Summary and Action Requested
This memo provides background and analysis to assist the Commission in determining whether to grant a post-employment waiver to Nancy Byun Riedel. The Commission should evaluate Ms. Riedel’s waiver request, as required by City law, and consider whether granting Ms. Riedel a waiver would create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage.
Based on its review of Ms. Riedel’s request and applicable law, Staff recommend that the Commission approve a limited waiver for Ms. Riedel.
Background
On August 16, Nancy Byun Riedel sent a formal request to the Commission asking that certain post-employment restrictions under Section 3.234 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (C&GCC) be waived. Ms. Riedel previously served as the Director of the Airport Integrated Operations Center (“AIOC”) for San Francisco International Airport (“SFO” or the “Airport”), a department of the City and County of San Francisco. She left City service on August 28, 2026, and began a new role with United Airlines (“United”) as the Managing Director of the Station Operations Center (“SOC”) at SFO on August 31, 2026.
Ms. Riedel’s waiver request is included as Attachment 1. The facts included in this memorandum are drawn from Ms. Riedel’s written request, and additional follow-up correspondence received via email.
Ms. Riedel first contacted the Commission about this matter on August 5 and engaged in ongoing communications about her new employment and the applicability of the City’s post-employment restrictions. Following several communications with Ms. Riedel, Staff provided Riedel with informal advice on August 12 that confirmed a waiver from the Commission may be necessary given the duties of her new position. The informal advice also offered guidance on the waiver process and how to formally request such a waiver. A copy of Staff’s informal advice to Ms. Riedel is included as Attachment 2.
Applicable Law
The City has rules for what current and former City officers and employees can do after they leave City service. These rules further the purpose of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which per Section 3.200, is chiefly to “promote fairness and equity for all residents and to maintain public trust in governmental institutions.” The law seeks to ensure “that public officers and employees [are] independent, impartial, and responsible to the people and that public office and employment [is] not…used for personal gain.” The Code also asserts that government decisions by City officers and employees “should be, and should appear to be, made on a fair and impartial basis.” Under Section 3.234 and its supporting regulations, the City’s post-employment and post-service restrictions include a one-year restriction on communicating with the City official’s former department with the intent to influence a government decision.
One-Year Restriction on Communicating with Former Department
Section 3.234(a)(2) of the C&GCC prohibits former officers and employees from, with the intent to influence a government decision, communicating on behalf of any other person (except the City) with any officer or employee of the department for which the former employee served, for one year following the termination of their employment with the City. Ethics Commission Regulation 3.234-2 outlines the scope of this restriction and provides guidance on determining whether this one-year ban applies.
The scope of this restriction applies to attempts to influence any government decisions, which, as defined in Ethics Commission Regulation 3.234-5, occurs whenever communications – orally, in writing, or in any other manner – are made for the purpose of supporting, promoting, influencing, modifying, opposing, delaying, or advancing a governmental decision. There are exceptions, which include routine requests for information, communications made while attending a general informational meeting, seminar, or similar event, or communications that only seek to influence actions that are solely ministerial, secretarial, manual, or clerical.
This one-year post-employment communication ban furthers the goals of the C&GCC by ensuring that former City officers and employees cannot use their recent position with a department to unduly influence or appear to influence the actions of that department. Without this rule, City officials could leave City service and immediately start advocating for their new employer by communicating with their former department to affect decisions in favor of their new employer. This outcome exemplifies the “revolving door” issues that can arise when former City officials transition from their public service roles into positions with new employers.
This restriction is designed as a modest but fundamental safeguard to support the fairness of governmental decision making and to preserve the public’s trust in the integrity of governmental decisions. It recognizes that former City officers and employees can have unique knowledge and access that could unfairly advantage the ability of their new employer or clients to secure beneficial outcomes in a way not available to other entities or organizations in the same field who also may seek opportunities to do business with the City.
Waiver Authority of the Ethics Commission
Section 3.234(c)(1) of the C&GCC grants the Commission the ability to waive the one-year restriction on communicating with former department, “if the Commission determines that granting a waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage.”
Ethics Commission Regulation 3.234-4 further outlines the process for submitting and potentially approving post-employment waivers. The regulation specifies that the Commission “shall not approve any request for a waiver from the permanent or one-year bans made under subsection 3.234(c)(1) unless the Commission makes a finding that granting such a waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage.” When determining the granting of such a waiver would create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage, the regulation specifies that the Commission may consider:
- the nature and scope of the communications the individual will have with his or her former department, board, commission, office, or unit of government;
- the subject matter of such communications;
- the former position held by the officer or employee;
- the type of inside knowledge that the individual may possess; and
- any other factors the Commission deems relevant.
The Commission should consider granting a waiver only if it finds that the waiver “would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage” and would further the purposes of the C&GCC.
Waiver requests are evaluated based on the facts that are provided in the request. These facts allow the Commission to evaluate whether a waiver is appropriate and must therefore be complete and accurate. Any waiver that the Commission grants is limited to the facts provided, and, should the facts change, the requestor should seek an updated waiver from the Commission.
Facts Presented in the Request
In her waiver request, Ms. Riedel describes her work history, previous role with the City, and her current role as Managing Director of the Station Operations Center at SFO working for United. Ms. Riedel was previously the Director of the Airport Integrated Operations Center (AIOC) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) where she built and launched the AIOC as SFO’s centralized, 24/7 operations hub. Additionally, she was responsible for AIOC strategy, policy, and day-to-day oversight of operational conditions, mitigations, and issues across the Airport.
