Transcripts For SFGTV Ethics Commission 92616 20161002

The Ethics Commission. Quentin kopp. Thank you very much. Its a pleasure to be with you and vice commissioner keane. I have known judge kopp for more than 45 years. As a supervisor in the city and county of San Francisco. And a judge and things like the state bar. Judge kopp and i were involved at the state bar. He was indeed a tremendous main stay in terms of protecting the integrity of the political system in San Francisco and we are really blessed by having him as an asset as a membership. Quentin, i couldnt be more delighted. Im grateful. I have one call to order and roll call. Commissioner hayon has been excused. Vicechair commissioner keane . Here. Commissioner chiu, here. Commissioner kopp, here. All present and accounted for. For purposes of the public being aware. The item 11 has been continued to october 21, 2016. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, commissioners, please put the microphone in front of your mouth when you are speaking. Thank you. I am going to be in new york city october 24th. And i would like to be present for consideration of the matter comprising item no. 11, and i therefore ask the chair to give consideration for the next meeting to perhaps continuing that a week. I will be back october 30th. Thats fine. I will ask to pull the commissioners for their availability in the latter half of october. Yeah. And we will send out a notice of the rescheduling the regular meeting which is scheduled for the 24th to a date that is agreeable to all five commissioners. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im calling for Public Comment on matters appearing and not appearing on the agenda . Can i get this on the overhead . This is a listing of the 27 orders of determination finding various violations against city agencies and elected officials. Seven of these were heard referring to the Ethics Commission, five of them being without hearings and false reasons. The two that were given were on the public library. They resulted in a dubious fining given the Ethics Commission found itself in violation with the sunshine ordinance which is exactly the same matter 1188. In other words you were hearing a case on which you were found in violation. A case that was against the library for finding the same violation. The most interesting thing is the library continued to refuse to follow the orders of the task force until it had found three violations against it. And then everybody including this body finally shifted and a baed what they did in the first place. Will full disobedience. Its ironic that you are in a case similar. Finding your own body in violation. But hearing itself was a clear ethical screw up. Ethics case no. 03120402 was heard while i, the complainant was out of the state. Magically the referral made it over in less than a week and the history of the referral from the task force for this body has been typically on minimum of 4 months. Mine made it over in 7 days. You had the hearing the day before i returned to the state. Was that convenient . We have such a case on todays agenda and i predict a finding of no violation. I can already read you guys like a book. You have no intention at all of ever fulfilling your obligations under the sunshine ordinance. Even though that law specifically shows you as being the body to enforce it. You have done absolutely nothing in all these years to enforce it except pass one finding against one city official which the mayor ignored and we shamed into sending a letter to the mayor after you repeatedly asking the Library Commissioner to be removed. This is the most i am possess at impotent body. Public speaker good evening, my name is Michael Petrelis and im here to speak to you about a complaint i filed. Excuse me. Take your campaign outside this hearing. Please stock the clock. I want my 30 seconds given back to me as you interrupted me. I would like to see in writing the prohibition that prevents me from holding this sign. I want to see it in writing. Why are you telling me to put the this sign down because i feel you are infringing upon my 1st amendment rights. Can you produce in writing the prohibition that you say is the reason why i have to put my sign down . Yay or nay. Can you produce it in writing. I can make that ruling and ask you to put it down. You can put it down and step back. Why are you trying to infringe on my 1st amendment rights without producing in writing what you say are these rules. Through the chair to the City Attorney. Is it legally allowable for a candidate for office to use his Campaign Material in testifying before the commission with a Television Audience of which he certainly has knowledge. Off the top of my head, im not sure. It does seem like campaigning is not within the scope of the ethics jurisdiction. I suppose its within our scope also to offer and opinion under the 1st amendment on the merits or demerits of his candidacy. I would like to have my rights. Im not talking to you, sir. You have interrupted my Public Comment, sir. You cannot produce it in writing. I would like to see what you have about a Public Comment holding a sign regardless of what it is. If you would like an opinion i can provide it to you forthwith. I dont know the answer on the top of my head. Within a week or so before the next meeting. Go ahead with your comments. Thank you, please return my 30 seconds to me. You are not politics. Im here regarding a complaint i filed with San Francisco Ethics Commission on february 25th, against the mayor and willie brown. It pertains to my complaint pertained to an october 21st meeting of 2015. Im going to show a sign in sheet from the Mayors Office. As you see here there was a meeting on october 1st. It was at the Mayors Office. Among the attendees, the last person is willie brown. The column next to his name says his organization. He did not fill in the name of the organization or the entity that he was representing at this meeting with the mayor. Please come back to be on the camera. Other folks who were at this meeting include representatives from the east west bank. The now, the law says everyone attending meetings with the mayor has to sign, print their name and list the organization or entity they are representing. Willie brown did not do that. That is the basis of the complaint i filed 7 months ago. All i have received from the Ethics Commission since this complaint was filed was an acknowledgment that you have received the complaint and you are checking it out. Im here to ask you to direct the researchers at the Ethics Commission at 25 van ness avenue to move on this complaint. Im wondering how many other complaints have been filed along these same lines that are waiting for an investigation but are not happening. It is not serving the public. It is not fulfilling your mission as the Ethics Commission to have a complainant wait 7 months. Now, i dont expect by the time we come to next months meeting or if its happening, when we come back or in november, i dont expect well have a resolution to this. I have received no notification from the Ethics Commission that they are investigating. This kind of approach to processing a complaint is harming San Francisco transparency. Any other Public Comment. Mr. Chairman, if i can only comment that i have been aware of mr. Petrelis, the comments he is making is disturbing. Hes compromising this sign to be elected to the position while giving us this one complaint again. I think his sincerity and in terms of his presentation, you just wiped every bit of it out, sir. I would like to respond and disagree with you. I have requested in writing. Your time is up. You have jeopardized your ethical standing. Sir . I want to associate myself with vice chairman keanes remark in totality. And secondly at the time the executive director reports, i want to ask a question about the list of pending investigations and complaints. I cant recall if this is one of them or not. There were a number of them. Im fully aware of the fact that this is a new administration of the Ethics Commission in all respects. I have questions and im even troubled by the delays in some of the investigations that are setforth as part of the report to the commission. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Item 3. Discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commissions july 25th, regular meeting. Commissioners, anyone have any corrections or changes to those minutes . Move approval. Second. All right. Public comment . Commissioners, San Francisco open government. These minutes are an example of the disservice this body and others do to individuals making Public Comment. Although speaking in most cases for 3 minutes, each persons Public Comment is boiled down to one or two lines. There is no reasonable attempt to provide a meaningful summary of what was said. What is certain to appear that any comment that praises this body or staff. There are a dozen of occasions where the staff is wonderful, the task force is wonderful. You dont add those things, just pick out anything critical. What is here is anything that credits the staff. Members of the public may have noticed that at a conclusion of each Public Comment, i pass a word summary to the staff. I take time to make thoughtful Public Comment exercising my constitutional right is worth a little time ensuring that it is accurately reported in the official record. Constitutional political free speech rises to the highest level of perfection. I think the four of you were attorneys. All of you realize that and you also release that the representation extended by the government is also extended protection. The reason being i want to make sure its actually recorded. The reason being that body such as this will sensor a bridge and otherwise remove public criticism. Lets not be stupid. Im not asking for the minutes to be a transcript, but a meaningful summary. I put in this for two 1 2 years and basically everyone refuse to put this in the minutes even though the sunshine ordinance clearly says if this summary is submitted it will be placed in the minutes. The task force, i had to go back six times until they finally issued a letter saying the City Attorneys information in a Good Government guide is not a legal opinion. In fact from what i know, the City Attorney has never offered any legal advice or legal opinion on the sunshine ordinance at all. All that happens is he tells people something and you tell everybody, thats attorneyclient privilege so you cant know what he told you. They show up at the hearing at some task force and the City Attorney advises this. And you say to somebody you have the nerve to ask the deputy City Attorney here whether the advice of the City Attorneys office will give to someone and no one will do that. Basically you will do exactly what mr. Pet trellis said that you will interfere with free speech at your will. Im not apropos that and im not confident to the question presented since i was not present and i was not a commissionerment but im curious as a point of information about two or three places where all i see is a reference to a first name. Maybe the executive director can explain. Is that an omission of the last name or people allowed to testify by giving only their first name . The testifier was not giving a name. It has been a practice that individuals can come before the commission and give their first name. They do not fill out a card. They have provided a first name and we dont always have that information. Let the record show that i am liable not to give weight to somebody who only provides a first name. And then there is a reference to a catherine or charlotte, i think you want to capital h on that. Be free from literary criticism. Thank you for that careful review. May i be excused from voting. I will call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . The minutes are approved unanimously. Turning to item no. 4. Discussion and possible action on hearing on the merits for complaint no. 19131115, in the matter of Lynette Sweet and sweet for supervisor 2010. This matter was before the Commission Two meetings ago . In march. Yes, and at that time there was a proposed disposition which the commission did not approve and requested some further additional information. As i recall we were troubled by the fact that shes a candidate who received Public Financing, and there were some 20,000 approximately that could not be accounted for. I think the earlier report had said that most of it she said had gone to pay Staff Members, but there was nothing to support it. And we asked for the staff to look further to determine whether or not those representations were correct. Right. We dont have any additional documentation to evidence that. And she has not provided anything, and since the meeting in march, she has been mostly uncooperative and nonresponsive to staff. Did anybody on the staff seek to contact the individual who she says she made payment to . There are various Staff Members and it was difficult to obtain actual Contact Information for most of the people that were listed. Thank you, commissioners, catherine, on behalf of the staff Ethics Commission. This is a hearing on the ethics complaint 19131115. It does not appear that the respondent Lynette Sweet is here tonight. She was notified of the hearing two times and was provided all the documentation to the commission. This matter involves ten violation of the Campaign Finance ordinance. Seven violation of 1. 106 where respondents fail to File Campaign information and failed to maintain records of activity and section 2118 where respondent failed to pay Campaign Debt within 80 days of them an accruing. Staff believe that respondent have committed these violations based on the preponderance of the evidence presented. Respondent for supervisor for 2010 have provided no response to staff hearing briefs and have not contest ed in the charges since the accusation of february 18th. Lynette ran for supervisors and requested public funding. Over all her Committee Received 57409. The act of recipient of public funding. The staff were required to perform an audit. During the audit, the respondent failed to provide documentation for 51,000 and 800 in contributions. After the report in july 14th, which the respondent did not provide a response. The respondent provided additional documentation for 4428 in expenditures and 4150 in contributions. Approximately 24803 remain outstanding without any supporting documentation. In addition respondent has failed to file any Campaign Communication through 2010. Whatever Committee Activity has occurred if any has been out of the public eye. Respondent has also two unpaid debt of 2650. These debt remain over 180 days and now unlawful contributions. Therefore staff request the Commission Order for feiture in the amount of. Additionally a penalty of 5,000 per violation. The charter permits a maximum penalty of three times the amount of improperly reported which is in this case 74409. 