Date: September 4, 2026
To: Members of the Ethics Commission
From: Patrick Ford, Executive Director
Subject: Agenda Item 4 – Executive Director’s Report
Summary and Action Requested
This report provides various departmentwide programmatic and operational highlights since the last report. Updates about divisional operations are provided in quarterly division reports.
No action is required by the Commission, as this item is for informational purposes only.
Campaign Finance Research Workshop
Ethics Commission staff recently held a workshop for local journalists hosted by the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California Chapter. The session, which the Commission has offered during each election season since 2018, is designed to train journalists in how to access and interpret the public disclosures filed by campaign committees. This advances the Commission’s public information mandate and reduces the numbers of media inquiries that staff receive during an election season, since journalist are more able to self-direct to public information. This year’s session covered campaign finance rules, a provided walkthrough of the Commission’s redesigned campaign finance dashboards, and demonstrated how to access the accompanying campaign finance datasets on the Commission’s website. Staff received positive feedback from attendees.
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Review
Over the last two fiscal years, the Commission has expanded and standardized the department’s use of key performance indicators (KPIs). The Operations Division has led this work with substantial contributions from each of the Division managers. The Commission has long tracked performance information, including enforcement caseloads, audit activity, compliance assistance, filing activity, and other operational measures. In FY25, the Commission reviewed the existing measures, identified additional indicators of workload and performance, established targets, and worked with the Electronic Disclosure and Data Analysis (EDDA) Division to implement a centralized system for tracking this information. This work resulted in an expanded set of KPIs across all Commission divisions that provide useful information about workload, timeliness, productivity, and program outcomes that can be efficiently tracked and reported.
FY26 was the first year in which staff collected data using this expanded departmentwide KPI framework. In February, staff presented the Commission with the midyear KPI results, including targets and actual performance for Enforcement, Audits, EDDA, Engagement and Compliance, Policy, and Operations. The results showed that the Commission met or exceeded most of the targets established for the first half of the fiscal year, while also demonstrating the value of the KPI process in identifying areas for additional attention and measures that require further refinement.
The tables below present the KPI results for the entirety of FY26. Each section describes some of the primary learnings achieved from these KPIs.
Additionally, the Operations Division recently led the managers in a process of reviewing the utility of each KPI measure in order to adjust what is measured and what the established targets are. Since FY26 was the first full year of using the standardized KPI framework departmentwide, it was important to evaluate the effectiveness of the framework itself and to iterate on this model in order to ensure it provides meaningful and actionable information. The sections below summarize the adjustments to KPI measures and targets that are being implemented for FY27.
Enforcement
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Rolling average (in months) of completed preliminary reviews | 2 | 1.39 |
| Average number of investigations opened (per month) | 7.5 | 4.08 |
| Average number of proactive cases opened (per month) | 1 | 2.08 |
| Percentage of cases resolved within one year | 95% (average) | 95.4% |
| Probable Cause Reports Served | 6 | 2 |
The Enforcement Division KPIs indicate consistent and timely case work in FY26. They also reflect a shift to larger (and thus fewer) cases during the fiscal year and a period of position vacancy caused by attrition. Preliminary reviews were completed well under the target of 2 months, and over 95% of cases were resolved within one year, both of which indicate the Division continued to efficiently move its docket forward. Fewer investigations were opened than anticipated, but this is because of a conscious shift of resources into a number of large, high-impact cases as well as the departure of the Director of Enforcement in Q3.
Enforcement was able to develop its proactive casework more than projected, with an average of 2.08 proactive cases opened per month (25 for the year). Investigators are increasingly able to identify potential violations through disclosures and media reporting and take steps to address them without receiving a formal complaint.
