Draft Minutes – January 09, 2026 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, January 09, 2026

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, and Commissioners David Tsai and 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; Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager Michael Canning; Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews. Senior Investigator, Eric Willett.

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 10:12am 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, 5, and 6.

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

Item 3, Draft Minutes for November 14, 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 – Vice Chair Salahi pulled the Executive Director’s report for an update from the Executive Director regarding annual form 700 filings, particularly the issues with the FPPC’s implementation of AB 1170 whereby local elected officials and other top City leaders are now required to file the Form 700 through the FPPC’s online system, in addition to their requirement to file with the Ethics Commission..

Executive Director Pat Ford stated that the Form 700 issue will unfortunately impact the April 1 filing deadline. He assured the Commission that affected filers have been notified, and coordination is ongoing with the Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, and others to seek a solution. Due to lack of progress at the state level, another year of double filing is expected. Staff will continue to prioritize the issue and keep the Commission informed.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 7. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Preliminary Matters In the Matter of Sheryl Davis, SFEC Case No. 25-838

Item 7 was pulled out of order by Chair Flórez Feng. Staff intended to present this item, but the respondent’s legal counsel was unavailable through January. Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews requested the hearing be continued to the March 2026 Commission meeting, which would give the respondent and her legal counsel ample notice to be available. The item was continued to a future meeting.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Item 5. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Behested Payment Waiver Legislation.

Michael Canning, Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, presented the item regarding an ordinance introduced by President Mandelman and previously continued from October and November meetings. He provided background on the “behested payments” rule, established in response to corruption investigations, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2021, and amended by voter-approved Proposition E in 2022, which clarified interested party definitions and set amendment approval requirements.

He explained that a subsequent 2022 ordinance created exceptions and a waiver process allowing the Board of Supervisors to grant limited, time-bound waivers to the behested payment prohibition, with documentation requirements and a restriction on self-waivers. The current ordinance would allow the Board to grant waivers to its own members and related officials, prompting significant public opposition and over 250 emails raising transparency concerns. In response, staff worked with President Mandelman’s office to add a reporting requirement requiring waiver recipients to disclose solicited donations, donors, amounts, recipients, and relevant interested-party relationships, making this information part of the public record.

Mr. Canning concluded the ordinance would not undermine the rule and recommended commission approval; if approved, the ordinance would return to the Board of Supervisors for a required two-thirds vote and any further amendments would come back to the Ethics Commission.

Legislative Assistant Melanie Matthewson spoke and stated that, based on experience, this restriction is unusual because other elected officials, including the mayor, may receive passive payments through a waiver process that is highly transparent. The waiver requires review by a committee and approval by the full Board of Supervisors, allowing public visibility into those who are seeking and receiving a waiver. Although the waiver is approved by the executive director, it also requires review by multiple supervisors in addition to the recipient. Matthewson expressed that this exception for the Board of Supervisors feels odd given the public and multi-layered nature of the process

Vice Chair Salahi commented on the new reporting requirement, noting its intent to address gaps left by Form 803, and raised a question regarding the differing timing requirements. Under Form 803, reporting occurs within 30 days of meeting the donation threshold, whereas the proposed requirement would require reporting within 60 days after the expiration of a waiver. Vice Chair Salahi expressed concern that this could result in a delay of up to eight months between the granting of a six-month waiver and any required reporting for activity not covered by Form 803.

Mr. Canning replied and explained that under the current process, payments are reported to the relevant filing officer, such as the Mayor’s Office, within 30 days, with an additional 30 days before the report is forwarded to the Ethics Commission, a process that may change with electronic filing. Mr. Canning noted that while this creates a reporting period of approximately two months after waiver activity ends, this timeframe is necessary to allow sufficient time to document and prepare the required written reports and is still shorter than a potential eight-month delay associated with a six-month waiver.

Chair Flórez Feng asked Board of Supervisor’s President, Raffeal Mandelman, for some tangible examples as why these waivers may be necessary, noting that this has brought some discomfort to a lot of people and that the Commission has received a lot of comments of concern on this item.

Board of Supervisors President Raffeal Mandelman stated that the legislation creates uncertainty around fundraising for important community causes and has generated public discomfort. He emphasized that a waiver would provide clarity and protection to avoid inadvertent violations when soliciting contributions, particularly given the volume of matters before the Board. President Mandelman noted reduced public funding and growing needs among community nonprofits, especially LGBTQ-serving organizations, and explained that the waiver would allow responsible, upfront fundraising for specific community causes while maintaining transparency and avoiding post-hoc reporting issues.

