Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco

Minutes – February 15, 2019

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, February 15, 2019
Room 416 – City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
(Approved: March 15, 2019)

Note: SFGovTV provides a continuous archive of selected Commission, council and board meetings that allows viewers to watch those meetings online in full at the viewer’s convenience. Video and audio archives of Ethics Commission meetings may be accessed here.

1. Call to order and roll call.

Chair Daina Chiu called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and welcomed new Commissioner Fern M. Smith, who was appointed by the District Attorney to a six-year term ending February 1, 2025, following the expiration of the term of Commissioner Paul Renne.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: With Chair Daina Chiu, Vice-Chair Quentin L. Kopp, and Commission Members Noreen Ambrose, Yvonne Lee, and Fern M. Smith in attendance, a quorum of members was present.

STAFF PRESENT: LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Director; Pat Ford, Senior Policy Analyst; Jeffrey Pierce, Director of Enforcement and Legal Affairs; and Jeffrey Zumwalt, Investigative Analyst.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Paul A. Renne; Ellen Lee Zhou; Edward Wright; Steven Hill; Jon Golinger; Shannon Geiss; Charles Marsteller; and Esther Marks.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

  • Draft minutes for the January 18, 2019 regular meeting of the Ethics Commission.
  • Proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order In the Matter of Joseph Certain (Ethics Commission Complaint No. 1718-012).
  • Staff memorandum dated February 11, 2019 regarding a presentation and acknowledgement of former Commission Member Paul A. Renne.
  • Staff memorandum and attachment dated February 11, 2019 regarding the election of Commission officers for 2019.
  • Staff informational memorandum dated February 11, 2019 regarding presentation on Ethics Commission campaign disclosure dashboards.
  • Staff memorandum dated February 11, 2019 regarding draft ordinances on the public financing program and attachments.
  • Staff’s monthly Policy Report dated February 11, 2019 and attachments.
  • Staff’s monthly Enforcement Report dated February 11, 2019 and attachments.
  • Executive Director’s Report dated February 11, 2019.

2. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.

Under Item 2, the Commission received public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.

Ellen Lee Zhou provided public comment urging the Commission to stop corruption and voting fraud and to reform local government.

An unnamed speaker who identified himself as a lifelong San Franciscan urged the Commission to oppose lifting of the spending ceilings for publicly financed candidates as outlined in the staff memorandum under Agenda Item 8.

Edward Wright, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Gordon Mar, spoke on the Supervisor’s behalf. He encouraged the Commission to not adopt the Commission staff proposal regarding adjusting the individual expenditure ceilings and urged the Commission to consider a set of proposals proposed by the Supervisor to reform the public financing system.

Chair Chiu noted that because Supervisor Mar’s draft Ordinance was not received at the Commission in time to be placed in the Commission’s meeting packets, that Ordinance does not appear on the agenda for discussion. She stated the Commission welcomed additional comments about public financing under Agenda Item 8.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

Chair Chiu called the Consent Calendar items and called for any comment on both items.

3. Draft minutes for the January 18, 2019 Ethics Commission regular meeting.

Vice-Chair Kopp offered several grammatical corrections and clarifying modifications to the draft minutes, which were agreed to by assent of the Commission. Vice-Chair Kopp then moved adoption of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.

Chair Chiu clarified with DCA Shen how public comment should be received given that there are two items on Consent. DCA Shen advised that under the Commission’s Bylaws public comment is allowed before action on any item, so it would be advisable to allow public comment on each item should a member of the public wish to offer comment.

Charles Marsteller, former head of the San Francisco chapter of Common Cause and member of Friends of Ethics, encouraged the Commission to urge U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to add a mechanism to federal bankruptcy law that allows local governments to recover public campaign funds.

Chair Chiu called for the vote.

Motion 190215-01 (Kopp/Smith): Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission approve the draft minutes as amended for the January 18, 2019 Ethics Commission regular meeting.

4. Proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order In the Matter of Joseph Certain (Ethics Commission Complaint No 1718-012)

Hearing no Commission discussion or public comment on Item 4, Chair Chiu moved adoption of the proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order in the Matter of Joseph Certain. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith.

Chair Chiu called for the vote.

