As noted previously on this page
, we've always admired Board of Supervisors Clerk Angela Calvillo's professionalism and steadiness when dealing with deranged lunatics during public comment sessions at meetings. And now we add that we can add that we admire her candor in claiming total responsibility for the Board's disregard of an anti-corruption campaign finance law for more than two years. It was a stand-up gesture, as was Calvillo's pledge to obey the law from this point forward. And yet, this ain't all her fault. Here's the backstory,
in a nutshell:
In 2006, the Ethics Commission's staff devised an ordinance calling for
elected officials who vote upon city contracts of $50,000 or greater to
report this within five days to the commission; this rule was meant to
spot any "pay for play" where those awarded contracts would, in turn,
donate to the elected officials making those decisions. The Board of
Supervisors approved the ordinance by a 10-0 vote; six of those Supes
are still on the board. Then, last year, Mayor Gavin Newsom placed
Measure H on the ballot. This initiative, which essentially affirmed
and expanded the ordinance, was overwhelmingly approved.
Of course neither the mayor nor the supes ever made those filings
. Yet no one got in trouble because the Ethics Commission never bothered to enforce this law, officially sending out a notice on Dec. 31, 2008 informing the city's elected officials to not even bother making the filings anymore.
Calvillo told SF Weekly
she hadn't heard of this law until we called and started asking about it. Her research turned up a March 2007 memo from the Ethics Commission informing her predecessor that this law was now in effect (actually, it already had been for quite some time). But, between the March 2007 note and the Dec. 2008 curtailment notice, there was no communication between Ethics and the Board of Supervisors regarding this law.
"As clerk, I should have known about this and been complying," says Calvillo. "I take full responsibility for this. In fact, the Board will comply with the law even though the Ethics Commission is not requiring departments to file."
And yet, if SF Weekly
's phone call could have spurred the Board to file, it stands to reason that a letter or call from Ethics could have done the same -- years ago. And it isn't as if Ethics' staff wasn't aware that this law was being ignored by virtually every elected official in the city and not enforced by the Commission. An Ethics Commission internal memo from August of last year acquired by SF Weekly
via a records request suggests a "widespread failure" to file, and recommended to Executive Director John St. Croix and others that "formal written notices" be sent to all city elected officials. Instead, of course, St. Croix declared the law "unenforceable" and excused city officials from following it. (read the memo here: 08.8.18 OL email on 126 contract disclosure.pdf
It remains unclear who in the mayor's office should have been
responsible for making those filings. Our calls were shunted to the
mayor's office of of communications -- and you have a better chance of
winning a road game in the snow with a deliriously feverish Alex Smith as your
quarterback than you do of getting a call back from them.
see if they give the cold shoulder to Calvillo, though. Since she's now
taking the requirement to file deadly seriously, she doesn't want to
have laxness on the part of the mayor's office lead to an inability to
file by the Supes. So she's going to be making some calls.
would want to coordinate with them. A lot of the mayor's departments
are going to be submitting contracts to the Board and I want to make
sure they at least submit forms to us so we can submit to Ethics," she
Hmm. This will be interesting.