Behested Payments | San Francisco Voter Guide

Behested Payments

Shall the City amend its behested payments law to prevent Board of Supervisors (Board) members from seeking behested payments from contractors who received Board approval and to allow further changes to this law only if the City’s Ethics Commission and two-thirds of the Board approve those amendments?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: A behested payment is a donation solicited by a public official to benefit either a government agency or a private organization.

City law generally prohibits elected officials, commissioners, department heads and other City employees with decision-making authority from seeking these payments from any of the following:

• businesses and individuals contracting with or seeking to contract with their departments;

• individuals who attempted to influence them with respect to governmental actions;

• lobbyists registered to lobby their departments;

• permit expediters who have contacted their departments during the previous 12 months; or

• individuals involved in their departments’ proceedings regarding administrative enforcement, a license or a permit.

The Board of Supervisors (Board) can amend this law by a majority vote.

The Proposal: Proposition E would amend the City’s existing law regarding behested payments with two additions:

• members of the Board could not seek behested payments from contractors if the Board had approved their contracts; and

• the Board could later amend the City’s law regarding behested payments only if the City’s Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendments by a majority vote and the Board then approves them by a two-thirds vote of its members.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to amend the City’s law regarding behested payments.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "E"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:

Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would not affect the cost of government.

How "E" Got on the Ballot

On January 18, 2022, the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by the following Supervisors: Chan, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Walton.

The Municipal Elections Code allows four or more Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

A YES Vote on Proposition E is a vote to stamp out bribery and corruption in San Francisco government.

In 2020, the City Controller produced a Public Integrity Review of pay-to-play politics in San Francisco, and found that so-called “behested payments” presented a high risk of corruption. Behested payments occur when City Officials raise money from interested parties who have contracts, permits, or other administrative or financial matters pending before them.

Unlike gifts or bribes, behested payments can enrich public officials indirectly, through outside slush funds. Behested payments have become the preferred loophole for special interests who want to get around laws that prevent outright bribery.

San Franciscans deserve to know that public officials are making decisions based on their best judgment, and not on behalf of large corporations and special interests. When City Officials raise money from entities who stand to benefit from their actions, their duty to the public is impaired.

When the former Director of Public Works asked Recology to donate to an outside slush fund while approving increases to their monopoly profits, that was a behested payment. When former DBI officials, now under federal indictment, raised money from permit expediters whose permits they were rubber stamping, those were behested payments.

When behested payments occur, regular San Franciscans stand to lose. Let’s put an end to behested payments, and an end to pay-to-play politics in San Francisco.

Vote Yes on Prop E. E is for Ethics.

San Francisco Friends of Ethics

Board of Supervisors President Shamman Walton

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Dean Presto

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, non-profit and community organizations are relying on public private partnerships more than ever.

Proposition E would stop organizations most in need from receiving important funding they need to stay operational. Their work impacts the most critical issues San Francisco is facing - homelessness, housing scarcity, equity, public safety, and climate change. Parks and open spaces are also at risk, and are a significant part of the daily lives of families, working people, and seniors.

Proposition E puts prohibitive regulations on the neighborhood engagement process. Grassroots groups do not have the resources of larger corporations. Expecting our community advocates to navigate complex regulations such as Proposition E would have a chilling effect on the type of community services San Francisco can offer to residents who are deeply affected by the challenges we face today.

Proposition E is a “one size fits all” approach that will cause more harm than good, stifling the voices of the underrepresented and disenfranchised.

We must empower and uplift our communities - not add more red tape. Vote NO on Proposition E.

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition E

While there may be good intentions behind Proposition E, this ordinance is a sledgehammer approach that will significantly impair the City’s ability to partner with vital community organizations and receive critical charitable support.

The measure will prevent the City from closely working with nonprofit partners on projects addressing homelessness, housing, equity, public safety and environmental justice.

