Draft Minutes – February 13, 2026 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, February 13, 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 and Commissioners David Tsai, Karen Bell Francois, and Kevin Yeh participating, a quorum was present. Vice Chair Yaman Salahi had an excused absence.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews; Senior Investigator, Eric Willett; Senior Investigator, Bertha Cheung; Senior Investigator, Bailey Bryant.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Michael Gerchow, 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 Tsai and seconded by Commissioner Yeh to approve the following consent calendar item that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for January 9, 2026, 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 dated February 9, 2026
Item 5, Engagement and Compliance Report dated February 9, 2026

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 8. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Kathrin Moore SFEC Case No. 26-1012

Senior Investigator Bertha Cheung presented the stipulated agreement regarding Planning Commissioner Katherin Moore. The matter concerned Moore’s participation in four Planning Commission votes on three major development projects in which Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), her former employer and source of approximately $15,000 per year in retirement income, served as project architect. Because SOM had a clear and direct role in the projects, it was reasonably foreseeable that the decisions could have a material financial effect on the firm, creating a conflict of interest that required Moore’s recusal. Moore did not disclose or recuse herself at the relevant meetings, despite previously recognizing a similar conflict in 2014 and consistently reporting her SOM retirement income on her Form 700 filings. The projects were large, high-profile developments with significant public impact, which heightened the seriousness of the violations.

The investigation found no evidence that Moore intended to benefit financially or personally from her participation, nor that she received any additional benefit beyond her fixed retirement income. Enforcement staff confirmed the pension was a flat annual payment unrelated to project performance, that Moore had no ongoing personal relationship with SOM, and that the votes in question were unanimous such that the outcomes would not have changed had she recused herself. The time period reviewed was limited by the statute of limitations, and no earlier relevant projects involving SOM were identified.

Staff recommended a penalty of $3,000 per count, totaling $12,000, noting that while the maximum allowable penalty was $5,000 per violation, mitigating factors included Moore’s cooperation, lack of personal gain, transparency in disclosing income, and willingness to settle. Comparable prior cases generally involved smaller-scale matters and lower penalties, but staff balanced aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the proposed amount. The agreement reflects a negotiated settlement; staff noted that a higher penalty could have been pursued at hearing. It was confirmed that Moore would personally pay the penalty without reimbursement. Commissioners discussed the seriousness of the lapse, the role of departmental oversight and ethics training, and the shared responsibility of commissioners to monitor and recuse themselves from conflicts.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260213-02 (Tsai / Francois): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Kathrin Moore SFEC Case No. 26-1012

Item 9. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Franco Finn SFEC Case No. 26-1035

Senior Investigator Eric Willett presented the proposed stipulated agreement regarding Film Commissioner Franco Finn. During the 2025 annual filing cycle, Commissioner Finn failed to complete the required annual ethics and Sunshine Ordinance trainings and did not timely file the forms certifying completion. While out of compliance and therefore disqualified from participating in Commission matters, he attended and participated in two Film Commission meetings. Finn received multiple reminder notifications from the Engagement and Compliance Division before and after the filing deadline, as well as direct communication and a grace period from the Enforcement Division, but did not come into compliance until after an investigation was opened. He subsequently completed the required filings within the 30-day response period.

Staff proposed resolving the matter with two counts of violations of the Conflict of Interest Code at $200 per count, for a total penalty of $400. Commissioners discussed the reminder process, noting that email notifications are system-assisted but overseen by staff, and that enforcement communications are sent directly by investigators. It was clarified that a 21-day grace period was newly implemented for the 2025 cycle due to expanded annual training requirements, and that city officers are required to conduct official business through their city email accounts. It was confirmed that Commissioner Finn had used his city email to communicate during the matter.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260213-03 (Yeh / Francois): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Franco Finn SFEC Case No. 26-1035

Item 10. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Michael Maraviglia SFEC Case No. 26-1040 was

Senior Investigator Eric Willett presented the proposed stipulated agreement regarding Michael Maraviglia, a Manager VI with the Public Utilities Commission. During the 2025 filing cycle, Maraviglia failed to timely file his annual Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700), complete the required annual ethics training, and submit the corresponding certification form. He received multiple pre- and post-deadline notifications from the Engagement and Compliance Division and was granted a grace period by Enforcement but did not comply until after an investigation was opened under the Streamlined Administrative Resolution Program. He subsequently filed the outstanding Form 700 and completed the required training within the initial 30-day response period.

Staff proposed resolving the matter with two counts of violations of the Conflict of Interest Code at $200 per count, for a total penalty of $400. Commissioners discussed how filers are notified of requirements, noting that Maraviglia had previously been required to file Form 700 and received repeated reminders, access to online resources, and dashboard notifications through the NetFile system listing outstanding items. It was further explained that departmental filing officers serve as liaisons to assist employees, and that inclusion of these matters in the streamlined enforcement program is intended to promote timely compliance and deterrence while resolving violations efficiently.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260213-04 (Yeh / Francois): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Michael Maraviglia SFEC Case No. 26-1040

Item 11, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Ren Yu Zhang SFEC Case No. 26-1050

Senior Investigator Eric Willett presented the proposed stipulated agreement involving Ren Yu Zhang who failed to timely file his annual Form 700 and complete the required annual ethics training. The respondent received multiple pre- and post-deadline notifications from the Engagement and Compliance Division, as well as a grace period, but did not comply until after the Commission opened an investigation under the Streamlined Administrative Resolution Program (SERP). The respondent subsequently filed the outstanding forms within the initial 30-day response period.

