Ethics commissioners reject two proposed settlements, approve another after debate over penalties and transparency

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on April 14 debated several enforcement stipulations, rejecting proposed settlements in two high-profile matters and approving one after staff said it had negotiated terms with respondents.

The commission voted unanimously to reject a settlement for Yaku Askew, a case staff said involved three counts including contracting with the city while serving as a city officer and financial conflicts. Pat Ford, the enforcement director, described the proposed penalties and explained staff’s approach to penalty calculation: "This is one of those cases where the actual contract itself is something that was prohibited," Ford said, summarizing the background and the division’s reasoning for the proposed penalty amounts.

Chair Lee moved that the commission reject the Askew stipulation and direct staff to return with a revised proposal; the motion carried by roll call, 3–0. Commissioners repeatedly questioned why the office did not seek the maximum statutory penalties, noting the large contract values at issue. Commissioner Romano said he had similar concerns and argued for "more of a public airing" of the facts to improve transparency.

In a separate matter, staff presented a proposed stipulation against Gwyneth Borden, identified as the vice president of the MTA board, alleging prohibited compensated advocacy and a failure to register as a lobbyist. Staff said the respondent had received $12,500 and that the negotiated settlement called for a $9,000 penalty. Ford told commissioners the case involved numerous lobbying contacts and aggravating circumstances: "She made 32 contacts with 6 separate employees," he said, describing why staff had sought a higher penalty than in some other cases.

Commissioners pressed staff about the penalty’s size and the decision not to seek the maximum. The commission voted to reject the Borden stipulation as well and instructed staff to negotiate a different settlement or proceed to a hearing if necessary (vote 3–0).

By contrast, the commission approved a separate proposed stipulation in the case of David Wadhwani, a matter staff said involved multiple late Form 700 filings and undisclosed income and which affected a body that takes governmental action. That stipulation passed unanimously, 3–0.

Throughout the debates, members of the public made several comments. Public commenter David Pilpel urged the commission to ensure adequate staffing and funding to carry out its mandated functions, warning that cuts could impair enforcement work.

The commission’s actions Friday underscore a focus among commissioners on proportional penalties, the visibility of enforcement reasoning to the public, and the question of when to push cases to a full administrative hearing versus resolving them by stipulation. Staff said it will return to the parties in the rejected matters to seek revised agreements or proceed to hearings if an acceptable settlement cannot be reached.

What’s next: For the cases the commission rejected, staff will attempt new settlements reflecting higher penalties or ask for full administrative hearings; for Wadhwani, the approved stipulation stands. The commission also discussed how to present settlement material on agendas so the public can quickly see material terms such as penalty amounts.