Draft Minutes – August 14, 2026 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, August 14, 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: Chair Argemira Flórez Feng, Vice Chair Yaman Salahi and Commissioners David Tsai and Karen Bell Francois participating, a quorum was present. Commissioners Kevin Yeh had an excused absence.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; Policy and Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning; Senior Investigator, Bertha Cheung.

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 10:08am 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.

A caller identifying himself as “San Francisco” voiced concerns regarding members arriving late and the absence of meetings in May and June. He emphasized the importance of punctuality and regular participation in public meetings. Public comments also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the board’s performance, including allegations that it had failed the community and inadequately addressed critical corruption matters. The speaker called for the board members to resign.

A caller identified as Sullivan raised concerns that the Ethics Commission’s July 10 and August 14, 2026, agenda descriptions may not comply with San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.7(b) regarding references to explanatory documents and records. Sullivan requested that staff ensure future agenda items comply with the ordinance and properly identify relevant records and documents.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 3, & 4

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 Vice Chair Salahi and seconded by Commissioner Tsai to approve the following consent calendar item that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for July 10, 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

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on this item.

Motion 260814-01 (Salahi / Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to adopt the July 10, 2026, meeting minutes in the Consent Calendar.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 5. Discussion and Possible Action on Proposed Campaign Finance Reforms to Reinforce Contribution Limits and Ensure Accountability for Violations of City Law

Policy and Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning presented proposed legislation based on recommendations from an April policy report to strengthen the City’s $500 candidate contribution limit and accountability for campaign and ethics violations.

The legislation would extend the contribution limit to candidate-controlled committees, treat third-party republication of campaign materials as contributions subject to the limit, and restrict the use of committee funds to pay penalties. Staff noted amendments to the original proposal and recommended Commission approval, followed by engagement with the Board of Supervisors.

The Commission discussed concerns regarding the constitutionality and scope of proposed contribution limits, including their application to candidate-controlled ballot measure committees. Staff explained that existing court decisions have addressed general ballot measure and party committee limits but have not specifically found limits on candidate-controlled ballot measure committees unconstitutional. Commissioners also discussed the proposed bright-line rule treating the republication of candidate campaign materials by third parties as contributions, as well as related exceptions and coordination standards. Staff clarified that committee names must include the candidate’s name and explained that county political party committees were excluded because state law limits the City’s authority to impose contribution restrictions on them. No further questions were raised.

Public Comment:

Carla Kincaid Yoshikawa, a Sunset District resident and California Clean Money Campaign volunteer, spoke in person in support of the proposed reforms. She commended the Commission for strengthening public funding and promoting fair, transparent, and accountable government, and expressed appreciation for efforts to reduce the influence of large contributions and better serve San Francisco residents.

A caller identified as “San Francisco” discussed the meaning of “contribution,” emphasizing that individuals can contribute both money and time to political campaigns. The commenter argued that contributions of time should not be limited and expressed the view that monetary contributions likewise should not be subject to limitations.

A caller named Sean McMorris of California Common Cause spoke in strong support of the proposed ethics and campaign finance reforms. He supported extending contribution limits to candidate-controlled committees, treating third-party republication of campaign materials as contributions, and limiting the use of campaign and legal defense funds to pay penalties. He stated that the reforms would close loopholes, strengthen accountability, and protect the integrity of San Francisco’s ethics and campaign finance laws, and urged the Commission to approve them.

Motion 260814-02 (Tsai / Francois): Moved, seconded, and approved (4-0) to approve the Proposed Campaign Finance Reforms to Reinforce Contribution Limits and Ensure Accountability for Violations of City Law.

Item 6. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Amendments to Ethics Commission Enforcement Regulations.

Bertha Cheung presented proposed amendments to the Enforcement Regulations, noting that the regulations had not been comprehensively updated since 2018. Staff reviewed revisions directed by the Commission in August 2025 following multiple stakeholder meetings, Commission discussions, and completion of the required meet-and-confer process.

The substantive amendments clarify subpoena objections and withholding liability, establish Commission oversight of executive director findings of no probable cause, and expand eligibility for pre-hearing and hearing officers to include active or eligible inactive California attorneys and Commission members. Staff also noted technical and stylistic revisions that do not change the substance of the regulations and recommended adoption of the amendments. There were no questions from the Commission.

Public Comment:

A caller identifying himself as “San Francisco” criticized the presentation as overly technical and difficult for the public to understand. The commenter emphasized that presentations should be tailored to San Francisco residents, taxpayers, and the broader community, with clearer explanations of how proposed actions affect the public and the Commission. The commenter characterized the presentation as a data dump and recommended improving presentation and communication skills.

A caller identified as Sullivan raised concerns regarding the lack of references to explanatory documents in Agenda Item 6 and alleged potential violations of public meeting requirements. Sullivan also questioned how the proposed Enforcement Regulations address complaints submitted under the Sunshine Ordinance and requested greater transparency regarding the Commission’s authority to accept or dismiss such complaints. Sullivan further expressed concern that the term “willful” is used without a clear definition in the regulations and urged staff to provide clearer guidance for both staff and the public.

Motion 260814-03 (Salahi /Flórez-Feng): Moved, seconded, and approved (4 to approve the Proposed Amendments to Ethics Commission Enforcement Regulations.