Is a scarf. Welcome again to the special meeting of the San FranciscoEthics Commission for confess 19 it is my understanding that items one and 2 and 3 up to the point where we were recorded they just were not shown on television and mr. White is it necessary for us to go through them again. The audio the Deputy Director recorded the first 3 items not necessary okay turning to oh, no, i have to call any comment on the minutes and i will hearing none, call the question again. All in favor, say i. I. Any opposition hearing none, the minutes as amended by commissioner kopp and myself are approved turning to item number 4 is a discussion and possible action to approve Ethics Commission regular meeting of for calendar 2017 this is a new procedure of that the executive director has suggested to give rather than giving the notices once a month giving the Public Awareness of agreed dates assuming at dates on the calendar suggest in the attachment so one can plan over the 12month period. Any discussion. No as you point out commissioner keane not a requirement but keeping on the policy agenda as well as trying to enhance engagement the public ass are dates that conform with the requirement in the by laws and accepting over the time needs to change it had will be changed into a special meeting hopefully gives did public consideration. I noticed in looking at it youve take into account the Christmas Period in 2017 so it wont be a special meeting well be meeting on a regular meeting of and so in any case any commissioner have any comments or concerns . Ill call for Public Comment. Commissioners ray hart for San Francisco open government. Id like to commend the executive director for this action it is my firm belief the reason we do what i do every Single Commission has an obligation not just to put up with public attendance and participation but encourage Public Participation i think putting out the schedule well in enhance gives the people time to work into the public schedule they can attend. Any other Public Comment hearing none. Move we adopt the schedule. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Hearing none, the schedule for the Commission Regular scheduled merging for calendar year 2015 is approved turn to item number 5 discussion and possible action on sunshine ordinance for enforcement of Ethics Commission complaint ray hart vs. Eric mar attachments part of agenda and art to you want to make our presentation. Sure if i might an error on terms of the attachment the attachment number it on that item this be an attachment on item 6. Right. So i apologize for that error and is publics information. But is it different the item number 6 is a whats nancy versus the Sunshine Ordinance Task force that is what attachment number 2 is. Exactly, exactly attachment 2 relates to item 6 the nancy sunshine ordinance. Art i thought i had 5 minutes. Thats correct 3. Ray hart for San Francisco open government. The first two pages of the referral or the packet for item number 5 in the referral letter from the task force to this body and i would like you to Pay Attention particularly to the second page and the bottom two paragraphs it is says the Task Force Takes this matter 10i6r8 and buildings that eric mar intentionally refused to appear at merging before the task force to discuss the issue and not providing a written response for over 15 months based on the testimony in the hearing the task force interpretation of the ordinance and others applicable laws the failure to respond in a timely complete manner violates section and of the sunshine ordinance and the lack of policy infers intentional and willful noncompliant with the ordinance. There we go. What you see here is a rough thing of the order of determination includes they got a lot more information basically in march 19, eight hundred i put in an i dr not a extension are response i filed the shovrns complaint and the Sunshine Ordinance Task force had a hearing on may excuse me maybe third and supervisor mar didnt send anybody to the meeting he went before the board of supervisors on 3 occasions spent two hours a waiting for general Public Comment and put up a listing of supervisors not responded to this request i sent it to 10 of the supervisors of 5 not responded the first time i went two of them responded the next day and i withdraw those complaints the only 3 remaining were supervisor eric mar are supervisor farrell and leaping the president of the board of supervisors on may of 2016 a year and two months later an e ot hearing none showed up from supervisor mars office and sent a memo to supervisor mar and finally one year and 4 months later that sent a request about the 5 or 6 page from the packet back of your packet and on supervisors letterhead and id like to call your attention to a came up of things it took a year and 4 months to send this and under the brown act new look at the bottom two lines that i highlighted the Public Records does not permit an agency to delay or stop the written records when a denial must be in writing this response youre seeing the first and only response i got to any original i dr from supervisor eric mar now the last thing on the letter now on still 3 minutes or is the last paragraph, however, since the date of the complaint everywhere implemented appropriate measures to make sure the Public Records request didnt get loss because of a limited staff and legislative duties to extend it this kind of a bizarre statement to make as of the date of the complaint that was in march of 2015 we changed our procedures and then you still dont respond until a year and some months later and during the entire hearing process i went to all the hearings had to go to multiple extra hearings and even though people they sent couldnt answer the questions of task force and when the finally the first systematically said why after a year plus have no response to the fact you didnt respond to this i dr they still got no response so basically just i didnt respond and didnt respond to the complaint and didnt attend the hearings and finally when it was office use e ufos it went to the Ethics Commission is that the time. Theres a sentence. Basically this was the facts are that he willfully incurred the law i made every effort to communitybased great the board of supervisors so he knew that was out there and still waited a year and four months to respond. