Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge San Francisco Ethics Commission to act on District 3 third‑party spending complaint
Summary
At the Aug. 24 Ethics Commission meeting, multiple residents urged staff to investigate an Aug. 13 complaint alleging undisclosed third‑party spending by the San Francisco Alliance for Jobs and related groups in the District 3 supervisorial race, citing a poll and vendor payments that they say were not reported.
At the San Francisco Ethics Commissionmeeting Aug. 24, several District 3 residents urged commissioners to promptly investigate a complaint alleging undisclosed third‑party spending in the upcoming supervisorial race.
Kathleen Courtney, who identified herself as a District 3 resident of 1158 Green Street, described receiving a 15–20 minute political survey on June 28 that, she said, used scripted descriptions of candidates and asked whether she lived in District 3. Courtney said the survey language suggested the callers were aware of the candidate field and asked the commission to take "action on this complaint."
Amy Farro Weiss, founder and director of Neighbors Developing Divisadero, told commissioners the public wants the commission to address allegations tied to the mayoral campaign and other past practices before absentee ballots go out. Vedika Puri, another District 3 resident, said the complaint alleges the San Francisco Alliance for Jobs and a related PAC made independent expenditures favoring supervisor Julie Christiansen and opposing Aaron Peskin and said a July 31 semi‑annual filing lists a $13,500 payment to Tremolta Advisors for consulting that, she said, is not listed on the citycampaign consultant registry.
Larry Bush, who identified himself at the meeting, said the commission's rules require staff to acknowledge every filed complaint and said his understanding was that complainant Eileen Hansen had not yet received that acknowledgement after filing on Aug. 13. Multiple public speakers said a timely staff response is important so affected campaigns can respond or raise funds competitively.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly cautioned members of the public not to discuss confidential investigative details at an open meeting. The city attorneyand staff also reminded the room that certain enforcement steps and investigations are confidential under the charter and regulations, although commissioners asked staff to follow up on procedural questions raised by commenters.
No formal enforcement action or public vote on the complaint took place at the meeting; public commenters requested that staff investigate and provide the standard acknowledgment to the complainant. The commission later moved into closed session to consider enforcement matters (see separate coverage of the closed‑session vote).
