Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco

Minutes – June 29, 2015

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 29, 2015
Room 400 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Renne called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Renne, Chairperson; Brett Andrews, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Ben Hur, Commissioner; Peter Keane; Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Jesse Mainardi, Deputy Executive Director; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst; Steven Massey, Information Technology Officer; Pat Petersen, Training Officer.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Josh White, Deputy City Attorney (DCA), Andrew Shen, DCA.

OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Monette-Shaw; Rebecca Rhine; Jean Caramatti; Alex Thomason; Charles Marsteller; Marc Solomon; Larry Bush; Bob Planthold; Bob Dockendorf; John St. Claire; Sue Hestor; Anita Mayo; Elli Abdoli; Chris Wright; Sharyn Saslafsky; Derek Kerr; Elena Schmid; Eric Pawlowsky; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
– Staff Memorandum to Ethics Commission members, dated June 24, 2015, re: Adoption of Proposed Regulations Implementing Electronic Filing of Statements of Economic Interests for All City Employees;
– Legislative Digest on Initiative Ordinance, Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Expenditure Lobbyists;
– Initiative Ordinance, Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Expenditure Lobbyists;
– Summary of Interested Persons Meeting held on June 10, 2105;
– Proposed Ethics Commission Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “San Francisco’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance is in Need of Change;”
– Civil Grand Jury Report “San Francisco’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance is in Need of Change” dated May 2015;
– Staff Memorandum to Ethics Commission members regarding Hearing on Ethics Complaint 10-150331, Report and Recommendation on Ethics Complaint 10-150331 and attachments;
– Alliance Resource Consulting LLC Proposal for Executive Director Recruitment Search;
– Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission of May 27, 2015;
– Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission of June 5, 2015;
– Executive Director’s Report.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission received two conflict of interest complaints against San Francisco Retirement Board member Wendy Paskin-Jordan. He stated that most people believe that he filed those complaints even though he did not. He stated that Ms. Paskin-Jordan admitted on a Youtube video to aggregating funds with her firm to reach the 10 million dollar threshold. He stated that the Ethics Commission must investigate.

Rebecca Rhine stated that she represents the Municipal Executives Association (MEA). She stated that MEA members have expressed privacy concerns regarding the Commission’s consideration of posting online all Statement of Economic Interests Form 700s.

III. Discussion regarding draft regulations for electronic filing and website posting of Statements of Economic Interests (FPPC Form 700).

Deputy Executive Director Mainardi introduced the item and explained what it means to be a “designated” employee subject to the requirements to file a Statement of Economic Interests Form 700. He stated that Form 700s filed by designated employees who are not elected, appointed, or a department head, are currently filed with each department. He stated that the proposed amendments would mandate that designated employees file their Form 700s electronically with the Ethics Commission.

Responding to Chair Renne, Deputy Executive Director Mainardi stated that elected and appointed officials and department heads must file with the Ethics Commission by law, and that this change would create a central database for all Form 700s filers, including those filed by designated employees. Deputy Executive Director Mainardi also stated that the online copies of Form 700s will be redacted to protect addresses, phone numbers, and the names of sources of rental income, but that the hard copies would not be redacted and would be available upon request.

DCA Shen stated that most designated employees who file a Form 700 are not required to attend ethics trainings like elected and appointed officials and department heads must do, and that the proposed regulations do not institute a training requirement.

Vice-Chair Andrews stated that training should be provided if employees are going to be held accountable for the information provided on a Form 700.

Deputy Executive Director Mainardi stated that the proposed regulations do not change who has to file, which is determined at the departmental level, only that those employees who already file with their department must now file online.

Responding to a question by Commissioner Hur expressing concern that an employee could be easily harassed if financial information is readily available online, Deputy Executive Director Mainardi stated that an employee could submit a request to have the Form 700 removed from the online database, and if granted, that the approved request would be reported to the Commission.

Chair Renne stated that anyone could, right now, go to a department and retrieve an unreacted copy of a filer’s Form 700.

