Ethics Commission urges Board to set threshold for permit-consultant fee disclosures

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a monetary threshold for disclosure of permit-consultant fees, saying a floor would balance transparency and the competitive concerns raised by small consultants.

The recommendation grew out of public comment from consultants and their attorney who said a drafting error left fee disclosure language in the ordinance the Board had intended to remove. Ryan Patterson, an attorney representing mainly small "mom-and-pop" permit consultants, told commissioners that public, per-client disclosure of modest consulting fees would provide "no public benefit" while allowing large competitors to undercut small firms. "Disclosing the permit consultants generally very small fees to the public provides no public benefit that we can see," he said.

Several permit consultants described their day-to-day work to the commission. Jeremy Paul called the role largely procedural and said the information needed to trace who engaged them appears on permit documents: "We're essentially glorified delivery boys," he said, arguing disclosure would push work to larger downtown firms. Ahmad, a licensed contractor, and Pam Harris, a long-time consultant, said most permit work and client identity is already visible in city permit records and that reporting fees would be burdensome for small operators.

Staff said the ordinance as enacted currently triggers permit-consultant reporting when a project meets a valuation threshold (projects of $1 million or more), but that language requiring compensation disclosure remained in the final ordinance and Councilmember Chu introduced cleanup legislation that Supervisor Breed later carried. Deputy Executive Director Jesse Menardi told commissioners he believed the cleanup draft reflected earlier negotiations in which compensation disclosure was not intended to remain.

Commissioners debated trade-offs between transparency and competitive harm. Commissioner Keane cited historical concerns about permit-expediter corruption in San Francisco and argued for public disclosure to guard against back-channel payments. Chair Herr and others expressed concern that per-job, per-client disclosure could unfairly expose small firms to competitive harm; they discussed a middle ground of an aggregated or thresholded disclosure. Commissioners and commenters gave example figures during the discussion: one consultant suggested fees for a typical million-dollar single-family project might run $5,000 to $10,000.

Commissioner Keane moved that the commission "recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they require some sort of monetary threshold at which the permit consultants must disclose the amount of their fees." The motion was seconded and passed 3 to 1. The commission's formal recommendation asks the Board to consider a disclosure floor (for example, a quarterly or annual threshold) rather than fully deleting the fee-disclosure requirement.

The recommendation is advisory: the Board of Supervisors will consider whether to adopt cleanup legislation or to amend reporting thresholds when the measure returns to the Board. The Ethics Commission noted it may provide further guidance if the Board asks for comment when the item is scheduled again.

Action details: the commission approved a motion to recommend that the Supervisors adopt a monetary threshold for fee disclosure; the motion passed by voice vote, 3 in favor and 1 opposed.

Next steps: the Board of Supervisors may take up the cleanup legislation or an amendment incorporating a monetary threshold at a later hearing; the Ethics Commission said it will be available to provide comment if requested.