Ethics Commission finds Planning director violated Sunshine Ordinance, orders remedies

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted July 28 to find Planning Director John Rahaim in non-willful violation of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance after a public hearing on a referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

The finding stems from a complaint by resident Micah Ringle that the Planning Department failed to provide requested records in a timely or complete manner during review of a proposed development at 480 Potrero Avenue. Ringle told the commission he repeatedly received incomplete CDs and said the department "was pushing the project forward while holding back the information" he needed to pursue administrative appeals and environmental review.

Jonas Ionin, Director of Commission Affairs for the Planning Department, told the commission the department "concur[s] with the chronology" in the Ethics Commission's staff report and asked commissioners to accept staff's recommendation that any violation be considered non-willful. Ionin said the department had conducted searches with the Department of Technology and was revising record-retention and search procedures.

After extended questioning about search terms, deleted email recovery and who supervises custodians of records, Commissioner Keane moved to find that the director "did not, without unreasonable delay, permit a public record to be inspected and examined" in violation of San Francisco Administrative Code, Sunshine Ordinance section 67.21(a). Keane amended the motion to add three remedies described in the commission's regulations: ordering the respondent to cease and desist and produce records, posting the commission's finding on the Ethics Commission website, and sending a warning letter to the respondent's appointing authority. Commissioner Andrews seconded the motion.

Members of the public urged a stronger finding: some speakers argued the conduct was willful and urged firmer sanctions. Ray Hartz, director of San Francisco Open Government, told commissioners that "if you're the head of the department... the buck stops at his desk." David Pilpel and other commenters offered differing views over whether the evidence supported a willful finding.

The commission voted unanimously to adopt the amended motion and directed staff to prepare a written order reflecting the commission's findings and the chosen remedies.

The commission also considered a separate charge that the Planning Department failed to "maintain records in a professional and businesslike manner" (San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.29-7(a)). After discussion and public comment, commissioners voted they did not have sufficient evidence to sustain that second charge.

Next steps: staff will draft a formal order reflecting the commission's findings and remedies. The order will be posted and transmitted per the commission's rules; the action does not itself impose monetary fines but directs remedial steps the commission can require under its regulations.