Tighten the sunshine law

WHEN A CITY is as close to broke as San Francisco is, when every penny matters – and when there's immense pressure from nearly every front to privatize city services or hand over city contracts to private vendors – it's absolutely essential that the public be able to keep an eye on where its money is going. And while San Francisco has the best local open-government law in the country, there are a number of serious loopholes in that law. The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force has proposed a series of amendments that would tighten the rules and expand the sunshine regulations to other public agencies and nonprofits that get city funding. The amendments are an excellent move toward increased government accountability and belong on the November ballot.

The Sunshine Ordinance is now 10 years old, and it's been 5 years since the voters passed a ballot measure expanding and improving the law. It's become a model nationwide for how activists can demand, and win, major improvements in the way city government conducts business.

And yet, as task force members have discovered time and again, there are issues the law didn't anticipate – and problems that the foes of sunshine have managed to carve out. Among the biggest drawbacks: The task force has only limited enforcement authority. City officials can, and sometimes do, simply ignore the task force's findings and continue to keep documents secret and hold improper closed-door meetings.

The amendments, which were crafted after an extensive public process involving four special hearings, would give the task force the ability to fine a city agency as much as $1,500 for violating the ordinance. Perhaps more important, it would give the task force an initial allocation of $50,000 to hire outside legal counsel to take Sunshine Ordinance violators to court to force compliance. The Board of Supervisors would review that allocation after every lawsuit and determine whether to continue the funding.

The amendments also toughen up the requirements for nonprofit organizations that get city funding. It would mandate that the governing board of any organization that gets a city contract worth $100,000 or more to perform governmental duties related to public safety, health, or welfare comply with the provisions of the sunshine law. That would mean, for example, that nonprofits that do city work – and there are dozens and dozens of them – would have to make records related to that work publicly available, and the organization's board would have to discuss that work in open meetings.

The amendments might clear up another lingering problem: Agencies like the San Francisco Community College District and the San Francisco Unified School District, which technically aren't under city jurisdiction, don't currently have to comply with the sunshine law. The proposed language would ban the city from giving money to any governmental agency that doesn't comply with the sunshine law – and since the voters in March approved a plan to give as much as $60 million a year to the public schools, the SFUSD would have to accept the sunshine law or forgo that cash.

There are a number of other amendments, and the full text is available at sfbg.com.

The supervisors should hold their own hearings on the law and the amendments, and soon – with an eye toward strengthening the sunshine provisions, not weakening what the task force has proposed. It will take 4 supervisors to put the changes on the ballot, but all 11 ought to sign on. And district voters should demand that anyone running for reelection support and campaign for a stronger, more effective sunshine law.