What the Measure Would Do

Proposition C would create the position of inspector general (IG) and expand the investigative powers of the Office of the Controller in San Francisco. The IG’s mandate would include reviewing complaints, leading investigations, conducting audits, leading inspections, and monitoring, all with the purpose of preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The IG would meet regularly with other city departments responsible for public integrity investigations, including the Public Ethics Commission, the city attorney, the district attorney, and the Department of Human Resources, to coordinate investigative strategies.

In addition, Prop. C would expand the powers of the Office of the Controller to initiate and conduct investigations. It would expand the right to issue subpoenas, grant the controller the right to execute search warrants, and expand auditing and whistleblowing authority to include audits and cases involving city contractors, sub-contractors, and nonprofits.

Under Prop. C, the controller would appoint the IG position, subject to approval by the mayor and confirmation by the Board of Supervisors by a two-thirds vote. The controller would also have the power to fire the IG.

Prop. C would set up a process for public reporting and information sharing on public integrity investigations, including a bi-annual report by the IG to the Board of Supervisors and the mayor.

Prop. C is estimated to cost the city between $725,000 to $775,000 annually.

The Backstory

Prop. C is a response to an expansive federal corruption investigation that has rocked the City and County of San Francisco since 2020. The investigation revealed that prominent city officials, employees, and city contractors have been engaged in bribery and fraud. Local authorities and federal investigators have investigated and prosecuted this corruption. More recently, additional investigations into bribery across additional city departments and programs have revealed cases in which city officials were provided gifts to influence their decisions. As of December 2023, 23 businesspeople, developers, and city employees have been charged in the federal investigations.¹

Currently, investigations of public integrity and anti-corruption activities are handled by the offices of the controller, city attorney, and district attorney and by the Public Ethics Commission. The Office of the Controller already responds to whistleblower complaints and conducts audits to investigate reports of waste, fraud, and abuse of city resources. The City Attorney’s Office more commonly issues subpoenas and leads investigations on civil matters. Occasionally, misconduct from whistleblower complaints is referred to the district attorney in criminal matters. The Public Ethics Commission’s investigations are more limited to misconduct and ethical violations by city employees.

Prop. C was introduced by Supervisor Aaron Peskin and was crafted, with advisory input from the Center for Public Integrity, on the basis of a study of other cities’ strong IG models. The Public Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify that the IG is not responsible for investigating or reporting on violations of the California Political Reform Act or the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code. In the final version of Prop. C, the IG’s mandate is limited to cases involving abuse, waste, and fraud rather than investigations of “misconduct.”

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved placing Prop. C on the November ballot. It requires a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

SPUR identified no significant, direct equity impacts for this proposition. Abuse and waste of city funds by public officials erodes trust in government services and can endanger investments in services intended to address wealth disparities as well as investments in disinvested communities. If this measure incrementally improves trust in local government, it could positively impact support for programs and taxes that benefit disadvantaged communities.

Pros

• The Controller’s Office, a trusted institution, would get additional capacity and authority to investigate and prevent corruption in city government.
• Centralizing work that is currently distributed among many divisions within the Controller’s Office and in other city offices would make audits and investigations more efficient to administer.
• Preserving the authority of the controller to begin the hiring process for and fire the IG would maintain the objectivity of the IG role and minimize the potential for politicization that could result if the IG was an elected or appointed position.

Cons

• It is unclear whether the measure would effectively address real administrative failures to respond to corruption across the city. Because the controller, city attorney, district attorney, and Public Ethics Commission already meet regularly to coordinate on public integrity issues and to refer complaints to the proper authorities, shifting roles and mandates may not represent a major change.
• New authority granted to the Controller’s Office may be redundant. For example, it’s unclear whether the Controller’s Office would need additional authority to issue subpoenas and execute search warrants when it already coordinates closely with the City Attorney’s Office and other public integrity offices that regularly exercise these authorities.
• Because the responsibilities of the proposed IG position would overlap with those of the district attorney, the city attorney, and the Ethics Commission, some duplication of work could result.