18. However, because the respondent a cooperated some with staff, staff request that the staff assess maximum fine of 50,000. You are holding that sign specifically for tv. That is not allowed. Put it down or leave. Take your choice. You want to get the bailiff here . There is a button. Is there a phone number on the screen for the sheriffs office. There is a phone right there. You are perfectly welcome to stay here but you cannot campaign here. So respondents violation were severe and negligent. They violated the public trust by failing to file required campaign statements. The public was and still unable to monitor what activities have occurred after december 2010. Also put that down. Im sorry. Thats okay. I cant see whats going on. So i dont know. Well, is a bailiff in route . Why dont you get him because this gentleman is playing the role of a clown effectively and distracting everybody. Would you like me to continue . Yes, please. The respondent previously ran for office in california and submitted all the Campaign Requirements in the political format which have been incorporated by the local law, the campaign reform. In complying to funds responding to scrutiny and the public about how she financed her campaign. Respondent knew her records would be audited and yet failed to maintain the commissions activity. Respondent has been largely uncooperative and nonresponsive to this matter and continues to fail to File Campaign documents. Staff presented including affidavit and the respondent failed to respond. Based on the law and evidence presented staff request and issue to order the violation for a fine of 50,000 and miss documentation and file all campaign statements required and order respondent to forfeit 4650 in unlawful contribution. Im available to answer questions. Commissioners . I have a question of a general nature. I read two files or one file, a folder. And im struck by the fact that your recommendation is based in part upon the cooperation; and i draw a conclusion that the cooperation has been minimal, superficial. And rather, the respondents have defied the law as well as taking 57439 and some cents from the taxpayers of San Francisco. So, i suppose your finding of a minimal cooperation is based upon experience. Yeah. I would like to get your thoughts on it. Yes, i think that had she not provided any additional documentation. So had staff not received anything during basically the investigatory phase, then i think it would be different. But she had participated and there had been communication with staff. She just has not in many months. Its a continuum. Right, its the commissions discretion to decide if any penalty. The 50,000 is a recommendation from staff, but the commission has the ability to go up to 3 times what was improperly reported. Thank you. Im ready, mr. Chairman to make a motion to impose a penalty of 74409. 18. This has consumed so much time. 2010. 6 years ago. Not a good record. And this candidate had already been a candidate for a Public Office at which involved the kind of time and effort in keeping track of donations, expenditures, reporting under the fair political practices act; and in fact now she has thumbed her nose at the system. And as i said before come away with 54,000 plus dollars of public funds. Anyway, im prepared to make that motion. Yes, i will second the motion with some dismay actually because the last time we had ms. Sweet here and her attorneys here and they made some presentations which in my opinion indicated some mitigation, and that was at that time i think myself and commissioner andrews were somewhat sympathetic to her general plight at some degree of happiness and were persuaded also at the time what the City Attorney said. There was a fair amount of cooperation. Really dismayed to hear that since that last time, that ms. Sweet has decided not to cooperate at all and as commissioner kopp said thumbed her nose at us regarding this serious violation. At this point im not inclined to have the thoughts of mitigation that i had until now. So i second the motion. Chair . I will say i was a little bothered when i read the amount of money that the staff was recommending that we assert against ms. Sweet because of the fact that when it first came before us, there was a proposed settlement of the matter with a payment schedule, and the main concern was the fact that there were public monies unaccounted for, and to have it come back, but i agree with both commissioner kopp and commissioner keane, that the record since that time, instead of being cooperative with us and trying to revolve the problem that we raised at that last meeting on to show cause, that she has just thumbed her nose at us. So that im disposed to go along with the amount of the fine with the understanding that clearly its my sense that she probably doesnt have the Financial Resources to reimburse and pay a fine of 70 some thousand dollars. But well get some cooperation once the order is issued against her. Chairman, i would agree with my fellow commissioners. Im very troubled by the fact that she has exhibited such disregard for the process, and has not cooperated in anyway. I think that i was not here for the initial show cause hearing, but any mitigation efforts are nonexistent with regard to the final disposition of this case and that shes had numerous opportunities to work with you as well as to attend this hearing this evening. So i would be inclined to agree that the full penalty is appropriate. All right. Any Public Comment before i call the question . May i ask one more, im not sure whether the commission would consider the forfeiture amount . That would be my next motion. Do you want it procedurally to one motion . Its up to you. I would preclude that 4650 as a forfeiture. Is that a second . Second. Public comment . San francisco, open government. This is one of the items i did not make 150word summary because all i can attach from the document is that you were having an argument yourself. Bush states that staff recommends to end limits a fine of 50,000 which is doubled what mr. Fairel found. You are going to get 0. 12 on the dollar from him but you want her to pay full tilt. One set of rules for city officials, one set of rules for everybody else. Bottom line is you have these hearings about a case that happened in 2000. Where the hell was the staff for 4 years which was the first document i can see in these records to show you were doing something regarding this. If i campaigned in 2010, and ask for records, the irs only ask you to hold records for 3 years. You are worse than the irs. I agree with mr. Bush. For him to have one set of rules for supervisor mark farrell where you are going to impose a few sentence on the dollar and impose maximum, is a real strange set of circumstances. Im curious as to why the clock isnt running at all. Do i have unlimited time . Basically i have to agree with mr. Pet trellis, this is politics. Nothing but short sweet politics. Everything said by you and the public is constituted protected political free speech. People arbitrarily coming up with rules. We have a rule in the chamber and you cant do this. If the you violate the rule, the forfeiture penitentiary penalty is your constitutional rights. I started my comment with the word gas stap oh because they were trying to huddle away the person speaking before me. David chiu said i dont think well let the speaker speak today. Tell me all you lawyers, is it an unusual penalty when breaking the rule of a chamber to have your constitution protected for political speech . It doesnt make sense to me. People say, why dont you be more friendly with them and try to be agreeable. I said you dont get anything agreeable. They sit there in dumb mute silence. At least when you are in their face, you will get a reaction. If thats all youll give, then dont be surprised what youll get. As was said if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Mr. Chairman, i realize having been away from this kind of civic endeavor. Welcome back. Yeah, that now electronics have taken over. So anybody can get up under a law which i created and make statements that are not just in correct, but are also misleading to people in the public domain. And therefore, let me note that each case has different factual issues and legal issues. There is no comparison between the legal issues and the item no. 11, the socalled farrell case. This item, the sweet case. None at all. With that, i would call the question. I still have Public Comment. Michael pet trellis again, i want to echo what ray heart said and build on it. You guys are politicians no, sir, i am a lawyer. And i resent your characterization of my colleagues and me. I have held Public Office to be sure honorably and i have served as a superior court judge and im a lawyer now and i intend to act as a lawyer and i resent your personal remarks about my fellow commissioners or me. Youll get your 30 seconds. Is there a rule about not being interrupted . Proceed. I want my 30 seconds back please before i was rudely interrupted by politician kopp, and i would like to have my free speech rights respected for 3 minutes. If its possible for the members of this esteemed commission to control their egos and mouths just for a little bit. Just proceed with your comments. Now, i want to echo and support what ray hart said regarding the politics that are behind some of your decisions, and that certainly come into play about what gets put on your agenda. I want to know if there are rules that are going to say how long you will have a time limit on responding to the public. What are the rules of decorum regarding you trashing members of the public using their 3 minutes and allowing us to respond. If this is how politician kopp is going to be conducting himself in the future with interrupting Public Comment, with responding to every Public Comment and doing so without a time limit, its more of a disgrace upon this commission which is Ethics Commission. Good government. I am suggesting you practice it at every meeting. And that you really work at controlling your privilege and do not interrupt Public Comment, and do not respond to every Public Comment. Ray hart has a point. You should listen to him without dismissing it and without boosting your own egos. Democracy and Good Government in this building are suffering. They are suffering. Professor keane, you were talking about the legendary kopp coming back to city hall. I dont know what is so legendary and a lot of people dont. I dont want a lecture about who you think is a legend. I want a stronger Sunshine Ordinance Task force. I want better enforcement of sunshine laws, i want orders of determination carried out. I want this Panel Handling complaints sooner. I want the Ethics Commission investigators investigating complaints and closing them sooner. There is a lot of Good Government that needs to be done. And i dont hear you talking about it. But you are going on and on about some unwritten rules regarding decorum for these meetings. Let us see these written rules you are talking about. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Public speaker good evening, commissioners. Im charles marsel for the record. I want to congratulate commissioner kopp for being here and thank the board for his appointment. I also am doing so on behalf of friends of ethics. The commission should have received by email a copy of the final letter signed by friends of ethics and not by mr. Bush, the one by mr. Bush is in a document that was in process. This is the one you received signed by friends of ethics are the legal points we wanted to make on these several items on our agenda tonight. I said many times before this body and to the public that the law for Public Financing was clear. We have a proactive an concurrent enforcement mechanism so the use of public funds is in fact indemnified by the process set up which is you and me and friends of ethics and other individuals in the Public Sector who are interested in the integrity of Public Financing. That promise must be maintained. So 5 years is not acceptable. However, i think in this case, its useful because we will see by an examination of the process exactly where the points were that created problems at many levels. One was the concurrent expenditure of funds and later enforcements. I think if you open up the books and look at what happened in this case, we can tighten up our concurrent and proactive Auditing Program to make it much more effective, and i have a number of ideas and i would be willing to discuss with you that in a Public Session or privately, however you wish. But i do want to say that i think we can learn a great deal from this case and i think its essential that we do. However you decide it is your decision. Im a person that worked hard to set up the process and i want to see the process work and be guaranteed by you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Good evening, david pill pell. I dont want to say im speaking as an individual since im no longer on the task force. Welcome commissioner kopp. I found my good Kopp Commission from back in the day. I want to speak in support of staffs recommendation and the motion before you. I think the violations are pretty substantial. There has been a fair amount of history with this individual. If i recall correctly, the respondent may have served on the citys Redevelopment Agency board for a period of time and served as a member of the bart board and certainly was an appointed elected official and should have been familiar with timely filing of forms and the recordkeeping requirements associated with running for office as running for a candidate. I support this. I hope you will follow through. Thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Would you state for the record again exactly what the motion is . Yes, i move the commission assess the respondents as a penalty 74409. 