Commission reviews draft behested-payment rules as nonprofits warn of fundraising limits

The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent substantial time on Nov. 18 examining draft regulations to implement recent amendments to the city's behested-payment rules.

Kenning, staff lead on the item, told commissioners the Board of Supervisors approved changes in August and the Mayor signed them; the draft regulations and accompanying illustrations (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2) are meant to implement and clarify the code and to respond to recurring questions from city departments. "These draft regulations are currently agendized for discussion, assuming no major issues are identified, the plan would be to bring these back in December where the commission could potentially act," Kenning said.

Commissioner Flores Fang pressed staff to tighten several formulations. She recommended replacing the draft’s vague phrase that a payment "please the officer or designated employee" with wording that the payment "benefit the officer or designated employee," and to explicitly include related parties (family, agents) where relevant. She also asked that the exceptions specify what types of evidence would satisfy a burden of proof (emails, date-stamped documents, affidavits) and suggested adding a timing rule for valuation questions so it is clear whether value is assessed at request or delivery.

Commissioners discussed the difficulty of identifying imputed "interested parties" when a department head’s engagement creates an interest across multiple employees; staff and counsel said departmental notice and commission documents could help make those relationships transparent.

In public comment, Debbie Lerman of the San Francisco Human Services Network said the rules, if overly prescriptive, could create a "chilling effect" on nonprofit leaders who serve on city commissions and also lead to barriers between nonprofit development staff and potential donors. Kenning and legal staff said the current draft attempts to balance clarity and practical administration and that further edits could address the concerns raised.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to reflect the clarifications discussed and return the item in December for further action before the Board of Supervisors’ 60‑day review period.