[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6542781,"mediaKeyId","5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac","parentId",5020048,"title","San Francisco Ethics Commission proposes cutting or rewriting four low-performing programs; asks supervisors to drop trustee-election filings","audioSeconds",2873,"startMs",567000,"endMs",3440000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac&start=567&end=3440","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac/thumbnail_567000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6542781/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/San-Francisco-Ethics-Commission-proposes-cutting-or-rewriting-four-low-performing-programs-asks-supervisors-to-drop-trustee-election-filings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542781-4410a9605bc18bc72d270fe9c931f55c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149433&Signature=gJE9mJP2Jc0b18JxYY3EAN40I88tjCluoZfQaqDMZzEie1euLzkahn1bBjA53PlDdkKsePjGcHcAcwQX0PsW6-rXKQ2SDXe99pKo0ErG534MyGQJ29U0v~kfcRo20wmDbYSmTS1hrmp-uCm1pRRFeslhmccNfQfffMKtTBahEb5uXqVH9bRDyf4ReDNOKYJ4lNdOzyzwvxHBENC4OxcnNThaON5PNGMObfRCZ718Zplz-LTnrhpZXd5n9as24bIGH2yk~GdYrl33XU2dEb-L0ilQykD7U8qg8WPqhdfdcjwkgdhiknYMiCLd5WFLAYQxyAbuhuTd81teoj1vb11cvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-06-13T00:00:00Z","article","San Francisco — At its June 13 meeting the San Francisco Ethics Commission reviewed staff recommendations to scale back or eliminate four programs it says provide limited public benefit while consuming staff time: the Major Developers registration and reporting program, the Campaign Consultant registration program, the supplemental recusal notification requirement for local boards and commissions, and the trustee-election disclosure regime for certain retirement and benefit boards.

The commission’s policy and legislative affairs manager, Michael Canning, and senior policy research specialist Ryan Abusa presented findings from an internal review and two interested‑persons meetings. Staff said the Major Developers program collects retroactive reports that often arrive after city officers have already met with nonprofits that received developer donations, that the $1,000,000 project threshold is likely low given local market conditions, and that 47% of filings disclose no donations. Staff recommended eliminating the program’s registration and reporting components and instead relying on established lobbyist rules to address paid advocacy.

Canning said the Campaign Consultant program — created after Proposition G (1997) to increase transparency around consultant relationships — duplicates information available through candidate campaign statements and other public datasets, creates administrative burden and confusion, and uses a $1,000 threshold that casts too wide a net. Staff recommended removing the registration and reporting requirements while keeping the prohibition against consultants lobbying their former or current clients.

On the supplemental recusal notification — a separate filing required after a board or commission member recuses — staff found the information is already disclosed at public meetings and in minutes, creating unnecessary work for volunteer commissioners and staff. The recommendation is to eliminate the separate supplemental recusal filing while leaving in place the statutory recusal rules that require a commissioner to announce the reason at the meeting and leave the room during discussion.

Ryan Abusa outlined trustee‑election disclosure rules that apply to three benefit boards whose trustees are elected by current and former city employees. Staff found very little activity under the trustee disclosure program: since 2018 only seven candidates ever registered and only one reported raising funds (about $78.60). Staff said requiring candidates — often career city employees or retirees who raise little or no money — to open campaign bank accounts and maintain ongoing filings imposes disproportionate burdens and yields minimal public benefit. Staff recommended eliminating the trustee‑candidate filing requirement and said a formal communication to the Board of Supervisors would be the appropriate next step because the trustee rules are codified in the Administrative Code.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about the interested‑persons feedback and whether programs could be fixed rather than eliminated. Canning and Abusa said they had heard little support for maintaining the current programs in their present form during outreach to treasurers, consultants, trustee boards and other stakeholders.

After discussion the commission voted unanimously to authorize Chair Flores Fang to sign a letter, with the executive director, requesting that the Board of Supervisors pursue discontinuing the trustee election reporting requirements in the Administrative Code. The vote was recorded as four yes votes from the commissioners present.

The staff presentation and discussion will inform draft legislation the commission and city attorney’s office will prepare; any code changes would still require Board of Supervisors action.

