Sunshine Anyone?
Most mayoral, and supervisorial candidates are mum on how to increase city government transparency
• • • • • • • • • • • • October 2024 • • • • • • • • • • • •
San Francisco voters should be concerned that most candidates in this year’s mayoral and supervisorial races failed to respond to a query by the local advocacy group San Franciscans for Sunshine on how to strengthen City Hall transparency, and only a few of those who did answer offered substantial, workable suggestions.
“We are not endorsing or opposing any candidate for public office, but we hope that by circulating as widely as possible the few responses we have received, we can impress upon voters the importance of local government transparency, and they will use the information we are providing to help them decide whom to vote for,” said Dr. Allyson M. Washburn, who chairs SF4S’s Steering Committee.
San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 67), which voters approved by a 16-point margin in November 1999, is the nation’s oldest and arguably strongest local government transparency law. But sunshine advocates believe improvements are needed to better prevent backroom deals, and to make it easier for members of the public to participate in policy body meetings and to gain access to public records.
SF4S is a nonprofit organization whose steering committee comprises current and former members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (disclosure: this writer is among them), the city’s government transparency watchdog panel. It is the namesake of the citizens’ group that persuaded voters to pass the 1999 ballot measure (Proposition G).
SF4S asked the mayoral and supervisorial candidates in mid-August what legislation they would propose to make the Sunshine Ordinance more effective at enabling members of the public to know about the policies and actions of city officials and agencies.”
SF4S asked the mayoral and supervisorial candidates in mid-August what legislation they would propose to make the Sunshine Ordinance more effective at enabling members of the public to know about the policies and actions of city officials and agencies. Here is a recap of the responses:
Candidates for Mayor
Keith Freedman: “The biggest issues are around the public gaining access to information they deem important.
“I envision a SF.gov single sign-on wherein a citizen has one username/password/2fa to access ALL city services. They can manage their parking permits, citations, traffic citations, planning/Department of Building Inspection records/permits, Department of Public Health records, etc. Therein we can have an easy to use/access public information records request.
“I’d also like to see results of any recent requests available to people searching for them.
“As an example, when we were requesting public records from the Office of Short Term Rentals, so, too, were journalists and opponents of home-sharing. The director of the OSTR had to field all such requests most of which were similar, had we known there were recent results generated for another entity, we likely would have been satisfied with a copy of those.”
Freedman would also “hire outside auditors to review all city agencies and major recipients of public funds. Potentially, these auditor findings will be made publicly available outside the control of The City or it’s leaders. I think this should be done on a regular basis.”
Daniel Lurie said he would work to ensure “that the city’s online platforms for public information are improved to be more user friendly for the community and clearly explain to the public the government process, their rights to access information, and provide real time data about the performance of their government.”
Ellen Lee Zhou submitted a response that had no relevance to the query.
Candidates for Supervisor
District 1: No response received.
District 3
Wendy Ha Chau said she would “wear a bodycam on my very first day and broadcast everything live on the X platform,” and would propose an administrative policy requiring all city officials and employees to wear bodycams when working, except where personal health privacy or national security could be compromised.
Danny Sauter said he is “committed to working with ... good government advocates to strengthen the Sunshine Ordinance” but he put forth no specific proposal.
District 5
Allen Jones said he has “no complaints” with how city agencies have handled his public record requests, though “this may be due to the fact my requests have not been too complex.” He did not suggest any sunshine-law revisions.
Dean Preston’s response mirrored SF4S’s long-held contention that a Sunshine Commission should supplant the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, with outside public-interest organizations empowered to nominate commissioners to ensure the commission’s independence “to the greatest extent possible.”
To ensure compliance with the existing Sunshine Ordinance, “I would also support additional requirements for calendar-keeping and disclosure requirements, including searchable logs of meetings and records, along with tighter requirements for record-keeping on digital communications and devices that are used to conduct official city business.”
District 7: No response received.
District 9
H. Brown submitted a response that did not answer the query.
District 11
Adlah Chisti suggests, as does SF4S, “meaningful fines or sanctions for non-compliance” with the Sunshine Ordinance and empowering the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to impose them.
“Expanding digital access to public records and meetings is vital. All government documents and meetings should be accessible online in real-time and archived for future reference. This would include ensuring that all public meetings are not only live-streamed but also recorded and made available for later viewing, with full transcripts provided for accessibility.
“Simplifying the process for the public to request records and participate in meetings is essential. We should ensure that these processes are user-friendly and accessible to all residents, regardless of their technical proficiency or language barriers.”
Ernest “EJ” Jones: “Stricter regulations on the recording process would be enforced to ensure thorough documentation and transparency. Mandatory timelines for recording actions would be established, with penalties for non-compliance, preventing the potential exploitation of extension timelines. An independent review board would be proposed to oversee the implementation of these regulations, ensuring that extensions are granted only when absolutely necessary and justified. This board would monitor compliance, conduct audits, and make recommendations for further improvements.” (Such a board exists: the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.)
“Additionally,” Jones said, “I would prioritize the implementation of rigorous transparency measures, such as regular audits and public disclosure of government expenditures and contracts. It would be mandatory for all city officials and employees to undergo ethics training to ensure adherence to ethical standards and conflict-of-interest policies.” (Such training is already required for all city officials and City Hall employees.)
Strengthening whistleblower protections is also important to encourage the reporting of misconduct without fear of retaliation, and independent oversight bodies should be established to monitor government operations and impartially investigate allegations of corruption, Jones said. (Such a body exists: the Ethics Commission.) Additionally, he said, advocating for campaign finance reform and promoting active community engagement in government processes are crucial steps to limit undue influence and ensure fair practices.
Richard Knee is a San Francisco-based freelance journalist and sunshine activist.
October 2024