18, and order secondly a forfeiture of 4650 received from corporations. That was seconded . Second. All right. I will call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . All right. The motion is carried unanimously. To discussion on item 5 which is discussion of possible action on the Sunshine Ordinance Tasks force referral for enforcement against steve kawa, complainant and as i understand it notice is given both to mr. Kawa, the Mayors Office and mr. Pet trellis . Yes, your honor. Is it possible for me to ask one thing from the prior agenda item . Go ahead. I was wondering whether the commission wanted to compel the respondent to file the campaign statements they have not yet filed . You mean on the last item . I dont know. Isnt that moot . I defer to my seniors in service. Its a way to stop the clock to keep running because she has not filed a closing staple. Statement. What you are asking is an order of the commission to order her to file the closing statement . Right. Well, this is a procedural nicety. I think since it is a continuing obligation to report that such an order would be appropriate until she has reported, she has not fulfilled her obligations under the law as a continuing violation by not reporting. Whether we have to order her to do or not, i dont know. You want to make a motion . I move that in addition to the other sanctions, that it be noted that ms. Sweet continues to not provide the reports in accordance with law and it is also noted that therefore she is under a continuing violation of the reporting statutes. I make that part of i guess the finding in the resolution. I take it that what we are doing by that is empowering the commission then to have the City Attorney bring some action to compel her to do it other than being in contempt of court. I suppose you would have now a dual obligation, one under the statute and one under this commissions order. May i ask a question of mr. White. Does the tax collect or have his own lawyer with the bureau . Yes. Then my resolution then its transmitted to the Tax Collector for what delivers it to the bureau of delinquent revenue who probably sends out a courtesy letter saying pay up by a certain date and if no payment, then files an action in superior court. And then ms. Sweet can decide what to default on the obligation to respond to a complaint. Generally thats correct. Yes. A good compromise solution might be simply to order her to file her termination statement to end the continuous requirement for the 460s. Just to say file a determination statement and well be done with it. I so move that. The Commission Ordered that. Commissioner kopp seconds it. Any Public Comment on that portion that we are now back to four. Commissioners, San Francisco, open government. I dont purport to be an expert on roberts rules but what you did is a violation of it. If you make a motion and pass it and make another motion to change it, you have to go back to rescind the motion and make a new motion to properly include it. Not to just make a second motion. I dont know what it is you are doing because you are having a basic nice conversation with each other and ignoring the fact that there are a lot of members of the public here who came to participate in this not to be simply ignored as your want. If you are going to make any responses to any of my comments, please be kind enough to be specific rather than make some sort of vague that he said something false. You are beginning to sound a lot like donald trump. The commission does not have to take Public Comment anymore. The requirement is once for the agenda. You can if you would like to. Because we made a second motion. Its once per agenda item, not once per motion. I dont think that motion is necessary. I think as a matter of, well, someone else wants to i think the commission is find to make a second motion related to the agenda item to the extent that this motion is passed would seek to get the respondent to file a terminating statement. It would help the overall effort. So i support it. I call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Passed unanimously. Now turning to item 5, discussion and possible action on the Sunshine Ordinance Task force referral for enforcement again steve kawa complaint 04160718. Staff . Yeah, thank you, chair. Jessica bloom for the Ethics Commission. I wanted to give a little bit of context for the situation unfolding. I understand it not everyday that staff would write a recommendation or memo on a Sunshine Task force referral item. I wanted to explain a little bit whats going on. So, the Sunshine Ordinance Task force has found that steve kawa, the mayors chief of staff, to be in violation of the sunshine ordinance for deleting his calendar, his electronic calendar and not producing it to the requester. And found that finding and normally you would hear that case. Staff not recommending you walk away from that obligation. But we did notice in the file there was a City Attorney had written a memo to the task force and we predicted the attorney would be writing a letter to this commission and wanted to provide you our best recommendation, our best analysis andon the matter. A notice was sent prior to the notice and i didnt include the arguments into the memorandum after the fact. What the attorney is arguing that the electronic calendar was not at all a Public Record and there is no violation of the sunshine ordinance nor a violation of the policy. Whether or not there is a violation of the record ordinance, is not relevant to the inquiry. Neither of the task force nor this body has any Enforcement Authority over the record retention ordinance. Unfortunately or fortunately, the sunshine order itself does not include a sunshine ordinance. Ours is the chapter 7 and the District Attorney have order over the retention ordinance. Its justifiably kind. That is very common among jurisdictions. I hale from the state of missouri where both are together in one statute so sunshine ordinance and Public Records and requirements, a will full violation is a crime and the attorney and attorney general have the jurisdiction over the enforcement of the crime. What we have is unusual because they are separate bifurcated. But we have to follow our charter and thats the reason why i put together the memorandum. Basically our analysis is that because they are separate and the Ethics Commissions jurisdiction is narrow in these types of matters, we really cant do anything about whether or not mr. Kawa should or should not have erased his calendar. I stand by that his electronic calendar is a Public Record. So, thats basically my analysis. In the end, you have a choice before you. You can make a policy decision in the same way that the task force did to incorporate the record retention law. That policy decision is best left in the form of a call for a change in the law, a call to the board of supervisors to incorporate the record retention ordinance into the sunshine ordinance so there are some teeth there. It is arguably not an unenforcement action. Its not best to make that policy decision, but you could make that decision. Therefore in the memo we highlight the ways the commission can enforce the sunshine ordinance. Unfortunately there is no way to deal with a past violation like this. You cant watch this authority and cant create the calendar. And unfortunately those penalties dont exist because the ordinance doesnt contemplate this situation because its not a retained record and therefore not something that could be produced. So i leave you with that. Im open to questions. I believe you also have someone from the Mayors Office here and mr. Pet trellis is obviously here. I will let mr. Pet trellis have 5 minutes to make his case. Before i get started, i want to try to zoom in on the City Attorneys letter on the specific. There. Start the clock. Is this the september 15th letter . Yes, the september 15th letter page 3. Hello, my name is michael pet trellis. I like to look at Public Documents from international governments, federal governments, state and local government. And i filed a request earlier this year for steve kawas calendar and emails, and in one of the responses from the City Attorney dated september 15th, the City Attorney cites as a Good Government. I will read. Ful the vast majority of the Public Record in the citys possession do not go in the records retention law. Therefore the city may destroy these records at any time. For example, as a general rule, employees may immediately dispose of so message slips, notes of meetings, research notes, prepared for the personal use of the employee creating them and the large majority of email communications. Okay, sf govtv please come back to me, im done reading. It is very disturbing that the City Attorney continually cite the government guide and fails to mention it is not law. To have the City Attorney state that many of the record, actually the vast majority of Public Record do not fall under records retention law. Its in and of itself very disturbing. We need a watch dog, not a lapdog to the Mayors Office and others at city hall. I cannot worry about the City Attorneys grace. And the Large Communications are easily disposed of is very disturbing. To come to my request on the calendar. Let me show in the overhead again. We can go back to you can see this was kawas calendar from july 13th, to july 19, 2015. Totally blank there. A few weeks later, he did produce a calendar listing what time a meeting began and that was a good start. But i want you to really take into account the blank account. Do not interrupt me. I really want you want me to take you seriously . What are you referring, you said a couple weeks later. May i have my 20 seconds back that he interrupted for. I want my Public Comment presented which is about this case. I want to present it uninterrupted. It would be helpful if you could let us know what page you are referring to. I am looking at item 5, attachment 1, its a june 30th letter from leanne pell um. In the back, the document does not list a page number at the bottom for the actual document, but it list no. 2 page for the calendar that was provided to me. If you can look at july 6, 2015, through july 19, 2015. Have you seen these what im referring to . Okay, lets start the clock. Next question, you said he showed you something later that had an entry in it. I will answer that as long as you are not eating into my time. As you will see from february 16th, all right. Go ahead. Im with you. Let me ask this further question of staff, how were these february 15th to whatever it was, how were those obtained . Were those voluntarily provided by mr. Kawa . I believe mr. Kawa was deleting his emails manually every 2 weeks. These happened to be in the time period where he wasnt deleting them. These are the 2 weeks he had. Whats the date that he provided them . Hes providing his whatever, his personal calendar electronically from january 22, 2016, to march 30, 2016. What is the date he provided it to the staff . These are provided to the Sunshine Ordinance Task force. Do you know from the task force. He was deleting his records and then he wasnt deleting them anymore. Im not sure when he provided these to the task force. But these are for the in you time period. Going forward, hes not doing it anymore. Hes presently keeping in yes. Presumably for 2 years. Im not sure for whatever they are keeping the retention policy. The other question i have maybe to shorten this. What is you reconstruct the 2015 calendar. Its all blank. Is he supposed to reconstruct it . Right. That is the theory. Exactly. Once they are destroyed, we dont have any authority whether or not the destruction itself was a violation of the sunshine order. The commissions made no order obviously, but the theory is he can go and reconstruct it. A year later, year 1 2. Okay. Im really learning how dysfunctional this body is this evening, why dont you present your claim . Here we go again. You guys interrupt me. You asked me to make a 5minute presentation. Mr. Pet trellis in your own words [ overlapping speakers ] i would like to finish my 5 minutes of presentation. Dont you want to convince us, we are the body you have to convince. I would be on trial by you attorneys. I came in here and i read this, i thought hes got a good point. Once again, you are talking me out of going along with it just by virtue of your complete inability. May i finish . You will have plenty of time after i get my 5 minutes to engage in your trashing of the public. You are finished on this one. You had me in the beginning. You just lost me. To get a Public Document out of the mayors at times requires incredibly thick skin and requires a lot of intensity to pursue a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task force. Even more tenacity. Every step along the way there is dysfunction. A lesser public sunshine advocate would have given up a long time ago. The bottom line of my complaint is that steve kawa, the mayors chief of staff was destroying Public Records. You have heard by the City Attorney giving a lesson to immediate destruction of numerous Public Records. This has been going on for years. You here at the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task force are well aware of the terrible state of records retention here at city hall, and then what the public has to go through to actually obtain those records. We do not have a friend in the City Attorneys office. I have learned after years of monitoring this Ethics Commission, public sunshine advocates do not have friends here. You want to say my bad breath is the problem, go ahead, i have heard it before. Im here to say, the mayors chief of staff, steve kawa who has basically been running city hall for 20 years has been destroying records and doing so with the City Attorneys blessing. I believe you commissioners had a duty to go over the voluminous records before showing up tonight. I believe you have to get back to some decorum where you respect the public and the complainant and allow us to speak without being interrupted. Thank you. I understand there is someone here on behalf of mr. Kawa . Public speaker hi, i am steve kaba from the Mayors Office. I would say im happy to be here tonight, i dont know those are accurate words. I do think its going to be informative, not only me but the other 30,000 City Employees. This issue was brought as a complaint by mr. Pet trellis regarding my calendar to the Sunshine Task force. Yes, i have been in the Mayors Office for nearly 20 years and city hall for 25. I take my job quite seriously, and i take my obligations quite seriously. Every year we have a session with the City Attorneys office regarding records retention. One issue that comes up every year is calendar. Im sure you are aware about prop g calendar where the issue came with the Sunshine Task force because i was a Department Head. Im not a Department Head. Im not covered by prop g, im not an elected official. Im not covered by prop g. So they morphed it into another issue. What will we retain because we will retain it. When it comes to mayors calendars, prop g for mayors calendar, not staff calendar. So it is my practice to keep it for 2 weeks and move