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

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

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews; 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

Vice Chair Salahi 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.

Public Comment:

No public was received on this item.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 3,

The following Consent Calendar items were informational and required no action by the Commission, but the opportunity for public comment was provided. Acting Chair Salahi asked to pull the item to get an update on the budget process from Executive Director Patrick Ford.

Item 3, Executive Director’s report dated July 7, 2025. (This item was moved to the regular calendar for further discussion)

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 3, Executive Director’s report dated June 9, 2025. (This item was removed from the consent calendar for further discussion)

Executive Director Patrick Ford gave a quick update regarding the budget process stating it is nearly complete, with final votes pending from the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. The outcome is very positive, particularly as funding was successfully restored for all three previously threatened filled positions.

This represents a 100% success rate for the department, compared to a citywide average of 50%. Executive Director Ford acknowledged the extensive effort involved and recognized the contributions of Zach D’Amico, Steven Massey, and Manny Mandapat in the budget process.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Item 4, Show Cause Hearing In the Matter of Matthew Lotocki v. San Francisco Police Department SFEC Case No. 25-998 (File #24021) Based on a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Referral

Acting Chair Salahi introduced the hearing. On May 2, 2025, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) referred File #24021 to the Ethics Commission for enforcement proceedings under section 67.35(d)[1] of the Administrative Code, citing the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) failure to comply with a SOTF Order of Determination.

On June 13, 2025, after both parties presented their case, and following discussions, the Commission deferred action on this matter to the July meeting, requesting that the City Attorney provide advice on the question of whether the Commission can issue a finding on a failure to comply with an Order of Determination by SOTF or whether the Commission’s scope of authority is limited to a failure to comply with a request for public records.

The current referral does not allege to a willful violation by an official within the Commission’s enforcement jurisdiction. Further, the alleged violation at issue involves a department’s failure to comply with an Order of Determination issued by SOTF—not an allegation of a willful violation of law by an elected official or department head to comply with a records request.

Dean Schmit, a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force member was present and explained that the task force found a violation in the Lotocki matter but did not vote on willfulness, though members did not generally believe it was willful. They recognized, however, that the Ethics Commission may reach a different conclusion and that Mr. Lotocki could pursue a willfulness finding under the ordinance. Mr. Schmit emphasized that the ordinance allows public members and the press to bring matters to the Ethics Commission and that provisions such as 67.30 and 67.35(D) provide bases for jurisdiction, even if the language is unclear.

The SOTF believes it is their role to handle public records, public meetings, and sunshine matters, but that certain cases must be sent to the Ethics Commission, particularly when petitioners request it. Mr. Schmit expressed interest in working with the Commission to avoid duplication while ensuring required referrals are made and maintained their view that the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction in such matters.

Vice Chair Salahi called on Sergent Ware from the San Francisco Police Department for any comment he may have in response to Mr. Schmit. Sgt. Ware replied not at this time. Commissioner Francois asked to hear the provision authority of 67.35 (D) and an explanation on it. Mr. Schmit read the code provision of 67.35 (D). “Any person may institute proceedings for enforcement and penalties under this act in any court of competent jurisdiction or before the Ethics Commission if enforcement action is not taken by a City or State official 40 days after a complaint is filed.”

Vice Chair Salahi noted that the May 2, 2025, referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to the Ethics Commission was for enforcement proceedings under Administrative Code Section 67.35(d) against the San Francisco Police Department for failing to comply with an order of the Task Force. The issue before the Commission was not the merits of whether the records should be disclosed but whether the police department willfully violated the Task Force order. It was acknowledged that the police chief was aware of the order and declined to comply.

Under Section 10(b) of the Ethics Commission enforcement regulations, agencies may refer such matters for enforcement, and upon a finding of violation the Commission may impose remedies under Charter Section 3.699-13, except for administrative penalties. A separate provision allows a finding of official misconduct if an elected official, department head, or managerial employee willfully fails to discharge duties imposed by the Sunshine Ordinance.

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews reminded the Commission that the matter before them is not a willful violation issue and that if the Commission wishes to consider it as such, it should go through the regular review process. Director Matthews noted that Mr. Lotocki has the ability to request the matter be heard in that manner, and cautioned that a Commission finding on willful violation would be an overreach and beyond the scope of the current proceedings.

Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Radez noted that the notice provided to the parties referred specifically to the referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force under section 67.35D for a non-willful violation, not a separate complaint from the petitioner. Current regulations allow a complaint for a willful violation to be brought by a member of the public or a commissioner, which would then be sent to the enforcement division and handled under the usual process, including briefing by the parties and a hearing, as outlined in sections 1 through 9 and 12 through 13 of the regulations.

Director Matthews noted that had the referral from the SOTF been clear that it was a willful violation, they would not be having the show cause hearing as it would have gone through the regular review process by the enforcement division. Vice Chair Salahi asked if Mr. Lotocki wants to pursue the willful violation of the task force order, he needs to do that directly. Director Matthews agreed and stated that this has not happened.

Commissioner Yeh stated that it would be best to have clarity on the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force’s position and Mr. Lotocki’s view, noting that proceeding with a cleaner record requires a clear understanding of what is being asked, particularly given the extensive discussion on how the provisions intersect. Commissioner Yeh asked Mr. Lotocki about his position on whether this is a willful or a non-willful violation to which Mr. Lotocki responded, stating he did believe this is a violation of the order of determination.

Commissioner Yeh asked Matthew Yankee, Chair of the SOTF, about his knowledge of previous non-willful violations sent to the Ethics Commission. Mr. Yankee stated there has been and guided the Commissioners to an email previously sent to the Commission which included a list of past non-willful violations. Commissioner Yeh asked if there was any reason why the Task Force doesn’t avail itself of the court and what remedy can Commission provide that thew courts cannot? Mr. Yankee responded noting that the Sunshine Ordinance’s enforcement powers are limited mainly to referrals and emphasized the need to explore every possible enforcement option under existing law. Mr. Yankee suggested that even a finding of violation by another body could help strengthen a complainant’s case in court, though the process remains redundant and could be improved.

Public Comment:

Matthew Yankee, the chair of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, stated that the Ethics Commission has historically acted on non-willful violations and urged caution in assuming such violations cannot be addressed under current procedures. They noted that willful violations, though considered more serious, typically go only to staff and may not reach the commissioners unless released, which has caused delays or dismissals in past cases. This referral was made so commissioners could review the matter directly, highlighting concerns that willful violations were not receiving adequate attention. Mr. Yankee indicated further discussion on enforcement regulations could follow.

Executive Director Pat Ford responded with clarification that the previous comment was incorrect, explaining that dismissals are in fact presented to the commission. He noted that enforcement regulations require every case closure and dismissal to be sent to the commission, and this is done regularly through emails from the director of Enforcement, which provide a full list and write-up of all dismissals and closures. Director Ford emphasized that the commission is fully informed of all cases, including violations referred by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Mr. Matthew Lotocki called in and speaker apologized for not attending but expressed disappointment in not being able to participate. Mr. Lotocki stated that the language of the Sunshine Ordinance requires compliance regardless of the limited remedies available and that the task force properly referred the matter to the Ethics Commission as a violation of an order of determination. He emphasized that compliance with such orders is required, the commission should proceed under section 10, and there should be no need to re-refer the matter.

David Pilpel called in and stated that there is a history of both willful and non-willful task force referrals to the commission. He clarified that this matter concerns an underlying violation of the Sunshine Ordinance as determined by the task force, with the referral triggered under section 67.35D and addressed through section 10B of the enforcement regulations, which require a hearing, deliberation, findings, and remedies. He noted that while section 67.34 addresses willful violations, section 67.35D does not, and this case is a proper referral of a non-willful violation. He emphasized that the record is clear, evidence and testimony have been provided, and the commission should make findings and act under section 67.35.

Motion 250711.01 (Salahi/Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to approve to take no action, without prejudice to Lotocki or Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, regarding the willful violation allegation.

Item 5, Hearing on the Merits In the Matter of William Walker, Case No. 2223-507

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews introduced the item. William Walker was not present, nor did he call in for the hearing. Ms. Matthews urged the Commission to proceed with a default order, noting six violations that Mr. Walker has not disputed and his absence from the hearing. Ms. Matthews asked the Commission to focus on the penalty, with a proposed fine of $500 per count totaling $3,000, along with an order requiring compliance with disclosure requirements.

