Draft Minutes – April 11, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, April 11, 2025

Hybrid meeting conducted in-person in City Hall Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, and also held online as a Remote Meeting via WebEx and aired live on SFGovTV

Note: SFGovTV provides a continuous archive of audio, video, and Caption Notes recordings of Ethics Commission meetings that allows viewers to watch those meetings online in full at the viewer’s convenience. These archives of Ethics Commission meetings may be accessed at SFGovTV at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=142.

(Note: A complete recording of this meeting can be found on SFGovTv.)

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: With Chair Argemira Flórez-Feng, Commissioner David Tsai, Commissioner Karen Bell Francois, and Commissioner Kevin Yeh participating, a quorum was present. Vice-Chair Yaman Salahi had an excused absence.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning; Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews; Senior Administrative Analyst, Eric Willet; Senior Administrative Analyst, Bertha Cheung.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Kathleen Radez, Deputy City Attorney.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

Item 1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Chair Florez-Feng called the meeting to order at 10:11am and stated that members of the public may participate in-person or remotely.

Commission Clerk Charlie Machado-Morrow summarized the procedures for participation by members of the public for the meeting.

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

Public Comment:

William Walker stated it was difficult for him to hear Chair Flórez-Feng and asked her to speak directly into the microphone so he could hear clearly.

Stacy Smith spoke regarding his attendance of the Sunshine Task Force and his concerns about how long the process has taken to receive a tentative hearing from the task force. Mr. Smith mentioned that if the Ethics Commission had purview of his issue, it may have been settled faster. Mr. Smith suggests the Sunshine Task force and the Ethics Commission can work together and better coordinate requests to streamline the process to not take as long.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 3, 4, and 5

Under its Consent Calendar, provided the opportunity for public comment on all consent calendar items and voted 4-0 to adopt a motion by Chair Flórez-Feng and seconded by Commissioner Tsai to approve the following consent calendar items that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for March 14, 2025, Regular Meeting

The following Consent Calendar items were informational and required no action by the Commission, but the opportunity for public comment was provided.

Item 4, Executive Director’s report dated April 7, 2025
Item 5, Engagement and Compliance Manager’s report dated April 7, 2025

Public Comment:

No public comment was received and public comment on the item was closed.

Motion 250411.01 (Flórez-Feng / Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to approve the consent calendar items requiring action by the Commission.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 6, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Open the Great Highway.

Senior Administrative Analyst, Eric Willet, presented the proposed stipulation in SFEC Case No. 25-843 (Count 1: Failure to Register and Report as a Political Committee: $2,400). Chair Flórez-Feng inquired on what inspired the investigation. Mr. Willet confirmed that it was a complaint received from the community. Chair Flórez-Feng asked if the Great Highway leadership expressed any reason for delay or confusion regarding the law. Mr. Willet replied, saying he was unable to speak on the rational of the filing defects but mentioned the legal counsel for Open the Great Highway was present for questions.

Eli Love spoke on behalf of the respondent stating this group had existed informally for some time but became active in response to Prop K, which was placed on the ballot last minute, leaving little time for organized opposition. The members were not experienced in political or campaign finance rules. Once we (legal counsel) were brought on and realized registration was required, we filed as quickly as possible. The respondent acknowledges the mistake and hopes to resolve the matter today, fully recognizing they should have registered upon reaching the $2,000 threshold.

Commissioner Tsai asked if Mr. Budhai was aware of the required reporting in this instance. Mr. Love stated Mr. Budhai was not aware or familiar with the finance reporting rules and if he was, he would have timely registered the committee and acknowledged that it was a mistake that he made.

Commissioner Yeh spoke and identified a typo on page 6, section 2A, reading received contributions totaling $1000.00 but should read $2000.00. Mr. Willet confirmed Commissioner Yeh is correct and contribution amount should read $2000.00.

Public Comment:

Leanne Chang spoke thanking the Commission for investigating the “Open the Great Highway” campaign, which failed to register and report as a political committee on time. She urged them to impose the proposed fine, noting Mr. Budhai’s prior experience leading the 2022 Proposition I campaign and founding the nonprofit Livable SF, which is challenging the Great Highway park conversion.

Chang also referenced a new complaint against the “Our Neighborhood Our Future” campaign, also led by Budhai, supporting the recall of Supervisor Engardio. The complaint cites late filings, missing disclosures on materials, and unreported expenses. Since then, the campaign has submitted seven amended filings, suggesting the complaint was valid.

She stressed the violations date back to January and highlighted the need for transparency with the recall effort nearing its end. Chang urged the Commission to act quickly, citing a pattern of noncompliance by Budhai and his supporters.

Motion 250411.02 (Yeh/Flórez-Feng): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Open the Great Highway.

Item 7, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Mark Kelleher.

Senior Administrative Analyst, Eric Willet, presented the proposed stipulation in SFEC Case No. 05-883 (Count 1: Failure to File Annual Certificates of Ethics Training and Sunshine Declarations: $500; Count 2: Participation in Agenda Items while Disqualified: $2000, Total Penalties: $2500).