Public Comment:
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that Form 700s are public documents and currently available to any member of the public, so concerns regarding employee privacy are moot. He stated that concerns about the lack of training are “nonsense” because training on Form 700 filing is available online and can be viewed while at work. He stated that contractors with the City should also be required to file Form 700s.

Jean Caramatti stated that she works for the Airport and has filed a Form 700 for 30 years, and is speaking on behalf of herself as a filer. She stated that there are unintended consequences with posting online that must be considered and stated that, for example, a tenant of a City employee does not rent housing thinking that his or her name will be publicly available. She stated there are many reasons a tenant would want to retain their privacy, such as a victim of domestic violence or harassment. She stated that once information is posted online, anyone can search Google and find an individual.

Rebecca Rhine stated that training is an important issue to consider, because filers are subject to fines for misreporting on a Form 700. She stated that departments have no uniform standards to determine which employees are “designated” to file Form 700s. She stated that in at least one department, interns are required to file.

Alex Thomason, representing the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, stated that he supports the concerns raised by the MEA. He stated that posting employee financial information online may subject employees, whose jobs require them to make determinations imposing fines and fees on members of the public, subject to retaliation. He stated that the requirement to file online is a change in the terms of employment and that it is appropriate for the Commission to meet and confer with the various unions regarding this change.

Charles Marsteller stated that Form 700s are a valuable tool to discern the financial interests of employees. He stated that one employee who was fined $15,000 successfully received a waiver of the fine by stating that he had no assets, yet his Form 700 revealed he owned two properties.

Marc Solomon stated that technology exists to insulate posted information from appearing in a Google search. He stated that accountability of City management is important, and any privacy concerns could be addressed by having a “hardship” process. He stated that corruption in the City is already high, and that Form 700s are already public information.

Larry Bush from Friends of Ethics stated that there may be some appropriate circumstances to allow for redacting information such as in the case of battered spouses, but that there should be uniform standards so the decision to redact is not arbitrary. He stated that Form 700 training is online and would not take much staff time to implement training. He stated that the Ethics Commission could coordinate training efforts with other jurisdictions.

Bob Planthold stated that he supports online filing of Form 700s. He stated that online training for Form 700 filers already exists. He stated that there are many employees within departments that make decisions that implicate financial interests so it is appropriate that they file Form 700s. He stated that a common database would make it much simpler for the public to uncover that information rather than have to make multiple requests to various City departments.

Responding to Commissioner Hayon, DCA Shen stated that departments determine which employees must file a From 700, and that the City Attorney’s Office asks each department to review that status every two years.

Commissioner Hayon stated that it might be appropriate to conduct periodic audits to determine which employees should be filing.

Responding to a question from Commission Hayon regarding protecting information from being searchable on Google, Information Technology Officer Massey stated that doing so is possible, but that the information would be just as easily searchable through the Ethics Commission’s own database.

Both Vice-Chair Andrews and Commissioner Hur expressed concerns regarding the departmental process of determining which employees should file Form 700s, but that having the information online in a central database is useful to the public. Commissioner Hur stated that staff should engage in a meet and confer with the unions before the Commission moves forward.

IV. Discussion and possible action on Commissioner Keane’s proposal to place on the November 3, 2015 ballot a measure regulating expenditure lobbyists.

Commissioner Keane introduced the item and explained the background that led to the proposed changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance. He stated that after conducting an interested persons meeting, and considering the suggestions of the Commission at the last meeting, the current draft includes a provision that any change to the Ordinance has to advance the purpose of the Ordinance and requires a super-majority vote by the Board of Supervisors plus a vote by four of the five Ethics Commissioners along with findings on how the change advances the purpose of the Ordinance. He stated that money is spent on outreach activity by entities to influence government which is currently not captured under the Lobbyist Ordinance. He stated that this is a modest measure and urged the Commission to vote to include this as a ballot measure for the November 2015 election.