Proposition E will jeopardize important partnerships that enable community benefit organizations to help those most in need. During these challenging times, the City is fighting to recover from the pandemic and residents are still feeling its effects. We must work closely with our community nonprofits and welcome generous charitable giving to the City to support its recovery efforts.

Proposition E will disproportionately impact historically disenfranchised groups serving communities of color and the LGBTQ community that may not have the resources and access to navigate such complex regulation. They will be left out of the conversation. These disparate impacts do not serve to lift up the people of San Francisco in such a difficult time.

Overly burdensome, ambiguous, and overreaching regulation is always inequitable. San Francisco cannot afford such impacts now.

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Senator Scott Wiener

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E

A YES vote on E is a vote for ethical government, and an end to pay-to-play politics as usual.

The official opponents of Prop E must be confused. Prop E would not stop all fundraising, but it would stop government officials from fundraising from people who are seeking contracts from them, or whose contracts they just approved. That’s a recipe for corruption. Plain and simple.

Since the United States Attorney began its investigation, 5 department heads, including the heads of some of San Francisco’s largest agencies, have been indicted or removed from their jobs.

We’re actually kind of shocked that there are still people in government who want to stick to the bad old ways. The official opponents to this argument fail to explain why they need to raise money from the very parties who are seeking contracts, permits or other relief from them.

The reason we’re taking this to the voters is because we don’t trust politicians to regulate themselves. Prop E is based on common sense legislation lauded by California Common Cause, an organization that advances democracy by building public trust in government.

Vote Yes on E.

SF Friends of Ethics

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition E

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

The San Francisco Labor Council coordinates local labor unions and builds unity among working people in San Francisco. We urge you to vote Yes on E.

The hard-working people of San Francisco do not need their jobs tainted by public sector corruption. We earn contracts fair and square, not because we pad the pockets of politicians.

Prop E is about restoring integrity to San Francisco government. Vote Yes on E.

San Francisco Labor Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: SF Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

As elected members of the San Francisco Democratic Party, we advocate for campaign finance reform and clean, ethical government.

We support Prop E because it would restore trust in local government. Public officials should act in the best interest of the people they represent, not the special interests who are seeking financial benefits from them.

Vote Yes on E. E is for Ethics.

John Avalos, SF Democratic Party member*

Keith R Baraka, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Peter Gallotta, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Anabell Ibanez, Teacher, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Li Lovett, SF Democratic Party Vice-Chair*

Carolina Morales, SF Democratic Party member*

Queena Chen, SF Democratic Party member*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

The LGBTQ Community Agrees - E is for Ethics!

We’re tired of the headlines about corrupt local government. We want City officials to put our communities first, not hand out political favors to those who fill their slush funds. Join us in voting YES on E!

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Esther Marks.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

In recognition of the lifelong advocacy of former Ethics Commissioner Peter Keane, and in memory of our departed friends and former Ethics Commissioners Bob Planthold and Eileen Hansen, we urge you to vote Yes on E.

These advocates dedicated much of their careers to pushing for behested payments reform. We owe it to them to see it through.

San Francisco Friends of Ethics, a group of former Ethics Commissioners and advocates.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Paul Melbostad.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

Vote Yes on Prop E! E is for Ethics!

We are a coalition of neighborhood groups that have acted as government watchdogs for 50 years.

Stop using nonprofits as a shield for government corruption. We believe in fundraising for social services. But allowing city officials to solicit money from people whose contracts they just approved is absurd.

Let’s end this dishonesty. No more behested payments. No more “play to pay” politics at City Hall!

Vote Yes on Prop E! Join your friends and neighbors to kill corruption in city government!

Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, founded in 1972.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition E

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition E

No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition E Were Submitted

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

Ordinance amending the Campaign and Governmental Code to expand the prohibition on the solicitation of behested payments to include City contractors seeking the Board of Supervisors’ approval and to require approval by the Ethics Commission and super-majority approval by the Board of Supervisors for future amendments to local behested payment restrictions.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in ~~strikethrough italics Times New Roman font~~.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1. The voters hereby re-authorize and re-enact Article III, Chapter 6 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, as follows: adding Section 3.600; renumbering existing Section 3.600 (as Section 3.610), existing Section 3.610 (as Section 3.620), existing Section 3.640 (as Section 3.630), and existing Section 3.650 (as Section 3.640); and revising the renumbered Sections 3.610 and 3.630, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 6: BEHESTED PAYMENT REPORTING

~~SEC. 3.600. DEFINITIONS.~~

~~Whenever in this Chapter 6 the following words or phrases are used, they shall have the following meanings:~~

~~“Affiliate” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.126 of this Code.~~

“Agent” shall mean any person who represents a party in connection with a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use as set forth in Title 2, Section 18438.3 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time.

“At the behest of” shall mean under the control or at the direction of, in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or with the express, prior consent of.

~~“Behested payment” shall mean a payment that is made at the behest of an officer, or an agent thereof, and that is made principally for a legislative, governmental, or charitable purpose.~~

~~“City Contractor” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.126 of this Code, except only with respect to contracts with any department of the City and County of San Francisco.~~

“Commissioner” shall mean any member of a City board or commission, excluding the Board of Supervisors, who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests as set forth in Section 3.1-103(a)(1) of this Code.

~~“Contact” shall be defined as set forth in Section 2.106 of this Code.~~

~~“Department head” shall mean any department head who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests as set forth in Section 3.1-103(b)(1) of this Code.~~

~~“Designated employee” shall mean any employee of the City and County of San Francisco required to file a Statement of Economic Interests under Article III, Chapter 1 of this Code.~~

~~“Elected official” shall mean Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, District Attorney, Mayor, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, or member of the Board of Supervisors.~~

“Financial interest” shall be defined as set forth in the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 87100 et seq.), any subsequent amendments to these Sections, and its implementing regulations.

“Grant” shall mean an agreement with a government agency, non-profit organization or private entity to fund City projects or programs, under which the grantor imposes restrictions on the City’s spending of the grant funds.

~~“Interested party” shall mean:~~

(a) any party, participant or agent of a party or participant involved in a proceeding regarding administrative enforcement, a license, a permit, or other entitlement for use, before (1) an officer, (2) any board or commission (including the Board of Supervisors) on which the officer sits, (3) the department of the officer, or (4) the department of the designated employee;

(b) any City Contractor contracting with or seeking to contract with the designated employee’s or officer’s department, or any affiliate of such a City Contractor, except for any person providing a grant to the City or City department;

(c) any person who attempted to influence the employee or officer in any legislative or administrative action, provided that “attempt to influence” shall be defined as set forth in Section 3.216(b)(1) of this Code and the Ethics Commission’s regulations implementing Section 3.216(b)(1), and shall not include (1) oral or written public comment that becomes part of the record of a public hearing; (2) speaking at a public forum or rally, or (3) communications made via email, petition or social media;

(d) any contact or expenditure lobbyist, as defined under Article II, Chapter 1 of this Code, who has registered as a contact or expenditure lobbyist with the Ethics Commission, if the contact lobbyist or expenditure lobbyist is registered to lobby the designated employee’s or officer’s department; or

(e) any permit consultant, as defined under Article III, Chapter 4 of this Code, who has registered as a permit consultant with the Ethics Commission, if the permit consultant has reported any contacts with the designated employee’s or officer’s department to carry out permit consulting services during the prior 12 months.

“License, permit, or other entitlement for use” shall mean professional, trade, or land use licenses, permits, or other entitlements to use property or engage in business, including professional license revocations, conditional use permits, rezoning of property parcels, zoning variances, tentative subdivision and parcel maps, cable television franchises, building and development permits, private development plans, and contracts (other than labor or personal employment contracts and competitively bid contracts where the City is required to select the highest or lowest qualified bidder), as set forth in California Government Code Section 84308, as amended from time to time.

