Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Liberties And Noncooperation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues anti‑registry ordinance after advocates press for stronger enforcement
Summary
The committee heard extensive public comment in favor of an ordinance barring city participation in identity‑based registries, but members and advocates pressed for a private right of action; the item was continued to Feb. 22 so the city attorney and sponsors can draft enforceability language.
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee on Feb. 8 considered an ordinance that would prohibit city agencies, departments and contractors from using resources to create, implement, investigate, provide information for, enforce or otherwise assist any government program that registers individuals by religion, national origin, ethnicity or similar identity.
Sponsor staff from Supervisor Malia Cohen’s office and the mayor’s office framed the measure as a proactive protection for San Francisco’s immigrant and faith communities, citing historical abuses and recent federal rhetoric. Brittany Chiquata (Supervisor Cohen’s office) described amendments (retitling to "noncooperation with identity-based registry," adding references to national origin and ethnicity, clarifying that prohibitions apply to city databases and vendors, requiring an annual report to the Board, and permitting collection and transmission of aggregate, non‑identifying data).
Advocates and community members — including representatives of the Asian Law Caucus, AROC, the JCRC, and many San Francisco residents — voiced strong support but repeatedly urged stronger enforcement mechanisms. Many asked the Board to add a private right of action that would allow individuals to sue for damages if the ordinance were violated. Deputy City Attorney John Gibner explained that the ordinance’s standard "general welfare" clause (on page 8) is commonly used to clarify that a duty imposed on departments does not by itself create a private right to monetary damages, and that creating a private right of action would be a policy decision requiring drafting and legal review.
Supervisors debated options including duplicating the ordinance file (one version to proceed quickly, another to remain in committee for amendment), or continuing the item so the city attorney and sponsors can prepare explicit enforcement language. Given timing and the need for careful drafting, the committee agreed to continue the item to the Feb. 22 Public Safety and Neighborhood Services meeting and to work with the city attorney, sponsor offices and the mayor’s office to develop enforcement language (including the possibility of a private right of action) for Board consideration.