Sources and next steps: staff said it will work with the city attorney to draft ordinance language to repeal or amend the affected code sections and bring that draft back to the commission for additional review and a possible referral to the Board of Supervisors.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jun 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its June 13 meeting the San Francisco Ethics Commission reviewed staff recommendations to scale back or eliminate four programs it says provide limited public benefit while consuming staff time.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6542771,"Ethics Commission hears show‑cause case over SFPD’s ALPR map; tables decision and requests City Attorney memo",460,5520000,5980000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac&start=5520&end=5980","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac/thumbnail_5520000.jpg","/articles/6542771/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Ethics-Commission-hears-showcause-case-over-SFPDs-ALPR-map-tables-decision-and-requests-City-Attorney-memo","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542771-f5d9646e72854e5cdd587ad03aeaeee4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149433&Signature=kviEdzxdxV3oY0FVfMIO35WTrvrTJuoYRAjA90hDvbYUqX4y2Kv7QVpej1rcx-ov2E-5pVTDN6Knk-M4geBG56dWW864dS5UxwMVJY7pQEpXpz1gwH2ffkDJPhGcq6vyvo7f-4D6FYblcwqS1pyNygax66FJTEFOPwGgTIXYjijBeFRo8AGF9vkwJGLGu4L78mP7d0aGs1TTMAdT7EGblDAGHE2Y~QiCXUWEmC518hprhLuR5Kfo30KxEl1ueFGe4dhNDNloTXETr~87MG67qeRntn6mv~v7PoYmOQQKYa5Qn52HeiEsbPKgh~CY93NW~mWy5M4pITVqpX8fDLC~iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — The Ethics Commission held a show‑cause hearing on June 13 over a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTIF) referral seeking enforcement of a SOTIF order that the San Francisco Police Department provide a compiled map showing the locations of city automated license‑plate‑reader (ALPR) cameras. After hearing arguments and testimony from the petitioner and the department, the commission voted to table further action and asked staff to obtain a legal briefing from the City Attorney clarifying the commission’s authority and remedies.

Petitioner Matthew Lutoke (listed in the referral) told the commission that SOTIF issued an order of determination on Oct. 2, 2024 and that Chief William Scott acknowledged receipt of the order in a letter dated Oct. 29, 2024. Lutoke argued Chief Scott’s written acknowledgement plus an explicit statement declining to release the map constituted a willful failure to comply with a SOTIF order. He asked the commission to treat the matter as a willful violation by a department head and begin enforcement proceedings, saying a finding of official misconduct would serve government transparency even if the commission could not impose monetary penalties.

The Police Department, represented at the hearing by Lieutenant Jonathan Ozil, countered that disclosure of a compiled ALPR site map would reveal investigative techniques, create vulnerabilities to vandalism, and endanger law enforcement personnel. The department asserted statutory exemptions and privileges, citing state and local provisions (e.g., asserted exemptions under the Administrative Code and certain Government Code and evidence code privileges that staff and the department referenced during the hearing) and said the information is sensitive security and IT infrastructure information. Lieutenant Ozil and department counsel reiterated the department’s view that the task force’s order was incorrect and that the department would withhold the map under a claimed privilege.

B. C. Matthews, the commission’s director of enforcement, explained the commission’s enforcement regulations allow a show‑cause process on SOTIF referrals but noted the Commission’s authority to impose remedies is constrained by charter and administrative code provisions. Matthews and enforcement staff confirmed the enforcement division had provided the parties with hearing briefs and exhibits in advance and that the parties had agreed to schedule the merits hearing for July 11, 2025, if the matter proceeds.

After question and answer and public comment (including a statement from a SOTIF member by phone indicating the task force found the records public and should be disclosed), commissioners discussed the statutory framework and whether a SOTIF order itself is sufficient to support a finding of official misconduct under the Commission’s enforcement rules. Commissioners expressed concern about relitigating underlying statutory exemptions and about proceeding without additional legal analysis clarifying (1) whether the Commission can treat failure to comply with a SOTIF order as a separate basis for enforcement, and (2) what remedies the Commission may lawfully order if a willful violation is found.