Executive Director Pat Ford clarified that Proposition E, approved by voters about four years ago, expanded the behested payment rule as it applies to the Port, creating a broader and more burdensome application for Port commissioners than for other Form 700 filers. Unlike city contractors, who only track contracts with their own department, Port commissioners must track not only contracts with the Port but also all contracts approved by the board, including those over statutory thresholds, resulting in a large and complex universe of covered contracts. This structure, though not part of the original ballot approval path, reflects an existing voter-approved policy, and the speaker emphasized the importance of recognizing the unique compliance burden this rule places on those affected by the current legislation.

Commissioner Yeh asked before Proposition E, if the legislation the Board passed in 2021 prohibited payments altogether and what was permissible in 2021. Mr. Canning stated that prior to Proposition E there was a payment reporting requirement that required City officials to file a report when making soliciting payments from parties and the change of the legislation prior to Proposition was to make that a prohibition instead of a disclosure requirement for interested parties.

Commissioner Tsai questioned whether there is any requirement for the Commission to review the reported information after it is submitted, and specifically whether the ordinance requires a report back to the Commission. Mr. Canning clarified that there is no formal or statutory process requiring the Ethics Commission to review the reporting after the fact. While the Commission is not required to review it, staff noted that monitoring could occur at the staff level if desired.

It was explained that the policy division already keeps an eye on master payment waivers approved by the Board, including tracking what is changing, how frequently waivers are issued, and general trends. Staff indicated that similar monitoring could be done for this reporting, particularly if the Commission expressed an interest in having it reviewed or monitored on an ongoing basis.

Commissioner Tsai asked how red flags would be identified. Mr. Canning explained that reports would disclose interested party relationships, allowing the public and the Ethics Commission to review the information and identify patterns that could inform future policy changes. He also noted that if required information were omitted from a report, this could trigger an enforcement review and potentially constitute a violation.

Chair Flórez Feng noted that existing guardrails and public transparency provide oversight and suggested adding this area to staff’s existing monitoring for potential red flags. They expressed openness to discussing a more formal process if needed and emphasized that the issue should continue to be monitored given the concerns surrounding its adoption.

Executive Director Pat Ford stated that, in addition to monitoring, proactive enforcement could be incorporated to verify that reported hazard payments fall within the scope of issued waivers and that no unauthorized solicitations occurred, noting that such conduct would be a violation. Staff explained that this review could be integrated into the Commission’s regular enforcement cycle, similar to existing proactive reviews, and coordinated with policy staff and the Board of Supervisors to assess whether the process is working as intended and whether changes are needed.

Commissioner Yeh asked if what they are being asked to vote on today affects what was enacted in Proposition E. Mr. Canning stated the waiver provision did not exist in Proposition E. It was added later through legislation adopted three to four months after the voters approved Proposition E. That subsequent legislation created several exceptions, clarified key terms, and established the waiver provision, which was jointly approved by the Commission and the Board.

Commission Yeh asked about whether there was ever a period when benefit payments were entirely prohibited, including from non-interested parties. Executive Director Pat Ford explained that there was never a blanket prohibition preventing Form 700 filers or other City officials from soliciting payments from all persons. The first prohibition was adopted in 2021 and applied only to solicitations from interested parties, as defined in the rule.

Prior to that change, the requirements were limited to reporting obligations, including those under state law. He noted that this represented a significant policy shift following a recommendation from the Controller, after which the Commission reopened the issue as a policy project and worked with the Board to adopt the prohibition. At all times, the restriction has been limited to interested parties and there has never been a flat ban on soliciting charitable or benefit payments generally.

Vice Chair Salahi asked whether the impetus for the 2021 policy changes stemmed primarily from corruption scandals involving solicitations for staff parties, holiday events, and similar purposes rather than donations to independent nonprofit organizations. Staff confirmed this characterization, explaining that public concern focused on benefit payments with no clear public purpose, such as staff parties, holiday events, and poorly defined or opaque accounts controlled by City officials.

Examples included funds held by outside entities that were used for internal events, as well as solicitations from City contractors to nonprofits that were ultimately used to finance staff celebrations. Staff noted that these types of payments were the primary concern and stated that similar requests would likely face significant scrutiny or be screened out during the waiver process, with decision-makers questioning the purpose and public benefit of such solicitations.

Vice Chair Salahi stated that while many valid concerns had been raised, they believed the proposal strikes an appropriate balance by preventing pay-to-play schemes and ensuring sufficient transparency for both the Commission and the public. He expressed concern, however, that the amendments could be difficult to reverse if problems emerge in the future, and suggested considering a sunset or renewal provision to require the Commission to revisit the policy after a set period and assess whether any red flags have arisen before reauthorization.

