Ethics Commission Denies Waiver for Arts Commissioner Architect

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on an unanimous voice vote denied a request from architect Cass Smith to waive conflict-of-interest restrictions that would allow his firm to be solicited for certain city design projects while he remains one of two architect seats on the Arts Commission.

Cass Smith, the applicant and a principal at CCS Architecture, told the commission he has served roughly four years on the Arts Commission and would recuse himself from any matter where his firm sought work. Smith said his firm is a 15-person practice and that he owns about 75 percent, placing him above the 20 percent ownership threshold cited in the code. “I would recuse myself on the commission from reviewing and voting on any of those projects,” Smith said.

Commissioners questioned the timing of Smith’s request and whether the mayor could have appointed another qualified architect to satisfy the charter requirement that two architects serve on the Arts Commission. Several commissioners said waiver requests historically have been made for post‑employment circumstances and that the waiver type Smith sought — remaining on a city commission while permitting the firm to pursue city contracts — is unusual. One commissioner said the commission was inclined to deny “absent a showing that that position couldn’t be filled without somebody asking for a waiver.”

Ray Hartz, Director of San Francisco Open Government, urged the commission to consider past conduct by Smith at Arts Commission meetings and whether that bears on whether he should remain; Hartz told commissioners they should “go back and review those comments” and noted he believed Smith had not apologized for prior abusive remarks to a member of the public. The commission discussed those allegations but treated them as separate from the narrow waiver question.

A motion to deny the waiver was made and seconded; the commission voted in favor and the motion passed. After the vote Cass Smith said he would “stay on” the commission.

The commission’s action was procedural under the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section referenced in the staff memo; the commission did not adopt any new ordinance or modify charter language. The record shows the request and the denial will be part of meeting minutes and the applicant’s request and staff memo remain on file.