Skip to main content

tv   Special Ethics Commission 101716  SFGTV  November 1, 2016 4:30am-7:21am PDT

4:30 am
4:31 am
>> the notice of meeting a paragraph headed meeting decorum. it reads as follows: the ethics commission encourages and promotes integrity in government by education and example and is committed to treating all staff members of the public and colleagues with courtesy respect objectivity and fairness. members of the public who attend commission meetings are also expected to behave responsibly in respectfully. persons who engage in name-calling, shouting, interruption or other distracting behavior may be asked to leave. the following behavior or activities are discouraged inside the hearing
4:32 am
room. applause or vocal expression in support or opposition eating or drinking profanity and physical aggression in accord with the board of supervisors walls of order 1.3.1 signs regardless of content or message is strictly prohibited. this prohibition does not apply to clothing which includes signage and to clothing, messages displayed on clothing, pins hats or buttons. if the chairman is unable to obtain voluntary compliance he may seek assistance from the sheriff's department on call. this provision supplements walls and policies adopted by city hall. the sheriff's office and the board of supervisors related to dick corum riveted conduct or activities the ways, etc. is not meant to be exclusive. this notice will appear on all future notices to
4:33 am
interested persons of meetings of the ethics commission. i will call now for any-any item number two for any comments, public comment on items on the agenda were not on the agenda. and i will-i would urge people if your comments are related to item number seven[inaudible] >> are you taking comments on
4:34 am
meeting the quorums? >> i'm saying i was just reading from the notice and him simply now asking for public comment. if you want comments on the decor that is fine. >> that's not public comment item 2. >> no.i would ask you to put the sign down, please. do you want me to ask the sheriff to come spewing i will. would you call for the sheriff? you've got a sign on your shirt. that should be enough. >> [inaudible] >> go-ahead >> on larry bush here for friends of ethics as well as to represent us. i want to bring
4:35 am
you up-to-date on the current list of endorsements from proposition t the bout measure put on by ethics. i've only one copy but it's a voluminous. i'm happy to report that all members of these san francisco delegation in sacramento have endorsed it. all members of the board of supervisors have endorsed it. i think there are 31 community-based groups that have also endorsed it. to the best of my knowledge there was five groups that opposed it. so i'm not sure we can deliver the 90% vote that chairman renne asked for were going to do our best. >> commissioners, snuggle i'm reading from a field operations division policy and procedures city hall security unit and it says signs exceeding 11 x 17 in size are not allowed in city -signs exceeding exceeding 11 x 17 are not allowed in city a.
4:36 am
does not say a prohibition will be got from the clerk of the board from the board of supervisors has also signs mounted on sticks or polls are not permitted. banners are permitted only when specialized good small paper or cardboard signs no larger than a 11 x 17 that can carry thy hand are allowed. so you are saying [inaudible] the clerk of the board says you are wrong. i like to comment on a couple things that did happen since you brought up the subject. first is to commissioner keane. what i fully appreciate commissioner keane's after excavation about one to help mr. patrols and presenting his case it 5 min. i do know about anybody else but on going to be presenting a case i do very careful preparation in i use
4:37 am
the 5 min. when i'm interrupted in the middle of my 5 min. i consider that a breach of my first amendment rights could just as any of you, if i interrupted while you are speaking, would consider it a breach and grounds for removing me. as for of you out of the five are attorneys i would use the comparison you can advise a client to do anything you think is possible that the client has no obligation to follow your advice. very often if i'm the speaker and i only have 5 min. i may not want to go off on the tensions and i may want to use my 5 min. to its most effect and i think i should have the option of saying thank you for your help but. especially given the help i normally get is 99% of the time nothing but an attempt to throw you off track. to supervisor kopp he asked
4:38 am
people to identify themselves in a lead from the brown act. write to the public. under the brown act the member of the public can attend a meeting of the legislative body without having to register or give other information as a condition of attendance. while i appreciate the fact that supervisor kopp is certainly free to say if you don't identify yourself i will give you as much credit for what you have to say is entitled to say that. however he is not entitled to tell a person because the law goes on to say that if you ask a person to identify themselves you must tell them they are not required to do so. now that's just a couple of examples. i don't have a lot of time. it isn't it a kind of shame i am member of the public have to come here and read the sunshine speeders and the brown act to be to the ethics commissioners. >> mr. chairman, may i ask the gentleman a question? >> yes >> what section of the government code is that?
