Under Nancy Tung, the San Francisco Democratic Party has lost all credibility. I stand with SFWPC in calling on Chair Tung to resign. Survivors deserve leaders who stand with them when it matters, not when it becomes politically convenient. Accountability must begin with her resignation.
San Francisco’s political establishment had months to act. Party leaders had a formal complaint, public reporting and a survivor standing before them asking to be heard. They endorsed Manny Yekutiel anyway, deepening the harm to Brad Chapin and sending a devastating message to all survivors. No policy forced an endorsement, they made that choice.
When more survivors courageously came forward last week, the SFDCCC’s response was to schedule a meeting ten days later to ‘reconsider’ its endorsement. No immediate withdrawal of support. No call for Manny to end his campaign. Survivors were asked to wait again. Then it took Chair Tung four days to apologize after Manny’s campaign collapsed and he had become a political liability.
Back ↑
Did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
Did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
Did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
Did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
I think Nancy Tung is one of the best and most effective Democratic Party chairs I’ve seen in more than 35 years of being in and around San Francisco politics. She deserves a lot of credit for taking on tough issues her predecessors avoided, including creating a Code of Conduct and Policies for Sexual Assault and Harassment. As a career prosecutor, Nancy knows better than most how hard it is to balance serious accusations with the rights of the accused — but that it’s incredibly important to do so anyway. These are always tough issues, whether they play out in a court of law or a court of public opinion. I think it speaks volumes about her commitment to getting it right that she issued a public apology. So, I have a lot of respect for Nancy Tung’s leadership, humility and class — and zero respect for demands that she step down
Back ↑
The chair has greatly disappointed me but has not done anything illegal. This is an internal decision by the elected members and the Democratic voters of San Francisco can hold the entire DCCC accountable if San Franciscans don’t agree.
Back ↑
Did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
Yes. Clearly, the DCCC failed Brad Chapin, the first person to come forward with a story about a sexual assault by Manny. The problem is bigger than Nancy Tung, however, as a number of sitting DCCC members, and non-DCCC members, including Board President Rafael Mandelman and Mayor Daniel Lurie stood by Manny even after Brad came forward. Neither Mandelman nor Lurie have apologized for or retracted their problematic statements doubling down on their support of Manny, Lurie having said “I asked Manny about it. He assured me that the allegation simply was not true” and Mandelman having said “I think sexual assault occurs differently [in the gay community] and there’s a different threshold.
Back ↑
I will just say that all members of the DCCC should be Democrats.
You can even say: I will just say that all members of the DCCC should AT LEAST be Democrats.
I don’t believe we have a Democratic Party in San Francisco.
Back ↑
Our community deserves leaders that they can trust. San Francisco’s Democratic Party (DCCC) previously adopted guidelines governing sexual assault and harassment. They failed to adhere to their own policies, did not initiate an investigation and instead endorsed a candidate with a serious sexual assault allegation. It should not be required for multiple victims to come forward before allegations are investigated. The Party Chair now admits the process failed survivors. An apology is not enough. Those responsible must be held accountable for these decisions and show how they will prevent this from happening again. Our communities deserve leaders with the courage to hold their own allies accountable.
Back ↑
ANYBODY who voted to give Manny the @SFDemocrats endorsement must resign NOW
ANYBODY who backed Manny must have their @SFDemocrats endorsement pulled NOW
Accountability is repairing harm, NOT performative acts to rehabilitate the image of those who showed their HORRIFYING judgement
If @mattdorsey @NancyTungSF & anybody else who voted to give my Democratic Party endorsement to Manny had any decency, they would resign themselves.
Back ↑
No. The Democratic Party’s process around sexual harassment and sexual violence needs to be revamped. Chair Tung has been clear she is committed to making that change, and she apologized for the process’s failure. Chair Tung has stabilized and grown the San Francisco Democratic Party. She is also one of our most effective Chinese American leaders in San Francisco. She has my support.
Back ↑
I’ve spoken with Chair Tung and am waiting to hear from survivors and others at the upcoming meeting during public comment. As a candidate in this race where this has been largely centered, I want to be sure we’re focused on survivors and hear what folks have to say when given the opportunity Sunday night.
Back ↑
I believe Nancy Tung should step down as Chair of the SF Democratic Party. The rollout of the Code of Conduct and the process for handling sexual assault and harassment complaints was a failure of leadership. We should have met within 72 hours to revoke the Manny endorsement and make a new one before ballots dropped on October 5th. Voters are confused, and many have told me they’ve lost confidence in the party. A new Chair can restore our credibility.
Survivors who come forward deserve compassion, support and leaders willing to act — even when the accused is a political ally. Under Nancy Tung’s leadership, the SFDCCC failed that test.
Back ↑
Yes, she should step down as chair. Voters gave Nancy her DCCC seat, and they can decide what happens to it. The committee made her chair; the chair is responsible for the institution she leads, and the institution failed.
