Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Subpoenas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee accepts edits and asks city attorney to draft language allowing GAO to administer oaths and issue subpoenas
Summary
The Rules Committee accepted organizational edits and continued a rule-change proposal to let the Government Audit and Oversight Committee issue subpoenas and administer oaths at agendized hearings; the item was continued so the City Attorney can draft language clarifying scope, including department-head coverage and employee exemptions.
The Rules Committee on Feb. 24 considered a proposal to amend Board rules so the Government Audit and Oversight Committee could issue subpoenas and administer oaths at agendized hearings. Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the item’s author, said the City Charter already gives the full Board subpoena power but the existing process is lengthy; delegating authority to GAO would let the Board obtain testimony more quickly.
Peskin told the committee the proposal would ‘‘delegate the board’s authority to the government audit and oversight committee’’ and that the language on oath administration could be collapsed so that ‘‘anybody who is subpoenaed would be administered the oath.’’ Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson raised a legal question about whether the draft limited only oath administration while leaving subpoena authority ambiguous; the Chair and Peskin asked Pearson to prepare language that clarifies the committee’s authority and preserves existing protections where intended.
Clerk of the Board Angela Calvio sought non-substantive organizational edits—wording, line references and consolidating the measure into existing Board Rule 6.7—and the committee voted to incorporate those changes "without objection." During public comment, former civil grand juror Jerry Drattler urged broader subpoena authority, saying the City Attorney was not an objective investigator and proposing an independent investigator; several community speakers likewise asked that any employee exemption be removed so rank-and-file staff could be subpoenaed as part of investigations.
Rather than finalize the rule today, the committee voted to accept the described edits and continue the item to the Rules Committee’s next meeting so the City Attorney can draft the clarified language. The Chair said the proposed change will return after the draft clarifies whether department heads or other categories of employees are covered and how the oath and subpoena procedures will operate in practice.
Outcome: The committee accepted the Clerk’s organizational edits (vote: without objection) and continued the item to the next Rules Committee meeting (scheduled for March 3) for the City Attorney to prepare final language.
