Draft Minutes – October 10, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, October 10, 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 10:04am 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.

No public comment was received on the item.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 3, 4, and 5.

Under its Consent Calendar, provided the opportunity for public comment on all Consent Calendar items and voted 3-0 to adopt a motion by Commissioner Yeh and seconded by Commissioner Francois to approve the following consent calendar item that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for July 11, 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
Item 5, Audits Division Report

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 6. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Behested Payment Waiver Legislation.

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning introduced the item and provided background information on the City’s behested payment prohibition and analysis of legislation that would make changes to the waiver provision of this rule. Staff recommended the Commission discuss the proposed legislative amendments and vote to approve the legislation that has been referred to the Commission by the Board of Supervisors.

Melanie Matthewson also presented the legislation sponsored by President Mandelman, to extend to the Board of Supervisors the same donation payment waiver authority currently available to departments, the Mayor, and other elected officials. She explained that San Francisco is facing a severe structural budget deficit, and the ordinance aims to provide supervisors with an additional tool to address public needs during this difficult fiscal period. Proposition E, adopted in 2022, prohibits certain solicitations unless a waiver is granted in the public interest; however, it currently excludes supervisors from obtaining such waivers.

The proposed ordinance would close that gap and allow supervisors to request waivers under the same transparency and accountability standards. Ms. Matthewson noted that past waivers have supported key public needs such as fire truck purchases, shelter expansion, immigrant legal services, and the fentanyl response. She emphasized that granting this authority is prudent given ongoing financial strain and thanked staff and legal counsel for their work on the legislation.

Chair Flórez Feng asked for clarification on the current legislation and recent trends, requested specific examples related to proposed invoice changes, and inquired about the timing for making decisions given some commissioners’ absence. She also sought clarification on how soon after the identity of an interested party is known it must be posted under the current waiver requirements.

Chair Flórez Feng also questioned whether some individuals exploit a loophole by claiming not to know information and therefore never report it. She observed that the 18 waiver resolutions approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2022 contained inconsistent levels of detail and often omitted specific entities or individuals listed as interested parties. The speaker asked whether this inconsistency reflects low compliance or if another explanation exists.

Mr. Canning responded and clarified that the waiver provision does not require identifying interested parties at the time of approval. A proposed resolution must summarize its purpose and list the type or specific interested parties only if their identities are known during consideration. There is no requirement or established practice to amend a resolution later if those identities become known after approval.

Ms. Matthewson noted that during the legislative process, supervisors often require those listed in a waiver resolution to report on the purpose, recipients, and intended use of donations. They cited a current example involving a hazard payment waiver for the Mayor’s Office, where interested parties are asked to explain past and anticipated uses. Although the resolution itself may not specify these details, such matters are frequently discussed publicly, with comments recorded in the meeting minutes.

Chair Flórez Feng questioned the timing of the current request, noting that in 2022 the Board of Supervisors appeared supportive of the prohibition, referencing Supervisor Peskin’s prior endorsement. She asked what has changed since that time.

Ms. Matthewson explained that discussions about the request began in March during budget reviews, when they consulted Supervisor Peskin, who expressed no objections and did not view the proposal as undermining his prior legislation. She emphasized that today’s Board of Supervisors differs significantly from the 2022 board, noting a shift in how the city approaches funding, which they believe justifies reconsidering the matter now.

Commissioner Yeh asked for clarification on why supervisors were excluded from the original legislation, describing the omission as a significant oversight and seeking insight into the reasoning behind it. Matthewson explained that former President Peskin’s reasoning for excluding supervisors from the original legislation was that those granting waivers should not also propose them. However, they noted that since all waivers must still go through committees, the full Board, and a public process, that rationale no longer seems entirely clear or applicable.

Mr. Canning included that the language excluding supervisors was added by then-Supervisor Peskin and was not a subject of debate at the Commission. They noted it originated from follow-on legislation that created the waiver provision, developed through negotiations between the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Breed’s office before being referred to the Ethics Commission.

Commissioner Yeh expressed concern that if, for example, the Mayor’s Office determined that certain individuals were not considered interested parties and therefore solicited behests from them freely, there would be no clear mechanism or safeguard in place to verify or challenge that determination.

Mr. Canning explained that enforcement would follow the same process as any other Commission-related matter. If an individual misinterpreted or misapplied the code or its definitions, they could still face penalties or enforcement action unless they had sought and received formal guidance or clarification from the Commission.

Director Ford added that under state law, elected officials must report behested payments of $5,000 or more, providing oversight of such transactions. They added that this reporting allows the Commission to proactively review whether officials have solicited payments from interested parties without first seeking guidance or clearance.

Commissioner Yeh posed a hypothetical scenario in which an elected official solicited a hazard payment from someone they deemed not to be an interested party, but the Commission later determined otherwise. He asked what penalties or consequences would apply in such a case.

Director Ford explained that penalties are determined under the Commission’s enforcement regulations, considering factors such as the payment amount, any history of noncompliance, whether advice was sought, efforts to comply, and the degree of public harm. The maximum penalty allowed is $5,000 or up to three times the amount involved, with the higher end reserved for severe or willful violations. In most cases, penalties are equal to or less than the amount in question.

Commissioner Yeh asked whether this topic would typically be addressed in an Interested Persons meeting or if it had previously been the subject of such a meeting, suggesting it might be an opportunity for others to provide input on the issue.

Mr. Canning responded that this specific ordinance had not been the subject of an Interested Persons meeting. They noted that such meetings typically occur when the Ethics Commission initiates a project and collaborates with stakeholders to develop recommendations. In this case, because the legislation originated from the Board of Supervisors and was referred to the Commission for action, the Commission would look to the Board for information on any stakeholder engagement or feedback conducted earlier in the process.

Commissioner Yeh asked if there was any significant opposition to the legislation from the public, to which Ms. Matthewson stated no.

Public Comment:

A caller identified as “San Francisco” offered feedback and encouragement to the presenters, emphasizing the importance of knowing their audience and tailoring messages accordingly, particularly toward the community. They advised presenters to stay calm, practice regularly, and maintain confidence during presentations. The speaker also commended the Commission and staff for their progress and efficiency, noting improvements in meeting management and expressing appreciation for their work. They concluded by encouraging continued public participation from the broader community.

Motion 251010-02 (Flórez Feng / Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to continue the item to the following Commission meeting.