on. Thats why commissioner kopp is what you have there, the Sunshine Task force asked me for what i had and i gave it to them. When did you give it to them . When it first a rose commissioner kopp. Approximately, this year, right . I think in february. I dont recall. The last one is, i dont know march 28th or 29. Yes, sir. So when this was here before the Sunshine Task force, it was amazing to me how much confusion exist about whether or not the advice we were getting from the City Attorneys office, not me, but City Employees was the right advice and the Sunshine Task force i guess was saying it wasnt. I have been keeping my calendar because what is the correct process here . In watching this process tonight, im going to really ask you all of the Ethics Commission to help all of us in this city and City Government and City Employees to undisbanned the process because i was following it. And now im here before you tonight, once again not for me because i know i did the right thing, but for other City Employees watching this or hearing about this. So im happy to answer any questions. Once the complaint was filed, have you since that time kept your calendars . Yes, because i didnt know what is sunshine or ethics or somebody else was going to say with the advice being given was not the right advice. What kind of information did you traditionally put on your calendars . I think commissioner kopp, you all have a copy of pretty much thats my calendar. As you can see there is a lot of repetition on it. I am the chief of staff. So you see a lot of staff meetings. The title goes with the job, and the job is working with the staff. Go ahead. Yes. I think mr. Kawa, youve been acting in good faith, but i think the City Attorney has been miss advising you, and to that extent, i hate to say it, you about i agree with the gentleman who spoke before you because just in regard to a number of reference, i will reference a couple of things including the memo sent to us by elena smith regarding the fact that the Public Records act is being parsed much to strictly and through too many avenues and meanderings to have any value. But the one sentence i see at page 3 of the report from liena, the City Attorney agrees that mr. Kawas calendar is Public Record. But argue that mr. Kawas calendar is not a city record. I dont know what that means. That becomes an exercise in absurdity. What we want is, we want as much transparency in regard to the way City Government is run. Even though you are not a Department Head, you are a major official in the Mayors Office in regard to so many things that are coming your way that the citizenry and the public is entitled to know about it. Therefore, in my opinion that under all of the Good Government act, excuse me, the open records acts and the transparency and the sunshine ordinances, those calendars should be maintained. I also agree, again, very rel at reluctantly with the gentleman who spoke before you because of his object obnoxious and counterproductive manner. But the Cities Office giving their opinion. But decided as law for something and weve seen this before and i have made this comment before. Its inappropriate to cite it as law. But i think you havent done anything wrong. I commend you for the fact that when this controversy began and you saw this could be a problem, you then started maintaining your calendar. I commend you for doing it. I think the City Attorney should revise its advice to city officials and to City Government employees to make it much more expansive in regard to what is indeed a the mayor has to retain all his records. He cant delete anything because hes supposed to maintain that for office for the next person that comes in. Those are the only situations where the sunshine ordinance calls itself. If there is a will full violation, if someone willfully violates the law destroyed record, then that goes to the District Attorney because its a crime. Chairman, first, that suggest some work for you. And for bearing and recommendation legislation and i guess we recommend it to the board of supervisors. And mr. Chairman, i would urge that that be done. I dont want to step on the executive directors toes or the chairs, but any event thats clear. Secondly, relevant to that, there is some questions, there is also a question raised on page 8 of a report from the Sunshine Task force, and i guess i have got to have somebody not here not now explain to me why the heck there is a Sunshine Ordinance Task force. Why it isnt part of an Ethics Commission. But that will come. The former supervisor shelly who drafted the thing. Is that right . Thats whenever the sunshine ordinance initiated. I think i will ask mr. Brag man. I hear from the sunshine ordinance from him all the time. On page 8 is a footnote saying the ordinances will full violation and we believe the Ethics Committee should amend their definition to encompass such reckless action to cover the circumstances of this matter. And i would like that examined legally in terms of pro pounding an ordinance for adoption because it is not to try to make a finding as to whether conduct there was will full or reckless. Thirdly, im curious and the claim antican answer this as to whether hes taking this to the District Attorney. I see a reference on page 7 of that same june 30, 2016, order of determination to be District Attorney statement, january 22, 2016. All i can tell you is we have been investigating irregularities from local government for quite some time which is a possibility. Lastly, on a memorandum january 8th of this year from a deputy City Attorney, he raises questions mr. Kawa, about questions that might assist this determining facts. I know this maybe a bit repetitive, but he says that kawa purposely deleted his items 2 weeks after they have been completed. The answer to that was past tense, yes. Is that correct . To be absolutely accurate, i personally do not. I have an assistant. Someone does it for you. Yes. At that time. Is any physical copy of the calendar printed to maintain the deleted entries. And if there is none, if not, how would kawa reconstruct his meeting at a later day if that would be necessary as i asked a little while ago. Is this a policy of the Mayors Office generally or particular to kawa and the answer to that was, particular to you . Yes, people have their personal calendars and calendars with staff. So was it a policy. It was up to you . Yes. All right. The record is relevant and you have changed your custom and practice and now you are retaining them. I have been following the process. But are you retaining and you gave us examples for 2 years. Yes. You mentioned 2 years earlier, commissioner kopp, that 2year retention is in regard to prop g calendars, i believe. It says 2 years. Once again, im sorry to correct you, you cant say it a Public Record. If you are, you are saying the Ethics Commission wants to get rid of Public Records because your records retention says calendar. Category 5, doesnt need to be retained prop g. The District Attorney does say it has to be kept. Under sunshine if you have it. Just eliminate future disputes and arguments taking up staff time, our time means nothing. So your time is my time. 2 years seems to be a standard. Would you agree . Prop g says yeah. Also im thinking about a case in l. A. 1st Amendment Coalition is pursuing it. The l. A. City council to say 2year retention. Some guy left the council and burned all his documents. All right. Anyway, its going to be some period of time, a year, a year 1 2, 2 years. And that ought to be identified and nailed down in law or regulation. And all right, the rest of it is simply a part of this allegation in this claim. Those are my concerns. I have a question for the City Attorney just to clarify. There are many Public Records, but not all Public Records need to be retained . Thats correct. So, and just by the way, i wanted to give the commission the background which is that within the City Attorneys office we maintain a due process screen on all enforcement matters. Meaning i have no communication with other people within the City Attorneys office about this particular matter. The purpose of that is so that i can give the Commission Advice thats not impacted by the advice that other deputies have given to their clients that maybe here. That is for some background. I know that my colleagues for example one of them has written two memos, they are Public Record but i play no role in drafting those. Documents created by City Employees and in the scope of their job are Public Records. Whether those Public Records must be retained and for how long is answered by the records retention ordinance. Which is separate from the sunshine ordinance. That is separate. That is not to say that the overlap would be in a circumstances where lets say that youve created a document that could be promptly destroyed under the records retention ordinance. If someone had filed a request for that document, you couldnt then delete it after receiving the request. Thats what 67. 21 says. Every person having custody of any Public Record shall permit it to be inspected. So if you had a circumstance where mr. Pet trellis had requested a document from mr. Kawa, if he deleted after his request, that would violate. As i understand here thats not what happened. That these were document. The documentation were deleted before the request. Because they were deleted before the request, the questions really did that deletion violate the records retention ordinance. I believe the answer to that question is no and i agree with the analysis on that question. But for the purposes of the commissions consideration of this complaint against mr. Kawa tonight, there are two questions, one of them is did he violate 67. 21, the answer to that is no because there was no deletion after receiving the request. The other provision of the sunshine ordinance that issue is this 167. 297. That provision says the mayor and all the Department Heads shall maintain and preserve in a professional and businesslike manner all documents and correspondence. One could get into some interesting discussions about what does it mean to maintain something in a professional and businesslike manner. Thats an issue for another day. The point here is that provision applies exclusively to as the ordinance says the mayor and all the Department Heads. Since mr. Kawa is not either of those things, that provision does not apply. The broader questions around should record retention laws be changed within the city, should there be different enforcement powers, those are interesting questions that the commission could certainly take up at another time. But for purposes of this complaint, our view is that neither of these two provisions of the sunshine ordinance that are allegedly violated have been violated here because by their plain language, one of them doesnt apply to mr. Kawa because hes not the mayor of the Department Head and he did not delete documents after receiving the request from mr. Pet trellis. Who is the head of the deputy, the mayor . The mayor is the head of the Mayors Office. I just wanted that for the record. Well, one could argue in terms of a definition for that. Thats the point you were making in regard to what you say, mr. Kawas position is such an integral part to the entity of the mayor. Sure in the way the law exist. Thats why in regard to even if we go along with your argument. I see it. Your argument is a logical one. Although hes not specifically listed. In terms of all of the policy considerations, a Good Government, open records policy considerations, transparency, it would be at a minimum a very beneficiary thing if someone on the level of mr. Kawa and others in those positions did maintain those calendars, and it were mandatory that they did, that they knew that they should because it tremendously valuable to the public and to citizens. Everyone here agrees with that. Im commanding mr. Kawa and everyone and you are saying you are listening and seeking guidance. Im tremendously grateful for that. I encourage you to continue to maintain it even though i maybe, i couldnt get a consensus around the idea that there may be some obligation on you to do some specific obligation under the language that we parsed our way to do it. I think its commendable that you are maintaining it and i hope you continue. Absolutely, commissioner and particularly since what i hear from the commission tonight that you would want to be helpful to the rest of the city family about getting clarity and having these questions that you are asking tonight answered that its on a piece of paper so everybody understand that you dont need to hire an attorney to interpret what your responsibilities are. When you see it, you know it. Thats all i could ask. Am i correct in understanding what you are saying is that every piece of paper that is prepared during this course of their duties by a City Employee is a Public Record . Generally, yes. As a general rule, and that the question of whether or not that employee may make a note to him or herself whether or not they can destroy it is up to whatever department it is, what their retention policy is as stated by the department . Yes. And who reviews the areas retention policy to determine whether or not they are complying with the brown act, any open Government Act . Right, i think that the discretion is each departments to create their on policy. That authority is vested in them by particular legislation. The records retention policy. So, what would happen if a department said, we will not be retaining any documents whatsoever, period. We would have to deal with that down the road. But certainly each department in consultation with the citys office does take the policy. I take it the city advises all of these if they ask for guidance. Its our policy, yes. If i can make one response. On the question of the wisdom of retaining calendars, thats of course not, you know, thats beyond my pay grade, but i think that within the sunshine ordinance, you know, there are circumstances where when the ordinance targets a particular employee or category of employees with responsibilities, its generally specific. Right, does a particular provision apply to an employee, Department Head, the mayor. There are all of these different categories that are specifically enumerated. I think that it is not, i think it would be sort of an overly broad interpretation to look at the term mayor in 67. 297 and say, well the mayor also refers to other people in the office beyond the mayor such as the chief of staff and since there are ordinances elsewhere where the ordinance is specific about who has particular responsibilities. The fact that the mayors chief of staff is not included within 67. 