Draft Minutes – August 8, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, August 8, 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, Vice-Chair Yaman Salahi, Commissioner David Tsai and Commissioner Kevin Yeh participating, a quorum was present. Commissioner Karen Bell Francois had an excused absence.

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

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 Argemira Flórez-Feng called the meeting to order at 10:07am 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.

A caller who identified himself as Sullivan brought to the attention of the Commission that the time of the Commission meeting was not listed on the agenda. The Commission took a brief recess and received advice from the Deputy City Attorney. The Commission and Deputy City Attorney concluded to continue with the meeting as it was a regular scheduled meeting at its normal scheduled time and there are multiple postings on other City websites as well as the Ethics Commission website regarding dates & times of regular scheduled meetings for the Commission.

Public Comment:

A person by the name of Sullivan called in stating:

“Your agenda is improperly notified. You are missing the start time in your agenda, violating AC. Section 67.7c “The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public”. Brown Act 54954.2 (a) (1) “The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted … and on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one.” AC Section 4.104a2. “Hold meetings open to the public and encourage the participation of interested persons. …, any action taken at other than a public meeting shall be void.” Violate AC 67.1a, Brown Act 54950, 54953a and b3, 54953.2, 54954.3a allow public participation. The public may not correctly know time meeting to participate. You knowing is not the public. All public access laws are important and serve a purpose.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 3, 4, & 5

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

Item 3, Draft Minutes of the Ethics Commission June 13, 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 August 4, 2025
Item 5, Engagement and Compliance Report dated August 4, 2025

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the Consent Calendar

Motion 250314.01 (Salahi/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 on Proposed Amendments to the Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Regulations

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews introduced the item. The purpose of the project is to review existing regulations to identify areas needing clarification and updates that will strengthen the process and ensure fairness and efficiency. This work has included best practice research across enforcement agencies, consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, and engagement with interested parties for feedback.

A brief historical overview was given noting that the regulations were first implemented on July 5, 1997, and most recently updated on March 19, 2018. Since then, the enforcement division has grown in size and capacity, with an increasing number of cases moving through the probable cause process, making it timely to revisit and revise the regulations.

Public Comment:

A caller named Carson from the California Political Attorneys Association called in and thanked the commission and staff for the robust discussion and supported the decision to take further action on the proposed changes. They noted that a letter previously sent to the Commission requested an additional Interested Persons meeting and specific clarifying language, particularly regulation changes regarding reopening cases.

Given the complexity of the changes to the regulations, they suggested that staff hold another meeting with the regulated community to gather direct feedback so the next version of the changes can move forward in a way that works for all parties. They concluded by expressing appreciation for the work and discussion.

David Pilpel called in and noted willingness to consider future arguments or complaints under the Brown Act or Sunshine Ordinance. Mr. Pilpel agreed with the previous caller, Carson from CPAA, that at least one additional interested persons meeting is needed. He supported the practice of providing confidential draft decisions to the Commission that could trigger an agenda item in open or closed session on probable cause and recommended that each regulation section involving a decision includes a summary of the decision with appropriate notice to complainants, respondents, the Commission, and the public.

Mr. Pilpel stressed the importance of timely updates and final resolutions to prevent long delays in complaint outcomes. While not prepared to discuss Sunshine Ordinance provisions in detail, he noted the Task Force’s recent input and emphasized interest in improving related regulatory language, offering to follow up with staff.

A caller by the name of Sullivan called in stating San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 14.101, INITIATIVES reads: “No initiative or declaration of policy approved by the voters shall be subject to veto, or to amendment or repeal except by the voters, unless such initiative or declaration of policy shall otherwise provide.”

Sullivan stated the Sunshine Ordinance was approved by the voters. There is nothing in the Sunshine Ordinance allowing the Ethics Commission to veto, to amend or repeal any part of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Ethics Commission does not have the power to ignore or repeal any policy in the Sunshine Ordinance.

Administrative Code Section 4.102 Boards and Commissions – Power and Duties (8). Commission is to “Exercise such other powers and duties as shall be prescribed by the Board of Supervisors;” The BOS passed the Sunshine Ordinance, voters amended by initiative the Ethics Commission is required to exercise all duties prescribed in the Sunshine Ordinance, not some.

Motion 250711.02 (Flórez-Feng /Salahi): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to defer the item to the following meeting to see updated language as discussed, reflected in the regulations.

Item 7, Discussion of Legislation Related to Ethics Commission Streamlining Project

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning presented the item and discussed draft legislation from the streamlining project. One ordinance would eliminate campaign consultant registration, supplemental recusal filings, and major developer disclosures while shifting responsibilities to existing reporting systems.

The other would apply expenditure ceilings uniformly, allow their removal based on outside spending, and raise contribution limits from $500 to $1,000. Final language is expected next month, with possible implementation in early 2026. No action was taken on the item.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in stating he did not believe that no interested persons meeting has been held on this topic and urging that one occur. He expressed concern about raising the contribution limit to $1,000, questioned the lack of analysis on potential staffing reductions resulting from streamlined processes, and emphasized the need for a comprehensive analysis of the combined impacts on San Francisco’s political process beyond the section-by-section overview provided.