Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Award Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee advances ordinance to tighten city grant awards after corruption revelations
Summary
The Rules Committee advanced an Administrative Code ordinance to standardize competitive solicitation, reporting and sole‑source rules for city grants, moving the proposal — with an operative date of Jan. 1, 2022 — to the full Board for final consideration.
The Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Monday advanced an ordinance to codify a competitive grant‑award process, saying new rules are needed to curb past abuses and increase transparency.
Chair Aaron Peskin and sponsor Supervisor Stephanie said the measure responds to recent corruption revelations in city contracting and would require competitive solicitation except in narrowly defined circumstances, require advertising of solicitations, set evaluation criteria, reserve the city’s right to cancel or re‑advertise awards, list required grant terms, and establish administrative debarment procedures. Supervisor Stephanie told the committee the ordinance’s operative date was moved to Jan. 1, 2022, to give the city purchaser time to draft implementing rules and to push reporting dates accordingly.
“Because of the unfortunate, if not tragic, revelations after the Mohamed Nour DPW scandal, this legislation — which would not have been necessary absent abuse of the process — is now clearly long overdue,” Chair Peskin said during the hearing.
Sponsor Supervisor Stephanie said the amendments are largely non‑substantive technical fixes but make key clarifications on sole‑source grants and the purchaser’s rulemaking authority. “I do believe this legislation is a major step in preventing the kind of corruption we’ve seen exposed,” she said, and noted the city awards nearly $2 billion a year in grants that currently lack standardized solicitation or documentation.
Under the amended ordinance the city purchaser would have explicit authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the ordinance, including criteria for sole‑source determinations and requirements that vary by funding source. The sponsor also clarified an annual reporting date and delayed other reporting timelines to align with the new operative date.
After no public comment, the committee approved the amendments by roll call and voted to forward the item as amended to the full Board of Supervisors for hearing and further action.
The ordinance will next be considered by the full Board at its scheduled hearing; the committee’s recommendation does not itself adopt the policy.
