Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee debates proposed code of conduct and closed-session calendar; discussion continued to next meeting
Summary
The committee considered a motion to schedule bimonthly closed sessions on emergency preparedness and debated a proposed Board code of conduct that would allow admonition, sanctions and censure; legal staff advised harmonizing the code with existing rules and the city charter, and the committee continued the item to the next meeting (Aug. 2) for further amendments.
Item 5 asked the Rules Committee to direct the clerk to calendar bimonthly closed sessions of the Board to discuss San Francisco's emergency preparedness and homeland-security activities. The sponsor requested a continuance; the chair declined and opened the item to public comment.
Richard Nee, representing the National Writers Union Bay Area Chapter, urged the committee to reject periodic closed sessions, saying mandatory closed-door meetings "fly in the face of the Sunshine Ordinance and Brown Act." The deputy city attorney then advised the committee that harmonizing any new code of conduct with Rule 4.16 and with the city charter or state law could require continuance and careful drafting; she suggested options such as attaching the code as an appendix or incorporating it into existing rules.
The sponsor framed the code as a policy to define unacceptable conduct and to create mechanisms for admonition, sanction and censure, including removal from adjunct committees in some cases. Committee members raised legal concerns about conflicts with the charter, the board president's appointment authority and state laws that govern other entities; one supervisor recommended changing a proposed mandatory removal provision from "must" to "may" to avoid legal conflict while still signaling expectations.
Several supervisors also warned that the censure process could be weaponized for partisan or frivolous purposes and requested technical safeguards (for example, changing a procedural requirement tied to executive-branch involvement to a board-only resolution). After further discussion, the committee agreed to continue Item 5 to the next meeting (noted as August 2) so the sponsor, the clerk and the city attorney could prepare harmonized amendments and address concerns before a vote.
Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams later reported to the committee in closed session that items 7, 8, 9 and 10 involving pending claims and litigation had been discussed and the committee wished to move those items forward with recommendation; the meeting then adjourned.