The work that necessitates the waiver request is serving as United’s primary liaison to federal and City agencies, specifically at SFO, which will include daily coordination with the AIOC on aircraft and passenger movement and, when needed, emergency or incident management. Ms. Riedel states that this coordination function is not unique to her or to United as every major carrier operating at the Airport maintains an operational point of contact to support the daily operations, responding to irregular operations, and coordinating on safety and emergency matters.
Should the Ethics Commission grant Ms. Riedel a waiver, she would be communicating with her former department, SFO, regarding operational and administrative matters. These communications will involve coordinating aircraft and passenger movement, sharing information for day-to-day operations, and participating in safety and emergency response coordination. Ms. Riedel has confirmed that these anticipated communications are administrative in nature and will not involve the awarding of contracts, leases, or similar agreements between United and the Airport.
Analysis
The Need for a Waiver to Perform the Duties Ms. Riedel Describes
Based on the facts presented in Ms. Riedel’s waiver request, Staff agrees that a waiver for the one-year post-employment communication ban would be beneficial for Ms. Riedel to carry out the described duties of her current position with United.
Based on the guidance from Ethics Commission Regulation 3.234-2, the one-year post-employment communication ban would apply to Ms. Riedel’s new duties at United, since:
- Ms. Riedel is a former City employee,
- With less than one year elapsed since terminating her employment with the City, and
- She would be communicating with her former department, SFO, with the possibility that those communications are intended to influence government decisions.
Ms. Riedel’s communications will largely involve routine requests for information and ministerial actions, which are exempt from the communication restriction. However, the administrative and operational matters she would be communicating about could regularly constitute attempts to influence government decisions, which would be prohibited. Therefore, Staff believe that a limited waiver tailored to the activities described in Ms. Riedel’s request would be appropriate.
Relevant Factors Regarding the Potential for Undue Influence or Unfair Advantage
As the Commission evaluates whether granting a wavier to Ms. Riedel would create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage, Regulation 3.234-4 identifies several factors the Commission may consider as part of its determination. These factors include: the nature and scope of the communications the individual will have, the subject matter of such communications, the former position held by the officer or employee, the type of inside knowledge that the individual may possess, and any other factors the Commission deems relevant. These factors are discussed below.
The nature, scope, and subject matter of the potential communications.
The primary purpose of the one-year communication prohibition is to prevent former City officials from leveraging their prior positions to get their foot in the door with the city or otherwise provide an unfair advantage to their new employers. In this instance, the request for potential communications involving Ms. Riedel originates from an operational function that is not unique to her or to United. Every major carrier operating at SFO maintains an operational point of contact that performs the duties described.
Moreover, these responsibilities are broad in scope and performed as a part of an established and structurally necessary operational function, rather than as means of advancing United’s potential interests before the City. To the extent Ms. Riedel’s communications would be used to influence a governmental decision, those decisions would be primarily operational and administrative. Ms. Riedel also confirms that the anticipated communications are not intended to influence discretionary City decisions, such as contract awards, lease terms, or procurement outcomes and as such, she is not requesting that her potential waiver extend to such matters. These circumstances mitigate the risk of undue influence, while supporting the approval of a narrowly tailored waiver that would allow Ms. Riedel to perform her new role.
Inside knowledge Ms. Riedel may possess.
Ms. Riedel has stated in her waiver request that she has spent nearly three decades in commercial aviation operations, with over 15 years at SFO. Although Ms. Riedel possesses significant knowledge of AIOC’s internal processes from her prior role as its Director, she has stated that this operational knowledge has been shared with the airline industry as a part of AIOC’s function of providing carriers with a common operational framework. This information is therefore not confidential or competitively sensitive and would not provide United with any undue advantage over other carriers. Additionally, Ms. Riedel’s knowledge of AIOC operations does not extend to contracting matters that are outside the scope of her waiver request.
Other factors that may be relevant.
United’s SOC Managing Director has been required to coordinate daily with the AIOC per the operational realities of a joint-use international airport. It did not arise from, nor is it contingent on, Ms. Riedel’s prior City employment. Additionally, the AIOC and United’s SOC both operate under close federal regulatory oversight, which further constrains the discretion either side has in day-to-day coordination.
Although Ms. Riedel began her new position with United on August 31, her waiver request states that she is aware of the one-year communication ban and will be limiting her communication with the Airport until the Ethics Commission makes a final determination regarding her waiver request.
Recommendation
The Commission is asked to consider the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage if a waiver were to be granted. Based on the facts provided, Staff do not see strong evidence that Ms. Riedel’s work and involvement in these communications would lead to either. The activity Ms. Riedel would like to engage in through her requested waiver is unlikely to give her current employer any undue influence or unfair advantage.
Staff recommend the Commission approve a limited waiver for Ms. Riedel. Such a waiver should be limited to only allow Ms. Riedel to participate in communications on behalf of her new employer, United, regarding the administrative and operational matters described in her waiver request as “solely regarding routine, day-to-day operational coordination and safety or emergency incident management, the ordinary functions of the SOC Managing Director role.” Such a waiver would not apply to any communications regarding contracts, leases, procurement, gate or facility allocations, rates and charges, or other matters in which United has a direct financial or competitive interest before the Airport.
Staff would like to thank Ms. Riedel for her detailed waiver request, thoughtful communications throughout this process, and service to the City.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Waiver Request from Nancy Byun Riedel Dated August 16, 2026
Attachment 2: Informal Advice Provided to Nancy Byun Riedel on August 12, 2026