Commission debates draft regulations to clarify when ethics office issues opinions versus informal advice

The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent substantial time on draft regulations intended to clarify when staff and the Commission issue formal opinions, informal advice, or guidance.

Director Pelham told commissioners the intent is to limit formal opinions to requests that are tied to a requester's specific facts and duties: "We understand an opinion to be something that is focused on specific facts by a requester whose duties are subject to those provisions of the law and it guides them," Pelham said. Commissioners questioned wording that would require consideration of a draft opinion at "the next regularly scheduled meeting so long as that meeting occurs no less than 45 days" after a determination; several commissioners said the sentence created ambiguity about whether a special meeting would be required.

Commissioner Rennie suggested lowering the drafting window to 30 business days (roughly six weeks) or otherwise striking the word "next" so the rule reads that the draft be considered at a regularly scheduled meeting within the stated timeframe. Staff and commissioners discussed clarifying that informal advice and guidance are distinct: guidance would remain the ad‑hoc phone or email help provided by compliance staff, informal advice would be written but not confer immunity, and formal opinions would be issued following a complete and proper request.

Director Pelham agreed to return with a revised draft reflecting the suggested clarifications (written‑request expectations for informal advice, a clearer window for draft opinions, and a third, explicit "guidance" category for immediate questions handled by compliance staff). The Commission did not take a final vote during this meeting.

The Commission asked staff to bring the revised regulations back next month for further consideration.