In 2024, the party built a process that promised to protect survivors. In August, that process ended with no finding on what happened and failed to protect the person who came forward. Brad Chapin spoke before the committee himself and called the process “a sham.” The party said his complaint fell outside its rules and endorsed the same day, 12 to 10.
That same month, Nancy used her authority as chair to keep a resolution restricting Flock off the agenda. A month later, two members with ties to Flock voted on Flock cameras, and her response was that the party had no rule against it. The chair has discretion, and she clearly uses it. Having no rule doesn’t mean having no responsibility.
I appreciate that Nancy has since apologized for the endorsement and acknowledged that the party’s framework “broke down and did not protect survivors.” That apology came nearly six weeks after the endorsement and after the party’s candidate had already left the race. I don’t doubt that Nancy is sorry, but accountability is not a judgment about whether someone feels remorse. It is about whether leadership carries consequences when an institution fails, and I don’t believe the person who led the party through this failure should be the one to lead it out.
Who replaces her matters. A new chair backed by the same slate may change little. But who decided this has to be the status quo? The status quo isn’t working for us, and uncertainty about what comes next isn’t a reason to preserve what has already failed.
This is bigger than Nancy. The party told survivors it would protect them. When that promise was tested, its process failed the person who came forward, and the committee endorsed anyway. That cannot become our precedent. The next person weighing whether to come forward is watching what our party does now.
Every survivor, of every gender, deserves to be taken seriously by our leaders and by the public. Speaking up must cost less than staying silent.
Back ↑
You can note for the record that I’ll make comments after the DCCC special meeting.
Back ↑
Yes. Nancy Tung should step down as San Francisco Democratic Party chair. Our endorsements carry our party’s name. They should also carry our values.
When Brad Chapin brought serious allegations against Manny Yekutiel, he waited months for a process that ultimately said it would not consider his complaint. The DCCC then endorsed Yekutiel. Under Tung’s leadership, the party failed to give Brad a fair process before making that decision.
The handling of Flock raises further concerns. Tung coauthored a resolution defending the company while two members employed by Flock were allowed to vote on it. Her officeholder account also received $10,000 from billionaire Chris Larsen, a Flock investor. She later used that account to pay for travel to a Flock conference. Those relationships demanded scrutiny and clear safeguards before the vote.
Democrats must uphold the standards we ask of others. Tung has lost my confidence as chair.
Back ↑
When Brad Chapin came forward this summer, he did what we ask survivors to do. The San Francisco Democratic Party, under Chair Nancy Tung, delayed, declared its own code didn’t apply, and endorsed anyway.
It took more survivors coming forward and the candidate leaving the race before the party admitted its process failed. Today’s apology confirms that failure. The leader who oversaw it can’t be the one to fix it.
I’m calling on Nancy Tung to step down as Chair, and I urge DCCC members to use the October 11 special meeting to start a real review of how the party handles misconduct complaints, with survivors at the table.
Back ↑
I believe Nancy Tung should step down as San Francisco Democratic Party chair. Under her leadership, the process failed the survivors it was supposed to protect. Taking responsibility after the fact must be followed by meaningful accountability, stronger policies, and leadership with the insight and judgment to act responsibly during crucial moments.
My concerns also extend to her alignment with billionaire interests. Her reported acceptance of $10,000 from a billionaire supporter of Flock, alongside her role in helping block consideration of a surveillance resolution, raises serious questions about her independence and priorities.
San Francisco’s working people and retirees deserve leadership that protects their safety, rights, and voices. I believe restoring that trust requires new leadership.
Back ↑
No (Sent as a text message with the word “No” swirling around the screen like confetti)
Back ↑
No. The party failed Brad Chapin and survivors by endorsing Manny Yekutiel on the strength of a grievously flawed investigation, and it damaged our credibility. Chair Tung has apologized. Credibility is rebuilt by what the party does next, and I will judge her by that.
Back ↑
Chair Tung has led the Democratic Party in San Francisco since 2024 with integrity and vision. One of Chair Tung’s most innovative initiatives, Dems on the Move, was extremely well received when monthly DCCC meetings were held in various neighborhoods to make the Party more accessible to voters. Leaders should be assessed on the totality of their performance and Chair Tung has and will continue to serve San Francisco Democrats well. It’s unfortunate the process for filing sexual misconduct claims was not as robust and responsive to Brad Chapin as it should have been. I have confidence that our party will learn from this experience and be more responsive to anyone filing a sexual misconduct claim going forward.
Back ↑
No. I don’t think Nancy should resign. I think we stay focused and keep moving forward.