~~“Officer” shall mean any commissioner, department head, or elected official.~~

“Participant” shall mean any person who is not a party but who actively supports or opposes (by lobbying in person, testifying in person, or otherwise acting to influence) a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and who has a financial interest in the decision, as set forth in California Government Code Section 84308 and Title 2, Section 18438.4 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time.

“Party” shall mean any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, as set forth in California Government Code Section 84308, as amended from time to time.

~~“Payment” shall mean a monetary payment or the delivery of goods or services.~~

~~“Permit consulting services” shall be defined as set forth in Article III, Chapter 4 of this Code.~~

~~“Person” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.104 of this Code.~~

“Public appeal” shall mean a request for a payment when such request is made by means of television, radio, billboard, a public message on an online platform, the distribution of 200 or more identical pieces of printed material, the distribution of a single email to 200 or more recipients, or a speech to a group of 20 or more individuals.

“Relative” shall mean a spouse, domestic partner, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and first cousin, and includes any similar step relationship or relationship created by adoption.

~~SEC. 3.610. PROHIBITING ELECTED OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, COMMISSIONERS, AND DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES FROM SOLICITING BEHESTED PAYMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES.~~

(a) PROHIBITION. Elected officials, department heads, commissioners, and designated employees shall not directly or indirectly solicit any behested payment from an interested party in the following circumstances:

(1) Administrative proceedings. If the interested party is a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in a proceeding before the elected official’s, department head’s, commissioner’s, or designated employee’s department regarding administrative enforcement, a license, a permit, or other entitlement for use, the prohibition set forth in this subsection (a) shall apply:

~~(A) during the proceeding; and~~

~~(B) for twelve months following the date on which a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.~~

(2) Contracts. If the interested party is a City Contractor, or an affiliate of a City Contractor, who is a party to or is seeking a contract with the elected official’s, department head’s, commissioner’s, or designated employee’s department, the prohibition set forth in this subsection (a) shall apply from the submission of a proposal until the later of:

~~(A) the termination of negotiations for the contract; or~~

~~(B) twelve months following the end of the contract’s term.~~

(3) Persons seeking to influence. If the interested party is a person who attempted to influence the elected official, department head, commissioner, or designated employee in any legislative or administrative action, the prohibition set forth in this subsection (a) shall apply for 12 months following the date of each attempt to influence.

(4) Lobbyists. Elected officials, department heads, commissioners, and designated employees may not solicit any behested payment from a contact lobbyist or expenditure lobbyist who has registered as a lobbyist with the Ethics Commission, if the contact lobbyist or expenditure lobbyist is registered to lobby the designated employee’s or officer’s department.

(5) Permit consultants. Elected officials, department heads, commissioners, and designated employees may not solicit any behested payment from a permit consultant who has registered with the Ethics Commission, if the permit consultant has reported any contacts with the designated employee’s or officer’s department to carry out permit consulting services during the prior 12 months.

(b) INDIRECT SOLICITATION. For the purposes of this Section 3.610, a City officer or employee is indirectly soliciting a behested payment when the City officer or employee directs or otherwise urges another person to solicit a behested payment from an identifiable interested party or parties.

~~(c) EXCEPTION – PUBLIC APPEALS. This Section 3.610 shall not apply to public appeals.~~

~~SEC. 3.640. REGULATIONS.~~

(a) The Ethics Commission may adopt rules, regulations, and guidelines for the implementation of this Chapter 6. The Ethics Commission shall adopt rules, regulations or guidelines defining and illustrating “interested party” and when a payment is made “at the behest of” a City officer or designated employee.

~~(b) The Ethics Commission may, by regulation, require persons to electronically submit information required to fulfill their obligations under this Chapter 6.~~

~~SEC. 3.650. PENALTIES.~~

~~Any party who fails to comply with any provision of this Chapter 6 is subject to the administrative process and penalties set forth in Section 3.242(d) of this Code.~~

SEC. 3.600. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF CHAPTER.