4:39 am
>> it is the brown act as provided by >> it's in the- >> would you please let me answer the question? >> answer my question. what section of the government code is it? thank you. >> other public comment? >>hello. my name is michael petrella spit on the proud candidate for the bart district 9c and i believe this body has been infringing upon my first amendment rights. at the last meeting you directed the deputy city attorney to come up with an opinion about signage and free speech at this body. that item is not on the agenda. i've not received the opinion from
4:40 am
the city attorney. however on october 11 the city attorney responded to me regarding a sunshine ordinance complaint i filed against this body and the city attorney has written, this was on about what happened last month that was no violation because of the city attorney's office was not and is not in possession of a written policy prohibiting political signs and hearing rooms other than the policies already provided to mr. patroclus by the sheriff. i repeat, the city attorney's office was not and is not in possession of a written policy prohibiting political signs and hearing rooms. yet an extra of a law professor, the spouse of the former city attorney and for lawyers on this panel are trying to stop my first amendment rights from having holding a socket i can wear a sign on my chest but i can't hold a sign on paper. there is
4:41 am
something wrong with this policy you are trying to promulgate without any public discussion. now, because of last month's incident where you all were interrupting me and infringing upon my first amendment rights as if this were your courtroom which it is not,this is a taxpayer-funded room. the tv is taxpayer-funded communication that i should have access to. vicki hennessy, the sheriff on september 27 wrote to her chief of staff eileen hirst. vicki writes i've reviewed disagree items i have and do not see a probation on signs. the only thing mentioned is signs mounted on sticks and poles are not prohibited in city hall. the city attorney
4:42 am
and the sheriff are telling you there is no law prohibiting my first amendment rights to hold up a sign that says, michael patroclus for bart board. you must start honoring the first amendment protections guaranteed to me. and allow me access to taxpayer-funded television.. thanks >> as mounted on a stick so you're only which contradicts you. >> any other public comments? all right. turning to agenda item 3, discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commissions september 26, 2016 regular meeting. any comments from any commissioners?
4:43 am
>> just, mr. chairman, on page 3 there is a, at the top the sentence that begins the reason being that body such that i think the word should be such as this. not such of this. >> all right. any other commissioners comments >> do i hear motions ? >> public comment? >> thanks, much commissioner charlie marcello for the
4:44 am
record. on page 4 at the bottom i was quoted as to the question of a subpoena power of the commission. i said that i didn't think that it was necessary for the commission to invoke its agenda powers get a simple letter would do. i don't want to toss subpoena around to liberally. >> how would you like that to be restated in the minutes? >> i drafted a something here but i also forgot my glasses. so it said he stated that he was not sure whether the commission leads to invoke its subpoena power, a simple letter should do.and welcome back ms. hayon >> commissioners, i will call
4:45 am
your attention to page 2 of the minutes. agenda item 2-3 where you'll see there a 150 word summary provided by me. the reason those are in there is because any member of the public as old six hours by the sunshine ordinance passports if they provide 150 words or less word summary of the public comments have the right to have those in the minutes. the reason i do this is because public bodies cannot be trusted not to censor a bridge mischaracterize misrepresent and otherwise abridge the rights of the citizens of san francisco and of the united states. the bottom line is i say a lot of things you don't like. so all of a sudden it becomes we don't like your tone. we don't like you use the word. when earlier there were things read at the beginning there's no cursing, there is nothing in the law that
4:46 am
prohibits me from using a curse good i'm not allowed to curse at you but i've heard the member of the board of supervisors melia cohen referred to mr. patrols as an axle in a public hearing. so are you saying public officials can call the public games like that but we are not allowed to even use the word? seems like a kind of double standard to me. i heard her say it in a board of supervisors full meeting and refer to something one of the people had said as bullshit. i use the same word in the lottery commission meeting and-old, the children. the children. there seems to be a double standard. you can set these rules and very frankly as we saw in the last item using to pull these walls out of the air. you can be told by competent authori authorities
4:47 am
like to share for the clerk of the board that is in a rule and you will still sit there and insist on it. when someone tries to say that is not fair as mr. petrella's has tried, you stop them. you don't give them a opportunity and i would suggest you read what's his name, i can't remember his name could norton versus the city of santa cruz, especially the concurring opinion of the chief judge kozinski of the ninth circuit is it will be truly meaningless if when someone's right to speak were challenged they were not allowed the opportunity to rebut the challenge. yet what happens in these things is a person in the chair simply makes the rolling. there's no opportunity for discussion but even among the other members and of course none of the other members even though they taken office of support to defend the constitution of the united states will not stand up for the member of the public. will simply allow them to be dragged off which is an awful order and unlawful detention. >> thank you.