Ms. Matthews emphasized the importance of these disclosures for public transparency, and concern was raised that Mr. Walker has disregarded his obligations. Given his indication that he may run for office again, Ms. Matthews stressed the need for the order to serve as a safeguard and potential aggravating factor in the future.

Acting Chair Salahi questioned if notifications were sent to Mr. Walker to confirm he was fully aware of the hearing. Ms. Matthews confirmed proper noticing was issued to Mr. Walker and he had knowledge of the hearing taking place.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 250711.02 (Salahi/Francios): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to approve to issue a default judgment against William Walker on Counts 1 through 6.

Motion 250711.03 (Yeh/Francois): Moved, seconded and approved unanimously (3-0) to impose a total penalty of $3000.00 on Counts 1 through 6 against William Walker.

Item 6, Discussion and Possible Action on Proposed Amendments to the Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Regulations

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews presented the item. Ms. Matthews provided an update and presentation on proposed amendments to the Enforcement Regulations. Ms. Matthews welcomed feedback and suggested the presentation be informational only and no motion be made as two Commissioners were not present. No motion was made on this item.

Public Comment:

Dr. Derek Kerr, a whistleblower since 1995, addressed the Commission in person stating that over 30 years no whistleblower retaliation claim has ever been sustained despite hundreds submitted. He compared this to the Novex global whistleblowing benchmark report, which shows sustain rates of 16–23% worldwide, including 18% in 2024. He criticized Ethics staff for attempting to eliminate the standalone summary of retaliation investigations, noting that a 2020 performance audit found none of 34 claims sustained and reasons for dismissal obscured. He emphasized that whistleblowers face retaliation and investigations conceal this reality, arguing that a standalone summary is necessary to prevent these cases from being buried.

Jim Sutton called in and urged separating policy issues from technical updates, arguing that prohibiting use of fines is unfair and could discourage people from serving as treasurers since committees often lack a clear sponsor. He stated most violations are technical with little public harm, so allowing fines to be paid from legal defense funds is reasonable. Mr. Sutton also stressed that the definition of good cause should cover first-time major donors unaware of obligations or committees accustomed to filing with the state but not San Francisco.

Mr. Dean Schmidt of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force spoke in person on the proposed edits to section 11, objecting to language describing violations as “minor,” “technical,” or “unintentional,” which he said reflects bias and does not match the reality of cases seen by the task force. He stated such wording lacks citation and misrepresents the seriousness of many violations. He also disagreed with the view that the City Charter limits how the Ethics Commission must enforce the Sunshine Ordinance.

David Lazarus called in and urged a dedicated process to review the proposed enforcement regulation amendments, agreeing with Mr. Sutton that the changes are substantive and could significantly affect enforcement. He warned that narrowing procedures risks reputational harm and noted that imposing individual liability would depart from state law, discourage political activity, and unfairly treat different entities. Mr. Lazarus recommended maintaining the current process with commissioners retaining authority over probable cause determinations.

Mr. Matt Yankee from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force spoke in person and stressed the need for a clear written definition of “willful failure,” noting staff have said it is nearly impossible to prove and there is no shared standard. He urged that all task force referrals for willful failure be publicly heard by the Commission, as they involve the most serious matters and deserve transparency. Mr. Yankee also highlighted shortcomings in enforcement mechanisms and called for collaboration with the Commission to develop better options so transparency laws can be effectively enforced without requiring court action.

James Carson from CPA called in and emphasized due process concerns with reopening cases, noting issues with settlements, authority to renegotiate, lack of process, and absence of notice to respondents. He stated changes should apply only to prospective cases and that any enforcement regulation revisions must be precise.

David Pilpel called in and stated that the June 30 notice included only the chart and redline but not the staff report summary or referenced communications, which were also not posted online as required. They urged proper posting of materials and clarity in staff reports, noting missing discussion of a second round of work. Mr. Pilpel questioned whether current rules provide sufficient public disclosure on complaints and statuses, stressing the need for more timely and transparent updates. He suggested posting status changes on the Commission’s website and including them in the Executive Director’s report.

Item 7, Items for Future Meetings (Discussion)

No items were discussed for future meetings

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and asked to confirm that comments that are received on any item are posted online and visible to all not just staff and Commissioners.

Item 8. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

No additional public comments were received.

Item 14. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 1:14pm.