Yes on Prop E. to help air out the smell of town hall corruption
That same year, former Building Inspection Department commissioner and structural engineer Rodrigo Santos was charged with fraud for soliciting donations from nonprofit organizations favored by senior building inspector Bernard Curran, in exchange for his approval of projects that might otherwise not have passed inspection.
The scandals don’t stop there.
Just a few months ago, the head of the Department of the Environment, Debbie Raphael, resigned after the city comptroller’s office discovered that she and her staff had solicited and accepted donations from Recology before awarding the contracts from the city to the company.
All three cases have one thing in common: they involve so-called “tax payments,” or charitable donations made at the request of a public official.
Learn more about the California Elections 2022
Good governance watchdogs across California have been shouting about the murky ethics of enforced payments for years. And state lawmakers passed new transparency measures last October to help curb the practice. With reason.
Now, in San Francisco, with so many city officials and employees facing federal charges — including bribery, wire fraud, perjury, and bribery — that solicitation system is finally coming under fire. . Proposal E, which would regulate and limit these types of donations, is a long-awaited tool to combat this type of corruption.
The June 7 ballot measure, which is based on a 50-page report on public integrity released by the city comptroller’s office, prohibits elected officials and city department heads from asking for charitable donations from “interested parties,” including lobbyists and those seeking city contracts and permits. It was the subject of half a dozen hearings at city hall before gaining the unanimous support of the supervisory board in December. In the months that followed, many backtracked on that decision, saying the measure was too complex and would hamper their ability to fund the nonprofits they care about. Other opponents of the measure claim that Prop. E would bring a “sledgehammer” to philanthropic donations.
But these fears are exaggerated.
The measure includes specific language to ensure that many of the most hyperbolic fears surrounding the potential role Prop E. could play in the death of philanthropic giving in San Francisco are unfounded. For example, organizations that obtain small-town contracts, such as ministerial permits that can be acquired online, for example, to reserve a barbecue or a sports field in Golden Gate Park, would be exempt.
Instead, taxed donations would be limited only to those who directly approve an organization’s contracts. If, for example, health care provider Kaiser somehow secured a contract with the city through the Recreation and Parks Department, then his manager would not be able to solicit donations from Kaiser. at the Parks Alliance. But if Kaiser only has a contract with the Department of Public Health, the head of the Department of Recreation and Parks might well ask for a donation from the Parks Alliance.
Supervisory board members, meanwhile, would not be allowed to solicit funds for contractors whose permits they voted in the past year. However, since very few permits with contracts lasting less than 10 years or costing less than $10 million are subject to board approval, this means supervisors would still be able to solicit donations to many small non-profit organizations at the neighborhood level. need.
Ethics laws are constantly changing. And although Proposal E contains provisions that make it difficult to change if its regulations prove to be too onerous, the measure still includes some flexibility. A qualified majority of eight of the 11 members of the supervisory board can make changes to the law, with the support of the ethics commission, without a return to the ballot.
Voters should be wary of any action that impedes San Franciscans’ deep commitment to philanthropic giving. But we do not believe that Prop. E will have this effect. Instead, it will create clear and reasonable limits on the solicitation of gifts from city officials to organizations whose contracts they approve. This may require a cultural shift in how philanthropy is practiced in San Francisco. But it’s a small price to pay to help eliminate the stench of corruption that hangs over City Hall.
Vote yes on proposal E.
This comment is from The Chronicle editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.