written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the sheriff committed official misconduct. so i just want that to be clear in terms of why our order doesn't address what the affect of the findings shall be, because the charter really provides no option. commissioner hayon? >> while that may be the case, i do understand that the charter spells out what punishment should be based on our recommendation or finding. sheriff mirkarimi guilty on those two counts. i do feel there has been a tremendous amount of confusion about this in the public and even in the media to some degree. and even if our recommendation really has no bearing, in the case of what the punishment should be, i feel that the commission should at least go on the record as to how -- what we feel the punishment should be and the board can certainly ignore that particular recommendation, or use it to bolster whatever arguments take place when the board has its hearing. but i for one feel that the commission should have and still should consider a vote on what the punishment should be. and if it's not inappropriate, i myself would like to make a motion to that effect. i don't know how the other commissioners feel about this. just for the record, i realize that the legality, it doesn't -- it's not necessary in view of what the charter recommends. but i do think that we should be on the record. >> i guess my concern with that is that we would be recommending action to the board that they cannot take. i mean, their options are to either find that the sheriff committed official misconduct, or find that he has not committed official misconduct and if they find the former, the charter is clear that he needs to be removed from office. if they find the latter, it's clear that he is not to be removed from office and he is to be reinstated. so i think a recommendation to the board of something that they can't do would not be productive. i don't know if any other commissioners -- >> let me just say that as you are probably aware the lm women passed a recommendation or at least a stance recently, and they have no bearing on the official proceedings whatsoever. but they wanted to go on the record as to what they feel should be done. >> let me say chairman hur, i tend to disagree with your reading of what power the ethics commission would have. as i think i said very early on and although i am sort of alone in my broad reading of the definition of "official misconduct," it appears to give the mayor discretionary power, not the section that deals with felonies, makes it mandatory. the section that just talks about official misconduct says, "the mayor may suspend or punish." so as i said earlier, i thought our analysis is a two-step analysis and that is first, do we make a finding of official misconduct? and secondly, was the suspension by the mayor appropriate? and the reason why i feel strongly about that is in a way addresses what your concern was when you say with my broad reading of the statute, it gives the mayor unlimited power. i said it doesn't give him unlimited power if at the hearing it became clear to us that the mayor was acting solely out of a political motive or some bad motive other than that so that the official misconduct that he found we might feel was not sufficient or did not justify suspension. now i agree with the fact that in this case i would say i would not recommend that the mayor abuse his discretion based on the facts in this case, everything i have heard. but i do not subscribe to the view that if we make a finding of official misconduct. that is the end of our analysis in every case. >> okay. well, i certainly don't think that we should be deciding here what would happen if we found that the mayor had engaged in some sort of prosecuturial type of misconduct. i don't think there is evidence of that in if the record and we should not provide advisory opinions what should happen in that event and neither do i think we should be providing advisory opinions what should happen if the mayor requested that the sheriff not be removed from office. if we the board recommend or do something other than remove him from office if there is a finding of official misconduct. i don't see the benefit of providing any other recommendation to the board. commissioner liu? >> thank you. i do understand commissioner hayon's concern for taking a position on the consequences and what effect the misconduct charges should have. however, i think that i am more inclined to agree with chair hur on this particular issue, because -- and the reason is because we were so careful in analyzing what the charter says and what the standards are and we parsed the language. we were trying to be true to what each of felt what the charter allowed us to do and not do. so i would not feel comfortable now straying from that principle and doing something that i really don't see that the charter allows us to do. so for that reason, i wouldn't want to take a recommendation on it, simply because that is not what i think we're authorized to do under the charter. and if we have been true to what we each believe the charter allows or doesn't allow and i understand commissioner renne's point of view as well, but for myself, i think because i have been sticking to what i think the charter allows and what it doesn't allow. so i wouldn't stray from it at this point at this stage. so for my point of view, i think our job was just to give a recommendation about whether to sustain the charges and that is it. that is all we were asked to do and tasked to do. so for that reason i am also not inclined to take a vote that i probably don't see that we are authorized to do, to make some kind of recommendation that isn't found in the charter or isn't grounded in the charter. >> mr. hemblig, do you have a view on this? >> i stated my view at the last meeting. i believe that the mayor has discretion about whether to bring charges. but the charter spells out what decision is required of this body