Ethics commission declines to find Sunshine Ordinance violation in Park Merced referral

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to find that four members of the Board of Supervisors did not violate the city’s Sunshine Ordinance in connection with amendments to the Park Merced development agreement.

Commissioners voted after hearing from Judson True, a legislative aide for Supervisor David Chiu, who represented the supervisors at the hearing. True told the commission he and others distributed copies of the 14‑page proposed amendments at the committee meeting and that city attorneys advised the committee’s actions were within the scope of the noticed hearing. “I personally had copies, dozens and dozens of copies of the changes… and I believe I might have gone and made additional copies,” True said during his presentation.

Members of the public sharply disputed that account at length. Ray Hartz, director of San Francisco Open Government, urged the commission to point to specific actions it had taken to improve public access and criticized the commission’s track record on Sunshine Task Force referrals. “I would challenge any member of this ethics commission or its staff to point out examples of actions taken… which would make city government more open,” Hartz said during public comment.

Others pointed to the size of the materials and the time given for public review. Peter Warfield of the Library Users Association noted the difference between a two‑page summary and the 14 pages of amendments and asked whether the commission had followed up with the mayor about prior recommendations.

Commissioners debated whether the 14 pages were “substantive” in a legal sense or whether they substantively changed the broad topic described in the special‑meeting notice — a distinction central to state and local notice requirements. One commissioner summarized the legal question as whether the amendments “fit within the agenda item” rather than whether they were substantive in isolation.

After deliberation, the commission approved a motion finding no violation. The formal motion passed with recorded 'Aye' votes and the chair thanked participants for their comments. The record shows the commission declined to adopt a finding of willful or non‑willful violation on the Park Merced referral.

The commission’s action closes this chapter of the referral at the commission level; the public record includes strong disagreement about whether the public had adequate notice and time to review the full text of the changes. The commission moved on to consider draft regulations on how it handles Sunshine Ordinance referrals.