Ethics Commission adopts new guidance for Sunshine Task Force referrals and authorized representatives

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Wednesday adopted updated policies to guide how Sunshine Ordinance Task Force referrals come to the commission, aiming to reduce procedural confusion and improve fairness to departments and complainants.

Staff and Task Force representatives presented several options for three discrete problems: (1) inconsistent referral letters and whether the commission should defer to Task Force determinations, (2) whether and how to hold department heads responsible for non-willful violations when staff actions suggest weak internal compliance, and (3) standards for what counts as an adequate authorized representative at a Task Force hearing.

Task Force counsel and members explained that complaints often arrive with limited detail and that the Task Force engages in staged fact-finding and notice before referrals. Mr. Hepner, who drafted the Task Force memorandum, and Member Washburn said the Task Force has reconstituted earlier complaint intake procedures to clarify issues and identify proper respondents. Deputy Executive Director Jesse Menardi told the commission staff preferred a deference model in many chapter 2 matters but conditioned on clear evidence that respondents received notice and had an opportunity to respond.

Public testimony supported the staff'Task Force concerns about notice. Diana Christensen, custodian of records for the Human Services Agency, said her office handled 125 Sunshine requests that year and described repeated hearings in which the respondent was unclear or misidentified: "Complaints have gone forward initially with as little information to the Human Services Agency ... it's not always clear who they're against, and that that information changes over the course of the testimony," she said.

After discussion, the commission adopted the following actions: for Issue 1, the commission adopted staff Option 3 as amended to require that Task Force referral letters explicitly state the notice provided (who was notified, when, and of what allegations) so the Ethics Commission can rely on the Task Force record when appropriate. For Issue 2 the commission adopted a package of options (2, 3 as amended, and 4) to provide more flexibility in finding non-willful violations and to allow findings against departments when no responsible individual can be identified. For Issue 3 the commission adopted an amendment requiring respondents to make a good-faith effort to send a knowledgeable representative prepared to respond to the allegations summarized in the Task Force memorandum.

Commissioners said the changes aim to improve fairness and administrative clarity while preserving the commission's discretion. Staff noted the Task Force will include more explicit information on notice and complaint history in referral packets, and the Task Force said it is building a complaint-history form to provide a consistent record for referrals.

The adopted policies are intended to shorten hearings based on misdirected allegations, ensure respondents can meaningfully address claims, and, where necessary, allow findings against departments if no individual is identifiable. The commission voted on the measures by voice; motions carried as recorded in the meeting minutes.

Next steps: staff will update referral templates and work with the Task Force on the complaint-history form to ensure referral letters include evidence of notice and respondent opportunity to respond.