Executive Director Pat Ford suggested a procedural approach in response to discussion about a potential amendment to the legislation, recommending that the meeting be recessed to allow the City Attorney’s Office time to review whether such an amendment is possible. It was noted that during a recess the Deputy City Attorney would be able to focus on evaluating the issue and then advise the body on available options during the meeting, acknowledging that the amendment may or may not be feasible.

Chair Flórez Feng agreed and called for a brief recess for the City Attorney’s Office to review the possible amendment and provide counsel guidance before proceeding with a motion. Following the recess, the Vice Chair Salahi called for a motion to adopt the proposal with the addition of a three-year sunset provision limited to the provisions allowing the Board of Supervisors to vote on waiver requests for their own members. The motion noted the competing considerations of effective ethics protections, public transparency, and concerns about potential impropriety, and stated that a sunset would allow the Commission to revisit the issue after observing its impacts. The motion was seconded by Chair Flórez Feng with appreciation expressed for public comment and agreement that the sunset provision would provide accountability and an opportunity for future review.

Public Comment:

Carla Yoshikawa, spoke in person in opposition to the proposal, stating that waivers for benefit payments would create loopholes that risk reviving pay-to-play practices and corruption. She argued that existing law already permits most solicitations while appropriately prohibiting those most likely to involve conflicts of interest, and that vetting such restrictions is a necessary cost of democracy. She asserted that the proposal undermines the Ethics Commission’s mission to uphold the public trust and urged Commissioners to vote against it unless they can clearly explain how it advances governmental integrity, transparency, and protections against conflicts of interest.

Carol Badger, spoke in person in opposition to the proposal, stating that it undermines voter intent to end pay-to-play practices under Proposition E. She questioned the need for donations from parties seeking City contracts, permits, or financial relief, and expressed skepticism that disclosure alone is effective, arguing that the public is fatigued by contributions and perceived dark money.

An unidentified speaker stated that they have lived in San Francisco since 1983 and find it difficult to leave their work to participate without compensation. They expressed frustration with the complexity of information labeled as “transparent,” noting limited time to review extensive materials. They emphasized that San Franciscans deserve assurance that public officials make decisions based on sound judgment rather than the interests of large corporations or special interests, and that fundraising from entities that may benefit from official actions undermines public trust. The speaker concluded by urging that the process be simplified so citizens can more easily understand and track it.

Karen Franklin, a longtime San Francisco resident and retired teacher, artist, and writer, spoke in opposition to the amendment. She acknowledged the intent of transparency but stated that fundraising is not the role of supervisors and argued they should instead focus on pressing neighborhood issues, particularly in the Tenderloin. She emphasized that nonprofits already have mechanisms to seek funding without elected officials’ involvement and that supervisors should not build fundraising connections or waive legislation. She urged adherence to the will of the voters, noting significant public opposition, and clarified that Proposition E does not prevent nonprofits from receiving donations directly, concluding by asking that the amendment be voted down.

Esther Marx, speaking as an individual, also opposed the amendment, emphasizing that Proposition E does not prevent officials from fundraising for most nonprofits or contractors from donating, but appropriately bars supervisors from soliciting contractors and lobbyists with business before the City to avoid conflicts of interest.

David Schmidt, a San Francisco resident of more than 50 years and a volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, called in and spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. He cited a 2020 state comptroller public integrity review finding that behested payments from interested parties pose a high risk of corruption, a risk he stated remains unchanged. While acknowledging the effort to increase transparency, he argued it is insufficient, noting that voters approved the existing prohibition and that past scandals have been linked to such payments from city contractors. He warned that allowing officials to decide when laws apply would invite conflicts of interest and concluded that transparency after the fact does not prevent corruption, urging a no vote.

Motion 260109-02 (Salahi / Flórez-Feng): Moved, seconded, and approved (3-1) to adopt the amended Behested Payment Waiver Legislation with an addition of a

3-year Sunset Provision.

Item 6. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Godfried Masinde

Eric Willett, Senior Investigator with the Ethics Commission, presented a stipulated agreement between the Commission and Dr. Godfried Masinde, Director of the Public Health Laboratory at the Department of Public Health, concerning a 2023 holiday luncheon paid for by Abbott Laboratories, a restricted source.

Although Dr. Masinde did not attend, he coordinated the event and invited staff, resulting in 19 employees receiving prohibited gifts valued at $128 each, exceeding the $25 limit, for a total of $2,432. Staff recommended a $2,500 penalty against Dr. Masinde for causing the violations, citing mitigating factors including no prior enforcement history, the isolated nature of the incident, lack of personal benefit, and the fact that he was not previously required to take ethics training but has since completed it as of March 11, 2025.

