CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney

 

EMO RAN DUM
0: Mayor London - 
FROM: Dennis J. HerreC?jq)
City Attorney u/
DATE: March 10, 2020
RE: Mohammed Nuru Federal Complaint Investigation?Tom Hui, Director of Building

Inspection

I am transmitting to you a report from my Of?ce summarizing preliminary ?ndings from
our ongoing investigation of alleged misconduct by Tom Hui, Director of the Department of
Building Inspection That investigation stems from the broader investigation we
undertook into matters relating to the federal complaint against Mohammed Nuru. We
conducted a voluntary interview of Hui on February 18, 2020, reviewed an initial set of records
Hui voluntarily provided after that intenriew, and reviewed records obtained from other sources.
We scheduled Hui to attend a second day of his interview on Monday, March 9, but on Sunday,
March 8 his newly engaged criminal defense attorney requested to postpone the interview. It is
unclear when or whether Hui may be available for a further interview. Therefore, I determined it
is appropriate to summarize our preliminary ?ndings based on the investigation to date and to
give them to you so you could take appropriate employment action regarding Hui. In the interest
of public transparency, and given the high rank of the of?cial involved and the misconduct
described, we did not mark the report as privileged or con?dential.

In sum, based on Hui?s admissions during the interview and other evidence we obtained
through the investigation, we determined that Hui:

I Is OFFICIAL described in the unsealed federal criminal complaint against
Mohammed Nuru, Complaint 3-20-7?0028, filed January 15, 2020, in the Northern
District of California;

- Violated the Cityis Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code and
Code of Professional Conduct by providing intentional preferential treatment
and access to Walter Wong, a permit expediter who regularly conducted business
with DB1, and Zhang Li, the developer of a project subject to DBI jurisdiction;

0 Violated the CGCC and DBl?s Code ofProfessional Conduct by accepting gifts of
dinners from either Wong or Zhang with the dinners arranged for the purpose of
discussing Zhang?s development project; and

Violated City laws and policies by abusing his official position in seeking to
influence City employment decisions related to his son and his son?s girlfriend.

 

CITY HALL. ROOM 234 - I DR. CARLTON B. PLACE - SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102?4682
RECEPTION: [415] 554-4700 - {415] 554-4?15

CITY AND COUNTY or SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

 

J. HERRERA Kestie Stewort
rCity Attorney Deputy City Attorney
Head of the Public Integrity Unit
Direct Dial: [4i5j 554?3980
Email: kesiiestewort@stcityotty.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis . Herrera, City Attorney
Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Keslie Stewart, Head Attorney for Public Integrity
George C. Cothran, Chief of Investigations
DATE: March 10, 2020
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

I. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS

This report summarizes preliminary investigative ?ndings from the City Attomey?s
investigation of alleged misconduct by Tom Hui, Director of Building Inapection.

In late January of this year, the City and County of San Francisco (the ?City?) and the
public learned that federal prosecutors had charged Mohammed Num, the former Director of the
Department of Public Works (?Public Works?), with alleged corruption in City contracting and
permitting. In the unsealed federal criminal Complaint 3-20-70028, ?led January 15, 2020, in
the Northern District of California (the ?Federal Complaint?), the US. Attorney?s Of?ce alleged
that Nuru used his of?cial position to bene?t the developer of a mixed-use project in
San Francisco in exchange for personal gifts and bene?ts.

The factual allegations in the Federal Complaint, together with publicly available
documents, indicate: (1) the mixed-use project referenced in the Federal Complaint is 555 Fulton
Street in San Francisco (the ??Project?); (2) the developer of the Project is an entity owned and
controlled by Zhang Li, a wealthy Chinese national; and (3) Walter Wong, a permit espediter
who regularly works on projects regulated by the Department of Building Inspection 
and Public Works, provided support for the Project through his company, Jaidin Consulting
Group.

In the Federal Complaint, the US. Attorney?s Of?ce alleges that a DB1 of?cial agreed to
attend a dinner with 1? (determined to be Zhang Li), 2?
(determined to be Wong), and Nuru in February 2019:

A search of communications in personal email account also
indicates he remained involved in moving DEVELOPER 1?s project
forward, both before and after his trip to China. These communications
include: . . . (ii) a February 9, 2019, email ??om the personal email address
of DB1 OFFICIAL I to CONTRACTOR 2, cc to personal email
address, indicating that the of?cial would attend a dinner with
DEVELOPER 1 at a San Francisco restaurant later that month.

