Ethics commissioners withdraw resolution after broad public defense of SFPUC official

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on a packed evening withdrew a proposed resolution to pursue further action against Juliet Ellis after dozens of community leaders and residents urged the panel to close a case they said had already been settled.

The meeting opened with remarks from Harlan Kelly, general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, who said the PUC had conducted an "exhaustive and independent PUC investigation" and that a joint settlement with the Fair Political Practices Commission had been reached in January 2014. He told commissioners the matter had been concluded and asked that the commission not revisit personnel discipline.

Community leaders then filled the public-comment period. Elected officials and a long list of civic and neighborhood leaders — including Supervisor John Avalos, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Reverend Amos Brown, Van Jones and Fred Blackwell — described Ellis's record on environmental justice, community benefits and jobs programs, said she had acknowledged and paid a fine, and urged the commission to reject reopening the case. Many speakers framed the episode as damaging to efforts to recruit and retain people of color in city service; others called the proceedings a racially motivated "witch hunt."

Commissioner Keane, who had introduced the resolution earlier in the meeting, reviewed the commission's earlier stipulation finding violations and the PUC's decision not to terminate Ellis. After listening to the public testimony, Keane said she would withdraw the specific resolution seeking further action. The chair confirmed the withdrawal and said the commission would keep a separate, policy-level discussion on its agenda to consider how settlements and stipulations should be handled in the future so that negotiated agreements remain reliable.

Commissioners and staff signaled that the commission did not take the withdrawal as ending the policy conversation: staff recommended clarifying future stipulated orders so respondents understand what the stipulation encompasses, and commissioners discussed whether settlement language should explicitly recommend or require follow-up by appointing authorities. No vote to terminate employment or to reopen the prior stipulation occurred at the meeting.

What happens next: The specific resolution was withdrawn and no disciplinary action was adopted by the Ethics Commission at the meeting. The commission said it would retain a policy discussion about settlement agreements on a future agenda to craft clearer language and avoid similar disputes in the future.