Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Lobbying topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor Chiu's lobbying/ethics ordinance amended after public comment; forwarded to full Board for June 10
Summary
Supervisor Chiu presented an ordinance to broaden reportable lobbying contacts, require consultant registration and developer donation disclosures; committee adopted technical amendments to exempt many nonprofits, narrow permit‑expediter reporting to quarterly staff lists, and forwarded the package to the full Board for a June 10 vote.
Supervisor Chu (Supervisor Chiu) introduced legislation to expand the City—s campaign and governmental conduct code, increase transparency in lobbying and permit expediting, hold employers jointly and severally liable for lobbyist conduct, and require certain disclosures from consultants and developers.
Key substantive changes described by the sponsor included a distinction between in‑house and contract lobbyists (different thresholds for registration), elimination of a broad attorney exemption while preserving a non‑regulatory carve‑out for legal practice, and a newly added exemption for many 501(c)(3) organizations and smaller 501(c)(4) organizations after stakeholder input.
The legislation originally required reporting of every contact for permit expediters; after extensive public comment from permit consultants, engineers and small business owners who said the requirement would be onerous for routine, administrative interactions, Supervisor Chiu presented amendments narrowing those obligations. Under the amendments, permit expediters would report quarterly and list the names of city staff with whom they interacted rather than filing an entry for each contact; affordable housing agents would be exempted from the permit-expediting reporting provisions.
Several technical edits were accepted (for example, changing a cross‑reference from "2.106 A.10" to "2.106 B.10" and replacing "shall assist" with "may assist" when referring to the Controller—s role). Public commenters from nonprofit housing organizations, service providers and business associations said the nonprofit carve‑out was critical to preserve advocacy relationships and reduce chilling effects on community engagement; permit consultant and small business speakers urged further narrowing or delay for stakeholder review.
After deliberation and acceptance of the package of technical and non‑substantive amendments, the committee moved the ordinance with a full recommendation to the Board for consideration on June 10; the motion carried without objection.
What changed: the sponsor narrowed reporting for permit expediters (quarterly, by staff names) and narrowed the nonprofit disclosure requirement so developers need only disclose gifts to nonprofits that have tried to influence the City regarding the developer—s specific major project. The committee instructed staff to continue stakeholder engagement with permit‑expediting groups prior to the full Board hearing.
