Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: San Francisco Ethics Commission, Dec. 5, 2013
Summary
Summary of motions and outcomes from the Ethics Commission meeting: found no willful violation in the Library 150‑word summary referral (3A); no willful violation in the Rec & Park email referral (3B); found a timeliness violation by a Rec & Park records custodian (Gong); cleared DPW and SFMTA respondents on the items heard; found a violation of §67.22 against Arts Commission director Howard Lazar.
At its Dec. 5 session the San Francisco Ethics Commission took these formal actions:
• Agenda item 3A (complaint 03‑120402; Ray Hartz v. Luis Herrera): motion to find no willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance — approved. Commissioners noted ambiguity about whether paginated addenda satisfy the statutory phrase "in the minutes" and asked staff to recommend clarification and consistent practice. (Motion passed; source: hearing and vote.)
• Agenda item 3B (complaint 15‑111205; George Wooding v. Phil Ginsberg): motion that Phil Ginsberg did not willfully violate the cited Sunshine provisions — approved. Commissioners cited conflicting guidance about backup‑tape searches and the department’s retention policy when explaining their vote, and they directed staff to seek policy clarification. (Motion passed; source: hearing and vote.)
• Respondent Olive Gong (Rec & Park custodian): the commission found a failure to respond in a timely manner to a records request (Section 67.25) and instructed staff to issue a letter to the department about compliance and training; the failure was treated as a violation for which the commission asked the department to improve procedures.
• SFMTA matter (complaint 04‑120507; Caroline Salaya responding): commissioners acknowledged the agency conceded tardy production of some materials, found staff had been the appropriate point of contact for the personnel file, and directed a letter urging more timely compliance where appropriate.
• DPW matter (complaint 07‑120621): Department counsel presented voluminous documents and offered CDs and follow‑up; commissioners found no violation of the cited sections after reviewing the evidence.
• Arts Commission matter (complaint 09‑120703; William Clark v. Howard Lazar): the commission found a violation of Section 67.22 (failure to provide public information) but did not sustain other allegations, including the Task Force’s characterization of a willful pattern; staff were directed to prepare a written order and a letter describing the commission’s findings.
Staff were instructed to draft letters and formal orders where the commission found violations, and to organize follow‑up questions for the city attorney and the Sunshine Task Force about retention categories and backup‑tape search policy.
