LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Sunshine Ordinance Amendment
City of San Francisco
Majority Vote Required
95,616 / 58.20% Yes votes ...... 68,399 / 41.70% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Infomation shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Arguments ||
Shall the City make changes in the requirements and procedures regarding public
access to City records and meetings provided in the Sunshine Ordinance?
At a minimum, the ordinance requires additional staffing and computer hardware and software that is likely to cost over $300,000 initially and over $400,000 annually. Additional costs that cannot be estimated will arise from:
League of Women Voters
|Arguments For Proposition G||Arguments Against Proposition G|
|San Francisco is a city in crisis. Neighborhoods are being
gentrified. Downtown and South of Market is undergoing
rampant development without infrastructure improvements and
long-time residents are forced out by the resulting rise in rents.
The millions of dollars that could improve services are being
negotiated away in sweetheart deals to big corporations dealing
behind closed doors for lucrative city contracts.
San Francisco is being sold out to the highest bidder, and City Hall wants to keep it that way. That's why many of our elected and appointed officials oppose the Sunshine Initiative. It would open the city's contracting process so that all of us can have a voice in deciding how our taxes are used before the money's spent, not after.
It would accomplish much more than that too. It would amend the city's open-government law, the Sunshine Ordinance, to improve access to public meetings and records and establish an enforcement mechanism so that individuals denied access can appeal without having to resort to expensive court battles. A recent statewide poll showed 70% of Californians support reforms contained in Proposition G.
Don't believe City Hall's misinformation campaign. Proposition G will not eliminate any state and federal privacy protections for individuals contacting city officials. City Hall's estimates of the cost of implementing the initiative are overstated, and do not consider the cost savings that public scrutiny is certain to bring. (They said $700,000 when the Sunshine Ordinance was enacted in 1993 - another false prediction.)
What Prop. G will do is make city government more accessible and accountable to the San Franciscans it's supposed to serve. That's why Prop. G is endorsed by numerous neighborhood, community, and activist groups.
Yes on G—It's Good Government.
Tom Ammiano, President, Board of Supervisors Leland Yee, PhD, Finance Committee Chair, Board of Supervisors
Sometimes it's embarrassing to see with whom one finds oneself voting.
I read the 8/18/99 Bay Guardian editorial "BROWN'S WAR ON SUNSHINE":
"The Brown - Burton machine, which runs San Francisco politics with an ever tighter grip, put on a raw desplay of power Aug. 11 – and open government was the clear loser...[T]he San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee voted 17-9 to oppose the [Sunshine] initiative. The vote was almost exactly along machine lines: Chair (and Brown ally) Natalie Berg, Sups. Sue Bierman and Leslie Katz... [and] virtually every public official, commissioner, or city hall bureaucrat went on record as supporting the mayor's undeclaired war on sunshine.... The initiative is aimed at preventing the sort of secrecy that has led the FBI to investigate several San Francisco agencies over possible fraud in contracting. It's aimed at preventing Brown and his allies from giving away millions in taxpayer money to big business... [and] at the sleaze that has become the hallmark of the Brown - Burton machine..."
I agree with the "Bay Guardian" that Willie Brown should be defeated for re-election as San Francisco Mayor.
On the subject immediately at hand, Proposition G, I believe that the Sunshine Ordinance needs to be broken down from its current 41 pages and turned into several shorter, more compact, and hard-hitting statutes.
Revise Proposition G.
Give Proposition G more "teeth".
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
|41 PAGES OF LEGAL "BOILERPLATE" IS ALREADY
TOO MUCH - THE SO-CALLED "SUNSHINE"
ORDINANCE CASTS A DARK SHADOW OF LEGAL
The 41 pages of the so-called "Sunshine"Ordinance need to be revised and subdivided into several shorter laws. Legal complexity is not "legal reform".
VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION G (THE SO-CALLED "SUNSHINE" ORDINANCE AMENDMENT):
A great deal of cautious redrafting is needed to clean out all the doubts and legal cobwebs from the "Sunshine" Ordinance. Whole new statutes need to be enacted by the voters, not just the much troubled "Sunshine"Ordinance amended is needed.
The life of the "Sunshine" Ordinance needs to be extended, but with more effective penalties for those public officials who openly violate its provisions. The demand in the proposed Proposition G amendment that the meetings of certain state and federal agencies which are attended by San Francisco representatives be open to the public appears to have federal and State of California preemption problems. Better legal scholarship is needed in revising the "Sunshine" Ordinance.
VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION G !
Committee to Reform the City Charter
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
...And what about THE MILLIONS IN SAVINGS from public scrutiny of contracts; the postage, reams of stationery, and staff time currently spent on public inquiries that posting on the city's website will save?
We ask opponents, at what point do you draw the line and say,
"Open government just ain't worth it?"
Yes on G
Leland Yee, PhD
San Francisco Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback