San Francisco supervisors propose anti-corruption ordinance for June ballot

The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors convened on July 4, 2025, to address several key agenda items, including proposed amendments to future use policies and a significant initiative ordinance aimed at combating corruption.

The meeting commenced with a motion to file items 7 and 8, which was passed unanimously by the board members present. Supervisor Chan, Vice Chair Mandelmann, and Madam Chair Peskin all voted in favor, indicating a collaborative approach to the agenda.

The primary focus of the meeting was item number 9, which involved a hearing on a proposed initiative ordinance. This ordinance, submitted by four or more supervisors, seeks to expand the prohibition on the solicitation of payments from city contractors who require Board of Supervisors approval. It also mandates that any future amendments to this local restriction receive supermajority approval from the Board and oversight from the Ethics Commission.

The ordinance, which is set to appear on the June ballot unless removed by March 4, is designed to prevent potential corruption, particularly in light of past scandals involving city officials. The measure aims to protect the integrity of public service by prohibiting city officials from soliciting payments from parties with pending matters before them. This initiative follows a unanimous approval of similar legislation by the Board of Supervisors in December.

Supervisor Peskin emphasized the importance of this measure, noting that it would not incur additional costs to the government and serves as a safeguard against corruption. He expressed concerns about the potential for the ordinance to be weakened in the future and advocated for a higher threshold for amendments to ensure its integrity.

The meeting concluded with a call for feedback from committee members regarding the proposed ordinance, highlighting the board's commitment to transparency and public accountability in governance. The discussions underscored the board's proactive stance on ethical conduct and the importance of maintaining public trust in city operations.