Motion 190215-02 (Chiu/Smith):  Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission approve the proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order In the Matter of Joseph Certain (Ethics Commission Complaint No. 1718-012)

NON-CONSENT ITEMS

5. Presentation and possible action in acknowledgement of former Commission Member Paul A. Renne, whose full term on the Commission concluded February 1, 2019.

Chair Chiu commended Mr. Renne for his thoughtful leadership, and steady and insightful analysis on matters before the Commission. She thanked him for being a great role model and stated it was a pleasure and privilege to serve along side him on the Ethics Commission. She extended her thanks for all he has done for the Commission and for the people of the City and County of San Francisco.

Mr. Renne conveyed his appreciation for the Chair’s comments. He stated the three most important things that happened while he was a Commissioner was, first, when the Commission hired its present Executive Director, LeeAnn Pelham. He said she has made the job of a Commissioner so much more meaningful in terms of getting things accomplished and has put together a very professional staff. The other two significant events were measures the Commission put on the ballot, Proposition C and Proposition T. He noted both were steps forward and added that his one wish remains that the Commission and Staff will pursue the attempt to limit independent expenditures and their impact on City politics. He stated he was confident that the appointment of Judge Smith, whom he recommended to the District Attorney for appointment to the Commission, will be a more than worthy successor.

Chair Chiu read into the record a Resolution by the Ethics Commission:

WHEREAS, the people of the City and County of San Francisco have declared that public office is a public trust and that the proper operation of the government requires that public officers be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people, and

WHEREAS, the Ethics Commission has been charged by San Franciscans to impartially and effectively administer and enforce the City’s governmental ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws, and

WHEREAS, Paul A. Renne has served with distinction as a Member of the San Francisco Ethics Commission since he was first appointed in 2012, and

WHEREAS, he was re-appointed in 2013 to fulfill a six-year term of office as an Ethics Commissioner, during which he was elected to serve as Commission President in both 2015 and 2016, and

WHEREAS, Commissioner Renne completed his full term of office on February 1, 2019,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 15th Day of February, 2019, that the San Francisco Ethics Commission acknowledges Paul A. Renne with appreciation for his distinguished service and leadership, and with gratitude for his enduring commitment to integrity and accountability in San Francisco City government.

Vice-Chair Kopp moved approval, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee.

Commissioner Lee noted it was a privilege to serve alongside the other half of the dynamic duo, Louise Renne, while as a member of the Police Commission. She thanked Mr. Renne for his open-mindedness and appreciated his core principle of looking for common ground to make sure the Commission came to a workable resolution for the best of all San Franciscans, particularly those who are less visible and less represented. She thanked him for being a role model for her and for all public servants.

Commissioner Smith added that she has known Mr. Renne professionally for a number of years and she considers it a privilege to follow in his footsteps. She thanked him for all he has done for the City.

Commissioner Ambrose stated her appreciation for Mr. Renne’s clarity, guidance, and ability to get to an effective solution, and she wished him the best of luck.

Vice-Chair Kopp associated himself with the remarks of his fellow Commissioners and with the words of the Resolution that give expression the Commission’s gratitude to Paul Renne Esq. for his service and leadership. He also hopes that the matter of independent expenditures Mr. Renne raised will be considered and acted upon by this Commission.

Chair Chiu then called for public comment.

Charles Marsteller thanked Mr. Renne for his service on the Commission and acknowledged the appointment of Commissioner Smith as an asset to the Commission. He invited Mr. Renne’s continuing support on matters of shared interest.

Steven Hill thanked Mr. Renne for his service, and all the Commissioners for their service to the City. He said he admires the spirit that each member of the Commission brings to their service and it is an example for all San Franciscans to follow.

By unanimous vote (5-0), the Commission approved the Resolution in honor of Commissioner Renne. Chair Chiu then presented former Commissioner Renne with an engraved plaque on the Commission’s behalf, which read “In gratitude for your leadership and enduring commitment to integrity in public service – independent, impartial, and responsible to the people.”

Motion 190215-03 (Kopp/Lee):  Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission approve the proposed Resolution of the Ethics Commission in appreciation of Paul Renne’s distinguished service and leadership on the Ethics Commission.

6. Election of Ethics Commission Officers for 2019.

Executive Director Pelham referred the Commission to a memo in their packets outlining provisions that govern the annual election of officers and the procedures the Commission has used in prior years to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair.

