Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Commission Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors hear that Ethics Commission lacks investigators and staffing to meet mandates
Summary
A long hearing highlighted the Ethics Commission’s understaffing and limited investigative capacity; the director asked for five additional positions and civil grand jury and public commenters urged more proactive enforcement.
The Board committee devoted more than an hour to an in-depth review of the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s ability to meet its charter duties. John St. Croix, the commission’s executive director, told supervisors the office has grown from eight to about 15 funded staff but still lacks capacity for proactive enforcement. He said the commission requested five additional staff in its budget proposal, including two investigators, as part of a plan to expand to 31 positions over five years.
St. Croix described the practical and legal obstacles that limit investigations: finding qualified investigators (often requiring law degrees), the cost of depositions and subpoenas, and competing deadlines that force the office to prioritize filings-driven work (audits, campaign filings) over investigative follow-up. He said investigators are currently handling approximately 40 active matters and that investigation staff had recently increased to three, with one investigator new to the team.
Mary McAllister, foreperson of the 2004–2005 civil grand jury, summarized the grand jury’s report that criticized the commission’s reliance on complaint-driven investigations and chronic understaffing; she warned that a complaint-driven model risks politicization because only matters that motivate complainants get addressed.
More than a dozen public commenters from advocacy groups, labor unions and community organizations urged the Board to increase resources, expand proactive audits (including lobbyist registration enforcement), and make ethics work more transparent (several speakers asked that the Ethics Commission’s meetings be televised). Several witnesses gave examples of complaints not being promptly investigated and urged that resources be directed to investigators and case management.
Supervisors pressed on priorities and implementation: whether increased staffing would produce more enforcement revenue, the role of technology (electronic filing), use of temporary help during election cycles, and partnerships with the City Attorney and universities to fill capacity gaps. Committee members described the issue as a budgetary and policy priority to be taken into upcoming budget deliberations.
The hearing closed with the committee thanking presenters and the public; next steps include staff and supervisors’ follow‑up during budget development and potential legislative proposals to strengthen investigative capacity and enforcement tools.