Responding to a question by Chair Renne regarding the regulations on political contributions and gift limits, DCA Shen stated that, as drafted, expenditure lobbyists would be subject to the same rules as contact lobbyists.

Commissioner Hur stated that the requirement proposed in section 2.103(a) to include “specifics to substantiate” and findings that any future amendment furthers the purpose of the Ordinance is more restrictive than the corresponding provision in the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance and asked Commissioner Keane why it was included.

Commissioner Keane stated that the additional language was added out of concerns expressed by the Civil Grand Jury and the Friends of Ethics that the Board of Supervisors could just make a “boilerplate” statement that an amendment furthers the purpose of the ordinance but actually reduces disclosure or oversight. He stated that the Board of Supervisors is a political body and that the Ethics Commission is not, and that the Ethics Commission should ensure that the Board of Supervisors could not make a change that guts the Ordinance.

Commissioner Hur stated that any change also requires approval by four out of the five Ethics Commission members, which inherently provides a check on any proposed change put forward by the Board of Supervisors, so the added requirement to include findings on how any proposed change furthers the Ordinance is not necessary and he stated that he would like that stricken from the language.

Commissioner Hur stated that the proposed definition of “expenditure lobbyist” in section 2.105 includes any person “who makes payments totaling $2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with an officer of the City and County in order to influence local legislative or administrative action” and asked Commissioner Keane to clarify what “indirectly” referred to.

Commissioner Keane clarified that “indirectly” refers to the person who is paying to urge someone to communicate to the official, regardless of how remote.

Commissioner Hur suggested that the definition would express that intent more clearly if it read “who directly or indirectly makes payments totaling $2,500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge, other persons to communicate directly with an officer of the City and County in order to influence local legislative or administrative action.”

Commissioner Hur stated that the examples provided in the definition of “expenditure lobbyist” are vague. He stated, for example, citing activities that count toward the threshold amount such as public relations, advertising, public outreach research are potentially harmful. He posited that if an individual conduct research on an issue to determine if that individual wants to engage in lobbying, would that expenditure qualify that person as an expenditure lobbyist even if he or she has not made any communication to encourage others to communicate with an elected official.

Commissioner Keane stated that if an individual spends money commissioning others to engage in research with the ultimate goal toward influencing a City decision then that is an example of expenditure lobbying.

Commissioner Hur stated that there must be some nexus between the research and the efforts to communicate with the official. He stated that it is possible that some research is conducted for another purpose, but is then later used for the purpose of lobbying. He suggested that the disclosure occur at the time of the communication with the public official so long as there is a connection that ties the original research to the communication.

Commissioner Hur stated that the proposed disclosure requirements for activity expenses contained in section 2.110 are not sufficiently inclusive. He stated that the way it is drafted, an expenditure lobbyist may be able to give a gift to an official without being required to report it as an activity expense because an expenditure lobbyist does not make a direct contact with the official.

DCA Shen suggested several options to the Commission to address the gift issue Commissioner Hur raised, including removing the provision from the draft.

Commissioner Hur stated that there is no guidance as to when an employer may be required to file as an expenditure lobbyist. He cited as an example the situation where a government affairs employee of a company registers and reports as an expenditure lobbyist and spends a percentage of her or her time engaged in expenditure lobbying within the City. He then posed the question of whether the employer also becomes an expenditure lobbyist through the employee’s activity.

Commissioner Keane stated that the Commission could clarify any ambiguities through regulations if the proposed ballot measure passes.

Vice-Chair Andrews stated that he is concerned that non-profits are not exempted by these amendments, considering that the Ordinance already exempts non-profits with respect to contact lobbyists. He stated that these amendments could capture non-profits who hold a series of community town hall meetings on an issue and provide food for attendees if the cost of the food meets the threshold amount. He stated that it would be easy for a private company to avoid having to register as an expenditure lobbyist by ensuring they spend just under the $2,500 monthly threshold amount.

Commissioner Keane stated that non-profits should not be exempt and that it was not onerous to mandate the same requirements on non-profits as other entities. He stated that the public has the right to know when non-profits engage with the City to affect policy.

