Ethics Commission finds no Sunshine Ordinance violation for withheld email after in‑camera review

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to find no violation of San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance after an in‑camera review of an email withheld by staff. Chair Rennie introduced the continued item and commissioners reviewed a City Attorney memo explaining why the commission could examine the email in camera.

A commissioner who examined the email recommended the commission find no violation of Section 67.21(b), noting Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1041 support attorney‑client and work‑product privileges. The recommendation was seconded and the commission adopted it without recorded opposition, with the chair stating the motion carried 4–0.

During public comment, David Pilpelt (speaking as an individual) told the commission he questioned whether the procedural triggers to hear the Chapter 3 complaint had been satisfied and urged greater transparency. Pilpelt asked the commission either to waive privilege for the City Attorney memo or to ask that it be redrafted in a form that could be released to the public so citizens could see the legal reasoning used for in‑camera review. Friends of Ethics representative Larry Bush similarly requested that the commission seek an opinion that could be made public.

Commissioners said the City Attorney’s memo supported in‑camera review and, on that basis, recommended finding no violation of Section 67.21(b). The motion to adopt the recommendation passed 4–0. The commission did not adopt a motion to publish the in‑camera memo during the meeting; public commenters who asked for disclosure said they would press for more public explanation at the June meeting when related matters return to the agenda.

Next steps: the continued matter tied to Complaint No. 03-150127 remains on the June 5 calendar for additional materials staff indicated they would provide.