Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




San Francisco Proposition G (1999)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

San Francisco Proposition G was passed by the city's voters on November 2, 1999 by a vote of 95,616 in favor to 68,399 against.

It was also known as the "Sunshine Ordinance Amendment."[1]

Provisions of Proposition G

The following provisions were enacted in Proposition G:

  • The public would be permitted to attend meetings of any group that meets with the Mayor or City department heads to discuss fiscal, economic or policy issues:
  • The public would be permitted to attend meetings of city employees to review or develop City policy or procedures relating to public health, safety or welfare;
  • Groups that contribute money for the City's activities would have to comply with the ordinance;
  • The Mayor and City department heads would be required to keep, and make public, calendars listing who meets with them and the topic of the meeting;
  • Any meeting of the governing bodies of certain local, state, regional and federal agencies attended by City representatives would have to be open to the public;
  • The City's assertion of public interest would no longer be a sole basis for withholding records;
  • The City would be prohibited from withholding records solely because they reveal the "deliberative process" of City officials;
  • In certain negotiations, the City would be required to disclose documents exchanged by the parties or prepared by the City;
  • The City Attorney could not give confidential advice to City officers or employees on matters concerning government ethics, public records and open meeting laws; and,
  • The City would be required to create certain text, audio, and video records, maintain certain records for longer periods, prepare an index of public records, and be limited in what it could charge for reproducing records. Certain records would have to be made available on the City's website.

Additionally, the ordinance says that failure to comply will be considered "official misconduct."

Aftermath

In 2008, government sunshine activist Kimo Crossman argued that the ordinance can be used to enforce a number of inexpensive transformations in how the city conducts its official business and makes it available to residents.[2]

References