Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Grand Jury Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Ethics Commission accepts many civil grand jury recommendations, agrees more study and new enforcement steps
Summary
At a special meeting, the San Francisco Ethics Commission revised its draft responses to the 2013–14 civil grand jury report, agreeing the commission lacks sufficient resources, approving an independent‑audit recommendation for certain campaign contribution issues, directing staff to seek language access and searchable filings, and voting to recommend discipline for Form 700 non‑filers.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission on Aug. 26 held a special session to consider responses to the 2013–14 civil grand jury report on ethics in city government, and approved a series of amendments that commissioners said were intended to increase transparency and enforcement.
Commissioners opened by taking public comment from several watchdog groups and grand jury members, who described the report as comprehensive and urged the Commission to accept its key findings. Elena Schmidt, foreperson of the 2013–14 civil grand jury, told the panel that the jury had found responsibility for ethics enforcement dispersed among multiple offices — creating gaps in accountability — and recommended clearer roles and stronger coordination among the Ethics Commission, the mayor, the city attorney and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.
The Commission voted unanimously to revise its response to the jury’s Finding 1A to say it "agrees" that the Ethics Commission lacks sufficient resources to carry out its work, including major enforcement cases. Commissioners framed the change as both a public acknowledgement and a tool for future budget requests.
On alleged returns of improper campaign contributions, the grand jury urged an independent audit. After questioning from commissioners and public commenters, the Commission replaced the draft response with language stating that, "to the extent the Commission is not aware of improper campaign contributions, it recommends the Board of Supervisors request an independent audit by the City Attorney" and approved that amendment.
Commissioners also agreed to investigate recommendation 3, which asked whether expanding a private right of action would improve enforcement, and directed staff to analyze whether an enhanced private right of action should be recommended to the Board of Supervisors.
The meeting addressed technical transparency items as well. Information‑technology staff explained that Form 700 (statements of economic interest) electronic filings currently use vendor‑specific schemas (NetFile, SouthTech) and that the state is developing a common format; the Commission set a date to revisit the searchable‑data question early in 2015 to avoid delay. The panel also amended its draft to recommend that city departments convert and post official calendars in electronic form.
Language access was another substantive outcome: after debate about cost and scope, the Commission voted to provide key guidance and educational materials in three major languages used in San Francisco — Spanish, Mandarin and Tagalog — following a proposal to phase translations for high‑value guides.
In a significant enforcement‑oriented motion, the Commission adopted a policy to press appointing authorities when public officials or employees fail to file required Form 700 disclosures. Commissioners moved that staff notify the appropriate appointing authority when a filer remains delinquent 90 days after the deadline, and that the Commission recommend suspension (rather than immediate dismissal) if the statement remains unfiled after the notice period. Advocates at the meeting said such recommendations tend to prompt faster compliance.
The Commission agreed to place a future agenda item to analyze Proposition J (the voter measure formerly addressing conflicts tied to public assets) and Proposition E (the subsequent ballot measure), comparing what elements of Prop J were omitted from Prop E and whether any of those provisions should be proposed again in a constitutionally tailored form. Commissioners also voted to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of San Francisco’s ethics laws.
The meeting included extensive public comment — from grand jury members, former task force and commission members, and open‑government advocates — and numerous line‑by‑line edits to the Commission’s draft responses. Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized limited staffing and budget constraints while endorsing steps to improve coordination, disclosure and enforcement tools.
The Commission adjourned after thanking the grand jury for its work and instructing staff to prepare the revised responses for filing with the presiding judge as required under Penal Code section 933.05. The specific edits approved at the meeting will be reflected in the formal written responses the Commission submits to the court.
