By Matthew Hirsch

Something unusual happened in City Hall these past two months, as sunshine advocates sought to win the San Francisco Board of Supervisors' approval for a ballot initiative aimed at strengthening San Francisco's open-government laws. The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, a group of citizen activists, tried working inside City Hall and playing by the rules, the way the political process is supposed to work.

They quickly found that even this progressive, district-elected board presents a hostile environment for activists who want to open up City Hall, and that a city attorney who ran as a reformer won't stand up for sunshine reforms.

For months the task force had been developing a series of open-government amendments to close loopholes and toughen the 10-year-old Sunshine Ordinance. Needing voter approval, the task force in April asked the Board of Supervisors to submit its proposal for the fall ballot.

That seemed to be the most viable option for the task force, because its members were concerned they didn't have the time or the resources for an expensive signature-gathering campaign, so they couldn't go straight to the ballot as they did successfully in 1999.

The trouble began almost immediately.

The Open Government Ordinance officially failed to make the ballot July 27 when Sup. Chris Daly, the only supervisor to publicly back the measure, pulled it from consideration at the urging of the task force. But it was really defeated at its first committee hearing July 7 when Sups. Sophie Maxwell, Michela Alioto-Pier, and Matt Gonzalez attacked it and representatives of the City Attorney's Office began picking it apart piece by piece (see "Partial Eclipse," 7/14/04).

Bill Barnes, Daly's legislative aide, told the Bay Guardian it was a "perfect storm" that sunk the ordinance. City officials usually hear about sunshine issues only when there's a problem, Barnes said, so the Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee didn't see a compelling need for some of the amendments. And with only a few task force members in attendance at the hearings, the effort didn't appear to have enough political resolve, he said.

The task force needs to overcome these problems if its sunshine amendments are to get through the supervisors. However, after the supervisors' reception this time around, some sunshine advocates say they may want to bypass the board, collect the signatures, and go directly to the ballot.

Gonzalez objected to the notion that the Rules Committee was attacking open-government reforms. If anything, Gonzalez said, he's hostile to ideas that would hinder government performance, like a mandatory minimum for public comment at board meetings and a policy that would require records to be retained forever.

"That's not hostility," Gonzalez said of the Rules Committee's approach. "That's us saying we want you to walk us through and break down these changes."

Maxwell agreed that the ordinance received a fair hearing. Though she didn't support the key nonprofit and enforcement provisions, she said it was unfortunate that none of the sunshine amendments are going to the ballot this fall.

Alioto-Pier hadn't returned calls at press time.

But without much discussion July 7, the committee stripped two critical provisions that would have given the task force much-needed enforcement authority and oversight of nonprofits that hold city contracts valued at $100,000 or more. Meanwhile, deputy city attorney Amy Ackerman repeatedly called into question other provisions in the ordinance – even though another deputy city attorney, Ernest Llorente, who represents the task force, had already reviewed it.

Task force vice chair Alexandra Nickliss told us the task force is constantly relying on the City Attorney's Office for legal advice, but she doesn't always know if its decisions favor open government or the city's more narrow interests. That's why the task force proposed using outside counsel in special circumstances. But the Rules Committee decided that provision wasn't necessary because the task force can already use outside counsel – if authorized by the supervisors.

The committee took the same stance on giving the task force the power to subpoena witnesses. The board already has that power, committee members said, and could grant it to the task force on a case-by-case basis.

But the fact that the supervisors showed little interest in cooperating with the task force on tightening the law doesn't give activists much confidence that the board would be willing to help the task force get its own legal counsel or compel reluctant city officials to answer questions.

Task force member Doug Comstock counted 21 changes to and deletions from the original proposal by the time the group met July 26 to vote on the revised ordinance. Among those was a last-minute change Alioto-Pier slipped in, an attempt to bar lobbyists and campaign consultants – including Comstock – from serving on the task force.

The changes would have also given the supervisors the ability to amend – or repeal – the sunshine ordinance with a two-thirds vote, a move that could have undermined the years of work put into this nationally known law.

After reviewing the changes, the task force voted unanimously to withdraw its support. Many felt slighted by the Rules Committee because the supervisors hadn't attended any of the task force hearings as the ordinance was being drafted (see "Sunset for Reform," 7/28/04).

"It's disheartening," task force chair Garrett Jenkins told us. "We gave them plenty of time to make suggestions, and they shot it down at the last minute."

Jenkins told us the task force would continue holding hearings on the ordinance. He said the task force would try to communicate better with the supervisors during the process, hoping other groups will open a dialogue with the task force too.

"It's gotten some attention now. Hopefully people will start coming to the meetings," Jenkins said.

E-mail Matthew Hirsch