Go Back
Articles

San Francisco Commissions Prove To Be Rife with Corruption

Susan Murphy's recent scandal, involving over $100,000 in fraudulent expenses, exposes deeper issues within San Francisco’s commission system. With oversight roles compromised by corruption, how can we ensure integrity and accountability in The City’s governance? Explore the systemic flaws and potential reforms needed for effective oversight.

San Francisco
San Francisco
San Francisco Commissions Prove To Be Rife with Corruption
People wait to give comment before the SF Planning Commission — one of more than 120 such boards — in 2019.
Examiner file
Ben Kaplan

Ben Kaplan

Date
March 16, 2024
Share

When Susan Murphy made headlines recently for defrauding the San Francisco city government out of more than $100,000 in funds via a series of fake invoices and expense reports, it wasn’t just the corrupt acts themselves that were worrisome.

Murphy also had an oversight role in The City as chair of the Southeast Community Facilities Commission, a body with the power to guide strategic, financial, and capital improvement plans related to the health, safety, and welfare of residents in San Francisco’s southeast neighborhoods.

If commissioners like Murphy are found to be corrupt, who then will oversee the overseers?

Like many programs and policies in The City, San Francisco’s commission system was initially designed with good intentions. Many commissions, like the Planning Commission in 1929, the Arts Commission in 1932, the Airport Commission in 1970, the Commission on the Status of Women in 1975, the Health Commission in 1984, and the Elections Commission in 2001, were established via amendments to the City Charter at times when important related issues dominated the public discourse.

More than 50 boards and commissions in San Francisco currently have decision-making authority by law — sometimes over issues of substantial consequence.

However, like many other aspects of San Francisco city bureaucracy, the positive intent was corrupted over time. Commissions proliferated as elected officials found them to be a convenient way to give the appearance of progress on an issue without having to actually make progress.

Multiple San Francisco mayors used commission appointments to develop political alliances, co-opt potential competitors, and dole out political patronage. A confusing and bureaucratic selection process — including a dual-track system whereby the mayor and the Board of Supervisors can nominate some positions — didn’t help.

These days, an additional 70 boards, commissions, and task forces serve a non-binding advisory function and have members who are not required to file financial disclosures with the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

The net result has been a series of recent scandals featuring corrupt, incompetent, or unqualified commission appointees.

In August, Assessment Appeals Board commissioner Yosef Tahbazof resigned following a report that he helped arrange a loan to a building inspector who was later convicted in a citywide corruption scandal.  This January, his father, Sia Tahbazof, pled guilty to a conspiracy to bribe building inspectors and plan-checkers with cash, meals and interest-free loans.

In November, SF Sanitation and Streets Commission chair Maryo Mogannam was removed from his position setting The City’s public cleanliness standards after news broke that he had a long list of code violations for persistent rodent infestation, leaks, and mold inside the San Francisco apartment building he owned. Most violations preceded the date Mayor London Breed appointed him to the commission.

Also in November, William Monroe “Tariq” Palmer II  — an influential member of the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board — was arrested on charges including forcible sodomy, assault, and sexual battery.

Other enterprising San Franciscans have used commission appointments as a relationship-building stepping stone to future corruption. In 2000, Rodrigo Santos was appointed by Mayor Willie Brown to the San Francisco Building Inspection Commission, and was later elevated to be the commission’s president. In 2012, Mayor Ed Lee chose him to serve on the San Francisco City College Board of Trustees.   

But last January, Santos admitted to defrauding clients of $775,000, arranging donations to influence a building inspector, and presenting false documents to FBI investigators.

Florence Kong, a former member of the Immigrant Rights Commission, received more than $640,000 in city contracts by offering San Francisco’s Public Works chief Mohammed Nuru a $37,000 gold Rolex watch, among other extravagant gifts.

Nuru, the one-time San Francisco corruption king, specifically targeted the commission system when Lefty O'Doul's restaurant owner Nick Bovis approached him in 2018, hoping to win a bid to lease restaurant space at San Francisco International Airport. The pair met with Linda Crayton, Vice President of the San Francisco Airport Commission, with an offer of $5,000 and a free trip.

Although Crayton declined the bribe on that occasion, the transactional, quid pro quo nature of her FBI-recorded comments led to her eventual resignation under pressure.

Where do we find these people? Why don’t red flags show up when we vet them?

The answer, sadly, is that we don’t really vet them – or not in the way we need to.

According to city protocol and current practices, commission candidates often write a short application, file economic interest forms, and undergo one or more interviews. But are we actually doing the research and recruiting necessary to find the best of the best in terms of subject expertise and experience, insights for the role, and love of San Francisco?

If we were, Breed probably wouldn’t have nominated Vikrum Aiyer in February 2023 to The City’s Homelessness Oversight Commission. During his time as chief of staff at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Aiyer improperly billed more than nearly $20,000 in personal expenses to the federal government, prompting a report from the Office of Inspector General. The scandal was easily findable via a simple Google search as the Washington Post had reported on the story.

With more than 120 commissions and boards, the mayor’s office and Board of Supervisors have been known to scramble to fill seats and vouch for individuals they don’t really know, according to multiple people who have been through the process. 

By dramatically reducing the number of commissions to establish focus, creating one unified application process, investing in fast-but-thorough candidate research and recruiting, and opening up some slots to those from outside The City who have world-class subject expertise, we could make city commissions something San Franciscans would be proud of.

We might even find the next Theodore Roosevelt, who was famously appointed in his thirties to New York City’s police commission.  With a mission to reform a police force awash in bribery, Roosevelt defied the political spectrum of the day and proved that both progressive ideals and tough law and order policies could co-exist. This launched Roosevelt’s path to the U.S. presidency and he became perhaps the greatest local commissioner of all time.

Breed might have avoided the grief related to San Francisco’s own Police Commission — which eventually led to her proposing Proposition E this March — if she had properly vetted her nominations to ensure they were onboard with her overall crime reduction agenda.

The current commission system and its related corruption scandals give the impression that The City’s leaders don’t really know what they’re doing.

That’s probably because they don’t.

Latest Posts

Recalled SF DA Chesa Boudin on What Went Right — and Wrong — During His Tenure

Former DA Chesa Boudin confronts San Francisco's homelessness crisis with sharp critiques of City Hall’s failures. As he calls out judicial blame-shifting and champions diversion programs, Boudin pushes for a compassionate yet secure approach to solving this persistent issue.

Catherine Stefani Talks About San Francisco’s 2024 Outlook

Catherine Stefani's triumphant primary election night reveals her stance on public safety, housing, and education. Her endorsement of Mayor London Breed, views on Proposition B's defeat, and commitment to nonprofit accountability and victims' rights highlight her vision for a safer, more equitable San Francisco.

The 5 New Rules of San Francisco Politics

As the March 2024 elections conclude, it's time to explore the broader trends and new rules shaping San Francisco politics. From moderates organizing effectively to the significance of Asian voter turnout, discover the five key insights that define the current political landscape.