Chair Chiu opened the nominations for Chair and stated that if someone wishes to nominate an individual to serve as Chair and that individual wishes to run, that individual is nominated.

Commissioner Lee nominated current Chair Daina Chiu to serve a second year as Chair. Chair Chiu stated she agreed to run.

Hearing no other names placed in nomination, Chair Chiu then called for public comment and stated after public comment the nomination process for Chair will be closed.

Charles Marsteller stated he is inclined to see rotation among the Commission’s leadership and provided historical background on prior Commission elections. He stated he did not believe the Commission had ever elected a member as Chair twice.

Hearing no other public comment, Vice-Chair Kopp called for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Ambrose stated for the record that the Bylaws are clear in saying that the Chair can serve for two consecutive terms. She noted that former Commissioner Renne had served as Chair in both 2015 and 2016, so it does appear to be a tradition on the Commission. She stated she would be voting aye.

Commissioner Lee voted aye.

Commissioner Smith stated her reading of the Bylaws was consistent with Commissioner Ambrose’s statements and that she will be delighted to vote aye.

Commissioner Kopp voted no.

Commission Chair Chiu voted aye.

Director Pelham announced that the nomination of Commissioner Daina Chiu to serve as Chair for 2019 was approved 4-1 on a roll call vote with Commissioner Kopp in the dissent.

Chair Chiu then opened nominations for Vice-Chair and stated that if someone wishes to nominate an individual to serve as Vice-Chair and that individual wishes to run, that individual is nominated.

Commissioner Ambrose nominated Vice-Chair Kopp to serve a second year as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Kopp stated he declined to accept the nomination.

Commissioner Kopp nominated Commission Yvonne Lee to serve as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Lee thanked Commissioner Kopp for his trust but stated she would decline the nomination citing her inability at the present time to devote the time required to the duties of Vice-Chair.

Commissioner Lee nominated Commissioner Ambrose to serve as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Ambrose and Commissioner Smith inquired of Commissioner Kopp whether he would reconsider his position in declining the Vice-Chair nomination. He stated he would not.

Commissioner Ambrose affirmed her willingness to serve as Vice-Chair.

Hearing no other names placed in nomination, Chair Chiu then called for public comment.

Hearing no public comment, Chair Chiu called for a roll call vote on the nomination of Commissioner Ambrose for Vice-Chair.

On the roll call vote, Commissioner Lee voted aye; Commissioner Kopp voted no; Commissioner Chiu voted aye; Commissioner Ambrose voted aye; and Commissioner Smith voted aye.

Director Pelham announced that the nomination of Commissioner Noreen Ambrose to serve as Vice-Chair for 2019 was approved 4-1 on a roll call vote with Commissioner Kopp in the dissent.

7. Informational Presentation on Ethics Commission campaign disclosure dashboards.

Tyler Field, an analyst with the Commission’s Electronic Disclosure and Data Analysis Division, provided an informational presentation on the campaign disclosure dashboards feature of the Commission’s website.

He noted the disclaimer required on campaign ads, “Financial disclosures available at sfethics.org,” allows the public to visit the Commission’s website for detailed information about campaign fundraising and spending activities. From the Commission’s landing page, the public can access data dashboards that visualize campaign contributions and expenditures, public financing, and other financial information reported by committees. He demonstrated use of the dashboards by accessing the Commission’s website and illustrating the various ways in which the information reported by committees is summarized online. He noted how it can be sorted, searched, and further researched to better understand how money is raised and spent in city campaigns.

Field noted that the dashboards have been a popular tool for the public and press as they seek information about city campaigns during elections.

Chair Chiu thanked Mr. Field for his presentation and encouraged the Staff to continue to develop further online tools for the public and voters.

Public Comment.

Charles Marsteller suggested enabling functions that would allow assessment of the proportion of spending an individual’s contributions represent overall in an election.

Jon Golinger stated he appreciates the hard work of the staff and the commitment of the Commission to public disclosure. He said he has not found the dashboards to be updated immediately. Real time information is vital and he urges that the dashboards have priority for updating whenever data is received. He encourages making the dashboard a better link to individual donors for improved cross-referencing that allows better detection of the interests of individual donors.

No action was taken as the item was presented for informational purposes only.

