Ethics commission deadlocks on finding that supervisor willfully ignored records request

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Dec. 19 declined to sustain a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force finding that a supervisor willfully failed to respond to an immediate disclosure request, after a 2-2 vote left the motion short of a majority.

Complainant Ray Hartz, director of San Francisco Open Government, told the commission he filed an immediate disclosure request (IDR) on March 19, 2015 and then spent more than a year seeking a response. He said the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force had found that the supervisor did not respond ‘‘in a timely and complete manner’’ and that the failure violated "section 67 21 E and 67 25 A of the Sunshine Ordinance." Hartz told commissioners the task force later concluded the office—————————————s lack of response was "willful," and he urged the Ethics Commission to sustain that finding and to find the supervisor guilty of official misconduct.

Angelina Yu, a legislative aide speaking for the supervisor, acknowledged procedural mishandling and said her office had implemented corrections. "There's not been a willful intent to violate the ordinance," Yu told the commission and asked it to find no willful violation.

Commissioners debated whether the task force record provided a full factual basis for a willful finding. Several members asked to review the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force hearing record and audio to clarify what the task force had before it when it made the willfulness determination. The staff lawyer advised commissioners that if the Ethics Commission were to make a willful finding its available remedies are limited under the ordinance to issuing a cease-and-desist order, posting a finding on the commission—————————————site, or sending a warning letter.

After discussion, a motion to sustain the task force———————————————————s willful finding was seconded and put to a roll call. The vote was recorded as 2 in favor and 2 opposed, so the motion did not carry and the Ethics Commission did not enter a willful-finding or impose sanctions at this meeting.

The split vote leaves the task force———————————————————s earlier determination intact for now and signals lingering disagreement among commissioners over whether the task force record establishes intent. Some commissioners said they wanted to hear or review the task force hearing recordings and the underlying submissions before taking a final appellate stance.

The Ethics Commission did not adopt further penalties at the Dec. 19 meeting; commissioners left open the possibility of revisiting the matter after reviewing additional record evidence.