and that is to decide whether or not to sustain those charges. that doesn't mean that there would be anything unlawful about you making other recommendations, but what the charter asks of the ethics commission is does it find that the charges are sustained? and what it asks of the board of supervisors is the same question and if three-quarters of the board of supervisors vote to sustain the charges, then there is no discretion on the penalty. the penalty is removal from office. so i think the charter anticipates a decision here on whether or not to sustain the mayor's charges, a decision by the board as to whether or not to accept your recommendation and nothing more, nothing less. >> commissioner was there anything further? on the issue of making a motion for us to vote on the -- on what the penalty should be, i am not in favor of that for the reasons that we discussed. if you want to put in something -- i guess if there was some sort of concurring type of opinion, you wanted to put in, statements about what your view of what the punishment should pe, that could be something that we could add, not as part of the majority opinion, but something that is separate. that could be done, but i would ask what your viewpoint is on whether that is something you would like to do? >> well, i mean based on the discussion and what mr. hemblig as indicated and has indicated before, our charge, i guess is quite specific, and that is to decide on the merits of what we voted, the counts on which we agreed sheriff mirkarimi was guilty. i don't want to go beyond what the charter asks us to do. i think on a personal level, you know, i want to be clear about what i feel, and i don't know if this is the appropriate place to do that. if it is, then i would, you know, certainly add something to the report. it's not a dissension, but just to be on record of what i feel should happen when the board considers this, but it's not an official recommendation. >> any other views on the issue of a proposal to the board on penalty? >> i mean, i think it would be entirely appropriate for commissioner hayon to add her view. that would be appropriate for the board to know. >> i am fine with that. the issue though is timing. i don't think -- i certainly don't want to have to meet again to ratify this document again. so i think if you want to put something into the record, if you want to right now put in language into the record on your concurring view, then i think that would be fine. but i am not inclined to have a procedure where you go back, draft it and we come back and have to ratify something else. >> under no circumstances am i suggesting that we do that, but if i may, then i certainly would like to go on record that while we are not charged as a commission in making a recommendation on the penalty, i want to be clear that my own view is that based on our findings, that the appropriate punishment should be removal from office. and that is my personal view. and i would just like to make sure that that is on the record. [ inaudible ] >> there is no motion. >> okay, so the proposal is to add a concurring view from commissioner hayon stating that she supports a finding that official misconduct should result in the sheriff being removed from office. is that fair? okay. so we will consider that. >> so my question is will that simply be on the record in the minutes of today's proceeding, but not in the official document, so that we don't have to go back and review it? >> i guess it's up to you. what i was suggesting, if you don't want it in the document, that is fine and we don't have to go back and review. i suppose there is an option for essentially mr. hem abouts hemhemblig to put in that language and vote on that as amended. >> that would be fine with me. what i don't want is to hold up the proceedings. i do not want to do anything that would hold up these proceedings any further. >> okay. so the draft as currently amended and i'm sure there will be other amendments, contains a one-sentence concurence from commissioner hayon. do you have that language in mind. >> the language i have is commissioner had aon supports a finding that the official misconduct in this case merits the sheriff's removal from office. is that accurate? >> that is accurate. >> okay.lp >> there were some additional edits proposed by the mayor and i think that they are accurate. so i would propose that on page 2 lines 1 and 2 should now read, "this matter presents the first time that the ethics commission has provided a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding charges of official misconduct under charter section 15.105." >> did you get that? >> no. >> one more time, please. >> this matter represents for the first time that -- and strike "the mayor has presented the," ethics commission has provided a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding charges of official misconduct. so you would strike the "with" and in line 1 strike "mayor has presented it." is there any objection to that from the commissioners? in the next edit that the city attorney proposed, which i think is correct is on page 4, line 1. line 1 begins "examine any witness except the mayor." the city attorney has pointed out that the sheriff also cross-examined chief of police william lansdowne and it should now read, "except the mayor and san >> good morning, everyone. thank you so much for your patience. i appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation about summer jobs, a national initiative. some of the work is happening on the ground. we have wonderful city partners as well as community partners in the room. we are trying to have a real conversation. there will not be any moments of speeches. we will have an opportunity for some engagement. with that, if you will allow me, i am going to tell them who is in the room. it would take too long for you to tell them. let me do that very quickly, and then we will turn to the mayor and the secretary. we have bridget, our new