Editor:
Campaign finance laws exist for a reason: to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in our elections. But the recall campaign against Supervisor Joel Engardio has seemingly failed to follow basic financial disclosure rules – raising serious ethical and legal concerns.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission is already investigating the recall campaign for multiple violations stemming from a Feb. 20 complaint that outlined multiple violations of campaign finance law, including:
- Failing to file campaign statements on time.
- Repeatedly omitting significant expenses from campaign statements.
- Violating political advertising disclaimer laws on printed materials.
Recent filings confirm a continued pattern of after-the-fact expenditure reporting. The numbers are staggering:
- Over $19,000 in expenses were initially hidden and only disclosed after the fact through multiple amended filings.
- That’s almost 70% of what we now know to be their total expenses through the end of February – meaning their real financial situation may have been deliberately concealed.
- In February, they reported zero outstanding debts – but an amendment later revealed $12,375 in unpaid legal bills to Rutan & Tucker.
This isn’t just sloppy bookkeeping. By significantly and repeatedly underreporting their unpaid bills, the recall committee appears to be obscuring financial weakness that threatens their ability to meet commitments to their creditors and finance their signature-gathering campaign. If you are trying to recall a duly elected City officer, it should be done out in the light.
SF Ethics Commission Must Act Now
San Franciscans deserve nothing but full, immediate transparency – not months after the fact when the signature gathering process has concluded. The Ethics Commission must expedite its investigation and ensure that these financial violations are exposed now, while Sunset residents are deciding whether to sign the recall petition, not long after it’s too late.
From the very beginning, our campaign to Stand with Joel has diligently and accurately reported our contributions and expenses in a timely manner. This is what’s required by law, and what voters deserve: the full truth, in a timely manner. The Ethics Commission must complete its investigation of the recall campaign as soon as possible and provide voters with the information they need and deserve to make their choices.
Lian Chang, campaign manager for Stand with Joel.
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Wow. Spicy
LikeLike
“Over $19,000 in expenses were initially hidden and only disclosed after the fact through multiple amended filings.”
I would suggest that 19k in expenses being misreported or late-reported, or even not reported properly, that is somewhat understandable unless there’s some actual intent to conceal those for some deeper unknown purpose. It’s not actually a lot of money considering, at all, and given this is a truly grass-roots non-Billionaire-backed effort by community members who are not day-job politicians or Google lawyers, I would think their very first political venture may be complicated by such errors of omission or other.
But contrast that with a Billionaire-backed dark money PAC that donated millions secretly to undermine the interests of over 2/3 of a district using lies, outright fabrications of fact and inventions of 501c3 “entities” to carry their well-heeled interests through the bureaucracy effortlessly, at the last minute deliberately ignoring the will of the people in our so-called local democratic governance? Which is truly the greater threat, the greater oversight, lack of respect for our Sunset families?
Pick one of the two. A 19k expense report not filed properly, or Billionaire regulatory capture using lies and the Citizens United ruling with equal abandon? Decide.
A vote to recall Engardio is a vote to increase accountability in local government. If the next Supervisor makes similar mistakes, I’d say the same all over again.
LikeLike
Ms Chang,
Can you or anyone else who has made these statements please tell me where you got this information? I have searched the SF Dept of Ethics website extensively, and I cannot find where these complaints have been filed. Who, exactly, filed these complaints? Where were they filed? Where can we find them?
It is my understanding that anyone can file a complaint against any campaign for any reason, but it is up to the Dept of Ethics to determine if the complaint is legitimate or has any validity. Has the department taken any action? Often, claims are filed against a campaign simply to hinder the campaign and discredit them in the eyes of the public. Could this be the case here?
Your claims would be far more credible if you could provide links to this information; otherwise, they are nothing more than libel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“the closure of the lower Great Highway (south of Sloat) was predetermined due to severe coastal erosion”
Read the articles on lower48 about how the ethics dept is effectively ignored and ignoring the law on the books, as far as public disclosures. Yeah.
You making the claim of libel is in itself libelous without further reason to think so.
LikeLike
(To clarify, libel includes the _provable_ intent to defame + recklessness.)
Ask questions first.
LikeLike
Clearly you are threatened that the Recall is getting traction. I find it rich that you write, “San Franciscans deserve nothing but full, immediate transparency” where was the transparency when Engardio had always planned to close the Great Highway and didn’t disclose it to his voters in the Sunset. AND don’t come with, he said he was ok with keeping it “status quo”. No he wasn’t forthcoming and in your words, the citizens of the Sunset “deserve nothing but full, immediate transparency”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You wrote “where was the transparency when Engardio had always planned to close the Great Highway and didn’t disclose it to his voters in the Sunset”
Are you perhaps referring to the FACT that the ballot initiative was carefully drafted outside the view or consultation of most of the public, in consultation with election experts and the city attorney’s office, when Joel knew the issue was divisive, and then set aside and hidden until it was signed and filed for public view on the very last day possible for ballot eligibility?
If so, that is a very good question. Yes, let’s be transparent. I am sure that the Engardio team can transparently confirm the date that the ballot drafts were first conceived and circulated, who exactly was involved, how long it was planned, and why the filing was made on the last day – that type of transparency would help so that we all don’t need to waste more time and taxpayer money with public records requests.
LikeLike
Big money campaign of Stand with Joel keeps active campaign of smear and innuendo. Seems the Sup who trusted voters to have their say on Great Highway doesn’t trust voters when it’s his job, so campaign of dirty tricks.Sad considering they have huge funding advantage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Until the Ethics Commission weighs in, I’m going to look at this is what the opposition tries to do when start feeling the heat.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The ethics commission is ignored and fails to act in SF more often than Breed got free tickets from one of her benefactors.
Until Engardio is recalled, the Sunset will have a supervisor they cannot trust.