A question was raised by Chair Flórez Feng regarding whether the individual would ordinarily have been expected to receive this type of important information through a newsletter or email, and why responsibility was being placed on someone who was not required to complete the standard trainings. Mr. Willet explained that the Department of Public Health issued a separate letter specifically addressing the prohibition on accepting gifts over $25 from restricted or prohibited sources, independent of general newsletters, and that this letter provided notice to the individual. It was further noted that he was aware Abbott Laboratories was a contractor doing business with and supplying essential equipment to his department.

Commissioner Yeh acknowledged the respondent did not attend the party but asked if we had any indication that he never intended to attend the party or if there was just a later conflict and couldn’t attend. Mr. Willet stated he did not have that information, but staff had confirmed Dr. Masinde was out of the country during the time of the event. Vice Chair Salahi questioned if there were any pending proposals from Abbot Labs at the time to contract with other than the preexisting contract in 2021. Mr. Willett clarified that there was no matter pending before Dr. Masinde in connection with the decision, and that while he provided input on deliverables supplied by Abbott based on his knowledge of Public Health Lab activities, he was not the ultimate decision maker for the department’s contracts.

Commissioner Yeh asked if this holiday party was an annual event or a one-time thing and staff clarified it as only as a one-time event. A follow-up question was raised by Flórez Feng regarding whether similar continuing legal or educational meetings continue to occur with food provided on site rather than at a restaurant, noting that this event differed from past practice by moving the gathering to a restaurant instead of holding it at the usual location.

Mr. Willett responded that the Department of Public Health has communicated that staff should not participate in such events, whether external or internal, and noted that while prior educational or luncheon events may have been catered by the department or a vendor, this event differed because it was held externally at a restaurant rather than on site. Commissioner Tsai asked if Dr. Masinde or any of the City employees who attended the holiday lunch have any authority over City contracts or purchases involving Abbott, and what was the role or position of the Abbott employee involved in planning the event.

Mr. Willett explained that the Abbott employee involved acted as a liaison to the Public Health Lab, with responsibilities limited to coordinating the event, and had no known role in contracting. Questions were raised about the origins of the holiday luncheon, and staff stated that it was always intended as a holiday event, that any educational component was not conveyed to attendees, and that they could not recall whether the idea originated with Abbott or the department.

Commissioner Tsai asked if any funds from the luncheon would be returned to Abbott, and staff responded that no funds would be returned and that the financial penalty would be paid to the General Fund. Commissioners expressed concern about public perception, noting discomfort that the penalty amounted to the value received and was not returned directly to the entity that paid for the event.

Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews explained that while each attendee received a gift valued at approximately $120, subtracting the allowable $25 would reduce the total value, and that the recommended penalty reflects this adjustment as well as mitigating circumstances. It was noted that the respondent received no personal benefit, did not attend the event, and believed it to be a simple luncheon, and that the proposed penalty was considered appropriate considering these factors.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260109-03 (Flórez-Feng / Salahi): Moved, seconded, and approved (3-1) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Godfried Masinde

Item 8. Presentation, public hearing, and possible action on Ethics Commission budget priorities for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 and Fiscal Year 2027-28

Executive Director, Pat Ford, presented an overview of the upcoming budget process, noting that the meeting served as the first of two required public hearings and was intended for general discussion of budget priorities rather than consideration of a proposal. Director Ford outlined the timeline, including a February 13 meeting, submission of a new performance metrics and savings pathways worksheet later in the month, and a final budget submission due February 21. Preliminary priorities were reviewed, including compliance, audits and enforcement, public information and transparency systems, policy development, operational modernization, and maintaining adequate staffing, with staff inviting feedback before returning with a formal proposal.

Chair Flórez Feng stated that the presentation was informative, expressed agreement with the proposed approach, noted that existing tracking of priorities and goals should support completion of the Mayor’s required form, and indicated no further comments. Vice Chair Salahi agreed and stated he appreciates the approach that staff is taking with the budget process.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

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 this item.

Item 10. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

Carla Yoshikawa spoke again and thanked Commissioner Yeh for their vote and expressed concerns about the decision of other Commissioners, urging the Commission to seek guidance from experienced election and democracy organizations, listen more closely to public input, and exercise greater caution to prevent opportunities for corruption, emphasizing the importance of protecting democratic processes for future generations.

Commissioner Yeh appreciated the robust public comment at this meeting and recognized the time and effort it takes for members of the public to participate. He also expressed his complete confidence in good faith, judgment, competence, and abilities of both his fellow Commissioners and the Ethics Commission staff.

Item 11. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 12:09pm.