4:48 am
>> hello michael patrols good i'm still running for the bart number nine seed i must read objective these draft minutes of especially under item 2 referring to my attempt to 3 min. of uninterrupted first amendment protection, free speech at public comments. these minutes do not reflect the relentless interruption from the ex-judge cop at this were his courtroom. there was no effort by any of you to stop his infringement upon my first amendment rights. to see the 6 min. that transpired reduced to these few sentences that does not accurately reflect how you
4:49 am
were attempting to infringe upon my first amendment rights is something i object to. your minutes are not reflecting reality. now this relates to your meeting the courtroom which is not a law. i wish to point out in this meeting decorum you say that name-calling is not allowed. persons who engage in not name: shouting interruptions and other distracting behavior may be asked to leave. you also prohibiting the drink enough fluids and yet all of you have pictures in front of you and even drinking water in this room. i wish to point out minutes do not reflect the name-calling from peter keane against the last one. the minutes do not accurately reflect the interruptions and other distracting behavior of
4:50 am
you, the commissioners, when i was trying to engage in my first amendment protection of expression by holding a sign. you are minutes need to be revised. along with how you are conducting the people's business in the people's building with taxpayer funded sfgov tv broadcasting. it is no longer okay for you to interrupt us and to call us names and to promulgate illegal meeting decorum, to silence speech you don't like. shame on san francisco's ethics commission that you are not honoring and protecting the
4:51 am
first amendment. thank you. >> do you have any suggestions or vision for that part of the minutes? mr. petrella's? anyone else? all call the question. to those suggested changes from commissioner kopp and mr. marsteller. all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? the minutes are approved and carried unanimously. turning to item number four, discussion of education compliance program update. i want to complement the staff on what i think was a very good job of that
4:52 am
memorandum and i'll be happy to have you flesh it out and answer any questions any commissioner may have. >> good afternoon commission give my name is jarrod floris and of the outreach and compliance officers. i'm joined here with pat peterson who is the other region compliance officer. basically, we created the information election 2016 as a snapshot in time report to really kind of showcase not only our campaign-finance dashboard page but also tells story with what's going on with the election this november. we wanted to show how much contributions were being raised and how many expenditures were being spent in this election. >> any the commissioners have questions or comments on the memorandum?
4:53 am
>> i like to compliment you on your work and a fine job. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to associate myself with commissioner keane's remarks mr. floris. >> thank you. >> i should say what the executive director is in the process of doing, not there yet-but is setting up the agenda so that we cover every month the various activities i division and by responsibility with a report on them in the agenda will be in a standardized format. there's nothing to report it will be so but it certainly gives an insight into what each one of these permits within the ethics commission staff are doing. i will call for public comment on item-i'm sorry. >> jared i have a question on
4:54 am
the 29.1 million, is that more or less than what's been raised in previous years? >> i've a feeling it's been a lot more than previous years, yes. as actually as i believe yesterday, that figure is now 34 million. >> thank you. >> commissioner hayon >> i just want to comment and ask what the charts are two large extent self-explanatory i just wondered if there's any additional elaboration or observation or analysis that either you mr. florez or ms. pallo would like to offer or give at this time? >> right now were actually still in the process of reviewing all the data that's come in. we had a filing deadline on this month and so
4:55 am
we are reviewing all the data to make sure all the committees are in compliance with all the state and local campaign-finance laws. right now that's early in review. >> great. >> just as a postscript, after each election you recall we do have the responsibility of reporting back you in the board and the public about the public financing program. so we are hopeful with the analysis were setting ourselves up for as these numbers come in will be able to provide a more robust information to you after the election is over. i was asking -who oversees the audit and public financing program with the figures look like historically and she said these are pretty much on par with the recent similar elections but those are where there were a lot of candidates running as a pure will try to provide great a context for you when we have that analysis as the reports come in. >> thank you >> any public comment? >> hello larry bush again from friends of ethics. i would like to say first of all at our
4:56 am
friends of ethics making the other day people were thrilled at the completeness of this report. it's much better than anything we've seen the past and we certainly salute and apply it. there's a few things you might consider doing in the future get one is that the cut offer 24 hour recording it the day before the election. our experience is a lot of spending takes place on election get it magically spending to get voters to the polls. and phone banking and so forth. that's not captured under the current porting system until the report that comes in at the end of january. which is too long to wait. i would suggest that you actually have reporting that goes for a full week after the election because if you decide to take a look at when contributions come in i think you'll see the heaviest contributions coming at the end particularly when races are
4:57 am
