Ethics Commission Embroiled in Ethics Skirmish

What happens when the San Francisco Ethics Commission is accused of acting unethically? We’re about to find out.

An ethics complaint was filed last week by YIMBY Action Executive Director (and former Beacon culture contributor) Laura Clark against the Commission for violating the Brown Act, a state law that requires public meetings to have agendas publicly posted 72 hours prior.

The Conflict: What Constitutes a Conflict?

Joe Fitz Rodriguez reported in The Examiner on April 11th that Ethics Commissioner Quentin Kopp had decided to introduce legislation that would prohibit city commissioners who receive any salary from an entity that applies for permits from serving on City Commissions. This was in reaction to Planning Commissioner Christine Johnson accepting a role at SPUR, a policy organization that receives funding from real estate developers.

In the past, Planning Commissioners have had similar perceived conflicts, such as Cindy Wu, who worked for the Chinatown Community Development Commission.

So why was this introduced now? Johnson was seen as the swing vote on the Planning Commission on competing pieces of hotly contested inclusionary zoning legislation, one introduced by Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim, the other by Ahsha Safaí and London Breed. Commissioner Johnson had stated that she planned to step down once the Mayor appointed her successor, and had received guidance from the City Attorney that she could continue serving on the Planning Commission until that time.

She was widely expected to support the Safai-Breed legislation. If she were forced to step down or recuse herself, it would ostensibly benefit the Peskin-Kim proposal.

What Happened at the Ethics Commission?

On May 1st, just before the Planning Commission meeting, Friends of Ethics President Larry Bush testified during public comment at the end of the commission meeting, urging them to remove Johnson before the inclusionary legislation vote.

Commissioners Quentin Kopp and Peter Keane agreed, and voted to send a letter to Johnson urging her to leave her position on the Planning Commission before the vote. Johnson was not in attendance and was unable to offer a defense because the Ethics Commission had not put the item on the agenda, as required by the Brown Act.

During the meeting, the Deputy City Attorney actually intervened to tell the Ethics Commission that they would be violating the Brown Act.

Commissioner Keane defended the Commission in The Chronicle, pointing to an exemption in the Brown Act under situations deemed to be “emergency,” which he claims is the case here.

Emergencies are defined in the law as “a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both.” A vote on competing affordable housing bills is unlikely to qualify. The “emergency” claim is further undermined by the fact that Commissioner Kopp had raised the issue of Johnson’s perceived conflict almost three weeks earlier.

In her official complaint, Clark called on the Ethics Commissioners to resign for their vote, stating: “The Ethics Commission is entrusted with enforcing the very open meeting law which you knowingly violated. How can the public respect an enforcer that fails to follow its own rules? If you cannot respect these laws or fundamental ethical considerations, then you should not be on the Ethics Commission.”

The two commissioners stand accused of playing partisan politics with their due diligence as public watchdogs. It is exceedingly rare for public servants to be charged with exactly the sort of violation they are responsible for preventing.

The Ethics Commission can’t hear a complaint against itself, so it has been forwarded to the San Francisco District Attorney and the California Attorney General. As it stands, it’s up to them to decide what happens when the Ethics Commission acts unethically.