Jenkins said in a statement of economic interest filed with the city that she received more than $100,000 for consulting work she did before taking office with a group called Neighbors for a Better San Francisco.
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco is barred by federal tax law from participating in political campaigns. But one of the group’s board members is William Oberndorf, who is also on the board of a similarly named group called Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy, a 501(c)(4) that is allowed to get involved in campaigns and spent millions trying to get Boudin removed from office.
Jenkins’ disclosure provoked controversy because she said she worked on the Boudin recall in a volunteer capacity. Here’s what we know about the revelation’s impact and what could come next:
Was Jenkins’ work illegal or improper?
Quentin Kopp, a retired judge and former member of the San Francisco Ethics Commission who supported the recall of Boudin, said Jenkins does not appear to have broken any law.
“The fact that she didn’t disclose she was being paid — that’s what voters can evaluate in November,” Kopp said, referring to the special election for district attorney.
“She wouldn’t be the first candidate for office who didn’t disclose all relevant facts pertaining to any campaign issue,” he said.
Supervisor Dean Preston, a democratic socialist and one of Boudin’s staunchest defenders, said that while Jenkins’ work itself may not have broken the law, she should have disclosed it sooner — especially given that she said she was a volunteer for the pro-recall efforts .
“She has the right to consult with whoever she wants. No one is saying it’s illegal for her to work with Bill Oberndorf,” Preston said. “I think there’s serious questions about not disclosing it, and I think there are serious questions about why someone who is a district attorney has taken money from this entity, given its politics.”
The Neighbors for a Better San Francisco super political action committee spent money to oppose Preston’s candidacy — along with those of some other progressive candidates — in the 2020 election.
Could Jenkins face any consequences as a result?
The San Francisco Ethics Commission could initiate an investigation into whether Jenkins ran foul of any laws. The commission could start such a probe either at the discretion of its director of enforcement or in response to a complaint filed by someone else.
After a preliminary review, the director would either dismiss the matter or open an investigation. Any complaints and ongoing investigations are confidential under city law.
The result of the investigation would become public if the commission found probable cause that the subject committed a violation, and the commission ordered the subject to cease and desist the violation, file any required documents and/or pay a fine. If the subject did not agree to the settlement, which is rare, the case would go to a public administrative hearing before the commission, which would decide whether to uphold the violation.
How long this process takes can vary. If a complaint were filed or investigation pursued against Jenkins, it’s not clear whether the matter would be resolved by the November election.
A commission spokesperson could not comment on whether he had received any complaint or was pursuing his own investigation into Jenkins, citing the confidentiality required by the City Charter.
What about Neighbors for a Better San Francisco?
The connections between Neighbors for a Better San Francisco and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy go beyond their names and links to Oberndorf. They each share the same address in San Rafael, too.
But that’s not abnormal.
Mark Gergen, a UC Berkeley professor with expertise in tax law, said it’s “not at all unusual” for the same group to be split into 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) operations. One example is the NAACP, which is set up as a 501(c)(4) that is allowed to be involved in politics. But NAACP Empowerment Programs is a 501(c)(3) that can accept tax-deductible contributions.
But there’s well-known potential for abuse, he said.
“The government — the IRS — can be more or less vigilant when trying to police that,” Gergen said. “They generally are less vigilant.”
Larry Bush, a member of the city’s Ethics Commission, said he couldn’t comment on any matter that may come before the commission. In general though, he said nonprofits like 501(c)(3)s can pay someone to do “education and research and other things, including voter registration.”
When asked whether he saw any issues with Jenkins stating that she was a volunteer while being paid by recall-linked organizations, Bush said, “Those are questions that she’ll have to answer to the public and to any group like the Ethics Commission, if they come before us.”
Money can flow between an affiliated 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), though it’s not clear if that happened in this case. If the 501(c)(3) is loaning or granting funds to the 501(c)(4), there are legal restrictions on how the money can be spent, according to Bolder Advocacy, an Alliance for Justice program that works with nonprofits .
But if the 501(c)(4) is granting or loaning money to the 501(c)(3), few restrictions apply, Bolder Advocacy says in a fact sheet.
How are elected officials responding?
None of Jenkins’ political allies said the disclosure changed their decisions to endorse her candidacy for the November election, when she will seek voters’ permission to stay on as district attorney.
Mayor London Breed, who appointed Jenkins to the district attorney job after Boudin’s recall, was not available for an interview Wednesday before she goes on vacation Thursday, her staff said.
Her spokesperson Parisa Safarzadeh said the mayor did not have concerns that Jenkins said she was a volunteer for the recall while getting paid by a closely affiliated group.
“The important thing is that the district attorney disclosed it in her form,” Safarzadeh said.
Safarzadeh said the mayor was aware that Jenkins was volunteering and also working on various contracts between when she left Boudin’s office and when the mayor named her district attorney.
Safarzadeh was not “fully aware” of whether Breed knew about Jenkins’ association with Oberndorf and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco.
Safarzadeh said Breed has been “consistent that selecting Brooke to take this position is the right thing to do.”
“She has faith Brooke will be an amazing district attorney and will do a great job,” she said. “She thought she was an ethical and honest and transparent person.”
Preston, who chairs the Board of Supervisors’ Government Audit and Oversight Committee, said he’s not currently planning any hearings or legislative response to Jenkins’ disclosure. But he is thinking about the issue in a broader way.
“I am interested in knowing more about … whether there are any more limits we could impose on funneling this kind of money to impact races without disclosing,” he said.
Chronicle staff writer Joshua Sharpe contributed to this report.
JD Morris, Mallory Moench and Megan Cassidy are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Twitter: @thejdmorris @mallorymoench @meganrcassidy