Draft Minutes – September 12, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, September 12, 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 Flórez Feng, Vice Chair Salahi and Commissioners David Tsai, Karen Bell Francois, and Kevin Yeh participating, a quorum was present.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; 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 Flórez Feng called the meeting to order at 10:10am 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.

Esther Marks spoke in person and reiterated her objection to raising the donation limit to $1000, referencing a letter she had previously submitted. She relayed Steve Hill’s request that the Commission delay voting on the proposed public finance legislation and instead convene a group of interested individuals to discuss its implications. She noted that a similar process in 2019, involving stakeholders and a commissioner, resulted in an expert proposal and urged the Commission to take the same approach before moving forward with the current changes.

Steven Hill, co-author of San Francisco’s public financing law, called in and urged the Commission to delay action on the proposal to lift candidate expenditure limits, noting it was unanimously rejected by the Ethics Commission in 2019 for undermining the law’s purpose and enabling corruption. He emphasized that changes should be developed through a collaborative process, as was done in 2019 with stakeholders, and argued there is time to do so since the law would not apply until the November 2026 elections.

David Schmidt, a longtime volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, called in and urged the Commission to reject lifting expenditure limits and raising the contribution limit to $1000. He argued that the “one and done” system effectively eliminates expenditure limits, citing Los Angeles as an example where it led to unfair advantages for incumbents and greater influence of wealthy donors and independent expenditures. He stressed that such changes undermine the purpose of public financing, which is to elevate the voices of small contributors.

A person identified as Carol called in representing the California Clean Money Campaign. She opposed removing campaign limits, stating San Francisco should lead by example in supporting clean money and contribution limits rather than weakening them. Carol urged the Commission to delay action to allow more public input.

Carla Yoshikawa, a San Francisco voter and with the California Clean Money Campaign called in and opposed doubling personal contribution limits and removing expenditure limits, arguing such changes undermine the intent of public financing by strengthening donor influence rather than reducing it.

Patrick Cassidy, a San Francisco resident, veteran, and volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign called in and spoke against the “one month puzzle” proposal. He argued that it amounts to a giveaway to big money interests, undermining the city’s public finance system by weakening spending limits. Cassidy emphasized that independent group spending already occurs in every competitive race, so raising ceilings would effectively eliminate limits and reduce public financing to an empty shell serving large donors and special interests. He warned that passing the measure would betray voters, dismantle protections against outside money, and erode democracy by putting money before people. Cassidy urged rejection of the proposal.

Lauren Gilmartin, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco, called in and opposed proposed changes to the city’s public financing system, warning they would favor wealthy donors, disadvantage grassroots candidates, and weaken voter trust. She defended the current 6-to-1 matching funds system as vital for fair representation and urged commissioners to reject the proposals and work with partners to strengthen, not weaken, San Francisco’s election system.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Under its Consent Calendar, provided the opportunity for public comment on all Consent Calendar items and voted 5-0 to adopt a motion by Vice Chair Salahi and seconded by Commissioner Yeh to approve the following consent calendar item that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for July 11, 2025, Regular Meeting
Item 4, Draft Minutes for August 8, 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 6, Enforcement Report dated September 8, 2025
Item 7, Electronic Disclosure and Data Analysis (EDDA) Report

The following Consent Calendar item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion by the Commission, and the opportunity for public comment was provided.

Item 5, Executive Director’s report dated September 8, 2025

Chair Flórez Feng asked Executive Director Patrick Ford to give an update on the KPI Tracker for the streamlined goals as well as if it is public. She stated she wants to better understand how the Commission will go about communicating and providing KPI updates to the public.

Executive Director Patrick Ford responded and explained that some KPIs are already reported publicly while others are used internally to benchmark progress. Goals and KPIs have recently been finalized division by division, averaging about five per division, covering key areas without becoming burdensome to track. Many are already included in staff reports, such as ticket volume and response times in the engagement and compliance report. Staff offered to bring back a future ED report with charts of the KPIs and goals if commissioners wish to review them.

Commissioner Yeh asked Director Ford to speak a little more about the Inspector General Program as well as the Controllers report. Director Ford explained that the Controller’s Office published a report outlining options for the new Inspector General program, drawing on research from other jurisdictions and local input to clarify potential roles since the ballot measure was broad. The goal is to ensure the IG complements, rather than duplicates existing accountability efforts by agencies such as the Controller’s auditors, the City Attorney, the DA’s office, and the Ethics Commission.