297. I think is evidence of the intention of the voters and the board of supervisors, both of whom has amended the sunshine ordinance that this provision does not apply to the chief of staff. If that was a question, sure, the sunshine ordinance can be mained as the document preservation. Can we ask you to prepare such a draft of such an amendment . Well, i think because that has not been separately agendaized as a discussion topic, i think we should reserve for another meeting the question of what laws the commission would like to change. For tonight we have to confine ourselves to the one question of wloor whether or not this respondent has violated. Can i ask the respondent a question or two. As far as you know were there any documents that you requested that were in existence at the time you requested that were destroyed subsequently . I do not know. I cannot say. So the heart of your complaint is that back in september, october, november, december, which was a time period you were asking for calendars, that mr. Kawa had his practice of eliminating every 2 weeks and thats what you are complaining about in terms of compliance with your request, is that correct . Right, my recollection is that the mayors response to the Sunshine Ordinance Task force after i filed my complaint is in the Mayors Office response that it is disclosed that steve was destroying the records. But its the records that no longer exist at the time you asked for them that is the basis for your complaint . Correct. And just on a technical or mechanical matter, its come up at the Sunshine Ordinance Task force whether or not the servers, im not sure what the right term is technologically, even if it was deleted from his outlook program, would the data still be on a city hard drive, a city server somewhere. That question was not answered as far as i can remember from the Sunshine Task force. I think its important to address that. Did the sunshine office Task Force Vote to ask that question . Im asking you. You were there . My recollection is no. Do you want to ask for it . I would urge you to ask for it because it gets to the heart of the matter. Ma may i propose that we send a letter asking for it to see if its on the hard drive somewhere. If its somewhere in the city server that preserves it. Im certainly happy to ask them. The question might be how expensive it is to find it. I dont know. Well ask that. Do you know the answer to that . So, i think that you can probably ask whatever question that you want is my answer. If you wanted to ask the City Attorneys office if they retain those records on a hard drive or back up disk somewhere, i guess you would have to ask the Mayors Office directly. You can probably ask a question. It wouldnt be in the form of an order, it would be just a question. I think you can do that. I guess, commissioner kopp, the question is not relevant to the question that mr. Kawa violated. I suppose, but the object is the call the truth, the object is the document. That would borrow or obtaining the documents for whatever reason he wants them. I think each department has its own record retention policy. I dont know when Mayors Office employees delete something off his personal outlooks or where it goes. Thats a question i just dont know the answer to right now. I have been told the Ethics Commission doesnt retain anything on back up. There is not enough room on the city server, so we dont have back up from our material. We have exhausted every remedy. Im charles marsel. That well be possible given the timeline and i explained the timeline that the may exist on the people that maintain in the files of the people that maintain the mainframe of the computer. So it used to be the department of Information Services or something. They change their name several times. But the question for this body is whether there is a role to publically state to the interest of this commission that those documents that they are of interest to this body and that they be preserved. I dont think you have to formally issue a subpoena or anything like that, but because mr. White, i believe it was, made a reference to the retention laws and cited a section about the destruction of information once the question was raised or the documents were requested. It might be that you want to go on record in someway that these are critical documents that should be preserved effective this date so that there is a statement on the record that under the state retention policy that then parties of interest would know that those documents would not be deleted or destroyed. I dont know if that would require you invoke a subpoena power or not. Thats a technical question, i guess for the City Attorney. Thank you i share the interest in the reason for complying. If we direct them, are we opening an issue with regard to the employee to rely on the City Attorney, then what constitutes the record. May i make my proposal and motion clear. That is. The chairman be authorized with a letter drafted by staff whoever wants the honor to ask the City Department if they want to recapture the requested records for those 3 months that we are requesting. No more. I dont know if that was in the form of a motion. Second. All right. Any comment from other commissioners . Can i just make one quick point . I think, commissioner chiu is correct that i dont think that there is anything that preclude you from sending that letter. I also think its separate from the question that exist from whether mr. Kawa has complied. Well deal with that after the vote on this motion. Okay. And i would just like to say and seconding commissioner kopps motion. I totally agree with commissioner chiu that in terms of our curiosity about whether or not this material still exist, there is not in anyway cast on mr. Kawas good faith as i see it up to now. I think we dealt with that. Its not in anyway, a witch hunt to say we can get him now because it was destroyed electronically. I would never go there. I guess even beyond that, the good faith or not speaks to whether there was a will full violation and there seems agreement that it wasnt a will full violation and the question of whether there was a will full violation of the ordinance and even a nonwillful violation of the ordinance. Whether or not it maybe on the cloud somewhere doesnt say whether it was a violation. Its interesting the time the City Attorneys and office do not spend time with government laws. The city advises people willynilly and we heard examples tonight that every department decide what they can keep and whats Public Record and how long they can keep it. What you are saying is the citizens cant rely on anything. Since anyone with half a brain would not know anything. I would recommend mr. Pet trellis file against the mayor. Basically 724 says that any person failure to act under the law, the brown act or the california Public Records act is guilty of a misdemeanor. Despite the legal memos, it would seem a member of this commission seem willfully blind as someone as senior mr. Kawa were questionable and unlawful. I think they are hiding matters that could be embarrassing to mayor lee. The reason i say this as a member of the public, we dont trust the government anymore, especially me in the City Government. You basically bring things to them and you ask them to follow the law and they refuse to do it. I asked for records from the San Francisco public library. It took 2 years. I twice petitioned the City Attorneys office to send it to the District Attorney, the attorney general, both petitions were denied even though they took 2 years to produce the records. I actually have a violation in the City Attorneys office for acting as council for a city agency trying to with hold Public Record. When we brought the case on which records were used to the Ethics Commission, the ethics refused to deal with it and we took it to the fppc in sacramento, and the librarian was violating the law for three consecutive years saying he had received nothing from a particular Group Although he had to go back to restate he had gotten 5,000 a year for the stuff he knew he was supposed to declare. He signed those statements under penalty of perjury. Its interesting the City Attorney has done a deal and even mr. Kawa saying we are poor City Employees. We dont know whats going on. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Public speaker the mayors chief of staff deleted his calendars every 2 weeks methodically. That takes effort and discipline either by him or a subordinate. Many busy people keep appointment calendars, but few of them erase them so quickly and so diligently. It seems like a taxing chore to do this even for the most fastidious person. But because the mayor delegates important tasks and appointments to his chief of staff, this commission should consider whether if furt iv purposes drove this behavior. Even if its a practice to delete appointment logs, what is the rational. Does it save money by saving space on computer hard drives. Does it reduce the work load of the Information Technology department . Or does it intentionally conceal activities of Public Interest . Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . David pill pell, there is a lot i can say on this topic. I will be very brief. I was on the Sunshine Ordinance Task force. We heard this matter on three different occasions. In response to commissioner kopps questions, i believe the undeleted calendars were provided to the task force in connection with the april 2016 meeting at the march meeting. We asked if they were changing a policy could we see some examples of calendar entries subsequent and those were provided. Just a number of Different Things im thinking about. When the original sunshine ordinance was passed, it only dealt with records really in effort with then supervisor achtenberg and shelly that it really sought to enhance the publics right to meetings and records beyond what was required in the brown act in the california Public Records act both of which senator kopp had amended to in 1974. Further in 1999 when prop g was being drafted i was part of those discussions and there was some interest in enhancing the right in prop g and some got muddied as we have seen in the period of time. It was to amend the ordinance and it was already being handled in admin code chapter 8 and not to get into that because of the single subject rule by the board of supervisors amendment and not because of record retention itself. To the extent that it was referred to it was in 297 which kind of reemphasize the need for proper records retention and Good Business practices around that. Since i see my time is running, i have the minority viewpoint at the task force. I believe that there was a violation of 67. 21. I do not believe there was a violation of 297 for the reasons you talked about because there was reliance on advice of council because the Mayors Office was willing to change their recordkeeping policy and retain records going forward. In summary, i still dont believe there is a will full violation. To the extend of any violation, we are talking about whats the best course going forward. I believe the Department Heads and elected officials need to maintain a calendar under prop g as a requirement. To the extent other employees maintain a calendar evidencing their efforts, i think they should keep them for 2 years. They are not required, but they should keep them for 2 years. Thank you. Why you are time is up. Any other Public Comment. Hello, michael pet trellis, im very much of this letter. Im confused. We are talking about the letter of 3 months. Yes, you said you are in favor of that motion. Is this Public Comment on the motion or not . You have to take Public Comment once per agenda item and youve already done that and hes already spoken. Be short. Are you in favor, yes or no . I am very much in favor of getting more information about the mainframe and how long records and data maybe on there and i hope that 1 day everyone at city hall above a certain level on the mayors staff and all elected officials who are required to keep a calendar that we have a web page through the citys website that is automatically disclosing those calendars once a month so there is no burden on the public to request them and go through what i have had to go through to get those records. Thank you, i will call the question, all in favor of kopps motion to send a letter for availability of the documents . Aye. Opposed . Its carried unanimously. The main purpose of item no. 5 was to respond to the referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task force that found mr. Kawa in violation of 67. 1 and 67 as a will full failure to discharge his duties under the sunshine ordinance. The staff has recommended in its memorandum that the commission find that the sunshine ordinance does not require mr. Kawa to retain his electronic calendar and that mr. Kawa did not violate the sunshine ordinance by failing to produce his electronic calendar to mr. Pet trellis. A proposed order for the commissions consideration. Do i hear a motion as to whether or not we support the recommendation of the staff . Sz so moved. Second. Any discussion . Can we break that down into two parts because it is actually two parts in terms of whether or not under the sunshine ordinance laws one would be required to keep the record. And whether it was actual by mr. Kawa. I vote for that as we can interpret it as a motion to amend. You want to state your amendment for the record . That the retention of mr. Kawas calendar was indeed required by existing law. And i wouldnt go in farther than that. I second that as a motion. Are you withdrawing your motion . Yes. All right. Any, i have got to say, i vote against it, but it comes up because i dont understand what it is that you are pointing to. Mainly what im pointing to is the overall collective aspect of the sunshine ordinance, Good Government, brown act, in regard to Public Records. The City Attorneys interpretation of this particular calendar as a Public Record, and the underlying requirements within those ordinances and the policies that speak to those ordinances that those things should be preserved. I know im casting a broad net here, and i know im doing it in a vague way. But i think ratted than just give a pass to the whole idea that records of such moment and significance as the mayors chief assistance daytoday records and whats going on in the Mayors Office can just be trashed. I have difficulty under the laws we have relating to sunshine and transparency. I have difficulty with that. Thats why im proposing my motion. Chair renne. Under the sunshine ordinance i dont believe it was for mr. Kawa to retain that because it list those officials and departments to maintain those calendars. Since the ordinance and proposition was so specific as to the people to be subject to this requirement was for the chief of staff, although he has great responsibilities, he was not included in that list under the sunshine ordinance that there has been a violation of the records retention policy. Thats why i made my motion so general and said that there is a legal requirement that under law those records should be retained because i would accept your statement that on the face of it, its hard to pin it down unless we go to what supervisor kopp and i started to have a philosophical about what it is mayor and what is the entity of the mayor and does it broaden to the extent of mr. Kawa. I dont think we have to be that philosophical. But im troubled in the same way as many of the people. That such an important piece of governmental like this being discarded routinely and what some of the observations of friends of ethics ms. Smith asking us not to parse this specific language. This is an area that the public and the law does require the material be maintained so the public knows whats going on in someplace like the Mayors Office. I will call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Weve had comments on item 5 and im told i only need to call for them once. Motion is not carried. So now again i go to the question of the referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task force in finding mr. Kawa in violation of the various sections referred to earlier and finding a will full violation of 67. 