8. Discussion and possible action on draft ordinances regarding the public financing program.

Senior Policy Analyst Pat Ford introduced the item, referenced the Staff memo under Item 8, and recapped the purposes of the public financing program review underway at the Commission. He noted that the specific aims of the first phase of the review has been to focus on strengthening administration of the program by improving its workability, making the program more effective at a procedural level, and impose less compliance burdens where those burdens are not yielding a corresponding public benefit. He then described the types of more substantive provisions and issues the staff plans to address in the second phase of the Commission’s review following completion of its action on Phase I recommendations. He summarized three ordinances attached to the Staff memo. He noted they differ only in how the mechanism would work for addressing the adjustment of individual expenditure ceilings, or “IECs.” He noted that one additional option would be for the Commission to roll this set of provisions in to the second phase of the review and table for the moment the proposals in the Ordinances prepared for its discussion under this agenda item. Lastly, he referenced an Ordinance proposed by Supervisor Gordon Mar that the Commission received after the Commission’s packet of materials for this meeting was published. He noted Commissioners may wish to consider how the proposals before them today might best be handled given that it appears there are also now new proposals that have been initiated by Supervisor Mar.

Commissioner Smith stated she was very interested in the Board’s involvement and asked whether there were additional members of the Board of Supervisors that had expressed a positive reaction to Supervisor Mar’s proposal or to this subject matter. Mr. Ford stated he was unaware of others but noted Staff will be in communication with other supervisors to learn more.

DCA Shen stated for the benefit of the public and the Commission that Supervisor Mar’s proposal had not yet been formally introduced and that it would be referred to the Commission after its introduction for its consideration. He added that there are special procedural requirements for amendments to this portion of this section of the law, in that 4/5 of the Commission must vote in the affirmative to recommend amendments.

After further Commission discussion with DCA Shen about possible procedural approaches, Vice-Chair Ambrose conveyed her interest in addressing the substance of the proposals to provide further direction about the Commission’s policy views on the proposed approaches. She suggested hearing from Supervisor Mar’s Legislative Aide to provide further information about proposals on the table.

Edward Wright spoke on behalf of Supervisor Mar. He indicated the Supervisor welcomes working with the Commission on the public financing program. He stated whether the Supervisor’s Ordinance is introduced the following week is an open question and depends on what actions the Commission takes on the proposals before it today. In response to a question from Chair Chiu regarding whether the Supervisor intends for any amendments to take effect in time for the November 2019 election, Mr. Wright indicated that that, too, is an open question and will likely depend on the scope and substance of the proposals that come before the Board of Supervisors.

Chair Chiu asked Mr. Ford to recap the three Ordinances before the Commission. Mr. Ford stated that they differ only in how they address the adjustment of the Individual Expenditure Ceilings of publicly financed candidates. Other provisions detailed in each are the same. He then summarized the approaches outlined in each Ordinance, which also were summarized in a Table 5 attached to the Staff report. In brief, he explained that Attachment 1 would switch to a release-based IEC model, whereby a candidate can be released from his or her spending limit rather than incrementally adjusting the spending limit under the specific circumstances defined in the law. Attachment 2 would retain the incremental adjustment model but would increase the minimum increment for adjustments and alter the timing of adjustments. Attachment 3 would retain the incremental adjustment model as it exists under current law.

The Commission then engaged in further detailed discussion with Mr. Ford about the basis for the recommendations provided by Staff, including using as an illustration how the proposed approaches would have worked had they been in place for the most recent 2018 elections. Commissioners Lee and Chiu stated an interest in how the proposals would affect the campaigns of community-centered candidates. Commissioner Lee stated she did not understand there to be an appetite in the room for adopting Attachment 1.

Commissioner Smith added that she also found it troublesome to release candidates from the spending limit as proposed in Attachment 1. Assuming the increment were to be pegged at a more moderate amount than that proposed by Staff, she asked how difficult would it be to later change the increment? Mr. Ford stated that was difficult to assess, but that his sense was that it would likely face the same process as this proposal. He suggested that unless the change were to make an appreciable impact on the overall number of ceiling adjustments required, Staff would recommend making no change at this time.

After further discussion, Chair Chiu stated it was her desire to address proposals 4 and 5 noted on Table 1 in the next phase with a consideration of more comprehensive proposals.

Public comment was then invited.

