Ethics Commission outlines FY23–24 budget priorities, requests more staff and technology support
January 21, 2022 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The San Francisco Ethics Commission presented its fiscal-year 2023–24 budget priorities on Jan. 21, seeking staff reclassifications, one new limited-term position, and non‑position funding for technology and contract administration support while reporting an operating budget of roughly $6.5 million and 33 staff positions.
Director Pelham described the office’s current staffing and priorities: 33 positions total (with about five vacancies), eight positions added in last year’s request, and ongoing hiring. The office proposed a reclassification of one existing position (a roughly $20,000 FY23 impact for a three‑year limited-term reclassification), creation of a client-support specialist to sustain Form 700 e‑filing assistance, policy-unit reclassifications to reflect increased complexity, and a senior auditor position to bolster the audit program. Pelham said non‑position requests include licensing and technology maintenance and an arrangement with the Office of Contract Administration to help secure outside services for audits and technology projects.
Pelham said the FY23 request would be roughly 4.5% above the current allocation and could grow to about 11.5% in the second year. Commissioners asked how the ethics-at-work education positions will coordinate with the Department of Human Resources and whether new positions are feasible while existing hires remain unfilled; Pelham said staff are balancing onboarding capacity with program needs and invited commissioners to identify additional priorities for the February meeting.
Several commissioners urged the Commission to fund a Commission secretary (a Charter‑referenced position) to improve outreach, record keeping and day-to-day administrative support. Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen and staff noted the civil-service classification for a Commission secretary may not encompass all substantive outreach tasks commissioners envisioned and asked staff to review other departments’ approaches and duties to inform a proposal.
No budget vote was taken; staff will return with a more detailed proposal at the February meeting.
Director Pelham described the office’s current staffing and priorities: 33 positions total (with about five vacancies), eight positions added in last year’s request, and ongoing hiring. The office proposed a reclassification of one existing position (a roughly $20,000 FY23 impact for a three‑year limited-term reclassification), creation of a client-support specialist to sustain Form 700 e‑filing assistance, policy-unit reclassifications to reflect increased complexity, and a senior auditor position to bolster the audit program. Pelham said non‑position requests include licensing and technology maintenance and an arrangement with the Office of Contract Administration to help secure outside services for audits and technology projects.
Pelham said the FY23 request would be roughly 4.5% above the current allocation and could grow to about 11.5% in the second year. Commissioners asked how the ethics-at-work education positions will coordinate with the Department of Human Resources and whether new positions are feasible while existing hires remain unfilled; Pelham said staff are balancing onboarding capacity with program needs and invited commissioners to identify additional priorities for the February meeting.
Several commissioners urged the Commission to fund a Commission secretary (a Charter‑referenced position) to improve outreach, record keeping and day-to-day administrative support. Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen and staff noted the civil-service classification for a Commission secretary may not encompass all substantive outreach tasks commissioners envisioned and asked staff to review other departments’ approaches and duties to inform a proposal.
No budget vote was taken; staff will return with a more detailed proposal at the February meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
