Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Behested Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules committee narrows scope of 'behested payments' ordinance, continues the measure to Oct. 18
Summary
The Rules Committee approved clarifying amendments to an ordinance expanding the definition of "interested parties" and restricting solicited (behested) payments by officials, then continued the bill to Oct. 18 for further drafting and city-attorney review; the committee recorded unanimous committee support in two roll calls.
Chair Aaron Peskin on Monday outlined a set of clarifying amendments to an ordinance that would expand San Francisco’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to broaden who counts as an "interested party" and to bar soliciting so-called "behested" payments from persons or organizations with business before city departments.
"If somebody is registered to lobby the Department of Public Works, it would apply only to that department," Peskin said as he described language that would limit prohibitions to lobbyists and permit consultants registered to the specific department of the designated employee. He said he is working with the city attorney to more precisely define what the ordinance means by "indirect." "It is bizarre to me that somebody like Mohamed Nuru could actually solicit a behested payment from somebody he was doing business with," Peskin added.
Sponsor Supervisor Matt Haney voiced support for the clarifying changes and said he wants the meet-and-confer process completed quickly so the committee can vote on a final draft. Public commenters largely welcomed additional clarity but urged caution. "This is nuanced stuff, and it can have side effects or unforeseen consequences," said Debbie Lerman of the Human Services Network, who asked that exemptions for nonprofit fundraising be spelled out in the ordinance rather than left to regulations. Public commenter David Pilpel said he supported the continuing amendments but urged the committee to address "friends of" department groups, which he said have produced harmful effects.
After public comment, the committee voted to adopt the chair’s clarifying amendments (roll call recorded Supervisors Connie Chan, Supervisor Mandelmann, and Peskin as "aye," 3 ayes). The committee then voted to continue the item, as amended, to October 18, 2021, to allow further drafting and input; that continuation passed by the same roll-call tally.
The measure as framed would expand the category of people and entities considered "interested parties" — including certain contractors, permit consultants and registered lobbyists — but Peskin and others emphasized the current amendments narrow application to department-specific registration rather than citywide reach. The committee’s action was procedural: it approved the amendments and scheduled a follow-up hearing rather than taking final legislative action.
Next steps: the ordinance will return to the Rules Committee on October 18 for further review and, if meet-and-confer issues are resolved, for a possible vote to forward to the full Board of Supervisors.
