wouldn t want to take a recommendation on it, simply because that is not what i think we re authorized to do under the charter. and if we have been true to what we each believe the charter allows or doesn t allow and i understand commissioner renne s point of view as well, but for myself, i think because i have been sticking to what i think the charter allows and what it doesn t allow. so i wouldn t stray from it at this point at this stage. so for my point of view, i think our job was just to give a recommendation about whether to sustain the charges and that is it. that is all we were asked to do and tasked to do. so for that reason i am also not inclined to take a vote that i probably don t see that we are authorized to do, to make some kind of recommendation that isn t found in the charter or isn t grounded in the charter. mr. hemblig, do you have a view on this? i stated my view at the last meeting. i believe that the mayor has discretion about whether to bring charg
without putting myself in a conflict situation is simply report to the board what this commission did and what findings it made. essentially reiterating the written document. the board wants someone there to be able to make that presentation and answer questions. i don t think there is an ideal solution to who that right person should be. if it were the chair, it would be awkward, because the chair is the one dissenter from the decision. if it one member of four-person majority, that would be awkward, because that person may be asked questions to speak for the entire majority and not feel comfortable doing that. if it were me, there is some awkwardness with the legal advice that i might be called upon to present to the board and what i hope to be a very dry and neutral presentation of what the findings are here. but it puts me in some of the an awkward situation, so i don t disagree with mr. wagner, but it may be the best of the alternatives to have me do it given my neutral
and so the plea bargain that ross took is the plea bargain that allows police officers to keep their jobs. it s not a crime of moral terpitude, and this is that standard thing. it s the plea bargain that is designed for the person to not lose their job it s the plea bargain designed so that the breadwinner continues to have employment, health insurance and medical benefits for the family and it s the plea bargain that allows the criminal justice system to allow that person to be rehabilitated and to i don t know, be rehabilitated and pace pay their price to society and the like. that is what ross did. i m not ross lawyer. i was never ross lawyer, but we would not have been convicted in a jury trial and instead, to try and save the shame of so much of really what his wife believed was a confidential video so i am saying that we have a decision to make as a society, if you want ># revenge it s never going to be pretty and nothing is going to get better. allowed somebody to
i would like to all to order the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission and we ll begin by taking the roll. commissioner liu. here. commissioner hayon? here. commissioner renee. here. commissioner studley has an excused absence today. our first order of business is consideration of the draft findings and legal justifications for the commission s decision on august 16th, 2012. we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explan
commissioner hayon? here. commissioner renee. here. commissioner studley has an excused absence today. our first order of business is consideration of the draft findings and legal justifications for the commission s decision on august 16th, 2012. we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a findi