Sandra Lee Fewer, with her daughters Colleen (left center) and Sara files papers at City Hall to run for San Francisco Supervisor in District 1, in San Francisco, Calif. on Thurs. January 14, 2016. John Fewer (right) is close by to support his wife. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle
Late last week, the Chronicle reported that District 1 Supervisor candidate Sandra Fewer solicited campaign contributions from school district administrators and teachers.
That may sound normal for a candidate that is on the SF Board of Education. But it’s actually against the law. San Francisco city law prohibits city officers or employees from directly seeking donations from other city workers.
According to the article, Fewer confirmed that “she asked at least two school district employees to attend an April fundraising dinner, but said she couldn’t recall if there were others.”
The Chronicle reports that in total, school district employees donated nearly $4,000 to Fewer’s campaign at the April dinner.
- Fewer said in phone and email interviews that she doesn’t believe she did anything wrong. She noted that school district workers routinely donate to local candidates.
“Our campaign has practiced due diligence in following campaign finance laws and will continue to abide by the laws set by the San Francisco Ethics Commission,” she said in an email Friday.
Fewer, though, did not address her personal solicitation of contributions. City law prohibits city officers or employees from directly seeking donations from other city workers. Fewer, however, cited an opinion from the Ethics Commission’s enforcement division that school district officers were not covered by that law. [SF Chronicle]
The law is designed to discourage putting “pressure on someone who is an employee of the city to give money to a political candidate or a political race because of their particular positions,” said Peter Keane, a member of the Ethics Commission.
A city worker or supervisor cannot call or text someone, or walk into their office, and invite them to a campaign fundraising event. Though Fewer cited the exception for school district officers in a letter written by enforcement deputy director Jessica Blome, Keane says he believes the law does apply to the school district.
“I might have asked friends I’ve known for a very long time,” Fewer said. “I think that what happened is they asked, ‘How can I help you?’ And I called and said, ‘Would you like to come for a dinner?’”
According to the SF Ethics Commision website, Fewer has received $100,178 in campaign contributions. But to date the candidate with the most contributions is Marja Philhour at $138,707. After Fewer is candidate David Lee with $39,578 in contributions.
Fewer had another controversy to deal with last week. A Bay Area Metro Station AM 1400 radio host questioned Fewer’s Chinese heritage on a broadcast in mid-August, and the rumor spread through the Chinese community. Fewer held a press conference last Thursday to provide her birth certificate and family photos to prove her Chinese lineage.
UPCOMING DISTRICT 1 SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE EVENTS
To learn more about your District 1 Supervisor candidates, be sure to attend one of these upcoming candidate forums:
THURSDAY, SEPT 29 | Housing Rights Committee District 1 Candidates Forum 6:00pm
Alamo Elementary School, 250 23rd Avenue
Join us to engage with candidates who are running for supervisor, specifically around issues that impact our community like housing, displacement, homelessness, small business stabilization and more. View on Facebook
SUNDAY, OCT 2 | District 1 Supervisor Candidate Forum 2pm
St. James Episcopal Church, 4620 California St
Moderated by Faith in Action Bay Area, we will hear from District 1 Supervisor Candidates in a question and answer format, focusing on the issues of housing, homelessness, policing, and immigration among others.
THURSDAY, OCT 13 | SF League of Women Voters D1 Candidate Forum 6:30pm-8:30pm
University of San Francisco (exact location TBD)
The League of Women Voters San Francisco are partnering with the University of San Francisco to host a nonpartisan candidate forum for the District 1 Board of Supervisors race. Come hear from hopefuls running to represent District 1 on the Board of Supervisors in this open conversation.
WEDNESDAY, OCT 26 | Richmond District Blog D1 Supervisor Candidates Debate 7:30pm
Presidio Middle School, 450 30th Avenue
Come for the final chance to learn more about your District 1 candidates and hear their views on the top issues. Watch for more here on the blog including the chance to submit your questions for the debate.
Sarah B.
I wonder why Sandra Fewer doesn’t mention her husband is a retired SFPD Sergeant? Her brother in law is an officer also. Just wondering because I find it odd…She should be proud but yet hides that in her adds.
great. another corrupt politician
Another wanna be Eric Mar..Keep reaching into the well of crap and you’ll pull something out..
She is going to be more of the same..nothing done unless it pads my pockets wanna be Supervisor..
She also had a fundraiser/informational meeting at Sutro elementary school on 12th Avenue. Her signs were plastered all over – I guess she must have taken them down before school started the next day, but that doesn’t seem like a standard location for a get together.
Fewer doesn’t mention her family in law enforcement because it doesn’t fit in with her narrative. I’m sorry but I treat all politicians with skepticism. If they were doing it for the good of the people, they would waive their salaries and volunteer (like they tell us to do).
“In Leigh’s case, Fewer sought his contribution within a month of voting on his contract as deputy superintendent. The school board later appointed Leigh as superintendent in August after the departure of Richard Carranza. Leigh said he has supported Fewer in the past, and did not feel pressured to donate.”
This says everything about the lady!
@Keith @SFResident @Keith – Fewer has mentioned her husband’s former profession many times, including at the first PAR forum recently. It’s also in the first paragraph of the About page on her website: “My husband served for 35 years as a San Francisco police officer, retiring in 2012 at Richmond District Station.”