Back ↑
By endorsing Manny Yekutiel after hearing the heartbreaking public comment from one of his alleged victims, the San Francisco Democratic Party failed survivors of sexual assault and undermined the trust our community should be able to place in its political leaders. It should never have taken more than one survivor coming forward for these allegations to be taken seriously. Yet the Party has still failed to take concrete steps to address its conduct or meaningfully reckon with the harm it caused by choosing politics over doing what was right.
This is a morally clarifying moment, and under this Chair’s leadership, the Party has failed to meet it. San Francisco Democrats deserve better. We need new leadership and meaningful reform to restore the Party’s credibility, and I join calls from the community for the Chair to resign.”
Back ↑
I believe Chair Tung has made a series of decisions that undermine trust in our Party. The DCCC is having an emergency meeting to discuss the District 8 endorsement and what went wrong with the sexual assault investigation this Sunday. I will make a judgment on the question posed based on the substance of said meeting and the next steps she outlines.
Back ↑
Yes, Nancy Tung must resign as Chair.
She has completely destroyed her credibility as party leader through a pattern of severe ethical failures and pay-to-play governance in the past several months:
1. Shielding Insiders: Pushing through Yekutiel’s endorsement after running a sham investigation into his first sexual assault allegation, betraying her past “zero-tolerance” rhetoric and ignoring survivors.
2. Changing by-laws for billionaires: Altering party rules and by-laws so the DCCC could formally vote to oppose Proposition 40 (the Billionaire’s Tax), making San Francisco the only local Democratic Party in the entire state of California to break ranks and oppose the state party’s official position.
3. Conflicts of Interest: Taking a $10,000 campaign donation from Chris Larsen, attending a Flock conference in Atlanta while at the same time blocking a resolution calling for an end to SFPD’s Flock surveillance contract unless enforceable protections against sharing data with ICE and federal agencies are guaranteed.
A party chair who changes rules to protect wealthy donors and shields political insiders until bad press forces damage control is morally bankrupt. She must step down.
Back ↑
Yes, she should step down as chair.
One of Nancy Tung’s FIRST directives as Chair was to establish a robust and independent due process for survivors and zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assaults within the Dem Party.
The process failed its first public test, further eroding the fragile trust the party was building with survivors.
“People who are survivors — who share their stories — deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” Nancy Tung said. “They deserve to be believed, and they deserve to have the process center around them.”
Back ↑
Aides did not return multiple messages.
Back ↑
I support Chair Tung and her leadership. While our 2024 Code of Conduct and Policies for Sexual Assault and Harassment failed us as a board, Chair Tung is taking swift and decisive action to address the situation. I am grateful for her leadership during this difficult time. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to all the victims and their families. I know we can and must do better.
Back ↑
I think Nancy has shown great leadership in leading the party to adopt its sexual harassment code of conduct policy, and even more in acknowledging that mistakes were made in implementing that policy.
An apology may not be enough for everyone, and I understand that. What matters now is what we do next. There needs to be meaningful change so that people who experience sexual harassment feel safe coming forward and confident that they will be heard and taken seriously. I believe Nancy can lead that effort. The party has an opportunity to learn from what happened, have informed and honest discussions about sexual harassment, and strengthen its policies and procedures.
I’ll be watching — and I’ll be expecting that change.
Back ↑



















The DCCC was packed by billionaires during the 2024 Election so just as it is generally in Lurie’s SF, it’s going to be whatever the billionaires want. GrowSF and the other billionaire PACs are trying to get people to vote for Manny anyways, so that he’ll resign and Lurie can appoint someone friendly to billionaires. The DCCC is surely under tremendous pressure to keep their endorsement of Manny in the hopes that he can somehow slide through, even thought he’s now a local pariah. Life sure is great under billionare rule….
The DCCC no longer reflects San Francisco values and it is not only Nancy Tung that should go but the whole lot of them. The DCCC has a well known loophole where there is no limit on the amount of money that can be donated to a candidate and billionaires like Chris Larsen are exploiting this to pack the Committee with his supporters. Time to take back this board.
The rule they used for Manny’s assaults is the most insane thing I can imagine. and they all need to go!
When Gonzalez lost to Newsom the jig was up.
Local party officials were then asked to select a new party motto:
– It’s Good To Grift!
– Get In While The Grifting Is Good!
– Gone Grifting!
– Flock Me? No, Flock You!
– Genocide? What’s That?
– We Heart Billionaires!
– More Luxury Lofts WIll Make All Housing More Affordable!
– All Our Orifices For More AI Offices!
– We Stan For The Techbroligarchy!
Results soon…
Thanks for this information; I printed it and will keep the info. on these folx & forward it to all my friends, co-workers, etc. Have you done an article on how and who elects these “people” to the SFDCC?
Figure it out Leo — it’s not that hard.
I appreciate you going out there and getting these people on the record. Seeing all those pink circles is not surprising but it sure is depressing.
