Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union warns proposed Planning Department 'incompatible activities' policy is vague and could curb off‑duty rights
Summary
Local 21 urged the Planning Commission to revise the proposed Statement of Incompatible Activities, saying vague prohibitions could limit staff and commissioners’ off‑duty speech, volunteer activity and property rights; the commission asked the City Attorney’s Office for a redline comparison and scheduled a dedicated hearing.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on May 31 heard a detailed warning from Local 21 that the department’s proposed Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) contains overly broad and unclear restrictions that could chill staff members’ and commissioners’ off‑duty rights.
Nelka Julio, representing the professional and technical engineers of Local 21, told the commission the draft policy would regulate employees’ “off duty behavior” and that vague language could become “a slippery slope” that limits free speech, association and property rights. “We want to clarify that volunteer activities with charitable organizations or nonprofit organizations are not to be restricted,” Julio said, urging commissioners to review the draft with a “fine‑tooth comb” and consider Local 21’s proposed redline amendments.
Staff said the SIA was prepared after Proposition E (2003) and has already been through an initial meet‑and‑confer with unions. The department acknowledged remaining language issues and noted the document will carry the force of law once adopted. Several commissioners asked the City Attorney’s Office to prepare a comparison between the current draft and the department’s prior policy and requested conflict‑of‑interest experts attend a follow‑up hearing.
Kate Stacy of the City Attorney’s Office told commissioners she has not yet compared the drafts but that attorneys would prepare that analysis and that a special session with legal staff and union representatives could be scheduled. Commissioners asked staff to set a special hearing where the city attorney and conflicts experts could walk the commission through the draft line‑by‑line.
The commission did not vote on the SIA; staff said the next steps are continued meet‑and‑confer with unions and a return to the commission with a redline and legal analysis. Several commissioners emphasized the need for clear, narrowly tailored language to avoid inadvertent penalties and to protect employees’ constitutional rights while meeting the city’s conflict‑of‑interest obligations.
The commission directed staff to coordinate availability with the City Attorney’s Office and Local 21 and to return with the requested comparisons and recommendations.