This was a well reported story. Most of the contributions were for $100 but the amount of the contribution is not the main issue.
The article states the point of the law is to discourage “pressure on someone who is an employee of the city to give money to a political candidate or a political race because of their particular positions.”
At least one employee is quoted as saying they felt compelled to give to Ms. Fewer’s campaign. Plus one of the individuals who donated was going to have his contract voted on later that month! He says he supported Fewer anyway, but the law exists precisely to avoid this appearance of favorable treatment and/or political pressure on city employees.
Rachel Norton, who I believe has endorsed Ms. Fewer, said it best, “We do vote on their contracts, and we need to avoid the reality or the suggestion of a conflict of interest when it comes to political fundraising.”
Ms. Fewer gave a talk at SFSU to teacher candidates about her work on the SFUSD board… or rather she bagged the board save for herself and gave mostly a stump speech. Meh.
@Charles: Eric Mar is a parent, he has a school-aged daughter.
@Charles – It was not a justification, just a correction of your assumption.
Ms. Fewer has written an explanation on her Medium.com account, which I recommend you read. I find it odd that she says the Ethics officer has cleared her of any wrongdoing and then posts a letter from the Ethics officer that says City Attorney might reach a different conclusion. How would this have “cleared” her?
I would also like to thank Sarah B. for moderating this comment section and responding to inaccuracies. I’m new to this blog but she seems to do great work!
She didn’t break any fundraising laws. The title of this post is misleading.
The fundraising laws do not apply to SFSUD school board members. The City Ethics Commissioner found that Fewer broke no laws. The letter posted in this link makes this abundantly clear. Did anyone from this blog actually take the time to read this letter?
https://medium.com/@SandraLeeFewer/https-medium-com-sandraleefewer-a-clear-statement-on-sfusd-donations-f2fb2e9bb952#.mobao1yn2
To me this is a non-story. Frankly, I’m much, much more worried about the $100,000 or so that the real-estate interests have put into the campaign coffers of Fewer’s opponent, Marjan Philhour – especially since the Richmond District has the second highest rate of evictions in the city (the Mission District is #1). I’ve yet to see this blog do the work to investigate why the real estate industry is pumping so much money into her campaign. I’d appreciate more investigative reporting rather than a cut and paste version of what the Chronicle runs. The real story that this blog is missing is about the money and power that the real estate industry wields in this city. Why are so many of our friends and neighbors being evicted? That’s the real issue in this race.
I think that we should all be saddened by we have the birther movement alive and well right here in San Francisco and that one of our local radio stations is spreading false rumors that Fewer is being dishonest about her Chinese ethnicity. This sort of tactic reeks of desperation.
The above two “issues” about Fewer’s candidacy goes shows that the downtown money is very worried that D1 has a very popular candidate – the only candidate endorsed by the San Francisco Tenants Union – who isn’t afraid to speak truth to power in order to fight for the best interests of Richmond District residents.
I was never going to vote for her so this doesn’t change anything for me. I’m going Larkin first and Philhour third. But its nice to see she’s already creating “change”.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-officials-barred-from-seeking-9386466.php
Not exactly what I would like our district sup to be know for.
would like to thank the “hacks for fewer” for chiming in…your candidate is a crook
no one has ever questioned fewer’s chinese ancestry. this is just race baiting by the fewer campaign to remind asian residents that she is asian, since many vote for the asian candidates without even knowing what their positions are.
as for philhour raising 100k from developers…no evidence of that. there is a pac that is funded by the labor unions that has spent 50k on her campaign.
as for chris….why do you support a guy who disappeared for 8 years after running in 08
what “change” is marjan creating?
Sarah, thank you for correcting the inaccurate statements. I have to say that I think Fewer’s ethical misstep was quite minor. She has essentially apologized and she did not break any laws. If anyone felt pressured, Fewer can return their money and let that be the end of the discussion.
Both in terms of the actual facts and in comparison to what other city officials have done with no response from the Ethics Commision or any other elected officials, I think it’s completely out of proportion speak about Sandra Fewer in such harsh terms. It’s hard to forget that just last year, Mayor Lee called together the heads of many city departments after Aaron Peskin entered the race for D3 supervisor. With Ron Conway by his side. Mayor Lee told these city employees that he was “watching” to see if any of them supported or gave money to Peskin’s campaign and that there would be “consequences” if they did. In essence, he threatened their employment if they supported someone he didn’t like for D1 supervisor. When the mayor left, Ron Conway told those assembled that he wanted them to donate to Julie Christensen’s campaign for D1 supervisor because he was limited to $500 campaign donation. So he proposed that these city employees help him skirt the campight finance laws by giving money to Christensen and he would then donate the same amount of money to the cause or charity of their choice. Amazing, but true. That is how oblivious to ethical conduct and entitled to act without any constraint these two men felt. They certainly didn’t consider the ethics of what they were doing. But what’s more amazing, neither did anyone else, not a word from the ethics commission. This whole episode was covered in the Chronicle and other newspapers from information from the city employees who attended. And yet, as far as I know, none of the elected officials who are responsible for responding to ethical breaches said a word.
So to jump on Sandra Fewer because she made one mistake which has received excessive media attention and been corrected seems reckless and irresponsible to me. Perhaps we can write anything we want on this blog, but I think it would be better for all of us to stop and consider before we resort to name calling. There are better ways to communicate.