicitations or donations made at the suggestion of a public official ' and recommended changes to city rules. "When a payment of $1,000 or more is made at their behest by an interested party, certain officials must file the behested payment form," De La Rosa said, describing the current filing practice and urging the Ethics Commission consider expanding prohibitions and filing requirements to non-elected department heads unless the Board of Supervisors authorizes solicitations.
Why it matters: The Controller's findings come amid criminal investigations and wider scrutiny into the department that prompted these assessments. Commissioners said expanding the interested-party definition and tightening disclosure could reduce the risk that contractors or vendors doing business with a department are also contributing to subaccounts that benefit the same department.
What the Controller recommended: The preliminary assessment proposed several steps: amend local campaign and conduct rules to bar non-elected department heads from soliciting donations from parties with business before their departments unless specifically authorized; require behested-payment filings for authorized solicitations; expand the interested-party definition to explicitly include city contractors; prohibit anonymous donations to non-city organizations when funds support city departments; require formal MOUs between departments and their nonprofit fiscal agents; and grant the Controller stronger audit authority over such subaccounts.
De La Rosa also said the Controller's Office found overlap between large donors to Parks Alliance subaccounts and firms that had contracts or permits with city departments, noting Recology and the SF Clean City Coalition among major contributors. The office emphasized its review was a preliminary internal-controls assessment and that the City Attorney's public integrity work and federal investigations had produced additional evidence and referrals.
Reactions and public comment: Commissioners pressed the Controller's Office for more detail on communications between contractors, Public Works and Parks Alliance; De La Rosa responded that specific communications were outside the narrow scope of the internal-control assessment and deferred to the City Attorney's ongoing investigation for detailed evidentiary work.
During public comment, Dr. Derek Kerr, identifying himself as a whistleblower, urged the city to audit prior whistleblower tips and asked why local watchdog offices had not uncovered alleged wrongdoing earlier. "Why did our own watchdog agencies miss the rot?" Kerr asked, and suggested better investigation of prior complaint records.
Next steps: The presentation was informational and no action was taken at the meeting. Commissioners and staff agreed to continue the Controller's series of assessments, coordinate with the City Attorney where investigations are pending, and engage on draft legislation introduced by Board supervisors to address the interested-party definition and behested payments. The Controller's Office said it will return with further reports and that the Ethics Commission will integrate relevant recommendations into its work on conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules.
The Controller's full preliminary assessment is linked from the Controller's Office and the Ethics Commission meeting materials.
