San Francisco Ethics Commission forwards amended findings on sheriff misconduct to Board amid disputes over wording and counsel

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted to approve amended findings of fact and to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning official-misconduct matters tied to a Dec. 31 incident and the sheriff's subsequent conviction.

Chair Herr, reading the Charter, told commissioners the Commission’s formal role is ‘‘to decide whether or not to sustain those charges’’ and that the Charter ‘‘clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office.’’ That legal constraint framed much of the debate over whether the Commission should also recommend a penalty to the Board.

Commissioner Hahn told the panel she wanted her personal view recorded. ‘‘My own view is that, based on our findings, the appropriate punishment should be removal from office,’’ Hahn said, and the Commission agreed to include a one-sentence concurring statement to that effect in the record.

The Commission approved several specific edits to the draft order, including language placing the Commission’s assessment that ‘‘the evidence contained in Ms. Lopez’s video was more credible’’ into the majority discussion rather than the formal findings of fact; a sentence noting that the court imposed a sentence consistent with the March plea agreement as reflected in paragraph 31 of the amended charges; and a minor edit naming Chief of Police William Lansdowne among cross-examined witnesses. The paragraph 31 language, read aloud during the meeting, describes the stipulated sentence as three years’ probation under the San Francisco Adult Probation Department, one day in county jail with credit for time served, 100 hours of community service, 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling (Penal Code section 1203.097), a $400 fine and possible parenting classes.

Several commissioners and outside counsel cautioned against adding new factual justifications that had not been addressed at the original hearing; others argued the majority was entitled to explain why it reached its conclusion. Outside counsel Mr. Emblidge said he could ‘‘report to the Board what this commission did and what findings it made’’ in a neutral presentation, but Mr. Wagner objected to having Emblidge present the Commission’s position to the Board, citing a perception-of-conflict because Emblidge has provided legal advice to both the Commission and to the Board’s counsel previously. Wagner called the draft ‘‘very one-sided’’ and pressed for clearer language that the Commission rejected several of the mayor’s original allegations and had not sustained all counts as charged.

After discussing options — including having the Director present or another commissioner speak — the Commission agreed that Chair Herr would make the presentation to the Board. Mayor’s counsel indicated no objection to that plan.

Public commenters addressed the Commission before the vote. Patrick Menetshaw said the Commission’s summary ‘‘rewrites rather than reports’’ the August proceedings; other speakers urged the Commission to delay forwarding the record until after an upcoming election and criticized perceived political motivations in the process.

A motion to approve the amended findings and the identified minutes was made, seconded and approved. The Chair said she had received a formal request to delay delivering the record to the Board; she said she would decide that procedural request forthwith or calendar it for a future meeting. The order and the accompanying record will be presented to the Board of Supervisors, which will decide whether to sustain the Commission’s recommendation and, if applicable under the Charter, take any removal action.