Further, Director Ford explained the IG is expected to focus on areas like grants and contracts where the Controller’s financial oversight provides unique insight, potentially identifying misconduct, fraud, or conflicts of interest that can be referred to other agencies. The program aims to add value by addressing gaps not currently covered, and collaboration across offices will be central once the IG is in place.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

Motion 250912-01 (Tsai / Salahi): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (5-0) to approve consent calendar item 5, Executive Director’s report.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 8. Discussion and Possible Action on Legislation Related to Ethics Commission Streamlining Project

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning presented the item regarding two ordinances tied to the streamlining project, aimed at simplifying Ethics Commission processes and modernizing campaign regulations. The first ordinance removes certain reporting requirements for campaign consultants, major developers, and board members while shifting disclosure responsibilities to existing systems.

The second ordinance restructures candidate expenditure ceilings to apply per race rather than individually per candidate, with a simplified process for lifting limits, and raises contribution limits from $500 to $1,000 to adjust for inflation. Mr. Canning emphasized that these changes strengthen the public financing program, align with practices in other jurisdictions, and reduce administrative burdens. Both ordinances require approval by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors, with the goal of implementing them in time for the next election cycle.

Executive Director Patrick Ford added that the proposed ordinance is part of a broader effort to remove ineffective laws that burden candidates without clear policy benefits. Staff noted that the individual expenditure ceiling has failed to restrain spending and instead creates heavy reporting requirements that divert public financing funds away from campaigning. The public financing program’s purpose is to support candidates with grassroots backing, not to limit political speech or spending. Past reforms in 2019 tried incremental adjustments, but after a full election cycle with hundreds of ineffective changes, staff concluded the system does not work. The ordinance proposes a shift to a race-based model to reduce unnecessary filings and better support candidates.

After public comment was received, Chair Flórez Feng acknowledged the value of the meaningful public discussion around the proposed changes and emphasized that a Commission vote to pass the legislation would not end the conversation. They noted this is only the first step, with the Board of Supervisors still having to review and refine the legislation, and encouraged the public to stay engaged, stressing that passing the ordinances now should not be seen as closing the debate but as part of an ongoing process.

Vice Chair Salahi sought clarification on the proposed changes to campaign consultant filings, noting that consultants would no longer register directly with the Ethics Department but would instead provide required information to their clients. He asked how the Commission would be able to detect violations under this system, questioning whether they could be identified through client campaign disclosures or only if reported by someone with knowledge of the issue. Vice Chair Salahi also asked if a complaint from somebody who has seen someone engaging in campaign consultant activity that wasn’t being reflected on the expenditures made by the committee that could be the basis for a complaint.

Mr. Canning replied, stating those complaints could be generated by the same means of any other enforcement matter. He also mentioned that while it is unclear exactly how violations would be flagged, detection would likely function the same way it does now—through the absence of required reporting, with issues identifiable in committee filings such as Form 460.

Director Ford explained that consultant fees are often uncertain until late in the election cycle, as they may be tied to overall campaign spending. Committees would likely amend their Form 460 to reflect final payments, and auditors could then flag discrepancies. If missing information was due to a consultant’s failure to notify the committee, the Commission would address the consultant’s legal obligation to provide accurate cost information.

Mr. Canning added that the proposed change shifts the compliance burden from campaign consultants, who rarely file with the office, to committees that already make regular disclosures. While this places more responsibility on committees, reporting consultant payments would simply become part of the spending they already disclose.

Vice Chair Salahi asked for clarification on the limits on loan to candidates as he is not familiar as well as the thinking behind changing those numbers as well. Mr. Canning explained that the proposed update to candidate loan limits is an inflationary adjustment tied to the CPI. While candidates can contribute unlimited amounts to their own committees, local rules cap how much they can loan and later be repaid. Since the section was already being amended for reference updates, the adjustment for inflation was included at the same time.

Commissioner Francois asked a question about the limits on loans to

Candidates and how staff came up with the numbers, for instance, the increase from15,000 to 27,000 for the board of supervisors and board of education. Mr. Canning stated the limits were set in 2000 so the California CPI adjustment from 2000 to early 2025 was roughly a doubling.

Commissioner Tsai asked if San Francisco has typically been lower than other cities in California? Mr. Canning stated the exemption amount has remained unchanged for 25 years and is now lower than in other jurisdictions that have raised theirs over time, though it’s unclear how it originally compared in 2000. Director Ford explained San Francisco’s exemption limits have stayed the same for 25 years, making them lower than other jurisdictions that raised theirs. It’s unclear how they compared in 2000, but the gap has since widened. As both a city and county, San Francisco is unique, with its $500 cap far below countywide limits elsewhere, such as $20,000 in Alameda.

