C

Inspector General

Shall the City amend the Charter to create the new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse, and give the Controller’s Office additional powers to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants when permitted by State law?

 

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

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: 

The Controller is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors to oversee the City’s financial affairs. The Charter requires the Controller to receive and investigate complaints concerning the quality and delivery of government services, wasteful or inefficient City government practices, misuse of City funds, and improper activities by City officers and employees. The Charter also requires the Controller to monitor the level and effectiveness of services the City provides to its residents.

Other City departments, including the City Attorney, District Attorney and Ethics Commission, have jurisdiction to investigate fraud, abuse and other matters related to public integrity. The Department of Human Resources has jurisdiction to investigate employee misconduct.

The Controller can examine the records of City boards, commissions, officers and departments, but the Controller cannot issue subpoenas to require third parties such as City contractors, permittees or lobbyists to produce records. State law authorizes employees of the Controller’s Office to execute search warrants under certain circumstances, but there is no similar provision in the Charter.

The Charter also establishes a separate department called the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General to investigate complaints involving employees of the Sheriff’s Office. That department is not connected to the Controller’s Office.

The Proposal:

Proposition C would amend the Charter to create a new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste and abuse. The Controller would appoint the Inspector General, subject to the approval of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The Controller would supervise and could terminate the Inspector General. 

The Inspector General would consult with the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, District Attorney and Department of Human Resources regarding those departments’ investigations involving fraud, waste or abuse. The Inspector General could either refer specific matters to those departments, could investigate those matters in coordination with the relevant department, or could conduct its own investigation. At least twice a year, the Inspector General would be required to issue public reports on its activities and the outcomes of all investigations by other city agencies into matters concerning public integrity.

Proposition C would give the Controller power to issue subpoenas to third parties, including contractors, permittees and lobbyists.  It would also allow the Inspector General, the Controller and employees of the Controller’s Office to execute search warrants when permitted by State law.

Under Proposition C, the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General would be renamed the “Office of Sheriff’s Inspector General.”

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to create the new position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office to review and investigate complaints of fraud, waste and abuse, and grant the Controller’s Office the power to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants when permitted by State law.

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

Controller's Statement on "C"

City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition C:

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a moderate impact on the cost of government – ranging from $725,000 to $775,000 annually plus additional investigative legal support that is likely to vary year to year depending on need.

The proposed Charter amendment would establish the position of Inspector General within the Controller’s Office and expand the Controller’s investigative powers. The Inspector General’s functions will be funded through the City Services Auditor’s existing Charter-mandated set-aside of two-tenths of one percent of the City’s overall budget. By redirecting existing funding to the new duties of the Inspector General, the amendment may reduce resources that would otherwise be available for alternative activities by the City Services Auditor to monitor the level and effectiveness of City services.

The amendment also expands the Controller’s authority to subpoena witnesses, compel the production of evidence and execute search warrants to the extent permitted by State law. It also expands the scope of whistleblower complaints the Controller can receive to include those doing business with the City.

The proposed amendment would cost approximately $725,000 to $775,000 annually for an Inspector General and two staff positions within the City Services Auditor. Additionally, one-time office setup costs may cost between approximately $125,000 and $175,000. This cost does not include the cost for search warrants and subpoenas. For context, executing a subpoena may cost between $1,000 and $20,000 per subpoena depending on whether litigation is required to enforce the subpoena. Preparing a search warrant may cost between $9,000 and $20,000 per search warrant. To the extent the proposed amendment results in an increased number of whistleblower complaints, the cost of government may also increase, although at a level that cannot be determined at this time.

Note that the proposed amendment would change the duties of the Controller’s Office, which has prepared this statement.

How "C" Got on the Ballot

On July 23, 2024, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition C on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.

No: None.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow. The full text can be found under Legal Text. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained in Words You Need to Know.

 

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

For Effective & Accountable Government, Vote Yes on C

In the past decades, the FBI has led the way in uncovering San Francisco’s corruption, leading to more than two dozen arrests, indictments, and convictions of top department heads, elected officials, non-profit leaders and corporate lobbyists. Yet this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

To create a more effective, accountable government, voters can approve the Inspector General Charter Amendment. This will establish our own Inspector General with the power to investigate and bring to justice complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse.

And since it will be part of the Controller’s Office, no new taxes will be needed to fund the Office.

