Mayor Daniel Lurie and his allies love “streamlining,” which means getting rid of excess regulations that slow down business. But that fervor has now shifted to the Ethics Commission, which wants to change the way campaign consultants and developers have to file public disclosures.
The move makes little sense—the disclosure requirements are not onerous or expensive. And yet, the Ethics Commission has requested the changes and Sup. Rafael Mandelman is carrying the legislation.
Political consultants, people who are paid money to set strategy and communications for local campaigns, have to file reports showing their clients, how much they are paid, what political contributions they have made, and any city employment. The Ethics Commission says that
Instead, the section requires campaign consultants to provide their clients with the information the client needs to fully disclosure their campaign spending associated with the consultant.
Okay, but that shifts the responsibility from the consultant to the campaign, adding to campaign expenses—and frankly, makes the information much harder to find. If I want to know how much money a consultant is making, I have to already know what campaigns they are working for, then search the extensive financial disclosures of that campaign … and why? Why make it harder for people who are not experts on Ethics filings get the information they need?
The legislation also
Deletes this entire section related to a campaign consultant code of conduct. If there is a need for a voluntary code of conduct for campaign consultants, such a document can be developed by the Commission through regulation and does not need to be stated in the C&GCC.
And would
Discontinue the disclosure requirements for major developers and instead, if a developer is paying a nonprofit for lobbyist services, require the developer to provide the lobbyist with the information they need to register and report as a lobbyist under the City’s existing rules.
Again: Why make the task of tracking money harder? Why shift the burden from developers to nonprofits?
“I was around for 20 years, and was the Number One collaborator with Ethics,” former Sup. Aaron Peskin told me. “Since when did they decide their requirements were too cumbersome? People call me all the time and ask who is the consultant for X or Y, and it’s easy to get the answer. Why do we want to mess with that?”
I asked Mandelman about this, and he asked me if I use that data. Of course I do; every political reporter does. “I think Ethics staff believes the data is available in other places,” he said—and that’s true, but it’s harder to find. Again: Why? The Ethics website is not designed to be accessible to investigative reporters with years of experience; it’s designed to be accessible to everyone.
The Ethics code for political consultants clearly needs reform. The definition of “consultant” is so broad that basically anyone who ever gets paid to work on a campaign could qualify, if Ethics decided to go after them—and that creates a problem, since the Ethics staff can’t possibly investigate every campaign worker in any campaign in the city, so they get to choose. It’s too easy for that decision to become politicized.
So instead of ending registration, why not write a better definition of “consultant,” so the folks actually running and managing campaigns (generally as contractors) have to register, but the line workers (often paid as employees) don’t have to worry about Ethics coming after them? That’s a much more productive and fair reform.
I could argue that this should go before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force—but that’s impossible. The supes have failed to even consider appointing or re-appointing members, so the Task Force can’t operate, and likely will lack a quorum until at the earliest October.
Changing the ethics laws takes a two-thirds vote at the Board of Supes, which means if four supes vote No, it will fail. The measure comes before the Government Audit and Oversight Committee Thursday/16 at 10am.
Question Time, which should be a critical element of political accountability for the mayor, has been pretty quiet of late. The supes, under the City Charter, get to question the mayor about policy issues once a month, and when it works, it’s a great way for the public to learn about how the city works. Former Sup. Dean Preston used Question Time to pin former Mayor London Breed down on numerous neighborhood, housing, and transit issues.
But most of the supes, who are loyal to Mayor Daniel Lurie, have either declined to ask questions when it’s their turn or have asked little of substance.
Sup. Jackie Fielder is one of the few on this board to use the time the way it was intended, and on Tuesday/14, Fielder will ask Lurie to explain what he is doing to address the conditions at the 16th St. and 24th St BART Plazas and what his “metrics of success” are.
Then the full board will take up a series of City Charter amendments that may be on the fall ballot. One, which has widespread support, would set aside up to $125 million a year for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Almost everyone likes that idea—except that it’s part of a deal to cut inclusionary housing and let developers build with fewer fees. The cuts to affordable housing are also before the supes.
The supes will also consider a Charter amendment that would eliminate a number of commissions and oversight bodies, which is part of a package of measure Lurie is pushing to give the mayor more power. His allies are paying for petition circulators to place two more Charter amendments on the ballot, one of which would simply give him more authority over everything at City Hall, and the second, perhaps far more disturbing, would radically increase the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative and eliminate the ability of four supes to put something on the ballot with their signatures. That would all-but guarantee that only the wealthy interests could put ballot measures before the voters.
A bit of news that nobody else has reported: a ballot measure that would mandate Prop. I transfer-tax money go to affordable housing is not only headed for the voters—it’s very popular.
We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars that come from taxes on very high-end real-estate deals that the city has been collecting—but Mayor London Breed and now Mayor Daniel Lurie have refused to spend it on affordable housing, defying the will of the voters.
More than 20,000 voters signed petitions for the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act (if Lurie’s Charter amendments pass, this whole effort might not be possible, since the threshold for ballot measures would be closer to 50,000 signatures).
And, according to the group’s polling, the voters are all in favor:
The survey of 509 likely San Francisco voters, conducted by Public Policy Polling June 26-27, shows that 67% of San Franciscans support the measure. Only 16% voiced disapproval, and 17% were undecided. The margin of error is ± 4.35% at the standard 95% confidence level. The measure needs 50% +1 of voter approval to prevail.
That, supporters tell me, is even after the pollsters tested all the possible negative messaging about the plan.
Not sure what the Lurie camp and its billionaires will do to try to torpedo this, but it’s not going to be easy.