Unsurprisingly, most of the DCCC doesn’t want to be accountable for their own decisions and failures, and the ones who replied with a simple “No” hide behind their club leader.
Some of them (Dorsey, Scott, Lanier, Eleni, Malia) even heap praise to dear leader in a situation completely of her own making, as they try to run damage control so impressive for a serious failure abetting sexual misconduct for promised fixes not even yet delivered, that I can only hope they choke on it, as if we don’t have enough sexual misconduct to deal with at the national level.
Anyone who voted yes understands abetting sexual misconduct makes you an accessory.
Most who’s grey are trying to hide their involvement, especially Mandleman who is most responsible for fanning the flames, while some are biding their time.
Yellow, mostly also biding their time till the DCCC vote Oct. 10th.
Red, almost all of them are accessory to abetting sexual misconduct, played an active hand, and still continue to excuse abject failure of Nancy’s duty as chair. Except Melgar (believed the victim from the get go).
And, of course, a “special” award for worst response goes to Marjan Philhour, who the fuck, is this immature?
Responding No (Sent as a text message with the word “No” swirling around the screen like confetti)
No wonder she lost against Connie Chan for D4 supe and had to settle for DCCC membership.
Even Fiona “had to settle her case with 350k taxpayer money because of sexual harassment” Ma at least had a simple response, and how she handled this whole situation was far, far worse.
Shame on Mandleman. Glad he is leaving BOS
Marjan Philhour is that immature. It’s why she keeps losing elections.
Shamann Walton is spot on.
If only Gordon Mar were SFDCCC Chair. Dude is unflappable, steady, quiet, non-partisan and an honorable public servant. A stand up human being. The Atticus Finch of this iteration of the SFDCCC.
Mar is trying to impose the Mission style nonprofit colonial administration on the recently upzoned west side. Luis Granados needs a arise.
Can you use a color blind friendly palette please?
Craven, craven, craven, craven, craven
There are a lot of pro-rape democratic politicians.
Anyone who would accuse a person of fabricating an assault claim is only showing that they themselves would consider fabricating a claim as an attempt to disqualify a candidate they don’t agree with.
You surveyed Tung herself? Lol, grade A trolling there!
Did you change the pronouns in the email to her, ie “ Should YOU resign from the DCCC and/or step down…” or did you leave it mass-mail style “ Should Nancy Tung resign from the DCCC and/or step down…”
It would be even more amazing to see where folks down ballot stand – like the candidates for CCSF College Board and for SFUSD School Board. These races often are overlooked and I think are really important to consider where candidates stand on supporting people who enable abusers or disregard the experiences of survivors. Especially because CCSF College Candidates are elected to represent the needs and issues that matter for the CCSF community as well as all San Franciscans. Same for any SFUSD School Board Candidate.
The DCCC decision at the time was correct. It could not reasonably have been expected to take into account facts or claims that only came into the public domain at a later stage. A single uncorroborated allegation from a source with a political agenda with no objective evidence to back it up does not reach the standard required to interfere with an endorsement decision.
Ron, respectfully, you have no objective evidence to back up any of your opinions.
The DCCC delayed for months on a investigation scope that was completely irrelevant and known previously, and posed a endorsement vote despite actually not doing even the most basic of investigation with no proper evidence.
Forcing two more victims to have to brave forward with their direct citation of because the DCCC failed to investigate and watching Chapin get skewered in front of San Francisco.
Ignorance, at best, does not excuse whitewashing fact.
Neither does disparaging victims.
Don’t waste your time on Ron, he’s spent the last two weeks trying to discredit Brad. He’s moved the goalposts and is the kind of pest we won’t allow in our community anymore.
Justly so.
They seem to keep digging themselves into a hole, but can’t stop digging.
Billy, you won’t allow in your community? Did someone put you in charge here?
I believe that ML encourages a diverse array of opinions to be expressed here.
Come touch me against my will and find out, wannabe sexpest.
I disagree. At the time Chapin’s claim was an isolated allegation for which he could present no supporting evidence. Given also that he had a political agenda, the DCCC was correct to dismiss his claim.
As for him getting “skewered”, he surely understood that seeking to undermine a popular candidate with tittle-tattle was a risky move. He knew the risks, or should have done.
Your disagreement is poor, and labeling counterproductive.
A claim is not isolated, and should never be so just because it’s just one report, neither is just believing something different should make you ineligible to report gross sexual misconduct.
Last but not least, neither should you EVER be blamed for reporting misconduct.
Your views on sexual misconduct are absolutely deplorable, and counterproductive to all elements of public safety.
Here’s my “diverse array of opinions”, go get help.
B, you are entitled to your opinion but there is still zero independent evidence that any of Brad’s claims have substance. At the end of the day, it is just an isolated allegation against a political enemy, and the DCCC was right to call that out.