Ethics Commission defers vote on proposed gift-law ballot measure after meet-and-confer remains open

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Friday declined to act on a proposed ballot measure that would tighten the city’s gift and ethics rules after staff said labor negotiations under the city’s meet‑and‑confer process remain open.

Commission staff summarized months of outreach and revisions but told commissioners the Municipal Executives Association and several departments continued to press issues in the meet‑and‑confer process, meaning “the commission is unable to take action, today on this item,” Michael Canning, a policy staffer, said.

The Deputy City Attorney reminded commissioners of a practical deadline: the Department of Elections requires submission at least 95 days before the June primary, and staff said meeting that calendar would require a March 4 filing.

The meeting became a lengthy forum for department heads, contractors and nonprofit leaders to press concerns about the measure’s scope and wording. ‘‘I am concerned about this type of legislation, being proposed,’’ said Marcos Major, a nonprofit director who spoke during public comment. Multiple speakers warned the measure’s expanded “restricted source” language and reporting rules could impose heavy administrative burdens on small nonprofits and chill routine community engagement by city staff.

DHR Director Tabressa Eisen told the commission it has a statutory obligation under state labor law to meet and confer in good faith over any proposal that affects wages, hours or terms and conditions of employment and said more detailed positions of the parties would typically be discussed in closed session.

Staff also sought to correct some public concerns: the proposal, they said, would not add new reporting requirements for nonprofits, would not stop grant or contract relationships, and contains proposed carve‑outs such as an exception for free attendance at nonprofit fundraisers when attendance is necessary to a city official’s duties. The proposal also would consolidate multiple disclosure requirements for outside payments into a single report, staff said, with the goal of reducing duplicative filings.

Commissioners were divided on timing. Several members argued for urgency to meet the March 4 deadline so voters could weigh the measure in June; others said the Commission should complete the meet‑and‑confer process and produce clearer written guidance and outreach for affected communities before moving forward.

As a result the Commission accepted staff’s recommendation to take no action at this meeting and scheduled a closed‑session briefing with Department of Human Resources negotiators next week and additional public outreach (including FAQs) to address the concerns raised.

What happens next: staff will post an FAQ and other explanatory materials and the Commission will receive a confidential meet‑and‑confer briefing in closed session before deciding whether to return the measure to the public agenda.