Charles Marsteller reminded the Commission that any amendments must further the purposes of the Act to safeguard the voters’ interests.

Jon Golinger distributed a letter to members of the Commission. He urged the Commission to not focus solely on simplifying the program for candidates. He encouraged the Commission to increase the incremental adjustments and move that provision forward. In a response to Chair Chiu, he suggested the number of times a spending limit is adjusted is irrelevant to the campaign; rather it is knowing the amount the campaign can spend that is more important. He added that it is the timeliness of the increase that would be the most meaningful change.

Shannon Geiss, a volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, read a statement from the organization in opposition to the Staff proposal to relieve participating candidates from their spending limits. She referenced large spending by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and stated it illustrated that a similar approach in Los Angeles is not working. She urged adoption of Attachment 2 with lower incremental adjustments.

Esther Marks encouraged the Commission to retain contributions rather than expenditures in the determination of supportive funds. She welcomes the discussion about increasing the amount of the initial spending limit for candidates and believes any increase should be equivalent to monies the amount of public funds available to a candidate.

Edward Wright noted his experience managing campaigns and encouraged the Commissioners to start with a lower IEC adjustment increment than that proposed in the Staff report. He said the issue for campaigns is not the number of times adjustments are made but instead how much they are able to spend. He urged the Commission to retain contributions as the basis for determining total supportive funds.

Commissioner Smith noted the arguments she has heard for increasing the amount of the incremental adjustment and stated she was puzzled by the indication by Staff that making no change may be better than making a more modest adjustment. She stated she welcomed more information from Staff on that perspective.

Steven Hill stated the public financing program is successful and that dozens of candidates have benefitted from public financing over the more than 20 years since it was established, including candidates that otherwise would not have been competitive without public financing. He believes there is merit to improving the program and making it easier for candidates to participate but making it easier should not be the primary goal. He fundamentally disagrees with assertions that we need to encourage more candidates to run or that candidates are finding the program so complicated that they are choosing not to run. He urged the Commission to send to the Board a package that includes an incremental increase of the IEC of approximately $50,000 and that extends the deadline for submitting a statement of participation to three days. He said it would be bad policy to base total supportive funds on expenditures and urged it to remain based on contributions. He urged the Commission to change only what needs to be changed to make the program better and to not go fishing for things that are not broken.

Commissioner Kopp referenced a February 14 communication from Mr. Hill and said he recommended adoption of the proposals it contained to the change of the IEC to $50,000 for Supervisors and $50,000 for Mayoral candidates, and to extend the deadline for filing statements of participation in writing by three days.

Hearing no other public comment, Commission Chair Chiu proposed the following:

  1. Change the date of filing the statement of participation to three days after the deadline for filing nominating papers. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kopp.
  2. Increase the increments for adjusting the individual expenditure ceilings from $10,000 to $50,000 in a Supervisorial race and from $50,000 to $250,000 in a Mayoral race. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kopp.
  3. Commissioner Ambrose added that the adjustment formula would be based on the proposal to adjust the IEC when opponent activity exceeds the IEC by any amount. Commissioner Smith clarified that this approach would continue to use contributions as the basis for determining total supportive funds rather than expenditures. Commissioner Kopp seconded the proposal and said he would not support a change to base total supportive funds on expenditures.
  4. Commissioner Ambrose urged adoption of the elimination of the contingency account. Commissioner Lee provided a second.

Commissioner Kopp asked for a separate vote on each of the proposals. At the request of the Chair, Director Pelham re-stated each motion individually for a roll call vote on each motion.

Motion 190215-04 (Chiu/Kopp):  Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission adopt a  recommendation to change the deadline for publicly financed candidates to file their Statement of Participation or Non-Participation to three days after the nomination filing deadline.

Motion 190215-05 (Chiu/Kopp): Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission adopt a recommendation to change the increments for adjusting the Individual Expenditure Ceilings (“IEC”) of publicly financed candidates from $10,000 to $50,000 in a Supervisorial race and from $50,000 to $250,000 in a Mayoral race.

Motion 190215-06 (Ambrose/Kopp): Moved, seconded and passed 5-0 that the Commission adopt a recommendation to adjust a candidate’s IEC when opponent activity exceeds the candidate’s IEC by any amount.