Staff recommended two counts of violations of the Conflict of Interest Code at $200 per count, for a total penalty of $400. At the Commission’s request, staff provided a brief overview of SERP, noting that it was adopted in February 2021 to address specified violation types requiring minimal additional evidence and to encourage timely corrective action through structured 30-, 60-, and 90-day engagement periods with associated penalty amounts.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260213-05 (Yeh / Francois): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to approve the Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Ren Yu Zhang SFEC Case No. 26-1050

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

This Item was pulled out of order so the respondent’s council could be available to speak. Opportunity for public comment was provided. Senior Investigator Bertha Cheung presented the item. The Commission considered preliminary procedural matters in the enforcement case against Sheryl Davis, involving 31 counts and 41 alleged violations related to prohibited gifts, reporting failures, incompatible activities, conflicts of interest, and failure to complete ethics training during her tenure as Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission. Probable cause was found and ratified in November, and the matter is proceeding toward an administrative hearing.

Respondent’s counsel requested a stay pending clarification of any potential criminal investigation. Enforcement staff stated there are no criminal charges filed and recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed procedural actions to allow pre-hearing motions and establish hearing procedures. It was noted that while past practice has considered parallel criminal cases, no such circumstances exist here. The Commission moved forward with the procedural items and public comment.

Respondent’s counsel James Quadra called in. Counsel requested that the Commission stay the administrative proceedings pending resolution of any potential criminal charges, asserting that proceeding could implicate Davis’s Fifth Amendment rights due to an ongoing District Attorney investigation, including reported subpoenas for her records. Counsel argued that requiring Davis to respond to allegations could risk self-incrimination.

Commissioners inquired whether any criminal charges had been filed; counsel confirmed none had been filed but stated there is an ongoing investigation. Discussion followed regarding Davis’s ability to assert her Fifth Amendment rights within the administrative process and the implications for adjudication. A Commissioner indicated interest in further briefing on the issue. With confirmation from Quadra that Davis would not be appearing, the Commission moved to public comment.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item

Motion 260213-06 (Flórez-Feng / Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to appoint a Commissioner as a Prehearing Officer to resolve preliminary matters In the Matter of Sheryl Davis, SFEC Case No. 25-838, Set a deadline for 30 calendar days for the respondent and Enforcement Division to submit motions regarding the matter, The Commission in its entirely to preside over the hearing, and for the Enforcement Director to submit a proposed order and hearing brief for Commission deliberation

Item 6. Hearing on the Merits In the Matter of Charlie Chiem, SFEC Case No. 24-787

This item was pulled out of order to give the respondent time to arrive and be present. Senior Investigator Bailey Bryant presented the item. Enforcement staff informed the Commission that they had reached a settlement in principle with the respondent and moved to withdraw the scheduled hearing item, with the intent to present a stipulated agreement for public consideration at a future meeting.

Staff noted that the delay in settlement discussions was due to the respondent not receiving prior communications because of email issues and only becoming aware upon receipt of mailed notice of the hearing. The respondent, present at the meeting, declined to make substantive comments and confirmed his intent to proceed with the discussed resolution. Commissioners discussed procedural options and, upon advice, closed the hearing item with the understanding that it may be rescheduled if necessary, pending finalization and presentation of the settlement agreement.

No action was taken by the Commission as the hearing was withdrawn. The respondent settled with the Enforcement Division before the hearing took place.

Item 12. Presentation, public hearing, and possible action on Ethics Commission budget proposal for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 and Fiscal Year 2027-28

Executive Director Pat Ford presented the second required hearing for the annual budget process, with the budget proposal due February 23. Staff reviewed strategic priorities, the current budget baseline for the next two fiscal years and noted vacancies and continued staffing reductions over recent years, emphasizing that further cuts would significantly impair core compliance, enforcement, and disclosure-system functions. Director Ford explained the Mayor’s citywide budget reduction target and recommended proposing a cut aligned with the citywide reduction rather than the larger percentage implied by narrower General Fund framing.

Staff’s recommended proposal included reducing the Human Resources work order by 50%, reallocating some auditor time to the Election Campaign Fund as allowed for program administration, and accounting for small software cost increases, producing an estimated 3.5% reduction in the first year and 2.7% in the second. Staff also raised as an optional item seeking restoration of a previously eliminated 1823 compliance position due to ongoing workload and unresolved efforts to eliminate certain disclosure programs legislatively, noting that restoring the position would largely eliminate net savings.

Staff cautioned that proposing a full 10% cut would likely require eliminating 2–3 filled positions and would jeopardize the Commission’s ability to deliver essential services. Commissioners discussed timing and process, confirmed that post-budget adoption revisions are effectively not feasible once positions are removed from the salary ordinance, and were advised that no formal vote was required at this meeting. Commissioners expressed support for the recommended approach and appreciation for staff’s work, with staff offering availability for further discussion before submission. The Commission took no action on this item.

Public Comment:

An unidentified caller criticized the presentation as not being tailored to the community and argued that the Commission is funded by residents and should communicate accordingly. The speaker stated that staff salaries are excessive, asserted that ethics commissioners should be elected rather than appointed, and made broader accusations that the Commission was not performing its duties, including calls for staff to be removed. The speaker concluded by indicating an intent to call back later.