Federal Complaint, at 1] 149.

 

Fox PLAZA - 1390 MARKET 7TH - SAN CAriEosNiA 94102-5408
RECEPTION: [4i5i 554-3900 FACSIMILE: [415] 554-971]

 AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFHCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 2
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

determined that Hui is OFFICIAL 1? referenced in that Federal Complaint. On
February 18, 2020, we interviewed Hui. He appeared at our request, without representation. Hui
understood that his participation in the interview was voluntary and not covered by any privilege.
We also reviewed an initial set of records Hui voluntarily provided after that interview and
records obtained from other sources. We scheduled Hui to attend a second day of his interview
on Monday, March 9, but on Sunday, March 8, his newly engaged criminal defense attorney
asked to postpone the interview. It is unclear when or whether Hui may be available for a further
interview. Therefore, we determined it is appropriate to present our preliminary findings based
on the investigation to date.

Based on Hui?s admissions during the interview and other evidence we obtained through
the investigation, we determined that Hui:

- ls OFFICIAL 1? described in the Federal Complaint;

- Violated the City?s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code and
Code of Professional Conduct by providing intentional preferential treatment
and access to alter Wong, a permit expediter who regularly conducted business
with DB1, and Zhang Li, whose Project was subject to regulation,

- Violated the CGCC and 1381?s Code of Professional Conduct by accepting gifts of
dinners from either Wong or Zhang Li, with the dinners arranged for the purpose of
discussing the Project; and

Violated City laws and policies by abusing his position in seeking to in?uence City
employment decisions related to his son and his son?s girlfriend.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND POLICY
A. San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code 
1. Fairness and Transparency in Permitting

The City has implemented laws specifically intended to bring ?greater transparency to the
City and County?s permitting process.? CGCC 3.400 et seq. In doing so, the City specifically
found that such transparency ?is essential to protect public con?dence in the fairness and
impartiality of that process." CGCC 3.400A. The CGCC requires equal treatment of permit
applicants by of?cers and employees of and Public Works. intentional preferential
treatment of any permit applicant andfor the applicant?s representatives ?shall subject the officer

or employee to disciplinary action for of?cial misconduct.? CGCC 
2. Prohibition on Bribery and Gifts from Restricted Sources

The CGCC prohibits bribes, and ?irther provides that no officer of employee shall accept
any gift ?with the intent that the City of?cer or employee will be in?uenced thereby in the
performance of any official act.? CGCC In addition to the gift limits and reporting
requirements imposed by State and local law, City of?cers and employees are prohibited from
accepting gifts from restricted sources. CGCC A ?restricted source? is any person
doing business or seeking to do business with the department of the of?cer or employee. A
?restricted source? is also any person who during the prior year has knowingly attempted to

 

City AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 3
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

in?uence the of?cer in any administrative action. CGCC In practice, this means
that no employee may accept any gift worth more than $25 from a restricted source. Ethics
Commission Regulation 

3. Fairness and Transparency in Hiring

City of?cials and employees are prohibited from seeking ?to in?uence a decision of the
City and County regarding an employment action involving a relative.? CGCC 
Relative is de?ned to include a child. CGCC 3212(c). A knowing or willful violation of this
prohibition is a crime. CGCC Violations can also be enforced civilly and
administratively. CGCC 3.242 and 

B. City Employee Handbook

The Employee Handbook reiterates the rules prohibiting nepotism in connection with
City employment: ?you may not . . . seek to in?uence any employment decision involving a
person with whom you have a familial or romantic relationship.? Handbook at p. 45. The
Handbook holds supervisors and managers to an even higher standard:

Supervisors and managers should avoid any appearance of favoritism or
nepotism in the workplace.

Id. (Emphasis added).

The Handbook requires City employees ?to adhere to the highest level of ethical
standards." Id. The Handbook summarizes key ethical obligations, including: ?You may not
accept any compensation, reward, or gift from any source except the City for any service, advice,
assistance or other matter related to your City Job.? Id. at p. 45.