Chair Flórez-Feng asked if the respondent claimed to not have received the notices by email. Mr. Willet confirmed he did not make that claim. Commissioner Tsai asked what his excuse was for not completing the training. Mr. Willet stated that there was no excuse included within the stipulation and that Mr. Kelleher did acknowledge responsibility and corrected the filing defects. Commissioner Tsai asked if there was any complaint about any inability to access any of the trainings. Mr. Willet replied that there was none.

Commissioner Yeh asked why the Commission staff did not reach out to the respondent until October of 2024 for the non-compliance. Mr. Willet explained that the notice Mr. Kelleher received in October of 2024 was a notice from the Enforcement Division. Prefiling notices and non-filing notices were sent out from the Engagement and Compliance Division before and after each filing deadline within 2022, 2023, and 2024. It was the Enforcement matter which ultimately resulted in the corrective action from the respondent.

Commissioner Yeh asked if there was a reason why an Enforcement action wasn’t taken in 2022. Bisi Matthews, Director of Enforcement, responded saying there was no particular reason. A review of the non-filer records was conducted which identified the non-filling of Mr. Kelleher. Executive Director, Patrick Ford, clarified the Enforcement Division is unable to enforce an enforcement matter for every officer or employee who fails to file the form. The deciding factor we use is when it becomes a pattern for non-filers. Enforcement matter is not always initiated immediately when missed for the first time. We send compliance notices first to get them to file. When we see them failing to complete the trainings or file for multiple years, that’s when it becomes an Enforcement matter.

Commissioner Yeh asked if there is a mechanism in place to track those who have not filed, to notify the boards and Commissions of that person’s non-compliance and that they are disqualified from participating in actions. Executive Director Patrick Ford responded, saying the Commission secretaries are contacted to inform them of the board members’ non-compliance and are disqualified from acting. It does land on the secretaries to police their board members and inform them that they cannot take action on items.

Commissioner Yeh stated he thought the case was a bit aggreges that this went on for 3 years, participated in 24 meetings and that Body did not put a stop to it. Executive Director Patrick Ford agreed.

Chair Flórez-Feng agreed with Commissioner Yeh and asked if the rest of the Commission and secretaries share a responsibility to repercussions to allowing this to go on. Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews replied that the code states that they have an obligation to make an announcement during meetings to inform Commissioners and Board member of those disqualified. Ms. Matthews also mentions it has been a priority for staff to take a closer look at non-filers and take action if necessary.

Commissioner Yeh asked how the Enforcement Division determines the number of counts for a failure to file, why are multiple violations sometimes charged as one count and other times as several?

Mrs. Matthews responded that it is a matter of degression. We try to work with the respondents to resolve the matter. Usually if matters don’t resolve and it goes to a full hearing, we would bring all the violations and charge individually.

Chair Flórez-Feng questioned the amount of the penalty and how it is determined and believes the fine is quite low compared to other cases. Commissioner Yeh agreed, stating this has gone on for over 24 meetings and the respondent was appointed in 2010 so this could not be something the respondent didn’t know about.

Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews agreed that the obligations are very important and stated her team can go back to the respondent and renegotiate the terms. Commissioner Yeh asked the Commission if they should provide recommendations for penalties to which Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen Radez, responded saying the matter before them is to decline or accept the stipulation being presented and for the Commission to provide a specific penalty is out of their scope.

Public Comment:

Jim Sutton expressed concern over hefty fines imposed on volunteer Commissioners for inadvertently failing to complete the required ethics or Sunshine training. He emphasized that these individuals are law-abiding professionals who want to comply but were unaware or confused—often due to unclear email communication and lack of reminders from Commission staff. He criticized the enforcement approach as heavy-handed, especially given the Commissioners’ unpaid status, and urged more leniency and clearer communication, suggesting the fines are excessive and lack context.

William Walker expressed concerns about the enforcement division’s delays in addressing issues, sometimes taking 2–3 years or more. He urged the Commission to hold staff accountable, just as the public is held to ethical standards. He called for clearer guidelines and a code of conduct between the Commission and the public, citing past mistreatment by staff. He emphasized the need for more active Commissioner involvement and better framework.

Stacy Smith spoke stating that when he first approached the Ethics Commission, he was told the focus was mainly on financial matters of Elected Official and Board Members . After attending a Sunshine Task Force meeting, he found the scope seemed broader than what had been explained. He raised concerns about unclear communication between staff and volunteers, which can confuse the public. He urged the Commission to improve transparency, streamline procedures, and involve committed individuals. He also noted he had waited 121 days without receiving a tentative decision or administrative hearing.

Motion 250411.03 (Yeh/Flórez-Feng): Moved, seconded, and approved (3-1) with Commissioner Tsai voting against, to table Item 7 Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Mark Kelleher.

Item 8. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Ovava Afuhaamango.

