Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Director Recruitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs revisions to executive-director recruitment profile amid calls for stronger enforcement language
Summary
Public commenters and several commissioners urged the Ethics Commission to strengthen enforcement language and reconsider salary and timeline in the executive-director recruitment profile; commissioners agreed to revise the draft and aim to post the profile quickly but left timing flexible for further changes.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent the second major portion of its July 27 meeting discussing revisions to a revised recruitment profile for the commission's executive director, with public commenters pressing for stronger enforcement requirements, clearer legal-context language, and higher compensation ranges.
Several public speakers said the draft over-emphasized background information about the city and under-emphasized enforcement duties. "Enforcement has been one of the weaker areas," Larry Bush told commissioners, urging that enforcement be elevated among the top priorities and that the recruitment profile make clear the commission, not staff, sets policy. Haldegar Folio said the commission must "restore public confidence" and criticized the body for having "abdicated its authority to the deputy or the executive director." Rob VanRavensway recommended the profile explicitly outline the legal framework (charter, Governmental Conduct Code, campaign finance code, and FPPC responsibilities) so candidates understand the job's statutory context.
Several commenters and at least one former commissioner flagged the posted salary range as too low for the demands of the position in San Francisco. "If you're going to bring in somebody from outside of San Francisco and you're going to pay them $111,000, you're not going to get the kind of person that you're looking for," Larry Bush said; former Commissioner Bob Dockendorf said the salary should be revisited. Commissioners responded that human resources provided the current range but agreed to consider public suggestions and possible adjustments for exceptional candidates.
Commissioners debated whether to send the profile out quickly to attract candidates before the fall or to take more time to redraft. Chair Rennie said staff and the recruiting firm would incorporate public feedback and aimed to post the profile by Aug. 1 with a post-Labor Day cutoff for applications, but he left open additional time if commissioners wanted more substantive revisions. Commissioner Bonner and others urged improvements emphasizing enforcement, forensic or litigation experience, and clear lines of authority between the commission and staff.
Next steps: staff will revise the recruitment profile to reflect public feedback and commissioners' priorities (with an emphasis on enforcement and clearer legal-framework language) and will coordinate timing with the search committee and HR constraints; commissioners did not adopt a final text at the meeting.