Commissioner Hayon stated that she is concerned about regulating activity defined as expenditure lobbying in these amendments because that type of activity is how most citizen groups engage with the City. She stated that regulating contact lobbying is different because it sheds light on meetings that occur out of the public view, whereas this type of engagement occurs in the full light of the public. She also stated that she did not see the need to rush these amendments in order to put them on this November’s ballot as a ballot measure. She stated that she is concerned that these amendments may discourage non-profits from engaging in the civic process.

Commissioner Keane stated that any group, non-profit or otherwise, which attempts to influence public policy should be transparent about its activities. He stated that this is similar to regulations already in place in other jurisdictions.

Commissioner Keane stated that he would make a motion for the Commission to put forward the proposed changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance as a ballot measure inclusive of Commissioner Hur’s friendly amendments.

DCA Shen clarified that there were four friendly amendments: 1) to remove the language in section 2.103 regarding the requirement that the Board of Supervisors provide specifics to substantiate findings in order to amend the Ordinance; 2) to move the language “directly or indirectly” in the definition of expenditure lobbyist; 3) to remove the language regarding activity expenses; and 4) to create a nexus between the expenditures and the communications.

Public Comment:
Larry Bush stated that if the language requiring the Board of Supervisors to provide specifics to substantiate findings in order to amend the Ordinance is removed the ballot measure will not pass. He stated that these changes are an attempt to remedy changes that a prior Commission removed from the Ordinance without discussion. He stated that the Board of Supervisors has already gutted the Ordinance.

Bob Planthold stated that he advocates to move the draft legislation to the ballot as is. He stated that this merely returns the law to what is was prior to the 2010 changes. He stated that a big developer could set up an astroturf group and that these changes will regulate that.

Marc Solomon urged the Commission to put this on the ballot so voters can decide. He stated that the requirement to state findings for future changes is important so residents have recourse if things are done improperly. He stated that exempting non-profits just encourages entities to form astroturf groups. He stated these amendments need to go on the ballot for this November because this activity is on the rise.

Charles Marsteller stated that Bob Planthold is a former Ethics Commission Chair and that his expertise prevails because this law was in effect when he was on the Commission. He stated that if there is a concern about grass-roots type efforts being affected by the law, the dollar threshold could be raised. He stated that if this doesn’t go to the voters and instead is sent to the Board of Supervisors to approve, the legislation will be fundamentally changed because the Board is a political body.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that he supports the motion but would prefer if some of the friendly amendments had not been included. He stated that San Francisco is an outlier and needs to be like other jurisdictions that regulate expenditure lobbying. He stated that the Health Commission overturned the will of the voters by neutering Proposition Q with no findings to support the change in the law.

Bob Dockendorf stated that he supported the proposed legislation. He stated that the Ethics Commission has a perennial problem in asserting its authority. He stated that non-profits must be included because any group can form as a non-profit.

John St. Claire stated that he has been a resident of San Francisco since 1986 and is very concerned about the influence of money in politics.

Sue Hestor stated that the political landscape was changed by the Citizens United decision. She stated that entities can hide expenditures and impose their will in the United States and that this must not happen in San Francisco. She stated that if you listen to the radio, you would think that puppies are being helped when a non-disclosed interest states in an ad that they can stay in the City because they can host visitors, when in reality it decimates the City’s rental housing stock.

Anita Mayo stated that most lobbying in San Francisco occurs through contact lobbying. She stated that expenditure lobbying was eliminated because very few entities qualified. She stated that the current draft is an improvement on what was previously submitted and is more like other jurisdictions. She stated that there may be an issue with developers who must already report if they meet certain thresholds may also qualify as expenditure lobbyists and who would be required to double report their activity.

Elli Abdoli stated that there should not be a rush to place this on the ballot and that all issues should be resolved. She stated that the Ethics Commission should consider the implications for non-profits. She stated that this legislation is not exactly like the previous version that regulated expenditure lobbyists and may not fit with the current Ordinance.