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Do we have anyone here from supervisor eric mars office. Yes. Yes, its your turn. Commissioners my name is angela legislative aide speaking on behalf the supervisor eric mar this hearing today on behalf of the supervisor i have the utmost appreciation for the shorn task force and the Ethics Commission and appreciate the opportunity to have this item heard an june 3rd any legislative aide mr. Long presented before the task force any office failed to respond to the eir dr and explaining the envelop Administration Oversight to respond to this in a timely manner and my office was unable to attend the followup scheduled and in which this item was agenda in 2016 at the Education Training committee since that time i and my staff from the task force suggestion took immediate chronic action to make sure my office is responsive and knowledgeable representative from any office for the sunshine ordnance meeting and since a representative has attended the following Sunshine Ordinance Task force meetings an july 26th i had attended the e dr meeting as a representative to provide an overview of the requests made to uphold us in responding and flagging and following through to all i drs and the official response was provided to mr. Hart through the september 7, 2016, hearing because supervisor eric mar was not available his legislative aide was speaking to the stuff were taking response to this complaint i greatly respect the work of the shorngz task force and recognize the procedures to make sure we respond to the requests of the public and tried to comply as the shovrng sunshine ordnance and all the consequence of event has been demonstrated and accident need for improvement not a willful intent to violate the ordinance or to discharge the duties i ask the commission to discharge this. May i have the chairman. What reason when the request was made back in 2015 and then there were meetings of the Sunshine Task force nobody showed up what is the administration failure. Their perhaps overlooked when they came to the in box the staff was responsive for different portions what an email came through admittedly there was not the appropriate mechanism and checkpoint to flag those i drs to be responded to identify made action now to catch those emails. Commissioner kopp. How along will have you worked in this office. I started in 08. And how many others to others. Yes. And what happens when a request for Public Records arrives at the office. Who is responsible for it. Im sorry can you repeat the last portion of the question. Who is responsible for responding to a request for Public Records. Depending on the the subject matter and give me examples of subject matter. Like housing we have had aid who typically hundreds overseeing matters take on the initial response of whether or not we have any records Partnership Requests if their pertinent to small Property Owners aids so first of all. Let me stop you because that answers the question i have in my mind who opens the letter the envelope or receives the email with the request. If theyre coming through electronic emails supervisor eric mars in box it could be the supervisor himself and or the aids but the aids are responsible for monitoring the emails. One aid or all 3. We set them up by time of day but currently im responsible. You split them by time of day and at the time, yes. So someone would be responsible for two hours for example, Something Else for another two. Hypothetically half the day from 12 to 12 and the other half of the day and, huh were those procedures reduced to writing. In the job discrimination. In the in the job descriptions but the responsibilities of legislative aids were. The responsibility are of the aids are discussed when we have Staff Members for example, when i joined the office to discuss who will be taking on what work role. That was deny orally not put on a memorandum that was on a Bulletin Board or a central placed. We charged it outthink the notepad to see what was responsible for. You targeted a sorry charged. Charged it out quam. In a staff meeting literally charged it out i for example, remember the time of day and we what happened to the chart. This was in a staff meeting we had just jotted it down. So each of you took note. In our Staff Meetings we take notes when we discuss things but particular for the time when prior to any joining the staff im not sure what about the written procedures. Im talking about over may 2016 was there a memorandum posted in the office as to who would perform responsibilities on Public Records request. No, not specifically dominated memo. Do you know if one of the 3 legislative aide to board president london breed. Will be employed over 2017. I cant speak i think everyone is going figuring out their next steps. Meaning none of the 3 legislative aide to board president london breed. Are presently destined for continued engagement after january 8th is that right . And supervisor eric mar is wrapping up had his term. Im asking you do any of the 3 legislative aide to board president london breed. Expect to be retained by the next supervisor. We do for transition period. How long is that. It is undetermined at that moment. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions commissioners have of this witness go ahead. Commissioner keane. After the Sunshine Ordinance Task force made the finding that supervisor eric mar had indeed violated the sunshine ordinance by not responding is that when your office first became aware of it im trying to get the sequences is that what youre saying our office became aware and started to react and my form colleague victor young appeared about the task force that was the 9 of 2030 and appropriated a response he became aware of the idea when we received i think a memo from the task force ordering us weve failed to respond to the i dr and did your staff explain to the task force the things youve said it was the aids didnt pickup on it and werent aware of it and that was why there was no response. He did he kind of explained the missteps that happened for that email not filed appropriately for the response. And this may not be a proper for you to opine on but it is it your impression in regards to the task force coming out with the findings that supervisor eric mars office did willingly didntly fail to respond to the task force the didnt belief in. There was not willful. I understand but obviously weve got supervisor eric mars Office Putting forth this explanation and accuse that look it fell under the cracks we didnt willfully do it and the task force votes visually or maybe unanimously that it was indeed a willful fair what that indicate to you that the task force didnt believe him . I think the task force decision i respect their processing of this of the cased before them but i think from our perspective from our office as soon as we recognized that we needed to respond to thought i dr and backtrack and figure out out the i dr as you say fall undertook the cracks and made sure that we focused on moving forward to make sure we respond adequately and in a timely fashion to all i drs we were focused on developing that protocol and system in response and western also finally able to that iron to mr. Harts throats july task force. At the Task Force Meeting they found that was a willful violation you said at the meeting you were unable to respond to the charges and allegations is that what youre saying. We had that opportunity but i think part of perhaps the willful violations was attributed to staffs statements my colleagues due to a scheduling issue was National Able to make the initial meeting but as soon as supervisor eric mar was aware of that having aids if not 2013 multiplied aids to speak to the commission. Forgive me what im trying to get at what it was that the task force had before them at the time they made this finding that supervisor eric mar had will fully Feasibility Study to respond to the sunshine ordinance that it is pretty serious finding in regards to supervisors blowing off the sunshine ordinance i think you what agree but i mean asking you to respond but that serious in the supervisor were to do that right. From the supervisor were i agree there are it is a serious issue by no means does supervisor eric mar mean to blow off the commission we do make the Public Records request in the highest regard and in the time since through our Staff Meetings we checks are that im asking you in terms of what you put down as of now are as of sometime after this you as i said youve instituted all sorts of things to make sure it wont happen again forgot about that im trying to find out the history and how it was that supervisor mar and his staff responded to them to the Sunshine Ordinance Task force why it was there was no response and having difficulty you may not know having difficulty getting that history in my mind to make a determination do you know whether or not at hearing before the sunshine ordnance task force if you dont know thats fine do you know whether or not the Sunshine Ordinance Task force was told on behalf of supervisor mar all the things you originally told us it was something that fell through the cracks none picked up on it can were they told that at the hearing if you dont know thats okay. I dont know for a fact, however, listening to the task force i believe that was pretty discussed by a colleague but dont know for certain. Well, if it is recorded it is on there. So is the recording in that. The sunshine ordnance task force hearing i believe see. Okay rather than making a decision now i want to hear what was put forward to the sunshine ordnance if anything as to the reasons why this was not responded to. Before we go forward if they didnt put anything or if they were putting forth something unbelievable i that would be helpful to me 34 making a decision here we dont know we know is that they voted unanimously that there was a willful violation based on the presentations i dont know what they had before them if anything from supervisor mars office and if they had the facts before the full account before them from supervisor mars office that you told us that you believe the way it happened then it would appear they didnt believe supervisor mar i think ill be interested to find out. Any supervisor. I dont know their where you or mr. Hart can tell me if any history of this matter is correct but the original request was in march of 2015. Correct. And there was a task force hearing in june of 2015 where mr. Lynn showed up. Correct. But the Task Force Made a preliminary finding of violation but then in may of 2016 they took up this matter again and mr. Harts made a presentation at that merging accordingly to the order of determination the task force sent a letter to sup