The Handbook refers employees to the Ethics Conunission and City Attorney?s Of?ce
websites for additional materials about applicable ethical obligations, and it refers employees to
the Ethics Commission with questions about these rules or other improper government activity.
Id. at p. 46.

C. San Francisco Civil Service Rules and Merit System Principles

San Francisco operates on a merit system where there is no place for nepotism or
favoritism.

The principles of the City and County?s merit system include:

1) Recruitment, employment, retention, and promotion of employees on
the basis of quali?cations and performance; and,

2) High performance and ethical standards, consistent with hiring quali?ed
individuals who have successfully completed the examination process,
been placed on an eligible list and completed the probationary period.

Further, it is the goal and policy of the Civil Service Commission to
provide fair treatment of applicants in all aspects of employment without
regard to race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, gender

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 4
Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

identity, political affiliation, sexual orientation, ancestry, marital or
domestic partnership status, parental status, color, medical condition, and
otherwise prohibited nepotism or favoritism.

Rule 101.3 Merit System Principles (emphasis added).
D. DBI Policy
1. DBI Statement of Incompatible Activities

Statement of incompatible Activities, required by the CGCC, provides that of?cers
and employees are subject to DB1 policies as well as State and local laws and rules governing the
conduct of public officers and employees. DBl?s Statement of Incompatible Activities
speci?cally incorporates the CGCC, applicable Civil Service Rules, and DBl?s Code of
Professional Conduct, discussed below.

In addition to the gift limits imposed by State and City laws, the DB1 Statement of
Incompatible Activities ?imposes additional limits by prohibiting an officer or employee from
accepting any gift that is given in exchange for doing the of?cer?s or employee?s City job.?
Gifts, other than cash, with an aggregate value of $25 or less per occasion are de minimis and
therefore exempt from the restrictions on gifts imposed by the SIA.

2. DBI Code of Professional Conduct

In 2009, D31 implemented a Code of Professional Conduct that is still in effect. That
Code of Professional Conduct is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit 1. Former DB1
Director Vivian Day included an Introduction that affirm that government service is a position of
trust. She acknowledged that DB1 had been criticized in the past, and stated: ?The reality is that
we need to be above reproach and this Professional Conduct Manual is designed to help ensure
that we achieve this result individually and collectively.? Exhibit 1 at p. 2. Code of
Professional Conduct requires employees to act with integrity, to conduct of?cial business
honestly, and to treat the public fairly. Id. at p. 4. Fairness is defined:

Employees will enforce compliance with building codes equally and
neutrally for all customers, without consideration of any relationship,
special interest, political association, other affiliation or lack thereof.

Id. at p. 5. Integrity is emphasized:
Employees will demonstrate the highest standards of personal integrity in

order to inspire public confidence and trust in City employees.
Id. at p. 5. The Code explicitly provides that employees will not accept any gift, special favor,
privilege, or benefit from a person or business that is: (1) regulated by the department, (2) doing
business with the department, or (3) seeking to do business with the department - unless
consistent with State and City law.

Code of Professional Conduct prohibits preferential treatment. ?Preferential
treatment delivers extraordinary effort or access including advantage, favor, special treatment
or priority over and above the normal level of service to a specific few.? Id. at p. 11 (emphasis

 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 5

RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building InsPection

 

added). The DBI Code of Professional Conduct requires DB1 employees to document and report
to a supervisor or manager if they are asked to do anything they believe to be illegal or improper.
Id. The Code recognizes the importance of preserving public trust, eSpecially around gifts and
favors, providing:

Public perception of con?ict of interest may be stricter than City policy,
and subject to disclosure and interpretation by public and press opinions.

Id. at p. 14.

To combat appearances of impropriety, DBl?s Code of Professional Conduct asks
employees to think twice before accepting a cup of coffee:

Simply put, while management discourages employees from accepting
gifts from customers, expediters, contractors, etc. we recognize there may
be occasions where gifts are routinely exchanged. So long as gifts are
within the legal limits . . . and PROPERLY REPORTED, there is not a
complete prohibition on the acceptance of gifts. Something as simple as a
cup of coffee may be accepted.

Id. at p. 33 (emphasis in original). It also directs employees to report ethical concerns to
gradually higher levels of management, including the Director. 1d. at p. 7.

