SF Democrats Adopt New Sexual Assault Reporting Policies. Now Comes the Real Work

San Francisco Democratic Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night to adopt a new set of policies for handling allegations of sexual misconduct.

The new guidelines follow multiple accusations of sexual assault and harassment within local Democratic chapters that advocates and survivors said largely went ignored until they came forward publicly.

“We want diversity, inclusion. We want young people. We want women. We want people of all kinds to be participants in our political environment. And in order for that to happen, these spaces need to be safe,” Lily Ho, a member of San Francisco’s Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) who steered the committee that crafted the policies, said at Wednesday’s meeting.

The new policies will create an ombudsperson and establish different reporting routes for survivors. That includes the preexisting option of reporting directly to their local chapter, which can still pursue its own investigation.

Now, survivors can also choose to go through the official Democratic Party as an alternative route. Reports made to DCCC would go to an ombudsperson and later an investigator and adjudication panel to decide potential remedies and consequences, ranging from restorative justice to admonishment or expulsion from the San Francisco Democratic Party. The policy also lays out an appeals process for the accused.

Leaders of local chapters, and candidates seeking the party’s endorsement, will have to complete a sexual harassment training and incorporate the policies into their bylaws by May 2025.

“This is ambitious and unparalleled and unprecedented for a local organization to take this on,” said John Trasviña, a consultant to the California Democratic Party and state ombudsperson. “This is important for our party, it’s important for our members.”

Several other speakers at Wednesday’s meeting, which included members of local chapters and survivors, praised the committee for taking the steps to create the framework.

“So much has gone into this, and San Francisco has a long history with this issue,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, who provided feedback and advised the process as well. “We are so grateful to see all the progress that has been made.”

But many emphasized that the framework is only one step in a complicated process to effectively address sexual violence in political spaces.

Zahra Hajee, a former aide to city Supervisor Rafael Mandelman and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, came forward publicly this summer with allegations of sexual misconduct against Kevin Ortiz, then co-president of the San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club. She expressed both appreciation and skepticism in a statement read aloud by District 5 Supervisor-elect Bilal Mahmood.

“These changes reflect a commitment to building an environment where survivors can come forward without fear of retaliation or losing control of their narrative,” Hajee wrote.

But there were moments in the policy-creation process where she and others felt survivors’ experiences were scrutinized, making it harder to participate.

“During this process, I’ve also heard conversations about false reporting. The reality is that upwards of 60% of incidents of sexual assault go unreported — a number even higher for women of color,” Hajee wrote. “For many of us, harassment is not an isolated incident but a part of daily life — at home, at work or even while walking to the grocery store. These statistics highlight a system that too often fails to support survivors, leaving us without safe spaces to seek help.”

Before Hajee went public with her allegations, Ortiz sent cease-and-desist letters to her and another woman, who accused Ortiz of sexual assault, and spoke to KQED on the condition of anonymity due to concerns of retaliation and safety. Ortiz has denied these allegations.

The second woman said she felt unable to participate in the policy-creation process due to the political nature of the body writing the policies. Multiple members of the committee were running for office while the process was underway.

“They can hand wave as much as they want, but the policy as written doesn’t live up to the excuses they made. There’s nothing about who the investigator is, how they are chosen, or how neutrality is assured. There’s no actual policy for how to appeal if the ombudsperson or investigator are biased. I think it’s shockingly vague,” she said of the policies. “I just feel devastated and powerless and exploited and silenced.”

Several members of the DCCC said implementation and following through with accountability regardless of political affiliations will be where the real work comes in.

Ho, who steered the committee, said she expects the Democratic Party to review whether people are using the new reporting system and make adjustments as necessary.

“We always understood that the way we execute these policies is going to be just as important as the written policies themselves,” Ho said. “Otherwise it’s just a bunch of words on a piece of paper.”