The voters may amend or repeal this Chapter 6. The Board of Supervisors may amend this Chapter 6 if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendment in advance by a majority vote of all its members;

(b) The proposed amendment is available for public review at least 30 days before the amendment is considered by the Board of Supervisors or any committee of the Board of Supervisors; and

(c) The Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amendment by at least a two-thirds vote of all its members.

SEC. 3.610. DEFINITIONS.

Whenever in this Chapter 6 the following words or phrases are used, they shall have the following meanings:

“Affiliate” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.126 of this Code.

“Behested payment” shall mean a payment that is made at the behest of an officer, or an agent thereof, and that is made principally for a legislative, governmental, or charitable purpose.

“City Contractor” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.126 of this Code, except only with respect to contracts with any department of the City and County of San Francisco.

“Contact” shall be defined as set forth in Section 2.106 of this Code.

“Department head” shall mean any department head who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests as set forth in Section 3.1-103(b)(1) of this Code.

“Designated employee” shall mean any employee of the City and County of San Francisco required to file a Statement of Economic Interests under Article III, Chapter 1 of this Code.

“Elected official” shall mean Assessor-Recorder, City Attorney, District Attorney, Mayor, Public Defender, Sheriff, Treasurer, or member of the Board of Supervisors.

“Interested party” shall mean:

(b) (1) any City Contractor contracting with or seeking to contract with the designated employee’s or officer’s department, or any affiliate of such a City Contractor, except for any person providing a grant to the City or a City department, and (2) as pertains to members of the Board of Supervisors, any City Contractor, or any affiliate of such a City Contractor, if the Board of Supervisors approves the City Contractor’s agreement with the City, except for any person providing a grant to the City or a City department;

(c) any person who attempted to influence the employee or officer in any legislative or administrative action, provided that “attempt to influence” shall be defined as set forth in Section 3.216(b)(1) of this Code and the Ethics Commission’s regulations implementing Section 3.216(b)(1), and shall not include (1) oral or written public comment that becomes part of the record of a public hearing, (2) speaking at a public forum or rally, or (3) communications made via email, petition or social media;

“Interested party” shall not include: (a) any nonprofit organization that Article V of the Charter has authorized to support an arts and culture department; (b) any federal or State government agency; (c) an individual, solely because the individual is an uncompensated board member of a nonprofit organization that is an interested party; or (d) as pertains to members of the Board of Supervisors, a City Contractor, or affiliate of a City Contractor, if the Board of Supervisors did not approve the City Contractor’s agreement with the City.

“Officer” shall mean any commissioner, department head, or elected official.

“Payment” shall mean a monetary payment or the delivery of goods or services.

“Permit consulting services” shall be defined as set forth in Article III, Chapter 4 of this Code.

“Person” shall be defined as set forth in Section 1.104 of this Code.

SEC. 3.620. PROHIBITING ELECTED OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, COMMISSIONERS, AND DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES FROM SOLICITING BEHESTED PAYMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES.

(A) during the proceeding; and

(B) for twelve months following the date on which a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

(A) the termination of negotiations for the contract; or

(B) twelve months following the end of the contract’s term.

(b) INDIRECT SOLICITATION. For the purposes of this Section 3.620, a City officer or employee is indirectly soliciting a behested payment when the City officer or employee directs or otherwise urges another person to solicit a behested payment from an identifiable interested party or parties.

(c) EXCEPTION – PUBLIC APPEALS. This Section 3.620 shall not apply to public appeals.

SEC. 3.630. REGULATIONS.

The Ethics Commission may adopt rules, regulations, and guidelines for the implementation of this Chapter 6. The Ethics Commission shall adopt rules, regulations or guidelines defining and illustrating “interested party” and when a payment is made “at the behest of” a City officer or designated employee.

SEC. 3.640. PENALTIES.

Any party who fails to comply with any provision of this Chapter 6 is subject to the administrative process and penalties set forth in Section 3.242(d) of this Code.

Section 2. Effective Date. The effective date of this ordinance shall be ten days after the date the official vote count is declared by the Board of Supervisors.

* * *