Ethics Commission questions Rec & Park's redaction of marina contact data, sends complaint back to Sunshine Task Force

The San Francisco Ethics Commission spent more than two hours on March 24 examining a Sunshine Ordinance complaint over the Recreation and Park Department's decision to redact street addresses and phone numbers from records for marina berth holders and people on a wait list.

Sarah Ballard, appearing for the department, told commissioners the names on the lists were published but that the department redacted phone numbers and addresses to protect "a constitutional right to privacy" and because the matter was also being addressed through a separate enforcement process. "We have a blanket rule that we do not share personal information," Ballard said, adding the department follows advice from the city attorney.

John Moran, the harbor master, said marina practice treats berth-holder contact information as private and necessary for safety and emergency contact. "Birthholders, when they give us their confidential information, assume that we're not going to be sharing that," Moran said.

Deputy City Attorney White told the commission that, on the record before them, the redaction was legally supportable under privacy case law and Public Records Act provisions that allow withholding where disclosure does not "shed light" on government operations. "It should not be disclosed in my view," counsel said.

Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and other public commenters disagreed. David Pilpel, a Task Force member, said he believed a violation occurred and that the contact information "should have been disclosed," though he did not view the record as showing willfulness. Several commissioners agreed the record lacked a clear written balancing analysis and emphasized that, under the Sunshine Ordinance, the government bears responsibility for articulating why it withheld specific information.

Commissioners debated two procedural paths: finding a non-willful violation against Recreation and Park's general manager (Phil Ginsberg) or remanding the referral so the Task Force can clarify the proper respondent and develop additional facts. A motion to find a non-willful violation and order disclosure was introduced and failed by roll call. The commission instead voted to refer the matter back to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force for further factual development and to address notice and respondent naming.

The commission did not make a final legal determination on whether the information must be disclosed; rather, it sought more precise documentation of the department's internal balancing and a cleaner record from the Task Force. Commissioners said that if the Task Force returns a perfected referral naming the correct respondent and with a fuller factual record, the commission will consider the substantive disclosure question again.

The Ethics Commission also moved into a closed session later in the meeting to discuss anticipated litigation and the McCutcheon v. FEC decision, and approved minor edits to the minutes before adjourning.

The referral back to the Task Force is the immediate procedural outcome; the broader legal question about when contact information such as addresses and phone numbers must be released under the Sunshine Ordinance and the Public Records Act remains open pending additional fact-finding.