Chris Wright stated he is a registered lobbyist and stated that he is concerned about the requirement to disclose the name of each officer of a corporation, which could be huge depending on the size of the entity.

Sharyn Saslafsky supported putting the legislation on the November ballot.

Commissioner Hur suggested limiting the corporate officer requirement to CEO, CFO, and Secretary, as well as the person who authorized the expenditure. Commissioner Keane accepted that suggestion as an additional friendly amendment.

Motion 150629-01 (Keane/Renne): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve, with the specified amendments, to place on the November 3, 2015 ballot an ordinance regulating expenditure lobbyists.

V. Discussion and possible action regarding Commission responses to the 2014-2015 Civil Grand Jury report, “San Francisco’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance is in Need of Change.”

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item and explained the Civil Grand Jury process for responses.

Public Comment:
Dr. Derek Kerr stated that he was a whistleblower and was dismissed by the City in 2010. He stated that since 1995 the Ethics Commission has not substantiated any retaliation claim. He stated that the international rate for sustaining retaliation claims is ten percent. He stated that it suggests that the Ethics Commission is complicit with the City and views whistleblowers as threats. He stated that the Ethics Commission staff is afraid to substantiate claims because it would face layoffs and budget cuts.

The following written summary was provided by the speaker, Dr. Derek Kerr, the content of which is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission:

Records show that since June 1995, some 60 retaliation claims passed through the Ethics Commission. In 20 years, none has been sustained. This startling statistic suggests that Ethics has been complicit in the repression of employees who break ranks to serve the public interest. Whistleblower claims are D.O.A. because whistleblowers are viewed as threats – not assets. Your investigations are superficial, aimed at exonerating respondents. Instead of independence you submit to City Attorneys whose duty is to defend City officials accused of wrongdoing. Your staff is afraid to substantiate retaliation claims because they’d face budget cuts and layoffs. They’d be treated just like whistleblowers. Nonetheless, please start by implementing the Civil Grand Jury recommendations. Beyond that, whistleblowers should be viewed as potential assets rather than potential liabilities. Until then, they should raise their concerns publicly via the media and the courts.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission should put forward legislation to amend the Whistleblower Ordinance as a ballot measure. He stated that he just completed writing an article that shows whistleblowers lose their jobs while those who engage in retaliation do not. He stated that under Mayor Ed Lee employment lawsuits increased by 187 cases, and that there is an epidemic of wrongful termination lawsuits.

Elena Schmid stated that she was on a former Civil Grand Jury and was glad that this Grand Jury decided to address the Whistleblower Ordinance. She stated that she appreciated staff’s response, which are positive, but vague. She stated that steps to address the recommendations should be better articulated.

Charles Marsteller stated that the Commission should consider appointing one Commissioner as an ad hoc committee to deal with the Civil Grand Jury recommendations.

Derek Kerr stated that the response is vague and it would be reassuring for the Commission to form a subcommittee on this issue.

Motion 150629-02 (Hayon/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve the proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury report.

VI. Discussion and possible action on a matter submitted under Chapter Three of the Ethics Commission Regulations for Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance.

a) Ethics Complaint No. 10-150331, hearing regarding alleged violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.
Complainant: Dominic Maionchi
Respondent: Phil Ginsburg

DCA Shen left the well and DCA White arrived to advise the Commission on this item.

Chair Renne introduced the item and noted that the Complainant was not present but was informed of the hearing.

Eric Pawlowsky, representing Phil Ginsburg, stated that he urged the Commission to adopt the recommendation issued by staff. He stated that the department followed the advice of the City Attorney’s Office to protect residents’ privacy.

Public Comment:
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that he was disturbed to see a different recommendation than what was issued for a case involving John Rahaim. He stated that the Good Government Guide has no legal weight. He stated that department heads are responsible for the actions of their staff. He urged that the Commission find that Mr. Ginsburg committed a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Deputy Executive Director Mainardi summarized the procedural history and staff’s recommendation to the Commission.

