Ethics Commission Sets Hearing Procedures, Tables Some Deadlines in William Walker Case

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on April 11 resolved multiple preliminary procedural matters needed to move the enforcement case involving William Walker to an administrative hearing while tabling some deadline and presiding-assignment items to a future meeting.

Bertha Chang, senior investigator and legal analyst with the Enforcement Division, told the commission the case contains six counts: five counts alleging failures related to committee formation and reporting, and a sixth count alleging failure to furnish documents and information to the commission. The commission had previously ratified probable cause on March 20, 2025, advancing the matter toward an administrative hearing.

The enforcement division recommended a set of preliminary procedures modeled on a prior case (Paul Allen Taylor). Those recommendations included appointing an assigned commissioner to hear preliminary motions, setting a 30/15/10-day timetable (30 days to file motions, 15 days for responses, 10 days for replies), requiring motions to be submitted via email to the assigned presiding commissioner, and a process for the full commission to review disputed procedural rulings. The division also recommended that if the entire commission presides on the merits, the Enforcement Director submit a proposed order and hearing brief for the commission to deliberate and adopt as appropriate.

Commissioners agreed with several recommendations but chose to table votes on three items — chiefly the identity of the assigned commissioner for preliminary matters and certain submission details — to permit the possible volunteer (Commissioner Salahi) to confirm his availability at the next meeting. The commission voted to accept items concerning review procedures and the full commission presiding over the merits, and to align the process for issuance of final findings and orders with past practice (the office will draft a proposed order; the commission will deliberate and adopt as form requires). The commission’s motion on the set of agreed items passed unanimously.

Public commenters urged staff and commissioners to consider reciprocal communication methods (email plus mail) for parties in the hearing, and asked the commission to consider accommodations where email is not reliable for a party. Enforcement staff said they typically use email but will work with parties if an accommodation is required. Commissioners instructed staff to return with any accommodation determinations and to clarify the reciprocal communications approach when the outstanding items are resolved.