Powers of the Inspector General

  • Established in the Controller’s Office which manages city government’s finances
  • Charged with investigating waste, fraud and abuse, and any other matters regarding public integrity
  • Empowered to subpoena all city records as well as third parties including contractors, permittees and lobbyists
  • Coordinated with existing enforcement agencies including District Attorney, City Attorney and Ethics Commission

Investigations to be conducted by the Inspector General:

  • Misuse of taxpayer funds by city officials, city-funded non-profits, and third parties
  • Pay-to-play political favoritism where elected officials grant illegal favors to large campaign contributors
  • Political intimidation and retaliation which prevents corrupt activity from coming to light
  • Public integrity violations at every level of government from bottom to top

San Francisco has a chance to join other major American cities who have an Inspector General. Based on the arrests over the last few years, we need one.

Please join us and vote Yes on C..

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Joel Engardio

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Matt Dorsey

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Shamann Walton

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

The Board of Supervisors says Proposition C will clean up City Hall.

Don't be misled. Proposition C grows the untethered bureaucracy blind to a simple truth: a fish rots from the head down.

An "Inspector General" doesn't bring accountability, Proposition C grants power that needn't answer to voters. It's undemocratic, even dangerous.

San Francisco citizens want senior government officials who take responsibility! Mayor London Breed, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and City Attorney David Chiu—or better yet, new leaders this November.

Why aren't the Supervisors calling out failed enforcement by the Mayor, District Attorney and City Attorney? Don't forget, we could have voted them all out last year, but the Supervisors canceled the election!

Proposition C will cost at least $750,000 annually, a million with legal and enforcement costs. That means fewer critical city services.

Vote NO on Proposition C.

Demand our leaders take personal responsibility for our city's integrity.

Larry Marso, Esq.

Proposition C is a power grab disguised as reform. The charter amendment installs an unelected Inspector General in the Controller's Office to "investigate corruption." But let's be clear—this is more bureaucracy.

San Francisco doesn't need unelected officials with unchecked power. We need accountability from leaders we already have: Mayor London Breed, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and City Attorney David Chiu—or democratically elected replacements—not a figurehead who doesn't answer to voters.

Sadly, under current leadership, we've needed the FBI. So vote them out! 

Why trust some new official to solve our problems? San Francisco has a long history of corruption scandals, another bureaucrat won't fix that. What's needed is fresh faces in elected office, transparency and accountability.

We've seen these "reforms" before. They promise to clean up City Hall, yet the problems deepen. This is more of the same—a distraction from the real work of holding civil servants accountable.

Vote NO on Proposition C.

Larry Marso

Mr. Marso is a technology executive, M&A advisor and attorney. A staunch advocate for fiscal responsibility, he authored a ballot measure to regulate San Francisco navigation/linkage centers, has fought corruption and fraud in our political parties and nonprofits, and as a member and former executive of the local Republican Party committee, has offered principled opposition.

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! visit: https://bigfraud.com 

Larry S. Marso

Voting Yes on C gives San Francisco the opportunity to join other major American cities like New York and Chicago who have successfully established an Inspector General. Based on the corruption over the last decades, we need one.

Here are some of the benefits of the Inspector General that opponents ignore:

Politically Independent: By putting the Inspector General in the Controller's Office, it is protected from political interference by those who are politically powerful and might be under investigation.

Fiscally Responsible: Yes on C provides money for the Inspector General from a fund set aside for the Controller, which means there doesn't need to be any additional funds budgeted for this effort.

Empowered to take on fraud, waste and corruption: The Controller's Office currently conducts audits and answers the whistleblower hotline. The Inspector General will be enabled to subpoena records of contractors, nonprofits and third-parties who do business with the city.

If you are tired of hearing about new scandals involving misuse of taxpayer funds, pay-to-play political favoritism, political intimidation and retaliation, and public integrity violations, now is your chance to take action.

Please vote Yes on C to give San Francisco the tool many other major cities have to create more effective and accountable government. 

Please join us and vote Yes on C.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Connie Chan 

Supervisor Catherine Stefani 

Supervisor Joel Engardio 

Supervisor Dean Preston 

Supervisor Matt Dorsey 

Supervisor Myrna Melgar 

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman 

Supervisor Hillary Ronen 

Supervisor Shamann Walton 

Supervisor Ahsha Safai 

1

Prop C: CUT OUT THE CORRUPTION 

Since 1999 more than two dozen San Francisco City employees, officials, and contractors have been arrested and criminally charged for corruption in City business or taking bribes -including two department heads in charge of Public Works and Public Utilities! 

This longtime Culture of Corruption in our City Hall was exposed thanks only to federal prosecutors. 

Why is this? 