Vice Chair Salahi sought clarification on whether lifting expenditure ceilings rests with the Executive Director, the Chair, or the full Commission, as the language in Attachment Four was unclear, particularly regarding decisions made outside a meeting. Mr. Canning clarified that objections to raising expenditure ceilings go first to the Chair, who may request a Commission review. Such cases are expected to be rare, as most issues are resolved by the Executive Director through straightforward determinations or corrections.

Commissioner Tsai stated the commission heard from a number of people from various organizations but asked if there have been contacts that support the changes being made. Mr. Canning said that though staff have not received formal letters of support but reported initial discussions with California Common Cause in February and a follow-up this week to review project concepts, with further analysis and potential comments expected. They also reconnected with Los Angeles officials to learn about their program’s operations and concerns, though no major issues were raised.

Melanie Matheson, legislative aide for President Rafael Mandelman, spoke in person and expressed her support for the Ethics Streamlining effort, noting parallels with their work to simplify contracting and procurement rules. She emphasized that duplicative or burdensome requirements can undermine compliance and distract from core policy goals and praised the Commission’s efforts to remove outdated filings so resources can focus where they have the greatest impact. President Mandelman particularly supports raising the individual contribution limit from $500 to $1,000 to reflect current fundraising realities. She thanked Director Ford, staff, the City Attorney’s office, and the Commission for their work on this legislation.

Public Comment:

Stephen Hill called in and expressed concern about the difficulty of contacting commissioners directly, noting the lack of accessible email addresses and his late awareness of the proposed changes. He questioned staff’s reasoning for departing from the Commission’s unanimous 2018 decision, particularly the claim that incremental lifting of caps has no effect and is overly burdensome. While sympathetic to staff workload, he suggested collaborative solutions, such as using the model in pending state legislation (SB 42), to reduce burdens while retaining incremental adjustments.

Mr. Hill argued that even if data suggests limited impact, incremental caps influence campaign behavior by encouraging consultants and managers to be more cautious with spending. He warned that adopting Los Angeles’s race-based system, now proposed, has coincided with higher campaign spending and recent corruption cases among city officials.

Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, called in and voiced strong opposition to the proposed one-and-done system for lifting expenditure limits, stressing that San Francisco’s current incremental model is fairer and has even been used as a template for SB 42. He argued that one-and-done, as practiced in Los Angeles, effectively eliminates spending limits, drives up campaign costs, and gives unfair advantages to candidates already benefiting from independent expenditures, sometimes leading to corruption.

Mr. Lange urged the Commission to delay its vote and instead work with groups like his to refine the incremental system, which could be improved to reduce unnecessary adjustments without losing fairness. He also opposed doubling contribution and loan limits, warning that it would tilt the system toward wealthy donors and disadvantage candidates relying on matching funds, emphasizing that San Francisco should set a higher standard, not weaken its system.

Motion 250912-02 (Salahi / Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (5-0) to approve the legislation presenting in attachments 2 and 4 related to the Ethics Commission Streamlining Project.

Item 9. Items for Future Meetings (Discussion)

No comments were made by the Commission or Staff regarding future agenda items.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

Item 10. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

An unidentified caller called in. He asked what was going on with Engardio and if the Commission was investigating him. He stated concern wit the budget particularly with SFMTA and SF Park Alliance. The caller stated the Commission should get in contact with Quinton Kobb for advice. He closed in telling people to vote on Prop A.

A caller by the name of Steven Hill called in and raised concern that the current process excluded advocates and experts, unlike in 2019 when collaboration produced consensus. California Common Cause was contacted only at the last minute, leaving them uninformed. It was argued that staff are prioritizing workload reduction over the law’s intent, and commissioners were urged to create independent channels for public input to ensure meaningful engagement.

Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, called in and echoed concerns about the flaws in the current process. He noted the campaign’s strong involvement in 2019, including broad supporter engagement, and highlighted their sponsorship of related state legislation. He emphasized that California Common Cause was only contacted at the last minute and lacked the opportunity to provide informed feedback or coordinate with partners. He urged the Commission to ensure staff engage more fully with stakeholders and experts, warning that reliance on limited staff reports risks missteps and could lead to conflict with the Board of Supervisors.

An unknown female called in, but her audio was distorted. Chair Flórez Feng asked the caller to try hanging up and calling back in for a better connection. The caller did so but unfortunately the audio connection was still distorted, and her comments were not clear.

Lauren Girard of the League of Women Voters called in and raised concerns that taking public comment only before Commission discussion is unfair, as it prevents stakeholders from responding to questions or proposals during the meeting. She noted that key groups such as small donors, voters, renters, labor organizations, and working-class residents were not consulted, while developers and campaign consultants were. She urged the Commission to conduct its own research before moving forward with the proposed ordinances.

Item 11. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 11:34am.