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 explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendat
ultimately as mr. emblig said, there is a perception issue and the ethics commission, i believe should take every action that it possibly can to avoid the perception of impropriety and to avoid the appearance of conflict. so that is why i raised the issue and i think that the director making the presentation would alleviate that concern, because the director is not counsel for the commission or the board. i am a little confused as to why the board can t have other counsel. i have no objection to the board retaining other counsel. i didn t realize that your engagement at the present time that you engaged by the board, have you been advising the board during our proceedings? yes. and there has been one meeting about procedure with the board. one public meeting. i apologize, commissioners, were you waiting? did you have a question or just a general pause? i guess i am a little surprised and i don t know why the board doesn t have independent counsel. i can t answer
written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the s
get comments saying give sheriff ross mirkarimi my regards. he got a raw deal. i went to a lower haight merchants association fair on monday and every merchant commented on how much they love ross mirkarimi and his family and everyone of them said they believe he is getting a raw deal. there is a widespread perception of inproprietary in this case. i believe it should be delayed until after the election. this has been a political campaign and there has been a lot of misconduct to go around. i believe that the domestic violence advocates themselves are engaging in illegal conduct when they come and testify here. they are 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization and to give them tax exempt status they should not be advocating for or against any candidate for public office and they have had the gall to come here and say ross mirkarimi should not be sheriff and i believe is misconduct on their part. i think you should therefore seriously consider delaying deliver your report to the boar