Motion 190215-07 (Ambrose/Lee): Moved, seconded and passed 4-1 (Kopp in the dissent) that the Commission adopt a motion to eliminate contingency accounts.

Chair Chiu asked that an ordinance be prepared to reflect these recommendations and that the Ordinance be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.

Commissioner Kopp announced he was leaving the meeting at 5:00 pm.

At 5:00 pm the Commission recessed for a brief break. The Commission reconvened at 5:16 pm.

9. Discussion of monthly Staff Policy Report.

Senior Policy Analyst Pat Ford introduced the item and offered to answer any questions from the Commission. Hearing no questions or comments by Members of the Commission, Chair Chiu called for public comment. No public comment was received.

No action was taken on the item.

10. Discussion of monthly Staff Enforcement Report.

Director of Enforcement and Legal Affairs Jeff Pierce introduced the item and highlighted current caseload information. He noted there continues to be good progress by investigators in working through current caseloads and expects caseload figures to soon reflect that progress as cases are finalized through supervisory and Executive Director review. He discussed training opportunities being pursued in the enforcement division, including on investigations involving conflicts of interests and training provided by the Federal Inspectors General on subject matters relevant to the Commission’s enforcement work.

Mr. Pierce stated that the Fines Collection Officer had identified additional cases totaling roughly $35,000 that may warrant referral to the Bureau of Delinquent Revenues for further action.

Hearing no questions or comments by Members of the Commission, Chair Chiu called for public comment. No public comment was received.

No action was taken on the item.

11. Discussion of Executive Director’s Report.

Director Pelham highlighted various updates from the monthly Executive Director’s Report, including recent ethics training conducted in partnership with the City Management Employee Association and the City Attorney’s Office. She noted that preparations are underway for 2019 public disclosure filing deadlines, and stated Form 700 filings this year are due on April 2 due to the State’s holiday observance of Cesar Chavez Day on April 1. The City’s Ethics and Sunshine training certifications continue to be due under City law on April 1.

She stated Staff had completed the oral interview phase for each position in recruitment in the past month. She announced that Amy Li would be assuming responsibility as Principal Program Manager for Audits, and that Jeff Zumwalt will assume duties as Senior Investigative Analyst. Pelham announced that Brian Cox will be joining the staff as Policy Analyst after having been with the Public Defender’s Office for several years. She expects to provide further news about the results of the hiring process in the coming days.

Pelham highlighted the process for submitting the Commission’s budget request for FY20/21 and noted Staff was continuing to prepare for submitting that request on February 21. She stated that having just completed the hiring plan identified in prior year budgets, she believes it is essential to allow that critical work to be pursued, consequently the Commission is not in a position to propose any budget reductions. She added that the budget submission would identify specific, continuing critical needs and that it would continue to align closely with the Commission’s ongoing strategic budget goals of improved efficiencies, strengthened service delivery, and heightened engagement to broaden the impact and effectiveness of the laws the Commission administers and enforces.

Chair Chiu stated that it was critical for the Commission to retain its staffing and budget levels to allow the Commission to continue its work on behalf of the people of San Francisco.

Charles Marsteller congratulated the Commission staff on their promotions and encouraged the Commission to move quickly on filling the new vacancies that resulted from those promotions.

12. Discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the Ethics Commission. Possible Closed Session.

Chair Chiu provided the opportunity for public comment and no public comment was received.

The Commission held no discussion and took no action on the item.

13. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings.

Executive Director Pelham announced the Commission’s regular monthly meeting in April was changed to Friday, April 12, 2019, at 1:30 pm due to Commission scheduling issues.  No other items were discussed, and no public comment was received. No action was taken on the item.

14. Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2.

Chair Chiu provided the opportunity for public comment.

Charles Marsteller urged the Commission, in adopting a motion, to verify that the proposed change furthers the purposes of the Act. He stated that as the agency has matured over time this would be useful to codify in its Bylaws to support public confidence in the Commission’s work.

15. Adjournment.

Motion 190215-08 (Lee/Smith): Moved, seconded and passed unanimously (4-0; Kopp not present) that the Commission adjourn the meeting.

The Commission adjourned at 5:39 pm.

Was this page helpful?

Scan with a QR reader to access page:
QR Code to Access Page
https://sfethics.org/ethics/2019/03/minutes-february-15-2019.html