Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Prioritization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission adopts quarterly policy-prioritization plan, names public financing top priority
Summary
The Commission adopted a staff-proposed prioritization framework that will be revisited quarterly and confirmed public financing as the top policy priority; commissioners and public commenters pressed for broader outreach on slate mailers and other transparency issues.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to adopt a quarterly policy-prioritization framework that will guide staff work over the next several months and be revisited on a quarterly basis. Under the adopted framework, staff recommended — and the Commission confirmed — public financing review as the number one priority, with other projects (including regulation review and online paid political communications) placed in the second tier.
Director Pelham described the policy program as a ‘portfolio’ of research, analysis, legislative drafting and program support. She told commissioners the prioritization tool is intended to provide clarity about where limited staff resources should be applied and noted that staff capacity will be constrained in the near term by the departure of a senior policy analyst. “If the Commission agrees that public financing remains the number 1 priority, that would be the focus for us over the next several months,” Pelham said.
Commissioners questioned scoring choices and how impact and urgency were represented numerically in the attachment; one commissioner suggested the scale (higher numbers indicating greater urgency/impact) could be counterintuitive to the public. Commissioners also pressed staff on why slate mailers and a proposed whistleblower transfer were ranked lower on urgency. Public commenters — including Larry Bush and Charlie Marsteller — urged wider public outreach and said some topics (notably slate mailers) warranted earlier attention.
After discussion, the Commission adopted the framework and confirmed the top 2–3 priorities, directing staff to proceed with the quarterly review approach and to bring a public-financing briefing at the July meeting. The Commission’s action was framed as a planning tool rather than a final policy decision; staff said any ordinance proposals (including a Commissioner’s later suggestion to amend eligibility rules for public financing) should be considered together in the broader public-finance review rather than piecemeal.