In FY27, the following adjustments will be made to Enforcement KPI measures and targets:
- The KPIs for proactive cases opened and probable cause reports served will be combined into a single KPI with one target. These two metrics reflect a sliding scale that guides prioritization of limited resources. When the division is handling multiple complex cases that reach the probable cause stage, it has both fewer resources for proactive investigation to identify potential violations. And when the division has fewer complex cases that reach the probable cause stage, it has more time and resources for proactive investigation. Thus, this new KPI will capture the division’s ability both identify and resolve more serious, high-impact violations.
Audits
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Average number of transactions reviewed per auditor (per month)* | 150 | 168 |
| Average number of transactions reviewed per completed audit | 200 | 223 |
| Average number of contribution submissions reviewed for public financing program (per month)** | 730 | 652 |
| Average time to review matching fund request and issue decision (business days) | 4 | 3.20 |
| Priority audits completed | 0 | 0 |
| Mandatory audits completed | 27 | 27 |
*Based on audits with a completion date during FY26. Does not include work on audits that are completed in FY27.
**Based on the 8 months during FY26 during which candidates submitted public financing requests.
The Audits Division KPIs provide greater detail into how the Division operates and how it was able to deliver all 27 public financing audits roughly a year following the 2024 election. Auditors reviewed an average of 168 transactions each per month and maintained a high sample rate on each audit, reviewing 223 transitions per audit.
The KPIs also provide insight into how the Division timely administers requests for public financing from candidates. Matching fund requests were processed in just over three business days on average, well under the four-day goal. During the eight months in which the Commission received public financing requests during FY26, Auditors processed an average of 652 contribution submissions per month. This was lower than had been anticipated, but this is due to the estimate being based on the 2024 election, which involved more candidates running for office. Auditors were well-prepared for the expected spike in workload during the 2026 election cycle while still completing audit work efficiently. No priority audits were targeted for completion in FY26; those audits will be completed and published in FY27.
Electronic Disclosure & Data Analysis (EDDA)
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Average staff time to resolution for Disclosure Program support tickets (business days) | 1 | 0.25 |
| Average end-to-end completion time for Disclosure Program support tickets (calendar days) | 5 | 3.80 |
| Total disclosure filings successfully processed (monthly average) | 1,000 | 1,095 |
| Technology procurements completed (monthly average) | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| Internal support tickets resolved (monthly average) | 42 | 41 |
The KPIs for the EDDA Division provide detail about the Division’s work to establish and administer the electronic disclosure systems that underpin the Commission’s reporting programs. On average, the Division received and processed almost 1,100 filings per month. Staff also completed more technology procurements than anticipated (30 for the year), ensuring that the Commission continues to maintain effective, reliable, and secure online systems. EDDA staff also addressed an average of 42 internal support tickets each month, ensuring that Commission staff are able to effectively utilize the Commission’s systems to effectively carry out operations.
The Technical Assistance Unit (TAU) within EDDA handled the majority of the support tickets submitted by the regulated community in FY26. The team handled 1,545 Form 700 tickets, which made up roughly 70% of the 2,208 total support tickets received by the Commission in FY26 (see below). These and similar tickets were handled by the team in an efficient manner: the average time it took staff to resolve their end of such tickets was 0.25 business days. The total end-to-end completion time, which also includes time spent waiting for the requestor to answer follow up questions or take other actions, was 3.8 calendar days on average. Both measures are well under the established goals and represent efficient customer service for those who seek assistance complying with the Commission’s disclosure requirements.
In FY27, the following adjustments will be made to EDDA KPI measures and targets:
- The KPI for number of support tickets closed (which appears in the Engagement and Compliance section below) will be split into two separate KPIs: number of technical support tickets closed and number of advice tickets closed. This will allow the technical support tickets handled by TAU to be measured separately from the advice tickets handled by Engagement and Compliance. The average resolution time KPIs will be aligned with this new way of differentiating tickets. The target resolution times will remain the same.
- A new KPI will be created to track the processing of the Form 410 Statement of Organization. This form, which political committees use to form, amend or terminate, requires considerable manual staff time to create or update NetFile accounts for the filing committees. It is therefore worth tracking with a standalone KPI because of its unique level of staff time required.
