Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Recology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff updates Commission on Recology settlement; city attorney materials to go to Board of Supervisors
Summary
Enforcement staff briefed the commission on a settlement with Recology over inflated rates tied to alleged gift-law violations and said the agreement requires Board approval; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen noted litigation constraints and that the settlement is separate from federal charges.
The Ethics Commission received an enforcement update on March 12 about a proposed settlement between the City and Recology San Francisco related to alleged inflated rates and violations of the city—s gift laws.
Enforcement Division lead Jeff Pierce summarized the City Attorney—s materials and said the settlement resolves "inflated collection rates that resulted from violations of the city's gift laws," but that the formal settlement document still requires Board of Supervisors approval. "The settlement that the city attorney reached resolved, inflated collection rates that, that resulted from violations of the city's gift laws," Pierce said.
Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen, who participated in negotiating the settlement, told commissioners he was constrained by confidentiality and attorney-client privilege about specifics but clarified the settlement is distinct from the U.S. Attorney's criminal complaint filed earlier. "This proposed settlement is separate and apart from the US Attorney's Complaint," Shen said, and he noted the materials and press release are available through the City Attorney's website.
Commissioners asked whether Recology would honor a proposed rate change effective April 1 regardless of final Board approval and pressed for a timeline. Shen said the settlement will be presented to the Board and that the Board—s approval process and public posting will make the agreement available for review; staff said they hope to move the settlement through the Board process "relatively quickly."
The commission discussed the constraints of parallel criminal investigations and administrative enforcement; staff said administrative follow-up may wait in some instances until other investigations conclude, but that the commission can pursue enforcement where appropriate. No final action on the settlement was taken by the Ethics Commission; the Board of Supervisors must still vote on the city attorney—s settlement.
