Ethics Commission defers decision on proposed gift-law ballot measure after nonprofit and BIPOC groups raise implementation concerns

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Jan. 21 paused action on a proposed June 2022 ballot measure to amend the city’s gifts and ethics regulations after staff reported the meet-and-confer process is ongoing and after public commenters and several commissioners urged targeted changes.

Staff told the Commission they have been meeting with nonprofit stakeholders and published an FAQ to respond to concerns raised at prior meetings. Mr. Kelly (staff) said the meet-and-confer process with employee organizations remains ongoing and that recent Board of Supervisors proposals to amend the 'past due payments' chapter may overlap with the commission's work.

Public commenters urged narrower, more implementable language. Debbie Lerman of the Human Services Network said the measure should "protect activities that are beneficial to the city, as well as our nonprofits by allowing free admission to nonprofit fundraisers," and asked that uncompensated nonprofit board members be excluded from a restricted-source definition. Jack Thomas of Friends of Alameda Farm warned the proposed definitions were "so broad" they could be hard to implement and could lead to uneven enforcement, inadvertently penalizing people who work with the city. Vinay Patel of the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center said the measure could "have serious impact on the BIPOC community's ability to have those conversations" with city departments and urged staff to tailor the measure to target conduct that creates a real threat of corruptive influence.

Commissioner Finlave, who said he is newly familiarizing himself with the proposals, raised three technical issues staff should address: expanding an "intermediaries" provision (cited in the draft as 3.2166) to capture both receipt and later expenditure of funds; preserving or clarifying the advanced written determination (AWD) process for statements of incompatible activities so that employees can participate in innocuous civic activities; and avoiding creating criminal or civil exposure for non‑city actors unaware of the law. Staff acknowledged these concerns and said they would consider tweaks, study training needs, and return with further memos and outreach results.

Chair Lee thanked public commenters and asked staff to broaden outreach to nonprofit and community stakeholders and to report back before the Commission’s February meeting. No ordinance or ballot language was adopted at the Jan. 21 meeting.