Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission directs staff to draft reforms to San Francisco public financing program
Summary
The San Francisco Ethics Commission unanimously approved staff recommendations to streamline public financing rules and asked staff to draft regulatory and limited ordinance language, including proposed changes to how individual expenditure ceilings (IECs) are adjusted, after a presentation from senior policy analyst Pat Ford and public comment from candidates and advocacy groups.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission on a unanimous vote Monday directed staff to draft regulations and limited ordinance language to streamline the city's public financing program and make it easier for candidates to qualify for public funds.
Pat Ford, senior policy analyst for the commission, presented a four-month review and a two-tiered set of recommendations: near-term, administrative and regulatory fixes to reduce paperwork and clarify eligibility, and second-tier options that would change qualification thresholds, matching ratios and the program's financing formulas.
Ford told commissioners he based the recommendations on two interested-person meetings, surveys of candidates and treasurers, phone interviews and consultations with officials in Los Angeles, Seattle and New York. Ford highlighted one operational problem: San Francisco's individual expenditure ceilings (IECs) are adjusted incrementally and often end up substantially higher than initial levels; staff data for a recent mayoral race showed IECs for three publicly financed candidates rose to 147 percent, 229 percent and 242 percent of initial ceilings.
"The experience with this feature of the program has been that IECs oftentimes get raised astronomically," Ford said, and recommended moving to a model used by other jurisdictions in which a candidate's IEC is lifted once and for all when a trigger is met, rather than repeatedly adjusted.
Commissioners pressed staff on practical questions: how quickly staff could draft regulatory language, how the Board of Supervisors' 60-day review window would factor in, and whether an ordinance route or a ballot measure would be necessary for some reforms. Ford said regulatory changes could be finalized faster, while ordinance changes would require working with the City Attorney and the Board.
Public commenters included first-time supervisor candidate Lou Anne Bassin, who praised front-office staff but warned that new procedural requirements proposed elsewhere on the agenda would create burdens for candidates; other speakers urged the commission to preserve transparency while protecting contributors' addresses when needed. Ford agreed to redact street numbers in posted qualifying requests and to include data links in IEC press releases.
Chair (identified in the transcript as "Chair") moved to approve Ford's recommendations and to direct staff to draft the regulations and ordinance language described on page 17 of the meeting packet. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The commission asked staff to return with draft regulatory language, to coordinate with the City Attorney on any required ordinance text, to hold interested-persons meetings as part of the rulemaking process, and to provide additional analysis on the timing of candidate expenditures if requested.
Next steps: staff will prepare draft regulations and any ordinance language for future meetings; the Board of Supervisors would have 60 days to object to adopted regulations once transmitted, and ordinance changes would require additional legislative steps.