LikeLike
Dear Lian:
Well, I have no doubt your campaign as no problem meeting its bills with all the money from outside San Francisco pouring into your campaign. Ours is of a grassroots nature, made up of the residents of the Westside who have been disenfranchised by the current supervisor.
As campaign manager for Joel, you neglected to share with the readers where the money for your campaign is coming from. Why? I think because everyone knows that the Big Tech money is investing in the future development of the Sunset and, like Joel, could care less about the residents of the Sunset. I know as a professional you’re just doing your job spreading disinformation. I just wonder how you can sleep at night?
I do agree with you that the Sunset residents deserve transparency, especially in their elected officials. That is one of the reasons that Joel will be recalled by the voters of the Sunset.
Sincerely,
Marty Murphy
sfpoliticshub.com
LikeLiked by 3 people
I Stand with Recalling Joel. The man is not trustworthy, lacks integrity, and hides behind billionaire support. In two and half years on the job – his accomplishments are a night market that loses the City money, a Park proposition that divided a community, and potholes. Really? That’s the leadership you want people to support? NO THANK YOU.
I also find it ironic that you — Ms. Chang — ask for transparency yet we see you trolling and posting all over social media in support of Joel without letting readers know that you are being paid by his campaign. Transparency matters, right?
Lastly, the allegations you raised are just that — allegations. Innocent until proven otherwise. You should remember that.
While you wait for the Ethics Department call, we’ll be out gathering signatures to RECALL ENGARDIO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do hope the Ethics Committee will look into the alleged misuse of funds by the Engardio recall group. Their inuendos and even lies about Supervisor Engardio do not give me much confidence that they are managing their money honestly. However, at this point we have no facts. We know that Ms Chang was honest in her communication in this paper — she used her name and title. I also know that Supervisor Engardio is honest — I was his volunteer Treasurer in several of his unsuccessful campaigns for Board of Supervisors. And by the way, I voted against Prop K.
LikeLike
This is just more desperation from the Stand With Joel campaign as we get closer to collecting the required number of recall signatures. The hypocrisy here is just amazing… this coming from someone working with a city supervisor who completely bypassed showing any “transparency, accountability or fairness” to his constituents. How much is he paying you, Lian???
LikeLike
it was 10,000 a month, it was cut to 7,000 recently
LikeLike
hmmmmm, it seems that the Stand with Joel people are trying anything to slow down the Recall Engardio effort. No amount of lying and misleading information is going to deter the Recall Effort. How ironic that you are calling them out for being transparent……hypocrite much?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The author seems concerned with transparency and honesty – perhaps they should ask public servants about the ethics violations by Park&Rec manager Phil Ginsberg who withheld documents from the public about the great highway road closure. This is a FACT – the SF Ethics Commission found that the violations were willful. It is an established finding (unlike the whining in this propaganda hit piece) about a lack of transparency by park officials.
Also, there is the lack of any environmental review of the road closure project at all, and folks who are claiming environmental improvements (despite their efforts to shrink the protective boundaries of our coastal zone)) seem to become incredibly quiet when asked about the need for independent review of the environmental effects from closing roads and increasing congestion and travel times, not to mention the safety issues of dumping thousands of vehicles into a residential neighborhood.
Why so vocal about a recall related to real issues, but not so concerned about transparency and honesty when it comes to the real issues themselves, hmm? There is literally one single sentence in this article with any merit – “San Franciscans deserve nothing but full, immediate transparency”
Ok, sounds good – we are waiting, but not expecting anything honest or transparent whatsoever from the special interest groups outside the Sunset who are paying gobs of money to keep their puppet in power while tangling strings and hanging themselves with more hypocrisy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great comments. Could you elaborate on the ethics violation by Phil Ginsberg? I don’t think I’ve see that report.
LikeLike
Connie Chan has always questioned the ties between Ginsberg and the Friends of the SF Park and Rec. Where is all the money coming from to make all the “improvements” to the GH – art, murals, taking down lights, putting up benches when there is currently a hiring freeze (including Laguna Honda Hospital and first responders)? Friends of the GH “Park”? Friends of the SF Park and Rec? The DPW and Nuru (now imprisoned for corruption and bribery) used these types of non-profit organizations to create hidden slush funds for use outside of the usual audits and monitoring by the City. So now we have money for art, signage, porta potties (that blew over in the recent storm) when the City is drowning in red ink?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of great comments and questions here, Ms. Chang. Care to respond? Or is the whole point that you’re stirring the pot, making stuff into a PR or photo opportunity and then running away without actually engaging and responding to valid questions/concerns.
Tell Joel, Sam and the rest of the high paid consultants he has they need to do better — throwing out accusations and misinformation won’t work anymore. We see through it.
LikeLike
Also i think may be an ethics violation for Lucas and friends to dump every leftover Burning Man “art” project on the highway. Where are the fines for littering ??!!!
LikeLike
Follow the money and support the recall. Engardio received a total of $200,000 from only 3 wealthy donors, none of whom live in District 4. It makes one wonder why people Joel cannot represent are so interested in keeping our D4 Supervisor in office. Their properties are located in Pac Heights, the Marina and Russian Hill. What has he promised them if he gets to a higher political position or if someone he knows higher up will do something for them?
LikeLike
Lian — you wrote, “From the very beginning, our campaign to Stand with Joel has diligently and accurately reported our contributions and expenses in a timely manner. This is what’s required by law, and what voters deserve: the full truth, in a timely manner.”
Yet your campaign has filed at least seven amendments in May 2025 alone.
Your editorial was out of line then, and now your own amended filings show that you used your position as campaign manager to push a misleading agenda. It’s a sorry state of affairs. I’m sure you’ll try to spin it — but with what credibility left?
LikeLike