FINDINGS AN ANALYSIS
A. Background on Hui?s City Employment

Hui has worked at DBI since 1989. By 2000, he was a Building Plans Engineer. He
became Deputy Director in 2012 and Mayor Lee appointed him as Director of DB1 in September
2013.

B. Hui Provided Intentional Preferential Treatment of Wong and Zhang Li in
Violation of CGCC and Code of Professional Conduct

1. Hui Accepted Meals from Restricted Sources to Discuss the Project
Subject to DB1 Review in a Private Setting

When asked about the identity of the OFFICIAL 1? referenced in the Federal
Complaint, Hui said it ?sounds like me.? He also reviewed paragraph 149 of the Federal
Complaint, quoted at the beginning of this memorandum, and admitted that he corresponded
with Wong and Nuru on his personal email address about dinner invitations from Wong.

According to Hui, he did not socialize with Wong, but he admitted that he attended three
to four dinners with Zhang Li, Wong, and Nuru where they discussed the Project. Hui received
an email at his personal email address from Wong, inviting him to the dinner in February last
year. Hui admitted the dinners were arranged to discuss the Project and that Zhang Li asked him
questions about the Project during the meals. Hui claims that he told Zhang Li, ?We cannot do
anything.? Zhang Li?s questions about the project, in Wong?s presence, made them both
restricted sources for Hui, regardless of Hui?s reSponse.

Cur AND COUNTY OF SAN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney
Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 6
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

Hui said they ate at the Lounge in Chinatown in a private room. Hui recalled that
approximately seven people from Zhang Li?s company were also present each time, but he did
not remember their names. Hui claimed that his own portion of the dinner cost approximately
$30. Hui?s estimate is likely self-serving, and it is possible that the cost was higher. By his own

admission, however, it is above the threshold for permissible gifts from restricted sources.

Hui admitted that DB1 has authority over the plan check for the Project. DBI has
authority over all of the permitting decisions and plans for the Project. Hui also admitted that
neither he nor Nuru paid for the dinners. Hui admitted that he did not report the gift of the
dinners on his amuai Statement of Economic Interests (also known as a ?Form Nor did
he report the dinners with Zhang Li and Wong to the Building Inspection Committee 
after realizing that they were convened to discuss a large Project before DB1. Hui admitted: ?1
should not have gone? and cannot defend it.?

The absence of a. social relationship between Hui and Wong suggests that, by providing
meals and favors to a DB1 official, Wong intended to and succeeded in gaining special access to
DB1 information and to in?uence Hui in the performance of his of?cial duties. We do not know
at this time whether Hui allowed those meals and favors to in?uence his judgment or actions.
But that does not diminish the fact that he accepted them understanding Wong?s intent.

Hui knew that the Project would be discussed at these private meals with Wong and the
developer, yet he attended at least three or four of these dinners and allowed Wong or the
developer to pay each time. Given Hui?s understanding of Wongis intent in arranging the meals,
Hui violated the CGCC by accepting gifts over the de minimis amount from a restricted source 
a restricted source who intended to in?uence the outcome of the Project subject to DB1 review.

Moreover, under Statement of Incompatible Activities, DB1 of?cials are not
permitted to accept any gift that is given in exchange for merely doing one?s job. Hui was not
permitted to accept meals for doing his job as DB1 Director, regardless of what was discussed at
the dinners.

Even if Hui was unaware of the purpose of the first meal with Wong and Zhang Li, he
did not report the initial improper contact to the Building Inspection Committee or the Mayor?s
Of?ce and he continued to accept meals from Wong and Zhang Li where they discussed issues
with the Project.

2. Hui Sought Wong's Input on City Business

Hui?s personal emails show that, in 2013, Hui forwarded Wong draft letters from DB1 to
the Department of Public Health and the San Francisco Unified School District about a proposed
process called One StopfOTC [Over the Counter].? Hui had been revising the letters in
consultation with the Mayor?s Office. He then forwarded the letters from his official City email
address to his personal address. Hui forwarded the letters from his personal email address to
Wong: ?Hi Walter, Please, help me to review both letters and a starting date may need to add. I
would like to send out tomorrow. Thanks Tom." Wong responded the same day with proposed
language for a new paragraph and an effective date for the new process.