21 and the staff recommendation that mr. Kawa did not violate the sunshine ordinance by failing to produce an electronic calendar to mr. Pet trellis. Mr. Chairman, isnt that contradictory . We just rejected the notion of a violation, and that disposes of the matter. No, the original, as i understand the thrust of the motion was that there was that under the sunshine ordinance he was required to keep these calendars, and we as i understand it that motion was defeated. We still havent dealt with the question that the Sunshine Ordinance Tasks force sent to us that he either didnt violate or he did. He has the right to have us make that determination. Well, i can argue that its inherent in the motion we have just rejected. Yeah, i agree. There is no way that you can find that he had though obligation to keep the record. The only consequence is that there is no violation. You can have a second motion, but that there is no violation of the ordinance. Made moot. Im not saying you cant have the motion, its the necessary consequence of the prior motion. He correctly points out that our regulations governing these proceedings require that a vote of three commissioners are required to make a finding of no violation. So to determine that a violation did not occur, you must conclude by a preponderance of the evidence the respondent did not commit a violation of the sunshine ordinance and you have to have three commissioners to make that decision. To make the finding that there was no violation, and the question we didnt have that. All right. So there still is the question. All right, thats the question. And whether or not we accept the staffs recommendation that there was no violation. I move we accept the staffs recommendation. Second. Im sorry, i didnt hear you. I move we accept the staffs recommendation in regard to mr. Kawa, he did not willfully violate the statute. All right. I will second that. You seconded it already. I will call the question. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . That recommendation is adopted unanimously. Turning to item no. Of. Discussion and possible action on amendment to the Ethics Commission bylaws to establish a process for staff to notify the commission when attorneyclient privilege has been invoked in response to a request for Public Records. Any discussion on this from the commissioners . Hearing none, any Public Comment . You can sigh as much as you want. Open government. In this matter i have a couple of comments to make, first the executive director should not only notify the director for documents withheld by attorneyclient privilege but should also include from time to time the number of Public Record request for the tone same timeframe. In other words the public should know how frequently records are being denied based on attorneyclient privilege. That is important because on the sunshine ordinance that anything having to do with open government is disclosable even if it is attorneyclient privilege. So basically, what we are in this conundrum of is constantly when you ask for a document, they say attorneyclient privilege, but the sunshine ordinance also stipulates that if you are withholding information, you have to provide a document. It maybe blacked out, but you have to say specifically what was blacked out and cite the law that supports it. In the cases i have seen when Public Records are made, they say attorneyclient privilege and thats all the information you get. You have to make which was no the to disclose the documents word at a they are being honest. Dont say that everybody in the city is a liar. Im saying that some people hide things and some have a need to hide things. Look at the governor of new jersey and bridge gate where he is Staff Members directed the exit of the bridge to be blocked resulting in a massive traffic jams. We know that this happens in government. Believe me, with all the ethics things that we have going on over the last few years, most of the people in San Francisco really believe that this government really is corrupt. Not that every Single Person is corrupt, no the that every single action is corrupt, but some of them are and there are too many things that have happened that have allowed people to keep things secret from the public. I ask for Public Records. I have got 27 orders of determination and i wont go through the fact that the board of supervisors has used his machinations to undermine the task force. Eight of those recommendations i had to get six out of Seven Members because the board of supervisors rule that even though there were 11 members and four of the seats were vacant and one of the people were sick, you still had to get six votes to win. So basically, there are a lot of machinations and there have to be some efforts to keep this attorneyclient privilege something that actually is visible to the public. Thank you. I have got a question for this gentleman. Do you have a draft amendment that you would like us to consider . Yes or no. I draw an inference that he doesnt. Public speaker . Hi, david pell pell. I spoke on this matter before when it first came up. I think its unusual at best for the city for the commission to have these kind of procedures when reporting a Public Records request which were the body in some cases just addressed to the Department Head. The Department Head has independent responsibilities under the sunshine ordinance and the Public Records act to respond timely to Public Records request regardless of whether the attorneyclient privilege is invoked. I guess if you are going to pass this, we should see how it works for some period of time, 6 months or a year. And i would presume that all of the communications that result from this amendment would a copy of them would be placed in the public file in the 30day file. Perhaps they could also be incorporated into the executive directors report so the public also have an opportunity to know what information was presented to the commission in connection with these kind of Public Records request. I think this was just really dealing with an instant specific to the Allen Grossman matter and im not sure whether the bylaws changes warrant it. Im fairly concerned about this and not sure if its the right course. If you choose to do it again, we should have more public transparency around it and see if its working. Thank you. Move the proposal. Second. I will call the question. All in favor of adopting the bylaws amendment as submitted in item no. 6. Aye. Opposed . The matter was carried unanimously. Well go to item no. 7. Which is a presentation and discussion of informational staff report highlighting 2016 election activities. Good evening, commissioners, jerry flores. Our officer was unable to be here. We have a corrected report. We misstated. The 2. 75 election per voter. It was per resident. Weve updated the election for you. We wanted to provide you as a way to help people for upcoming data on the election and updated on our dashboard between now and the election. The staff is working very hard to try to get information out as well as support and compliance with those who have reporting compliance with us. Happy to answer any questions if you have them. I just want to draw your attention to the new document that is a summary of some of the key data to encourage people to look at our website. Are there any comments from any commissioners . I appreciate youre keeping us updated on that. Is there any Public Comment . Commissioners, San Francisco, open government. What is the purpose of this handout . Is it soliciting members. Is it to receive attention. All the information to Campaign Finance takes years to work their way through your process. We saw an example of that earlier tonight. Case in 2010 and here in 2016 you are finally dealing with it. Most Campaign Finance delinquent can die peacefully in their sleep before you get around to taking any action at all. The actions that are taken eventually are nothing but a form of manipulative. You will crucify and the whale who you couldnt touch. The biggest whale of all, mayor lee. What a farce. Its kind of interesting when you appear before a Public Commission they expect and automatically demand respect. I was a member of the military, i always respected the officer i was dealing with. I didnt necessarily have to respect the person. And its unusual in my mind for somebody to sit on a board and commission being nasty to a member of the public and expect that same member of the public to just blatantly stand there and take it. But thats what it seems to be here. When mr. Pet trellis was entering his case earlier, he was interrupted. Even though every hearing i have seen in this body and every other body has been able to have an uninterrupted 5 minutes and questions were asked. I dont think its unreasonable for someone to come here and expect to be able to say what they came to say without being interrupted. And posing it as a question when it is nothing but interruption is dishonesty. Any behavioral which is rewarded will be repeated. I have gone to city commissions and boards and got up to say things and been told by people who have law degrees, you cant talk about that. I have got 27 orders of determination about eight of them or nine of them are against people who are lawyers who sat on a board and commission who told me for some reason in their mind i couldnt speak about it. Thank you. Yes, just a couple of responses to mr. Hart. In regards to mr. Pet trellis presentations, mr. Pet trellis presentations were to a body that he was trying to make a case in regard to just like you would be making a presentation in court. In regard to us as a body listening carefully and i was and my colleagues were as well. Listening carefully and coming to a point where those presentations by mr. Pet trellis where we had a question, it was in his interest in terms of persuading us for us to go ahead and ask those questions and get an answer at the time. Thats why i was making the observations about him being his own worst enemy. Its totally separate and aside from this other political clownishness. Im talking about the merits of what mr. Hart addressed. So, for us to be doing what we did with mr. Pet trellis in regards to the questions we had in regard to the points that he raised. It was not disrespectful by us as members of the Commission Towards the public. It was respectful. It was our saying, yeah, we are interested in what you are telling us. Tell us more, explain it, let us understand it. Let us be convinced. And his reaction stupid reaction was something that drew a certain amount of ire. I just make that observation to your points. Further Public Comment on item 7. I appreciate the handout. I think it relates to the factoid to the election. I appreciate the work that jerry, johnny and steven do on a day to day basis for getting data to the public. I just wanted to inquire about a year ago Steven Massie made a presentation about a totally overhauled website. Made a comment about the City Attorney having to spend many months reviewing it and i think andrew got back to him an reviewed it in about a week or two and signed off on the content. But the website has why it to happen. I was very much looking forward to it. I think it brought a lot of good information and nifty ways to get stuff and shes about ready to tell us how soon its coming to a city near us. That was my question. Thanks. I will just comment that we are very much at the staff level. All of us are looking forward to posting on our website which is imminently sitting on my desk. We are looking to roll it out very soon. Thank you. By turning to item no. 8 which is a discussion and possible action on a proposed biennial conflict of interest code update for Ethics Commission. You want to tell us what that is about . Yes, every 2 years understate law, local agencies that require to identify and update the positions that need to be listed as form 700, or conflict of interest filers in their agencies and they are also to look at disclosure categories that are associated with each of those designated filing categories. So we have been working with other agencies throughout the city and the City Attorney has been working with the board of supervisors to collect all of that data for the city. This reflects for you, for your information and possible action the updated code as to the Ethics Commission own designated files and categories. The only change in it is the titles to reflect the recent staff structural organization. Weve also added our senior fellow that will be joining our office next week. So weve gone through the process of having the discussion at the staff level. They have had this information for a month. Should there be any question they have or any feedback. We dont have any. We brought it for you to approve it. We also want to give the public a sense about the transparency about the work we are doing including the files and the categories are. We reported this to the board of supervisors, the Clerks Office this fall. The board reviewing body of San Francisco will be taking up