Ethics Commission debates revised anti‑corruption ordinance, remands draft to staff after narrow vote

The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent most of its meeting examining a revised 2017 anti‑corruption and accountability ordinance that would tighten rules on solicitations by public officials, create a citizen plaintiff mechanism and change disclosure and enforcement provisions.

Staff summarized changes to a prior draft, saying the most significant edit was moving the so‑called behested‑payment restriction from the city’s campaign finance ordinance into the conflict‑of‑interest code to reduce constitutional vulnerability. The draft preserves narrow exceptions for public fundraising and larger events and adds a private right of action modeled in part on Los Angeles law: a citizen plaintiff would notify the commission, the commission would have 60 days to respond, and if the citizen succeeds the statute allows recovery of 50 percent of assessed penalties plus reasonable costs and attorney fees, the staff memo said.

Why it matters: advocates for stronger limits argued the measure closes gaps that allow pay‑to‑play practices—especially in land‑use and large developments—where one‑on‑one solicitations by officials have in the past coincided with favorable city action. Opponents, chiefly small and mid‑sized nonprofit leaders, said the private enforcement incentive and a broad definition of “anything of value” could subject ordinary nonprofit fundraising and volunteer board members to expensive, frivolous suits and chill civic participation.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Friends of Ethics and other reform groups presented historical examples and compiled data (staff and speakers referenced MapLight and an ethics office list) linking behested payments to high‑profile donations and, in some cases, favorable public decisions. Nonprofit speakers — including the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Human Services Network and neighborhood land‑trust leaders — described small operating budgets, volunteer boards and routine fundraising practices; several asked for clearer definitions, minimum thresholds and broader public‑event carve‑outs so ordinary charitable fundraising won’t be ensnared.

Commissioners and staff debated specifics: whether the contractor/contributor problem is large enough to justify the restrictions (staff cited preliminary data and news reports), whether the solicitation definition should require a request specifically to a candidate or committee, and how to set event or value thresholds (the draft uses a 20‑person public‑event exemption; commissioners discussed alternatives). Staff said the 12‑month window applies per individual contract and that current law already contains some travel and gift limits, though speakers urged a ban on gifts and bundling as well.

Initial procedural action: after discussion and public comment, Commissioner Rennie moved to approve the draft (accepting a friendly amendment previously adopted at the dais) and to submit it to the Board of Supervisors; the roll call produced a narrow 3–2 vote in favor. Immediately afterward the commission voted unanimously, at the mover’s request, to send the ordinance back to staff for further drafting and to hold additional interested‑persons meetings so staff can work with Commissioners Chu and Lee to resolve outstanding concerns. Staff agreed to convene further public meetings and bring revised language back to the commission at a future meeting.

What remains open: commissioners asked staff to provide clearer examples, to propose narrower language on “anything of value,” and to identify safeguards to limit opportunistic private litigation (the draft already includes judge‑considered factors such as ability to pay). Staff also committed to provide the commission with source materials cited in the packet (MapLight analyses, the behest payment list) and to present comparative experience from Los Angeles and state practice. The commission’s procedural rules mean any ordinance that would amend voter‑adopted campaign finance or conflict‑of‑interest provisions ultimately requires a 4/5 commission vote plus Board of Supervisors approval to advance without returning to the voters.

Next steps: staff will meet with Commissioners Chu and Lee, hold additional interested‑persons meetings open to the public, and return the revised draft to the commission for further action; the commission’s chair indicated the item will remain on the October agenda for follow‑up. No final legislative change is yet adopted.