CJTY AND COUNTY OF SAN OF THE CITY 
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 7

RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

Although the letters were not included with the email correspondence, it appears that Hui
solicited and included Wong's input for a letter from DBI to public agencies about 
permitting processes. Hui also concealed the communication with Wong by routing it through
his personal email account. A copy of that email correspondence is attached as Exhibit 2. In
soliciting Wong?s input, Hui allowed someone with private and commercial interests before DBI
to in?uence of?cial correspondence and decision making about DBI permitting processes and
gave preferential treatment to Wong.

3. Wong Emailed Hui?s Personal Email Seeking Information and
Guidance on Properties subject to DBI Applications, Permits and
Complaints

In 2015 Wong wrote to Hui at his personal email address to ask for detailed information
about complaints at speci?c preperties owned by Xiao Qi Wu, also known as Judy Wu. By the
date of Wong?s request, DBI had issued Notices of Violation for more than 10 of these properties
and referred those Notices of Violation to Code Enforcement Section. The tone of
Wongis emails to Hui suggest that Wong was comfortable making such direct requests of Hui.

A copy of that email 2015 request from Wong is attached as Exhibit 3.

Although the information requested by Wong was publicly available, most members of
the public did not have direct access to the D31 Director for assistance compiling detailed
information about properties under DBI scrutiny. While other members of the public might have
been able to compile the same information, Hui provided Wong with an extraordinary access.

In 2016, the City Attomey?s Of?ce sued Wu and her husband for code violations at more
than 10 of the locations about which Wong was asking in 2015. The Building and Housing Code
violations arose from a scheme to purchase single-family homes in the Bayview, illegally
subdivide them into four to six units, and then market the units to veterans receiving HUD
housing vouchers. Wu and her husband accomplished this scheme by submitting permits to DB1
to add multiple laundry rooms to each home for purposes of installing additional gas and water
connections. Once this permitted work was completed and approved, Wu and her husband did
additional work without permits to create multiple kitchens and bathrooms and add walls. The
case settled the day trial was scheduled to begin. Under the settlement, Wu and her husband paid
$2 million in penalties, attorney?s fees, and relocation costs and agreed to an injunction requiring
them to legalize the properties.

As far back as 2008, before Hui was Director or even Acting Director, Wong emailed
Hui to seek Hui?s advice about how to respond to a request from DB1 related to whether
sprinklers would be required at a historic site renovation. On another date in 2008, Wong
emailed Hui?s personal email address to ask ?Pls help to review? revised drawings of pillars at a
pro} ect.

4. Hui Knowingly Violated City Ethics Laws and Rules

Hui certi?ed that he completed the City?s required ethics training each year since 2016,
including most recently in February 2020. He understood the laws and rules governing his
conduct with permit expediters and other members of the public. Had he beiieved his
communications with Wong were appropriate, it would have been simpler for him to email

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY 
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis .1. Herrera, City Attorney
Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 8
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

Wong directly from his of?cial City email address. Hui nevertheless communicated through his
personal email and continued to provide Wong with unprecedented access to the Director and,
through him, to DBI information and policy.

By attending private dinners handed by Zhang Li, the developer, and Wong, the permit
expediter, for the Project, Hui provided them with preferential effort by and access to DBI
violating both the CGCC and Code of Professional Conduct and also contravening
policies in the City?s Employee Handbook. That Code of Professional Conduct explicitly
clari?es ?the difference between preferential treatment and customer service.? It explains that:

Customer service delivers to every customer the same level of assistance
from every member of the department. Preferential treatment delivers
extraordinary effort or access including advantage, favor, special
treatment or priority over and above the normal level of service to a
speci?c few by one or more employees.

Exhibit 1 at p. 11. Most members of the public cannot arrange private meals with the DB1
Director to discuss problems with. their projects under review by DB1. The DB1 Code of
Professional Conduct instructs employees to ?consider whether you would have been invited to
participate in this activity if you had a different If not, why were you invited?? Because
Hui admitted he had no social relationship with Wong, there is no reason for his attendance at the
dinners other than to provide access at the highest levels of DB1 to Wong and Zhang Li for
questions and information about the Project.

Together with the decades? long pattern of soliciting Wong?s input regarding City
business and accepting Wong?s requests for advice about matters before DB1, these facts
demonstrate that Hui intentionally provided preferential treatment and access to Wong, in
contravention of the CGCC, DBl?s Code of Professional Conduct, and the Employee Handbook.

