December 8, 2025
To: Members of the Ethics Commission
From: Olabisi Matthews, Director of Enforcement
Bailey Bryant, Senior Investigator & Legal Analyst
Subject: Agenda Item 8: Discussion and Possible Action regarding Preliminary Matters, In the Matter of Charlie Chiem, SFEC Case No. 24-787
Summary and Recommended Actions
This memorandum provides information regarding certain preliminary matters that must be resolved before In the Matter of Charlie Chiem can move forward to an administrative enforcement hearing.
On May 2, 2025, the Director of Enforcement initiated probable cause proceedings in this matter by issuing a Probable Cause Report against Charlie Chiem (“Respondent”). On July 6, 2025, the Commission ratified the Executive Director’s Probable Cause Determination finding probable cause on twenty counts against Respondent. On November 18, 2025, Enforcement Staff notified Charlie Chiem (“Respondent”) via email that this matter would be placed on the Commission’s agenda for discussion and action at the December Commission meeting. On December 3, 2025, Enforcement Staff sent another email to Respondent to remind him that the matter will be placed on the Commission agenda for the December meeting to initiate the process for the administrative hearing phase. The Enforcement Division requested that Respondent indicate whether he intends to submit motions on preliminary matters ahead of the Hearing on the Merits. The Enforcement Division informed Respondent that it does not intend to request consideration of any preliminary matters and will seek to proceed to the Hearing on the Mertis stage if Respondent does not indicate any plans to submit preliminary matters motions himself.
From the inception of the investigation, Enforcement Staff have communicated directly with Respondent primarily via email, through which Respondent was sent all relevant reports, notices, and settlement offers regarding this matter. Over the course of this investigation, Respondent and Enforcement Staff have exchanged roughly 30 emails. Each of these emails was sent to and from Respondent’s personal email address. The last email communication from Respondent was sent on February 11, 2025 during efforts to engage Respondent in settlement discussions. Over the past few weeks, Enforcement Staff have also attempted to call Respondent at his known phone number on numerous occasions with no response. Respondent has apparently ignored all efforts by Enforcement Staff to communicate with him since his last email to Enforcement Staff on February 11, 2025. Importantly, Respondent has not indicated that he intends to submit any motion requesting consideration of any preliminary matters.
Therefore, the Enforcement Division recommends that, unless Respondent notifies the Commission by the December meeting that he intends to submit a motion on preliminary matters, the Commission should disregard action items #1 through #3 below. The Commission should instead proceed with #4 and #5 to decide who will preside over the Hearing on the Merits and how the Final Order will be presented. Doing so will allow the matter to proceed efficiently to the Hearing on the Merits stage. The Commission may also make any other preliminary decisions that will assist the Commission in conducting the Hearing on the Merits.
Background
On July 6, 2025, the Commission ratified the Executive Director recommended Probable Cause Determination against Respondent on twenty counts. The Executive Director found probable cause to believe that the following violations of law occurred:
COUNT ONE: Respondent violated SF C&GCC § 3.218 and the SFMTA’s Statement of Incompatible
Activities § IV(A) by using City resources to attend hundreds of webinars unrelated to his employment.
COUNT TWO: Respondent violated SF C&GCC § 3.218 and the SFMTA’s Statement of Incompatible
Activities § IV(A) by using City resources to create fake e-mail addresses for personal purposes.
COUNT THREE: Respondent violated SF C&GCC § 3.218 and the SFMTA’s Statement of Incompatible
Activities § IV(C) by using his City e-mail and title for communications that created the false appearance
that Respondent was acting in an official capacity.
COUNT FOUR: Respondent violated SF C&GCC § 3.218 and the SFMTA’s Statement of Incompatible
Activities § IV(C) by holding himself out as a representative of his department without authorization.
COUNT FIVE: Respondent violated SF C&GCC § 3.218 and the SFMTA’s Statement of Incompatible
Activities § III(A)(1)(b) by accepting gifts from businesses seeking to enter into a contract with the
Department.
COUNT SIX: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the August 20, 2021 San
Francisco Giants game from Synack, a restricted source technology and software company.
COUNT SEVEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted two tickets to the September 28, 2022
San Francisco Giants game and merchandise from Informatica and LumenData, restricted source
technology and software companies.
COUNT EIGHT: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted two tickets and an Uber voucher to the
October 15, 2022 San Jose Sharks game from Darktrace, a restricted source technology and software
company.
COUNT NINE: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the October 23, 2022 San
Francisco 49ers game from Darktrace, a restricted source technology and software company.