Engagement and Compliance
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Number of support tickets closed (monthly average) – includes technical support (EDDA) and advice (E&C) | 145 | 184 |
| Average staff time to resolution for ethics advice tickets (business days) | 4 | 3.18 |
| Average end-to-end completion time for ethics advice tickets (calendar days) | 7 | 9 |
The Engagement and Compliance Division also handled support tickets received from the regulated community but focused on tickets that required legal guidance on how the Commission’s laws apply to them. This includes ethics laws, lobbying laws, and campaign finance laws.
One helpful insight from this year’s KPIs is the difference between staff processing time (3.18 business days) and end-to-end completion time (9 days). Many times, the delays occur when staff are waiting for additional information from the requestor, rather than during the staff member’s research and analysis work on the question. The Commission seeks to ensure that requestors are able to get the information they need quickly and that their experience is efficient. The Commission will explore ways to reduce the full end-to-end completion time in FY27 by refining intake processes and identifying ways to smooth communication with requestors.
In FY27, the following adjustments will be made to Engagement and Compliance KPI measures and targets:
- As discussed in the EDDA section, support tickets will be tracked and differentiated in a way that better allows TAU tickets and Engagement and Compliance tickets to be measured separately. The KPI target for staff time to resolve advice tickets will be adjusted from 4 business days to 3 business days to reflect the actual average time in FY26.
Policy
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Media Interactions | N/A | 69 |
| External Meetings / Legislation Tracked | N/A | 44 |
| Advice Questions / Tickets Closed with Policy Consult | N/A | 62 |
| Commission Interactions Published | 6 | 13 |
| Policy Reports Issued (findings and recommendations) | 3 | 4 |
| IP Meetings Held | N/A | 2 |
In FY26, the Policy Division issued four policy reports, published thirteen Commission interactions (other types of public documents issued to the Commission, such as memos accompanying agenda items), and continued to serve as a central resource for legislative analysis, regulatory research, and communications. They also held two interested persons meetings and managed dozens of media and external stakeholder interactions.
Most Policy KPIs were not assigned targets in FY26 because one year of data collection was needed to establish benchmarks for workload and output so that future goals could be set. These KPIs will have assigned targets in FY27.
In FY27, the following adjustments will be made to Policy KPI measures and targets:
- Targets will be set for all Policy Division KPIs that use FY26 actual figures as benchmarks.
- The KPI that measures the Division’s tracking of public body meetings and legislation will be revised to only count the tracking of public meetings.
Operations
| Metric | Target | Actuals |
| Percentage Budget variance (Quarterly) | 5% | 3.7% |
| Percentage of vacancies filled within 3 months | 100% | 100% |
| Percentage of bills paid on-time | 100% | 100% |
| Conversion to PCS | 12 | 10 |
| Outstanding Purchase Orders (at the end of each month) | 15 | 13 |
The Operations Division’s KPIs measure the team’s support of core administrative functions such as budget, financial administration, and recruitment. Budget variance stayed below target, all vacancies were filled within the expected timeframe, and Operations staff maintained strong account management. While it looks like invoice processing fell slightly below the 100% on-time target, the team implemented automated reminders to help improve the metric going forward. It is important to note that all invoices were paid before the due date. The metric shows what was pending (open to pay) each month during the time the KPI report was run.
One of the biggest benefits of tracking KPIs in Operations has been gaining a clearer picture of internal processes that are not always visible to external stakeholders. This year’s results will help staff refine workflows, strengthen coordination, and make small but meaningful improvements that support the entire department.
In FY27, the following adjustments will be made to Operations KPI measures and targets:
- A new KPI for average time to close records requests is being added.
- The KPI for PCS conversions is being discontinued because all but one PCS conversion has now been completed, and this work will therefore no longer represent a significant portion of the Division’s anticipated workload.