and adjustment and update for all City Departments. This is part of that process. We wanted to put it on your agenda this evening so you can also beware of the process and where we are and approve the code before its finally acted on by the board of supervisors. Asking us to approve the code as spelled out in the attachments . Yes, in attachments 2 and 3. And director, the position added are inclusive of the new head count that were approved for this fiscal year . Yes. Any discussion among the commissioners . Is there a motion . Move approval. Second. Public comment . David pill pell. Two things, i appreciate that this is being brought before the commission. For the first time i remember the conflict of interest code for the Commission Staffing brought to the commission. In the past the executive director simply made changes administrative to the board of supervisors. So this is a significant change in transparency relative to the positions in the code. However, im concerned that there are a number of positions being added and it suggest that a number of these individuals do work prepare reports in analysis without significant intervening substantive review which is the standard and the law. I hope that thats not true. In the past, the activities of the staff have generally been supervised by the executive director, the Deputy Director or the assistant deputy executive director now the assistant Deputy Director including the investigations and auditing work along with the education compliance and other activities. So to the extent that this code change suggest that Decision Making has been devulged to people on the staff, i think its important that there is intervening substantive review by one of the three highest level people of the staff. Im concerned generally in the city that we have in my view too many people that are filers across the City Department whether they are clerks or assistants. We have literally hundreds of people, some of whom i dont think make the kind of decisions that were contemplated for purpose of the being a form 700 filer. That has in my view complicated the commissions efforts to require Electronic Filing of all forms 700. I would push back a bit on designating additional positions and ask about that intervening substantive review. Thank you. Public speaker charles marsel for the record. Talking about enhancing the policy in someway so it captured and maintained the calendars to the number of people that should have calendars clearly maintained. I said to my friend,elena that maybe we can cutoff reporters and put on that class the individuals the record enhancement retention policy if we wanted to look at that in a future meeting. I thought i would mention it since mr. Pal pell did a little push back. While we have this document before us and looking at this question, you might look at these people and decide whose calendar should be maintained. Are they policy makers or would the public be upset if these people did or did not report. To maintain these calendars. We try to think of the cutoff. I realize its a little off topic. Thank you for your indulgence. Thank you. Public speaker commissioners, San Francisco open government. Once again we have this self justification. This body has neither the power nor the desire to enforce the law. Case in point. When city library was accepting thousands of dollars of gifts each year and relying on economic interest which they think is a funny thing. What i think is funny is your repetitious lies. Please stop the clock. Cmon. Thats what is rude if not asking for recognition of the chair and asking to interrupt me and ask a question is just a blurred out like hes still in a courtroom, a judge and can order everyone around. If you dont like what i have to say, thats viewpoint discrimination which is a violation of the brown act. City librarian under penalty or perjury and refused to touch it. It took citizens going tonight fpcc in sacramento to get results. I feel like im watching the reenactment of the wizard of oz where the witch tells the witch of the west be gone, you have no power here. That sums up the regard of this commission. Once again, in fact your very existence makes open government a joke. One of the things that you have to recognize whether you like it or not is your reactions to the public are very telling. If you have to be rude to people, if you have to interrupt them, not following the regular order when you expect them to follow the regular order, thats a good sign that youve got a bad case. And when you said to object to what people have to say, thats viewpoint discrimination. You may say, no, its my opinion. You have the right to reply. But a reaction is not a reply and throwing mud and somebody and disparaging their comments or a person is not a reply. Its abuse of power and thats what you folks like to do. You like to abuse why you are power by saying im in charge and i can interrupt anytime i want and all i have to do is makeup an excuse to explain it. When i do, i dont give you a chance to refute that. I will just put it out there and make my case. I have gone before so many boards and commissions where people told me i wasnt allowed to talk about something. That im amazed that anybody has any respect for boards and commissions in this city. Its unfathomable. Mr. Keane . I know i shouldnt do this but i cant resist because i have been listening to mr. Hart now for about a year 1 2, and for the most part, commissioner kopps spontaneous reaction is something that the fact that the rest of us dont constantly do it through mr. Harts presentation shows i think great strength of will on the part of the rest of us because mr. Hart, its not a question of interrupting you or not wanting to hear what you say, but, for every month you get up 20 times with a spiel that is identical and you say the same thing over and over and over again. Obviously in all of that noise that you make, there are certain nuggets of wisdom and things that would be beneficial for us to consider. I really try my best to try and pierce through all that fog that you send this way to fair them out, but its hard. So i have to see that our newest commissioners rather human reaction is one that everyone of us have wanted to make but i have just been, we havent. So thats since we are having these dialogues back and forth with the public tonight and we dont usually do it but we have the turn the opportunity to do it and we have the right to do it, i thought i would add my observation to that, mr. Hart. I have been watching you for a year 1 2. God you are tedious. You are unbelievably tedious. May i respond to mr. Pal pells question for the point of information and the public that maybe listening. I want to assure him that we have not reached the level of Decision Making that he was concerned about. Everybody who is on this list is on this list because they have significant independent judgment that they apply in making recommendations directly to Decision Makers in our organization and as i read the state law and have understood it that is one of the factors that would leave someone to be a form of 700 filer that heavy the responsibility for shaping that we make as a staff. The other thing that i feel clear about that we as an agency who are holding other officials to a standard we also should hold ourselves to that same standard. We have broad closure categories that apply because of the nature of our work that could affect a lot of interest. So im happy with talk with mr. Pal pell off line, but this is a very accurate description as we currently are structure for the kind of work people do to shape policies, not just ultimately make policies, operational decisions at the commission. Thank you for that input. Does anybody have a motion that we adopt the proposed draft as Commission Designated files under the conflict of interest. So move. Second. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Passed unanimously, thank you, executive directors report. Yes, the first thing i would like to recognize is our new Deputy Director jessica bloom. As you can see shes hit the ground running. She has a lot of experience in variety of areas including Public Records and information. And so, one of the things that we will be doing and have actually started looking at is our own records retention schedule. There are as i think the friends of ethics letter to you pointed out they are very accurate. A number of our policies are outdated. We want to make sure we are also following leading practices. That is one of the things that jess ica is going to have on her radar and looking at ways to constructively do that process. She has been here over a month now and has hit the ground running and a great asset. Im sure you are going to join me in welcoming her. At the october meeting, guy as is going to join us. She will be working as a placement in our office for the next year. And her primary focus is to help us make our website accessible and provide new tools and information for people to really engage with the information we put out there so that it will help promote compliance and understanding of our laws. We also have positions and recruitment. There is a lot of information that we need to provide the department of Human Resources to make sure we can post our positions that we have in our budget. I think we are on track for doing that. We have one more to initiate, im hoping next week well be able to post two positions, the analyst and the enforcement positions that we have as you know we desperately need. I have attached to the report as well about a new organizational structure. There is a lot of activity under way over the last couple of months the commission met. Chair attended a meeting of the california Practices Commission chair and california forward who were having a public discussion about the political reform act in ways to restructure that document to help people how to be more accessible. And as you know proposition t is the measure now as it was named during the random process through the Elections Department, the commissions ballot measure to further restrict lobbyist campaign contributions. As i understand today, the Elections Department now has the entire voter pamphlet online. That information is out in circulation including the proponents argument submitted on behalf of commissioner submitted on behalf of the commission. We are making some progress on our audit report and continuing to also provide you with information about our enforcement statistics where we stand. Im very hopeful with jessica here and hiring of new staff, we are looking forward to bringing and resolving cases that have been stale. That its taking too long to appropriately investigate and get to an appropriate solution for our enforcement cases. We look forward to that. Lastly we have our annual policy plan which i inadvertently did not attach to my report. I have copies on the public table and provided for the commissioners as well. A monthly snapshot to help people get a sense of where we are to be on the commissions policy discussion for the coming year clearly as our meetings go forward, new information identified and be given an appropriate place. With that, i think i have highlighted everything that i need to. Im happy to answer any questions. Any questions . With regard to the unfilled positions, since they wont be filled until hopefully the end of the year, what impact will that have from a budgeting standpoint since well have unused payroll between now and the fiscal year. Is it a use it or lose it scenario . Yes. Its always a use it or lose it. The budget process calls for a 7. 7. It will take 3 months or more to hire for the position. It will have the full positions authorized in coming year. It is important to get it clearly for the work we have to do. When we dont, we have a salary recruit savings and we can use it on an as needed basis. The priority is to get those positions filled as quickly as we can. Thank you. Public comment . Commissioners, ray hart, San Francisco open government. Lets talk about what is always missing in this report. Anything to do with the sunshine ordinance. Despite the fact that we have heard about this commissions authority under law. After all, what could you say. We have never and will never do anything to enforce open government laws. We dont give a damn what the citizens of San Francisco passed by this twothirds majority. We wont enforce it. Not only that, we wont do anything in our power to provide any level of transparency from achieving their goal. Adding insult to injury, we wont disparage that subject. You can para phrase kelly in pogo. You can sit there and say im tedious. What is the real expectation. If you find something and believe it and go a away and not bother anymore. What you resist persists. If you wont respond, then you provoke a reaction. They do things which discourage it. Look at this room. Who pays attention to these meetings. Who thinks its worth the effort . I few of us. Some will get on your good side. They are still working on the old premise if you are nice and polite and pow pow maybe they will work with you, but i have learned my lesson. You dont get anywhere being nice. And besides, this is not a forum for being nice. This is a political arena. You are a politician as much as the commissioner earlier. Im not a politician. Yes you are. This is a political theatre. Beginning to end. Its all politics. And everyone of you knows it. Its just you dont want to admit it. Public speaker david pal pell, i want to highlight a few things. The agenda refers to the eds report with date september 21st, and the final report dated september 22nd. We should proof the report. The detail in this report, if this is what we can expect every month, i think we are doing fine and really the level of detail is appreciated. There wasnt a meeting in august. So maybe its you know, twice as much as we would normally see. I do appreciate it. In particular, the attachment 6 with the age of the open formal complaints and the matters in preliminary review. I have asked for this for many years. Its great to see it and hopefully well make this a regular part of the report and not just a quarter thing if there is a way to make this monthly. Excellent. And the policy program is appreciated as well. The final thing i wanted to highlight on page 6 of the report, the delinquent revenues, there is one in particular that concerns me. I know we are going to hear about the mark farrell case in a few minutes. But the Chris Jackson matter. I have talked about this a few last times. By the way, i have found jessica to be helpful an refreshing to the addition of the staff. With regard to Chris Jackson, he