COUNT TEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the April 26, 2023 San
Francisco Giants game from Netskope, a restricted source technology and software company
COUNT ELEVEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the May 16, 2023 San
Francisco Giants game from LumApps, a restricted source technology company.
COUNT TWELVE: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted two tickets and Uber vouchers to the
June 20, 2023 San Francisco Giants game from Sysdig and Cycode, restricted source technology and
software companies.
COUNT THIRTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the August 16, 2023
San Francisco Giants game and food from KIS and Eaton, restricted source technology and software
companies.
COUNT FOURTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the February 24, 2023
Golden State Warriors game and merchandise from Strata, a restricted source technology and software
Company.
COUNT FIFTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the July 11, 2022 San
Francisco Giants game from Okta, a restricted source technology and software company
COUNT SIXTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the August 4, 2022 San
Francisco Giants game from Morpheus Data, Stratascale, and Cohesity, restricted source technology and
software companies.
COUNT SEVENTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the February 13, 2023
Golden State Warriors game from Port53 and Cisco, two restricted source technology and software
companies.
COUNT EIGHTEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the April 4, 2023
Golden State Warriors game from Gensys, a restricted source technology and software company.
COUNT NINETEEN: Respondent violated 3.216(b) when he accepted a ticket to the April 25, 2023 San
Francisco Giants game from Laceworks, a restricted source technology and software company.
COUNT TWENTY: Respondent Chiem violated SF C&GCC § 3.240 when he knowingly and
intentionally misrepresented material facts to Ethics Commission investigators.
Because probable cause has been ratified in this case, it may advance to an administrative hearing. However, before a public hearing may take place, the Commission must resolve preliminary matters, if any, concerning the hearing such as discovery, evidentiary questions, and other procedural issues.
Section 8(A) of the Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Regulations authorizes the Commission to appoint an individual Commissioner or a hearing officer to handle preliminary matters. However, the Regulations do not establish certain basic parameters of how the preliminary matters stage must be carried out. To ensure that the process can be conducted in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner, the Commission should formally decide on these parameters at the outset of the preliminary matters stage. The Enforcement Hearing Guidebook instead provides fuller details about the hearing process and clearer guidance on the steps the Commission should take when initiating preliminary matters in a case. See Section II of the Guidebook.
As discussed above, however, the Enforcement Division does not intend to raise any matters for preliminary resolution and Respondent has not communicated any intention to do so to the Enforcement Staff. The Enforcement Division recommends that unless Respondent requests otherwise at the December meeting, the Commission should disregard #1 to #3 below. The Commission should instead proceed with #4 and #5 to decide who will preside over the Hearing on the Merits and on how the Commission’s findings of fact and the conclusions law (Final Order) should be presented at the conclusion of the Hearing on the Merits.
Action Requested
The Commission must decide who will preside over preliminary matters
The Commission has three options:
- Assign an individual member of the Commission as Assigned Commissioner to hear and decide preliminary matters;
- Appoint any licensed attorney to hear and decide preliminary matters; or
- Hear and decide preliminary matters in public session as a full Commission.
The Enforcement Division recommends that the Commission assign an individual member of the Commission as Assigned Commissioner to hear and decide preliminary matters, as adopted In the Matter of Paul Allen Taylor, SFEC Case No. 20-243. The Commission can only appoint an individual to preside over preliminary matters by a majority vote of the full Commission.
The Commission should vote to set deadlines for parties to submit motions on any preliminary matters
The preliminary matters stage is made up of multiple steps:
- Motions by the parties for resolution of preliminary matters;
- Actual determinations on such motions by the individual(s) presiding over preliminary matters; and
- potential Commission review of those determinations (applicable only when the Commission has appointed an individual to preside over preliminary matters).
Motions include requests for a determination on procedural matters and requests for the issuance of subpoenas. The preliminary matters stage officially begins when the Commission sets a due date for motions.
The Enforcement Division recommends that the Commission set the following deadlines:
- motions resolving preliminary matters should be due at least 30 calendar days from the date when the Commission votes on the present recommended actions;
- responses to motions should be due 15 calendar days after the motion is submitted; and the reply due 10 calendar days after the response is submitted.
This differs from the deadlines set forth in the Regulations, which requires a request for resolution of preliminary matters to be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing date, the response 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, and the reply 7 calendar days prior to the hearing.