Commissioner Keane stated that there is no privacy right afforded to a citizen who submits an application for a marina boat slip. He stated that it is a privilege and if another individual wants information related to the slip or waitlist, it should be released.

Vice-Chair Andrews stated that the waitlist did not create a contract for a boat slip, and that once a contract was entered into, the address information would then be public.

Motion 150629-03 (Andrews/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Keane dissenting) that the Commission find that Phil Ginsburg did not commit a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.

VII. Discussion and possible action on Executive Director recruitment process.

Deputy Executive Director Mainardi and DCA White both left the well for this item. DCA Shen returned to the well to advise the Commission on this item.

Chair Renne introduced the item and stated that the Commission must approve the authorization to hire Alliance Resource Consulting to conduct the recruitment search.

Motion 150629-04 (Hayon/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission authorize Alliance Resource Consulting to conduct the recruitment search for the Commission’s Executive Director.

Public Comment:
None

Chair Renne stated that Alliance was informed that the job description is insufficient and that he and Vice-Chair Andrews will hold an interested persons meeting on July 9, 2015, to solicit input on the job description. He stated that Alliance will do the initial sort of applicants, then he and Vice-Chair Andrews will narrow down the candidates and bring the best qualified applications to the Commission for consideration.

Vice-Chair Andrews stated that he conducted group meetings with Commission staff and received excellent feedback and insight into the Executive Director’s role as a manager. He stated that he will provide a memo to Chair Renne summarizing his findings. He thanked the Commission staff for its cooperation.

VIII. Discussion and possible action regarding complaints received or initiated by the Ethics Commission concerning: (1) San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 1.122(b)(1) (improper use of campaign funds); and (2) San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 2.110(c) (failure to report lobbying contacts). Closed Session.

Motion 150629-05 (Hayon/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None

The Commission went into closed session at 8:55 P.M. All commission members, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Mainardi, DCA White, staff member Argumedo, and staff member Chatfield remained in the hearing room. DCA Shen and all members of the public left the hearing room. The Commission returned from closed session at 9:22 P.M. DCA Shen did not return to the hearing room. No members of the public returned to the hearing room.

Motion 150629-06 (Hayon/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission keep its closed session deliberations confidential.

Public Comment:
None

IX. Discussion and possible action on the Commission’s May 27 and June 5, 2015 draft meeting minutes.

Motion 150629-07 (Hayon/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve the Commission’s May 27 and June 5, 2015, meeting minutes.

Public Comment:
None

X. Discussion of Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission received no add-backs to its budget and that two candidates for Supervisor have qualified for public financing.

Responding to Commissioner Keane, Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission had asked for funding for three additional positions which was not granted, and that no add-backs were granted to other similarly-sized departments.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this meeting is his last meeting and thanked the Commission for allowing him to serve.

Chair Renne thanked Executive Director St. Croix for his service and his work.

Commissioner Hur thanked Executive Director St. Croix for his work and stated that the job of Executive Director is challenging and that Mr. St. Croix did it well. He stated that he appreciated Mr. St. Croix’s devotion to the Commission.

Commission Hayon also thanked Executive Director St. Croix for his service and his work

Vice-Chair Andrews thanked Executive Director St. Croix for his service and credited him with creating a great staff culture and good work environment. He stated that staff had given Mr. St. Croix high marks for his leadership.

Commissioner Keane wished Executive Director St. Croix good luck in the future.

Public Comment:
None

XI. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Hur stated that he will work on proposing changes to the Whistleblower Ordinance.

Commissioner Andrews stated he would like to address the utility of the complaint log. Deputy Executive Director Mainardi stated that staff has already started to revise how it monitors complaints.

Public Comment:
None

XII. Adjournment.

Motion 150629-08 (Keane/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None

The meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.

Was this page helpful?

:

*Required fields

Scan with a QR reader to access page:
QR Code to Access Page
https://sfethics.org/ethics/2015/08/minutes-june-29-2015.html