superintendent of schools. also in the room is roberta -- roberto. we have stephen caroll, with jawbone. chris from go pay go. we have someone from linkedin, someone from facebook. we have glenn harvey from west egg. alexis hunter, are in turn, is right there. rahm and richards is at the end of the table, with internships.com. another wonderful in turn is there from jawbone. a b is there from match bridge. david chiu from starbucks is here. kim winston, also from starbucks, is back there. david gobot from backtowork.us is there. betsy from youthworks is here. she is with - not giovanni. yes, with giovanni. andrew is here as well. that was pretty good. i did not see john. john did not make it. deputy alvarez from goodwill industries is here. knesha is to her left. as is monisha and chris, two more interns. this is someone from the department of youth and families. rhonda simmons, our director of work-force development, is also here with us. i did see a trend more -- see trent moore, phil ginsperbg, the direct picture of reparations and parks -- the director of rec and park. i do not see tony whitaker. jason eliot is in the back, from the mayor's office. the education and family services member is here. naomi kelly, our city administrator, is also with us. who did i miss? i know i missed somebody. >> donald leavitt. >> thank you so much. we also have someone from the department of youth and families. we have the director of neighborhood services in the back. [laughter] [applause] what we would like to do -- the mayor is going to make opening comments. we are literally going to have a conversation about what is happening nationally and locally. we want to hear from our interns. we're going to prioritize that, if you do not mind. >> i want to first of all think eric mcdonald. he is a mover, a shaker, but obviously the great partner locally, on behalf of the united way. a pro-youth enthusiast for san francisco. thank you for your wonderful work. eric and i started this with a number of others. secretary, i want to welcome you here, and thank you for your visit here. this is a great occasion, not only to welcome you back, because i know you have been here many times, but also to thank you and the obama administration for the wonderful support. when we are at the conference of mayors in january, on my first as elected mayor, when back as mayors. we have our annual meeting. we got a treat, to go into the white house and talk to the president. he told us, if you mayors are part of the answer. i want to challenge you, as the urban centers throughout this country, to create jobs for our youth. as he went through data and statistics about how it was harder for youth to get jobs, how the data recognize how difficult it is, in these economic times, he wanted us to be bold. i took that boldness. we came back here with the spirit of what he asked us to do. i took him literally. i do not know if every other mayor is doing it, but i got to announce what we were doing in june, and we got a standing ovation in san francisco. we announced we would come out and create 5000 jobs. that was bold back in january, but it was also with a great amount of enthusiasm and initial collaborative support from every sector. i will begin by saying that when we announced this, we had carefully talked to every major department in the city. it was announced to rec and park, to human services, to family, youth, and children, to work force development. all of us said, the city departments can lead the way. in fact, we wanted to lead the way. there was such enthusiasm. we had been through, maybe, some department successes. i worked with youth back as the head of dpw. come on, kid. do you want to know how to pick up trash? what is that about. but as they did that activity, they knew we were just using that. it was not about trash. it was about learning the operations of the department, learning which supervisors to go to, getting into the workforce, where people depend upon you. that is the other thing. some of these are growing up isolated. we felt that with the individual successes we have in the city, whether it was doing these jobs at rec and park, beautifying the parks, working with the superintendents to create gardens, to our youth programs and the nonprofit areas -- they have been struggling. but the also thrived. we said we could form the difference. eric and i went about with hydra and others to focus on that commitment. at the beginning of this announcement, the department's all came together, all the major ones, airport included, the port. but all said, we will take on more than half of this. eric and i talked a little bit. that was a good foundation. why don't we take it another level? why don't we talk to our nonprofit partners, who have been extremely at the forefront of this? if anything, they have been creating training programs for years and years. but they also get a little frustrated. sometimes, we train, and it does not lead anywhere. the youth get to a point where they are ready for a job. then, the economy hits. we hear all over the country. we said, the other not that is missing is our private sector, our companies. some of the early ones here -- starbucks. others stepped up. they said, we can start a trend. if united we can help us coordinate, we can get the private sector. we filled in the private sector, the nonprofit sector, and the city departments. today, i want to announce that, of the goal we announced a 5000 jobs, we have reached 5002. [applause] there are different stages, so we have commitments that extend all the way to the fall, with private businesses. we have engineering programs. we have companies that have attached themselves to the water system, offering these jobs. all of them, by the way, pay. we are not fooling around with free internships anymore. we learned that to the school district as well. it is hard on the kids today. this whole age group, 14 to 24. the other thing the president and secretary made a point of