For reasons discussed more fully on page 19 of the Enforcement Hearing Guidebook, the 15-10-7 timeframe provided by the Enforcement Regulations does not allow sufficient time for consideration of the motions nor for potential Commission review of the determination on the motions. In the Matter of Paul Allen Taylor, the Commission instead adopted a 30-15-10 calendar day submission timeframe which provides for a better-defined timeline that ensures that motions can be fully considered and addressed.
- If the Commission appoints an individual to preside over preliminary matters, the Commission should identify the process for review of any disputed procedural determinations
Section 8(A)(1) of the Regulations states that any determinations made by an individual presiding over preliminary matters may be reviewed by the full Commission at the request of the Executive Director or a respondent. However, the Regulations do not provide further details about how the request must be made or handled. To ensure that any requests for Commission review are handled in a clear and efficient manner that is fair to all parties, the Commission should identify the general process by which it would like to receive requests for review. The Commission can establish requirements for requests such as the proper delivery method and recipients of the request, the deadline for the request, the timing of the review, the role of the parties at the review, and the type of action the Commission can take on a review.
The Enforcement Division recommends that the Commission vote to adopt a process that mirrors the Commission’s review of a Probable Cause Determination. Under this process, any party must request review of a determination within five calendar days following the issuance of that determination, and the review will take place at the Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting. The parties will be permitted to provide oral arguments under set guidelines but not additional written arguments to the Commission. The Commission will decide to overturn or ratify the determination by a majority vote. This review will be conducted in an open session.
- The Commission may decide on who will preside over the hearing on the merits
The Commission may choose to delegate authority to preside over a hearing on the merits to a hearing officer. The Commission may make this delegation at the time it appoints an Assigned Commissioner for preliminary matters or at any other point before the hearing on the merits commences. If it does not delegate this authority, the entire Commission will preside over the hearing on the merits as a whole body. In the Matter of Paul Allen Taylor, SFEC Case No. 20-243, the entire Commission presided over the matter as a whole body. Also, In the Matter of William Walker, SFEC Case No. 2223-507, in which the Commission issued a Default Oder against Respondent, the Commission voted to preside over the matter as a whole body.
- The Commission may determine how the findings of facts and conclusions of law (Final Order) will be presented depending on who will preside over the hearing on the merits
Section 8(A)(2) of the Regulations provides that after presiding over a hearing on the merits, the hearing officer must submit a report and recommendation to the Commission for its consideration. The report and recommendation will contain proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Copies of the report and recommendation will be delivered to the Commission, Executive Director, and each respondent no later than 30 calendar days after the date the hearing is concluded. Thereafter, the Executive Director will calendar the matter for consideration at the next Commission meeting in open session.
However, it is of note that the Regulations only require a submission of a report if one commissioner is assigned to preside over the hearing on the merits. If the entire Commission presides over the hearing on the merits, there is no requirement to issue such a report.
The Enforcement Division recommends that if the entire Commission presides over the hearing as a body, the Enforcement Director shall and Respondent may submit a proposed order at the Commencement of the Hearing on the Merits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may deliberate on the proposed order(s) and amend such, as necessary, following the Commission’s decision on each count presented, after which the Commission may then adopt the Final Order as to form with a vote of at least 3 Commissioners. The Commission may also choose to write its own Final Order.
Recommendations
To summarize the recommendations above, the Enforcement Division requests that the Commission vote on the following, as necessary, to proceed in this matter:
- Appoint a member of the Commission as Assigned Commissioner to resolve any preliminary matters;
- Set a deadline of 30 calendar days after the December 12 meeting (i.e. January 12, 2026) by which Respondent or the Enforcement Division must submit any motions regarding preliminary matters;
- Identify a process for parties to request Commission review of the Assigned Commissioner’s determinations that mirrors the process for reviewing the Executive Director’s recommended finding of probable cause, should there be any need for such request;
- Request for review must be submitted to the Commission within five calendar days of the Assigned Commissioner’s determination on preliminary matters.
- The Commission will review the determination on preliminary matters at its next regular meeting.
- The parties may make oral arguments to the Commission, but no written arguments are permitted.
- The Commission will vote whether to uphold or overturn the determination.
- Determine who will preside over the hearing on the merits; and
- Determine the process of issuing the Commission’s Final Order at the conclusion of the hearing on the merits.
It is noteworthy that there is no prescribed timeline under the Enforcement Hearing Guidebook or the Enforcement Regulations for the Commission to vote on the above recommendations. The Commission may vote on these matters in the present meeting or may table them for the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, once a determination has been made by the Commission with respect to these matters, all parties shall abide by the Commission’s determination on these matters including the relevant processes and the corresponding deadlines.
Attachment 1: Probable Cause Determination