served on the Community College board for some time. He ran unsuccessfully for supervisor resigned his position, left town. I understand hes now living in oakland and a candidate this november for the Oakland School board. Im informed that were he running for a San Francisco elected office because he has this outstanding balance, he would not be able to be certified as a candidate where he elected in San Francisco, however, thats not the case since hes running in oakland. I dont want to say too much tonight. I think you should calendar this matter for a future meeting as i understand hes not made payment agreed to in his stipulation. People get into a bad place from time to time whether its about forms, feels, fines, what not. And correct that and get into a better place. Im going to interrupt you. Do we have a judgment against mr. Jackson . We have one judgment. We have a judgment . Yeah, its a little complicated. For the past executive director approved a series of payments to be made under the colt payment plan. Take it from the top. Do we have a superior Court Judgment . We have one but not for the full amount. Its old. Why is it old . A judgment is in effect for 10 years. Not old, owed. Because of the time of first payment to be a delinquent revenue, they only collected or obtained a judgment in small claims court. So why dont we go back . We did. And get a judgment for the balance. Absolutely. We referred to the matter to bdr. When was it referred . Last week some time. We learned that he had missed additional payments. So we actually accelerated the total amount owed and now we are taking payments. Thank you. Anyway, there is a little bit more to it. I didnt want to get into all of it tonight. I think you should calendar this matter for further discussion. If he missed payments under the stipulation, the commission reserves authorities to bring that entire enforcement matter back. That is an option. How much is involved in the first one and in the balance . The current balance is 6601. What was the amount of the judgment . The judgment was about 2500 which reflected some additional principal and city cost for the treasurers office. Why does this have to come back rhetorically to us . It may have been a settlement. Where we entered into an agreement, but the provisions say if hell make it, the whole thing comes back. I assume thats whats in that document. Right. It was a stipulation agreed to by the commission. In any event, again, i just think if someone wants to run for office, thats fine, but they should have their forms and fees and fines up to date before they do so and im concerned there is a current candidate in this bad place. So, if you would see fit to either collect the entire amount or if that doesnt happen to bring the matter back for further discussion and consider all of your options. I think that item fits under item 10. Thats the next one we are going to. Then i dont have to speak then. Thank you very much. Item 10. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. Now, commissioner kopp, there during the course of the discussions tonight you mentioned two or three things that you would like to have discussed with the commission and as was pointed out to you by mr. White because they are not agenda items, with ever to we have to put them on the agenda as i assume. If you recall . In terms of overreaching issue. Its what i observe from reading the list of pending investigations. And again, this is a new administration, but the delays are remarkable. I would like that put on the agenda and go through those. I dont want to take 10 minutes on everyone, but and the second part of that is and i will announce publically, that many bear notation that the District Attorney is investigating and therefore handsoff. We are not touching it. I know thats a principle and criminal law investigation which commissioner keane knows better than i. But im approaching this as the new boy on the block, and i dont believe there is any law which prohibits us from proceeding, and i think as a matter of policy it should be on a case by case basis. Will i would like to raise that. I agree with that and i raised that in the past particularly in the form of the executive director using the opportunity to defer any sort of get off his desk matters by saying, well, this is going over to the District Attorney or someone else is looking at it. And we used to get those things from him. So i think it bears more inquiry. There is no reason in many instances for us to not proceed parallel to the proceeding of another body. That was part, our not doing that was getting into the whole brouhaha about the matter. I think we should revisit that can you put those two items on the agenda . Just to make sure i understand what you are looking for. On the annual policy plan for a formal discussion on policy, we have planned for the november, december timeframe. We have been at the staff level with jessica to start digging into the enforcement regulation, but about policy for working with other enforcement agencies and what our procedures are. It sounds like that is one patioes piece that you are looking for, but also looking for a specific complaint opened in discussions right now . That matter will be scheduled for a closed session discussion in a future meeting. Am i correct that you are looking for both of those items . Yes. The latter item in where they came in and where they are does it have to be in closed session . Correct. Public comment on items that you would like to have on the calendar . Sorry, not to interrupt Public Comment, chair. One other thing that commissioner kopp mentioned as we were discussing the sunshine ordinance to review the sunshine ordinance, was there a question that you wanted us to review and whats your timeframe. Can you do it by the next meeting . How about the meeting after that for november . Its the process that we would want. Would you like to have interest in a meeting prior to meet with you with the changes or the proposed recommendations . Yes. That would satisfy me. Then after december . Good evening, friends of ethics and let me add my welcome to commissioner kopp. Its going to be interesting to watch this. I am going to repeat pretty much what you just heard from our new Deputy Director which is i want to make sure that as you had the discussion about item 5 to bed, the issue is still out there which is you have a number of varying organizations, agencies saying what should be covered by the records retention, when its public and when its not public. As commissioner keane pointed out, transparency is what you are after. You want to make sure at least from my point of view that the citizens have a right to see how the City Government is working for them. I want to make sure that is on discussion for future agenda items. Having this in the meeting is very important and i would hope that director and others would sit down in the organization with task force, the records retention hall, whoever is in charge of all that to work through how can we make sure there is no conflict but in fact we are getting a clear signal to the citizens of whats important. Thank you. Any other comment . Public speaker charlie marcel. Yes, following up on eleanas comments. I think what you are looking for is a rewrite of the ordinance or an amendment which is by super majority. You want to build your coalition, you want to get all the interested stakeholders together on the ip meetings. There shouldnt be that much of a rush because we want to make sure everybody has input to that process. I think we will all find it to be very helpful. On a followup i mentioned before, i see some things in the Public Financing of campaigns system where the concurrent and proactive auditing that is supposed to occur during even the course of the campaign as reports are filed that perhaps the document that is lost oftentimes could be submitted with the report. We could make a special class if you are accepting Public Financing that you basically have a mini audit for every month where they do a facial audit to make sure that the receipts are submitted with the report to document everything that is stated in the report. That way it keeps the treasurer on their toes, and you dont have this scramble after the election to try to redocument everything that happened in that chaos of a campaign. Its better to do it concurrent with that campaign process. So that would be my other thing, and thats an issue that came up as well with the lessons to be learned from ms. Sweet which i wish her luck, but i really wish she would terminate her committee. If i see her i will tell her. Thank you. Commissioners, fred hart, San Francisco, open government. I wasnt going to comment on this particular item but i heard something from the discussion that i couldnt let go. All of this dormant strong about this length of time of investigation and the commissioners team, i filed a complaint with this commission in march and i had an investigation and denial of hearing within 30 days. I filed a second one in april, and i had an investigation and a denial of hearing in 48 hours. So, i dont know what everybody is complaining about saying an investigation is taking too long. 48 hours, thats a really good turn around. If you cant tell im being sarcastic because there was no investigation. There was just a blatant effort to look at what i had put in and find reasons to ignore it. The same thing that happened when i brought a complaint to the task force that was referred here the last time and you held a hearing while i was out of the state. You dont like what i have to say. You know that if i had been there that night and able to actually pursue the complaint i had filed i would have put a lie to louis herrera, we cant project a powerpoint slide in the auditorium. We would have to spend 41,000 to do that. Commissioner sullivan at the time got it. He said didnt you look at any other way of allowing the public to do this . Oh yes, the only thing we can do was all this construction work. We had to spend 40,000. We didnt think that was a good use of the time. The only thing that achieved were friends of library. They are invited. Would you ever invite mr. Hart . Of course the answer was no. [ captioner transitioning ] three hours four hours. All right. Any Public Comment on item 11 which has been continued to october some date in october at our next scheduled meeting. I would hope that if your comments relate to the substance of number 11, you would wait until october to give us that comment because we will never remember what you said. I wanted to say tonight is everybody is listening to the president ial debate normally i wanted to inform our new arrival mr. Cop many millennials are and a lot of interested parties, that attend these meetings tonight, theyre all out watching the debate. God bless them. I was looking at the ratings and it appears that we out did them. Im not surprised. You have the hottest agenda in town. No question. And so much so, you had to postpone items nobody was here they were tied up. No. I appreciate the fact that some items have been deferred because there will be Public Interest in those items. All right. Thank you. Any other Public Comment david papil. I still think we made the better choice but i could be wrong. I wasnt here at the beginning of the meeting did i understand item 11 is being continued. Its being continued yes. Was there explanation about the status of the case because i know its been continued several times on the motion to strike. There wasnt any discussion about it. Its continued in part because one of the commissioners had an emergency leave. And you want all five commissioners okay. From what i understand from the agenda although the attachment doesnt speak to it its a 25,000 settlement to the city and mutual release of claims and that would end the matter . That is the proposal in substance. Correct. We will talk about that next month. So nothing is go to happen until then. I think im good thank you very much. Great meeting tonight. Thank you. I hear a motion to adjourn. Item 12. Item 12 is for more Public Comment for items appearing and not appearing on the agenda. I have people walk up to me on the street say i saw you on sfgtv they say good job give them hell. I havent heard people say gee you were rough. Years of experience has taught me one lesson no matter how friendly, how polite or whatever you are, the most you can hope for is to provoke reaction. George or well said in time of deceit the most to motion is an act. I pay less attention to what men say, i just watch what they do. Over the years, i have repeatedly ask members of this body tell me anything they have done to make City Government more open transparent or honest. The answer is always silence. Truly, deafening silence. The citizens of San Francisco know their government to be corrupt and i believe they should be aware that you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. There are at least two of you who take some satisfaction who were not here when there was increase in the budget. Although i was dismaid to hear you gloating over the fact there was a huge increase the last time around. What choice did he have after being indicted for several bribes what is he going to say . No . Especially over 4 or 5 years where the budget didnt go up a single dollar. Bf skinner the father of behavioral psychology that said behavior is that is rewarded will be repeated. Your reaction is reward and i will have that. Motion to adjourn . So moved. All in favor . What beautiful bikes are these, right . Go bikes. Well good morning everybody and welcome to our civic center San Francisco and really happy to see regional mayors and regional elected officials here. Tom, i still got to get used to those genes. They dont let me wear jeans. Yet. Anyway, mayor bates, mayor sam ricardo of san jose elected officials are regional transportation official, local, scott weiner on my mdc is my appointee there working really hard. Kelly working very hard as well. And our friends from Ford Motor Company mobility company. This is helping all of us understand the definition of transportation networks. Its no longer just about an automobile with a driver. As we have more discussions, and as us mayors get on bart to promote the needs that we have in the region, transportation is a regional challenge and the solutions have to be regional. They have to be with our Corporate Partners as well. So, ideas are coming forth and the nice part about ford is we formed this relationship some time ago when we were trying to get a smart city challenge grant to the feds. But, one of the promises that i think today is a forthcoming is that it