Because San Francisco is one of the few major American cities without its own Inspector General dedicated to investigating questionable City activities and rooting out civic corruption. Let's finally make sure that really gets done from now on! 

YES ON C, LETS CLEAN UP CITY HALL AT LONG LAST! 

Build Affordable Faster California 

John Elberling 

Peter Stevens 

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Tenants and Owners Development Corporation.

 

2

Yes on C for a San Francisco government you can trust

I served as the City Controller for seventeen years. During that time we created the City Services Auditor division and started the City's whistleblower hotline. But those kinds of controls haven't been good enough to stop the recent fraud that has been found by the FBI and US Attorney. Prop C would give the Controller an Inspector General with the authority to find and root out corruption in City government and with people who do business with the City. By putting it in the independent Controller's Office it protects it from political interference. It also provides money for this work from a fund set aside for the Controller which means there does not need to be any additional funds budgeted for this effort. I urge your support. 

Vote Yes on Prop C 

Ed Harrington, Former City Controller 

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, a coalition of small businesses, neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

 

3

Yes on C to combat corruption

Establishing an Inspector General is essential in rooting out corruption and restoring public trust in City Hall. Until now, the FBI has uncovered and arrested dozens of elected officials, department heads, contractors, and nonprofits. Yes on C will create an Inspector General with the authority to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and dismantle the entrenched systems of pay to play favoritism and intimidation. 

San Franciscans have the chance to take a decisive step in cleaning up our government and creating one that is transparent, accountable, and truly serves the people of San Francisco. Vote Yes on C! 

Assemblymember Phil Ting 

Former Mayor Art Agnos 

Former State Senator Mark Leno 

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano 

Bruce Wolfe Member of the Sunshine Task Force* 

Former President Ethics Commissioner Paul Melbostad 

*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: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, a coalition of small businesses, neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

 

4

Vote Yes on C, the smart choice for ensuring fairness and justice in government 

Housed within the Controller's Office, the Inspector General will coordinate with existing enforcement agencies including the District Attorney, City Attorney, and Ethics Commission to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse. As an independent watchdog, the Inspector General will hold our government to the highest standard of public integrity and ensure that no one is above the law. Vote Yes on C! 

Judge Ellen Chaitin (ret) 

Judge Julie Tang (ret) 

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, a coalition of small businesses, neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

 

5

Democratic leaders say Yes on C

As a proudly Democratic city in this political moment, we've seen how unethical behavior and corruption can erode the foundations of democracy. It is more important than ever to commit to our values of government accountability on every level.

Voting Yes on C to establish an Inspector General with the authority to investigate abuse, waste, and fraud will safeguard our city from corruption, and set a national example of our San Francisco values Vote Yes on C!

Former Mayor Art Agnos

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

BART Board Director Bevan Dufty

Former Supervisor Norman Yee

Former Supervisor John Avalos

Former Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

Former Supervisor Sandra Fewer

San Francisco Tenants Union

Affordable Housing Alliance

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, a coalition of small businesses, neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

 

6

Establishing an Inspector General will ensure City Hall serves our communities with integrity and transparency. Mismanagement of city funds and favoritism have a direct impact on our organizations. 

Voting Yes on C establishes a clear process for investigating corruption and restoring the public's trust in government. Vote on C! 

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

Coalition for San Francisco Neighbors

Telegraph Hill Dwellers 

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, a coalition of small business, neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

1

All of the powers afforded to the Inspector General under this proposition already exist within San Francisco government. The Controller's Office includes a City Services Auditor responsible for performance, financial, and compliance auditing. The Board of Supervisors can issue subpoenas, the District Attorney can pursue criminal indictments, the City Attorney can file civil suits, and the Ethics Commission, Civil Grand Jury, and more than 100 other commissions and committees possess oversight powers, too. 

Each of these has failed to meaningfully reduce corruption because they either have other priorities or, worse, they are not independent. Proposition C replicates this fatal flaw, mandating that the Inspector General's appointment be approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors — the very same officials whose performance should be at the top of any list of targets ripe for an audit. This conflict of interest would and should undermine any trust voters might have in the Inspector General, who is liable to become a mere political attack dog for whichever faction holds momentary sway at City Hall. Voters deserve better — a professional, empowered, and independent oversight official who answers to them, not to politicians, as described here: 

https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-eds/article/how-to-fix-sf-government-17430726.php. 

Vote No on Proposition C.

Jay Donde - President, The Briones Society*

*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: Jay Donde, Bill Jackson, Nicholas Berg.