Further investigation may uncover additional meals or other gifts, and further
communications about official DBI business outside of normal communication channels, to
provide additional evidence of preferential treatment and access for Wong, Zhang Li, or possibly
others.

C. Hui Violated Anti-Favoritism Laws and Policies and Abused his Position by
Seeking to In?uence City Hiring Decisions

Following the interview on February 18, 2020, Hui voluntarily provided emails from his
personal email account. These emails demonstrate that in 2011 and 2012, when Hui was a
Deputy Director at DB1, Hui routinely communicated with Wong seeking City employment for
his son and his son?s girlfriend.

1. Hui Asked Wong to Help his Son Reschedule an Interview

in June 2011, Hui?s son was seeking a job at Public Works. The son was unavailable on
his scheduled appointment date. The son requested to reschedule the interview, but also
forwarded his request to Hui. Then Hui forwarded the email to Wong, asking for assistance:
?Hi Walter. Please help my son to change the intenriew date. Thanks Tom.? Wong responded

CJTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 9

RE. Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

the same day: ?Can he do a phone interview.? This email string is attached to this
Memorandum as Exhibit 4.

Hui?s son was hired as a permanent civil service classi?cation 5201 Junior Engineer at
Public Works in August 2011. He was promoted to a 5203 Assistant Engineer at Public Works
in January 2013. The son applied for a position at DBI as a classi?cation 5207 Associate
Engineer (Civil), a promotion from his Public Works position. Hui approved the paperwork for

his son?s appointment. When the Human Resources Director learned of the appointment, she
directed Hui to release his son from probation. The son returned to his underlying pOSItlon at

Public Works in April 2016. He resigned with the designation ?services satisfactory? in
November 2017.

2. Hui Asked Wong to get his Son?s Girlfriend a City Job

Throughout 2012, Hui sought Wong?s help in securing City employment for his son?s
girlfriend (now his wife). In January 2012, the girl?iend received a notice from Public Works,
advising that she was not selected for a classi?cation 1820 Junior Administrative Analyst. She
forwarded that email notice to the son; at some point the email was forwarded to Wong, who
asked Nuru, ?Can we help them.? Nuru responded, ?yes i [sic] am working on it. I gave the
paperwork to our Human Resource staff. we [sic] should hear soon from them.? Wong then
forwarded Nuru?s email to Hui?s personal email address, with the comment 

In May 2012, Hui?s son informed his father that his girlfriend was ?fth on a list for a
classification 1820 Junior Administrative Analyst Position at the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission forwarding an email the girlfriend had forwarded to him. The son
asked for Hui?s help: ?Hi Dad, Please see what you can do for [girlfriend].?

In June 2012, Hui forwarded to Wong the information from his son about the girlfriend?s
application at the SF PUC. Hui stated:

Hi Walter,

My son?s girlfriend is Miss [redacted] and she is ranked number 5.
Thanks for your help. Please, give me a call if you have any questions.

Thank you very much
Bye
Tom
Later in June 2012, Hui emailed Wong again seeking help for his son?s girlfriend:
Hi Walter,

There are two more positions in Rec. air Park. I wish you can help my
son?s girl friend.

Thanks

Tom Hui

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM

TO: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney

Jesse Smith, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DATE: March 10, 2020
PAGE: 10
RE: Investigation of Tom Hui, Director of the Department of Building Inspection

 

In September of that year, the girlfriend was ranked 11 on the eligible list and sought a
classi?cation 1241 Personnel Analyst position at Public Works. She forwarded the email to
Hui?s son, who forwarded it to Hui, asking his dad to ?see what you can do? about the
application. Hui forwarded the email to Wong: ?Hi Walter, Please, help me to see DPW can
hire my son?s girl friend. Iwill call you and thank you so much. Bye Wong forwarded
the email chain to Nuru at his personal email address, asking ps help Nuru
forwarded that email to his work email address, and then asked a GSA Human Resources
Analyst to look into the application. That GSA Human Resources Analyst informed Nuru that,

because the certification rule for the position was the Rule of 10 (that is, limited to the top 10
ranked applicants), the girlfriend was ?not reachable." Nuru shared this email with Wong, and

Wong forwarded it to Hui with an Hui thanked Wong and said, wish next referral for
her." Wong responded within minutes: ?We are working on it.?