The commission voted unanimously to table the matter and to request a memorandum from the City Attorney that explains the commission’s authority regarding (a) whether violation of a SOTIF order may be treated as a willful Sunshine Ordinance violation, (b) the practical legal remedies available if a willful violation is found, and (c) whether superior court action by the requester would supplant or affect the Commission’s handling of the case. The motion to table also requested that staff solicit a SOTIF representative and the City Attorney to appear at the next meeting to clarify process and remedies. The vote was recorded in open session.","At a show‑cause hearing over the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force’s order to disclose an automated license‑plate‑reader (ALPR) location map, the commission heard testimony from the petitioner and SFPD, then voted to table action and request a city‑attorney briefing and additional clarification before deciding whether to proceed",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6542776,"Ethics staff propose one‑time lifting of public financing ceilings and CPI‑adjusted contribution limits",1032,3448000,4480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac&start=3448&end=4480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020048-1135d457568d80b869cd0de19c54d6ac/thumbnail_3448000.jpg","/articles/6542776/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Ethics-staff-propose-onetime-lifting-of-public-financing-ceilings-and-CPIadjusted-contribution-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6542776-c706a40ed45fe0d374221e95f9aff514/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149433&Signature=Di1dEp1DxGPPtAvqNmVdPkM-Cvqc6QD-6nSZalT93Gqmhkn9URxyT8nQ694hYsyVX9ndYqCwt9OOnU7zzv4fEtd1N1uVEYOpa3dh7QqocWQeWeLbnHmY~EIX17ZtIsDcRgnCA4pnZyEwMCnPYVUussMderxF7wln7xJfJUMw3pnM0~rdHFFBY7FuneNeCueieKrcXh0GKgM2hq431aPNb7VU--xq~zsXEHY-5tMon9lXPBr24hguR7WsjGp1gDBBKU0tWk~lb4UEu2-LqRWkf8HE3bSZBcxo5cDRjM9VPocz9-DN9UePJrwWmaC3-3-q6TtHlm5~RWytJmxxUoYIjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — Commission staff proposed significant changes to how San Francisco administers its public financing program at the Ethics Commission’s June 13 meeting, recommending a streamlined, single‑event approach to raising expenditure ceilings and an inflation adjustment to contribution limits.

Michael Canning and Ryan Abusa presented the staff memo and said the current individual expenditure ceiling (IEC) process — used for candidates who accept public funds — requires auditors and campaigns to file and review many threshold statements during an election cycle. Staff noted the IEC mechanism can be adjusted repeatedly during a race (in $50,000 increments for supervisorial races and $250,000 for mayoral contests) and that in 2024 there were 295 IEC increases but only 12 of those adjustments meaningfully restricted spending.

To reduce administrative burden and the disproportionate compliance cost on under‑resourced campaigns, staff proposed replacing the current incremental, candidate‑by‑candidate IEC adjustments with a single race‑level mechanism: lift the expenditure ceiling for the entire race once objective criteria are met. The proposal’s suggested trigger is when a nonparticipating candidate’s expenditures or receipts exceed 75% of the applicable ceiling or when independent expenditures in the race exceed 75% of the ceiling. Staff said doing so would eliminate the need for ongoing supplemental threshold statements and simplify auditor monitoring.

Staff also recommended adjustments related to voluntary expenditure ceilings and two additional measures: an inflation‑adjusted increase in San Francisco’s general contribution limit (staff proposed moving the local limit from $500 to $900 and establishing a CPI‑linked automatic adjustment schedule every odd year) and updates to campaign disclaimer language ahead of a planned migration to .gov email addresses under Assembly Bill 1637.

Commissioners discussed equity implications of ongoing threshold reports, enforcement burden for auditors, and how comparable jurisdictions handle expenditure limits. No formal action was taken on the recommendations during the meeting; staff said it will work with the City Attorney’s Office to draft ordinance language and return a proposal for the commission to vote on and potentially refer to the Board of Supervisors.

The presentation included a reminder that the proposed reforms would not change eligibility for public funds nor the maximum public funding amounts (e.g., the memo recited current program maximums such as up to $255,000 for some supervisor candidates and up to $1.2 million for mayoral candidates in the public financing program), but would change how ceilings and reporting are handled.","Staff recommended replacing frequent incremental adjustments to individual expenditure ceilings with a single, race‑level threshold; proposed raising the city’s contribution limit from $500 to $900 with future CPI adjustments; commissioners took the presentation under advisement","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

San Francisco Ethics Commission proposes cutting or rewriting four low-performing programs; asks supervisors to drop trustee-election filings

Ethics Commission hears show‑cause case over SFPD’s ALPR map; tables decision and requests City Attorney memo

Ethics staff propose one‑time lifting of public financing ceilings and CPI‑adjusted contribution limits