Senior Administrative Analyst, Eric Willet presented the proposed stipulation. There were no questions or comments from the Commission.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received and public comment on the item was closed.

Motion 250411.04 (Tsai/Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-1) to adopt Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Ovava Afuhaamango.

Item 9, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Preliminary Matters In the Matter of William Walker in SFEC Case No. 2223-507.

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews introduced the item, clarifying that it concerns procedural matters that must be addressed before moving to the hearing phase. She emphasized that the Enforcement Division remains open to resolving the case through a stipulated settlement agreement and encouraged Mr. Walker to continue engaging with them despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It was confirmed that the agenda item is limited to procedural discussion, and any further engagement would occur outside of this meeting.

Senior Administrative Analyst, Bertha Cheung presented the Preliminary Matters In the Matter of William Walker in SFEC Case No. 2223-507. Ms. Cheung outlined several options for who could preside over the preliminary matters. It was noted by Chair Flórez-Feng that Commissioner Salahi had overseen this process previously and, although absent from the current meeting, had expressed a willingness to volunteer again. The Commission discussed whether to appoint someone now, appoint Vice Chair Salahi in his absence pending his acceptance at the next meeting, or to defer the decision to a later date.

Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews, clarified that Vice Chair Salahi would not have to be present for the appointment. Chair Flórez-Feng stated it would be better procedurally to wait until Vice Chair Salahi was present for the appointment to which the Commission agreed.

Public Comment:

William Walker spoke regarding his concerns about communication. Relying solely on email has led to missed messages on both sides. If something is serious enough to carry legal consequences, staff should also send communications by mail for accountability. Mr. Walker stated he is willing to use mail too but asks that the Commission not rely only on email, especially since staff have the resources to send mail.

Ovava Afuhaamango spoke and emphasized the importance of using multiple communication methods beyond email, such as contacting the board secretary and ensuring the VP and president are informed, to ensure timely attention to board matters. Ovava also addressed a previous agenda item, noting that the recent $1,000 fine was their first offense in four years of board service and expressed concern that the penalty was excessive. Ovava wished the Ethics Commission would consider a more reasonable resolution.

William Walker spoke again stated he didn’t sign the stipulation because he didn’t feel like it was a fair stipulation. He also stated if the Enforcement team treated him fairly, he would have signed a stipulation agreement rather than what is before the Commission today.

Chair Flórez-Feng asked the Commission if they would like to further discuss process as it pertains to communications, adding physical mail instead of just e-mail correspondence. Commissioner Tsai asked Ms. Matthews if that would be an easy process. Ms. Matthews ensured the Commission must send multiple email communications, but the Commission is happy to accommodate Mr. Walker for his request for physical mail. Budget wise, regarding adding physical mail as a requirement for all communications, she deferred to Executive Director Patrick Ford.

Stacy Smith spoke and expressed appreciation for seeing a process in place and reflected the importance of open communication channels in high-performing organizations.

Motion 250411.05 (Tsai/Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to table items 1-3, accept division recommendation for items 4, Item 5 entire commission to preside, and Item 6 to align with previous process and adopt recommendation regarding Preliminary Matters In the Matter of William Walker in SFEC Case No. 2223-507.

Item 10, Presentation on Policy Division Overview and Updates

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager Michael Canning presented an overview of the Policy Division including how the division works and duties of the division. Mr. Canning also presented some projects completed by the division and current projects the Policy Division is working on.

Chair Flórez-Feng stated the presentation was very helpful to see what our priorities are and to understand more of the policy divisions work. No motion was necessary as the presentation was informational only.

Public Comment:

William Walker spoke, mentioning his previous work on campaigns and elections. He urged the Policy Division to work with the elections commission to do better outreach and be more proactive on informing candidates on how to submit paperwork. Mr. Walker suggested having workshop trainings more often to help inform people running for office. He stated he appreciates the Ethics Commission having a Policy Division.

Stacy Smith spoke suggesting the Ethics Commission work closer with the Sunshine Task Force to make things more transparent. He stated his frustration at a Board of Supervisor’s meeting when he spoke at public comment but was told it was not a questions and answer time. Mr. Smith suggested a kiosk for entering tasks, complaints etc.

Item 11. Items for Future Meetings (Discussion)

Chair Flórez-Feng to a moment to recognize the different supports options made available by the Commission including the online support portal to provide guidance and assistance for all programs. She stressed the importance of communications between the public and the Commission.

Executive Director Patrick Ford, agreed, stating there have been several candidate trainings in the past available to the public at various times including after hours for people who have jobs or other commitments. There is a broad base approach by staff to be accessible to people and provide information, trainings and interactions.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received and public comment on the item was closed.

Item 12. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

Ovava Afuhaamango spoke about her time on the Sheriff’s Oversite Board since July 2021. She expressed her concern over receiving a $1000.00 fine for missing the annual training deadline. She stated she believes the penalty is excessive and should have been a warning instead. She urged decision makers to review the process and include more leniency and human oversight to avoid deterring future commissioners.

Item 13. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 12:07pm.