In 2014, Hui?s son?s girlfriend was hired as an exempt employee at the SFPUC. In 2015,
she transferred into the same position at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority
where she remains an employee. She and Hui?s son married in 2019.

3. Hui Abused his Of?cial Position and Improperly Attempted to
Circumvent the Merit Hiring System

Hui?s communications with Wong regarding City employment for his son and his son?s
girlfriend violated the prohibition on any employee seeking to influence a hiring
decision involving a relative. Huiis efforts on behalf of his son and his son?s girlfriend also
violated Civil Service Rules and the Employee Handbook. The emails demonstrate that Hui
placed his familial interests ahead of City interests and rules designed to ensure a fair,
transparent selection process based on merit. That Hui attempted to in?uence hiring decisions
through a third party rather than by directly contacting other City departments does not mitigate
his intent to subvert the City?s merit system. In fact, it suggests that he was aware the requests
were improper and sought to conceal his involvement by acting through a third party.

Further investigation may uncover additional circumstances where Hui and Wong
exchanged favors for personal, familiar or professional benefit at the expense of an open,
transparent and fair process.

 

 N. BREED
MAYOR

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO

 

March I I, 2020

Via US Mail and email

Angus McCarthy, President

San Francisco Building Inspection Commission
Department of Building Inspection

1660 Mission Street, 61h Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103-2414

Dear President McCarthy:

Under Charter Section I write to recommend that the Building Inspection Commission
exercise its authority under Charter Section 4.12! to remove Tom Hui from his position as
Director of Building Inspection. Under the Charter, the Commission must act on this
recommendation within 30 days. While this recommendation is pending, I have placed Mr. Hui
on paid administrative leave from his position.

The City Attorney launched an investigation of Mr. Hui?s activities after determining that he is
OFFICIAL 1" referenced in the unsealed federal criminal complaint, Complaint No- 3-20-
70028, ?led against former Director of Public Works Mohammed Nuru on January 15, 2020, in
the Northern District of California. Although the investigation remains underway, the City
Attorney has determined based on the evidence obtained to date that Mr. Hui has violated state
and local laws, the Department of Building Inspection (DB1) Code of Professional Conduct, and
City policies. The enclosed investigative summary details these violations. In the report, the
City Attomey?s Of?ce ?nds that Mr. Hui provided intentional preferential treatment and access
to Walter Wong, a permit expediter who regularly conducts business with DBI, and to Zhang Li,
the developer of 555 Fulton, a project subject to DB1 review. Mr. Hui also accepted gills of
meals from Mr. Wong, at dinners arranged to discuss the 555 Fulton project. Also, Mr. Hui
solicited and relied on Mr. Wong?s input in making operational decisions. Finally, Mr. Hui
requested and accepted favors from Mr. Wong in seeking City employment for members of

Mr. Hui?s family, violating City law and policy by abusing his of ?cial position.

There is no place in public service for self-dealing. Mr. Hui abused his position and authority,
and betrayed the public trust. Also, Mr. ilui?s actions cast a shadow over the good work ol?the
honest and hard-working employees in the I have no con?dence in his judgement,
integrity, or ability to serve as Director of Building Inspection. For these reasons, I ask that you
place an item on your March 13, 2020 agenda, to remove Mr. I-lui as the Director of Building
Inspection.

1 DR. CARLTON B. PLACE. Room 200
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102?4631
TELEPHONE: [415) 554-5141

LONOON N. BREED
MAYOR

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO

 

I thank City Attorney Dennis Herrera and his investigative team for exposing Mr. Hui?s
misconduct. I understand the investigation remains ongoing. Based on the investigation to date
and any further ?ndings, I will direct the next Director of Building Inspection to take steps to
remove Mr. Hui from his underlying permanent civil service appointment.

Sincerely,

?gs/AL

Mayor London N. Breed

C: City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera
Director of Building Inspection Tom Hui
LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Director, Ethics Commission
Members Of the Building Inspection Commission

1 DR. CARLTON Es. PLACE, ROOM 200
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4681
TELEPHONE: {415) 554-5t41