Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ethics And Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee continues review of conflict-of-interest code after arts commission concerns

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee · November 18, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen presented biennial updates to the city's conflict-of-interest code; the Arts Commission director warned that broader disclosure requirements had led to resignations and could deter participation. Supervisors requested more time and the committee agreed to continue the item for further review.

Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen briefed the Rules Committee on proposed biennial amendments to the campaign and governmental conduct code, which update who must file statements of economic interest and related ethics forms.

Shen said the package deletes two sections from the conflict-of-interest code (the board of examiners, which is now located in the building inspection code, and the Economic Opportunity Council, which he said is a private nonprofit and not a city agency). He explained that the amendments reorganize which positions file with the Ethics Commission and which file with departmental filing officers.

The Executive Director of the Arts Commission warned the committee that moving arts commissioners into a broader disclosure category had previously led to the resignation of three commissioners who objected to the more extensive reporting requirements. "At that level of higher reporting, individuals of significant net worth really felt that they could not participate on the Arts Commission, and they immediately resigned," the director said.

Supervisors debated the tradeoff between transparency and public participation and asked the city attorney's office to clarify specific changes. Given the concerns and a state-law timeline to complete the biennial review by year-end, the committee agreed to continue the ordinance to the next available Rules Committee meeting so staff can address the questions raised.