San Francisco Ethics Commission discusses whistleblower protection and investigation transparency

The San Francisco Ethics Commission convened on July 11, 2025, to discuss key issues surrounding the confidentiality of investigative complaints and the handling of whistleblower retaliation claims. The meeting began with a detailed explanation of the commission's confidentiality provisions, emphasizing that the charter mandates the protection of investigative records, including complaints.

A representative from the commission addressed concerns regarding the transparency of the investigative process, stating that while the actual complaints cannot be disclosed, respondents are informed about the nature and scope of investigations. This practice is intended to ensure that respondents can engage meaningfully with the process, which the commission believes has led to successful outcomes in their investigations.

The representative highlighted the importance of confidentiality in protecting whistleblowers and complainants, asserting that maintaining anonymity fosters trust and encourages individuals to report violations without fear of retaliation. They noted that other jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles and San Diego, also uphold similar confidentiality standards, reinforcing the rationale behind their practices.

The discussion shifted to the issue of whistleblower retaliation claims, with Dr. Derek Kerr, a whistleblower, presenting public comments. He criticized the commission's record on sustaining retaliation claims, stating that over 30 years, not a single claim had been upheld. Dr. Kerr referenced a benchmark report indicating that other programs sustain retaliation claims at rates between 16% and 23%. He urged the commission to enhance transparency regarding these investigations, suggesting that a standalone summary of retaliation claims would prevent the concealment of their dismissal.

Following Dr. Kerr's comments, the commission opened the floor for additional public input. Jim Stutton, a caller, expressed appreciation for the staff's efforts to update enforcement regulations but suggested that certain policy issues should be discussed separately from technical updates.

The meeting concluded without any immediate actions taken, but the commission expressed a desire to continue gathering public feedback on these critical issues. The discussions underscored the ongoing challenges of balancing confidentiality with the need for transparency in the handling of whistleblower cases and the commission's commitment to improving its processes.