Ethics Commission roundup: minutes, three complaint outcomes, staffing updates and move to closed session

At its Nov. 28 meeting the San Francisco Ethics Commission handled a mix of administrative and enforcement items, approving minutes, voting on several complaints and discussing staffing and enforcement workload.

Early in the meeting the commission adopted draft minutes from its Oct. 17 special meeting (adopted 3–0). The body later considered multiple complaints: in addition to the matter involving Planning indices (Complaint No. 316,621), the commission accepted staff recommendations on two other matters. It found it lacked jurisdiction or otherwise could not act on the Trebeau v. Barbara Sklar complaint (statute-of-limitations/timeliness issues) and voted to accept staff’s recommendation on Alvin Johnson v. Board of Supervisors, finding no willful Sunshine Ordinance violation after staff determined the Board had responded to voluminous records requests (though not always within ten days) and invoked the narrow application of a 'rule of reason' for closely timed requests. Recorded roll-call tallies for the complaints were unanimous in favor of staff recommendations (4–0 where votes were taken).

Staff from the Education and Compliance Division presented an infographic summarizing 2016 campaign-finance activity, noting a sharp increase in electronically filed statements and heavy independent-expenditure activity during the election. Staff flagged outreach around Prop T for stakeholders; Prop T becomes operative Jan. 1, 2018.

Executive Director Pelham announced front-office hiring (Jacqueline Hickey) and noted investigator turnover, including an investigator who left to resume private practice; three investigator/legal-analyst recruitments recently closed and staff expect candidates early next year to help address an elevated caseload (Jessica Bloom reported 89 matters in preliminary review). Commissioners discussed triage and use of deputy director/staff assistance while hiring continues.

On enforcement oversight the commission debated confidentiality rules and whether the commission should require time limits when deferring investigations at the District Attorney’s request. Commissioners voted to assert attorney–client privilege and meet in closed session with the city attorney to discuss the status and prioritization of enforcement matters.

The meeting concluded after a request from Commissioner Cobb to investigate a No-on-DHL-and-M campaign committee’s fundraising and management activities, including whether campaign consultants were properly registered and whether required filings (Form 700) were made; members asked staff to follow up. The commission adjourned.