Ethics Commission defends its Brown Act actions after public complaints

The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent the start of its May meeting addressing public complaints and press coverage about the commission's April decision to send a recusal letter to a planning commissioner. Public commenter Larry Bush of Friends of Ethics urged Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen to explain why the commission acted without the item appearing on the Planning Commission agenda and asked whether Shen would amend or retract public advice now cited in formal complaints.

Chair Keane framed the April action as an exigent ethics matter that could not wait because a vote was scheduled three days later. He said the commission unanimously agreed the planning commissioner should recuse herself and that the commission took two procedural actions before sending the recusal letter. "We did not violate the Brown Act," Keane told the room, adding that he has filed written responses to complaints with the district attorney and the attorney general and expects to testify before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Commissioners and public commenters debated whether the commission had made the specific Brown Act findings required for acting on a non-agendized matter. Public commenters and at least one commissioner pressed staff for a review of the recording and minutes to ensure the record accurately reflects whether there were one or two votes on the matter; the chair said the record shows two actions and asked staff to ensure the minutes reflect that sequence.

The commission directed staff to compile relevant records and affirmed it will defend its process. No new formal discipline or policy changes were adopted at the meeting; Chair Keane said the commission will continue its responses to the complaints and provide testimony to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force as the next procedural step.