highly competitive. that's my only thought on that. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> commissioners san francisco open government. what you saw last month was my reaction to the fact that when you ask legitimate questions you get people we there sit in silence or make disparaging comments about what you are saying or who you are or what you are trying to achieve. i would not be so angry if i had not been
4:58 am
doing this before this ethics commission for almost 8 years now. if i had not had 29 orders of determination from the task force not one of which you have even bothered to do an honest investigation of. i asked a question the last on this item was on the agenda and it was a realistic question at cool is this for? yes, there's some nice information and the only thing i've learned since then is from mr. bush just now who said we got this and we found it very useful. i asked specifically what is the purpose? is this being sent to the members of the public, posted for the league of women voters? what is the purpose of this or is it simply a document that's presented here at the ethics commission with a dozen or so people who see it and that's the end of it? now i agree good i agree with mr. bush does a lot of good information but who is going to
4:59 am
get it and why is it such a burden to respond to a legitimate question relating to what is the purpose of it and what is the extension of its being sent out. what is it circulation? what is it hoping to achieve spirit doing it is one thing. but i would assume the persons were doing it had a purpose in doing it and they also said in part of that determining that purposes whether who they hope to approach, how they hope to affect them whether they wanted them to vote, whether they wanted to simply know the numbers, whether they wanted to give this information to people who monitor the ethics commission and the conduct of elections, and i don't think it's unreasonable to ask questions like that but when you do you get people sit there in silence and act like you're
5:00 am
asking some sort of idiotic question. i taught for university of hawaii for 14 years the first thing i talked in every class was if you have a question asked it. i'll guarantee you two things. one, every question you asked your going to think maybe this is a stupid question and i will look bad but i'll guarantee you there's at least three-four or more people sitting there with the same question because i stand up. see them sigh with relief when you ask what they were afraid to ask. second, ask questions because the only stupid question is the one you don't ask because you never get an answer for it. >> thank you. do you want to provide him with the information he's requested >> yes. thank you chairman renne i'll be happy to get the initial election update we provided last month as well as
5:01 am
this one were designed to help people understand and have some context for the election of members that we are seeing. it's primarily designed to be a tool 12 peoples interest but the election about campaign-finance data about third-party spending and other activities. so to that end we only attached it to the agenda item but when the reports were finalized we also sent them to are interested persons can we push them out to interested persons list. the idea is that it will help drive people to go to our website to go to our dashboards. look further into information and to let them know there's a place in the city where they can go to get objective direct information about candidate expenditures and third-party spending another spending is city of ashley it's an educational informational tool >> is there any contemplation that will be put on the website so that the general public can pull it up if they want to? excuse i need to confirm if it hasn't been posted but we are developing on her website is forgetting to ready to roll it out this fall the place where we will have this information that people can click on. it
5:02 am
may not achieve that yet but we have a lot of work to do to make sure were getting a lot of information out publicly on her new website. we will check into that >> any other public comment? hearing none, we will go to item -i tend to item number five which is discussion of enforcement program report. i want to complement jessica for what i think is a very very thorough discussion of the enforcement activities and where you are going and what you hope to accomplish in the future when you get some support >> thank you chairman. i want to start by just giving you an introduction. we put this report together in response to commission interest at the september meeting for information about how the enforcement process works and what is happening with all the matters in preliminary review
5:03 am
or dance to formal complaints in our investigation. i want to get to all of that first, but i'm sorry-in a moment but first i want to provide you with an update on the cob of them. in september you advised or i guess moved i think was a motion-to have the staff sent a letter to mr. colwell about the electronic act up files for his calendar entries for july august september 20 think it i included the back-and-forth exchange i had with mr.-on the subject and the conclusion is those files can be retrieved in the form if they were an e-mail form. if someone sends an e-mail to somebody about mr. --those e-mails can be retrieved but the calendar entries themselves are lost wwhen they were deleted. so with that behind us i will move on to the remainder of the enforcement report. we hope this type of data will be
5:04 am
something to provide it to you for every commission meeting so it will be an ongoing update and you can old us accountable for some of the things we say were going to do in here. as you know, when i started we had already undergone a pretty extensive program at policy analysis what needed to happen at the commission in order to advance some of the goals we all share common goals for fair and transparent, fairness, transparency and parents eat and accountable enforcement of the laws good education and compliance, advice responsibilities and on that compliance this number provisions very relevant to my position including a review enforcement regulations and review of all the other ordinances that the commission enforces. so as an initial matter we can and i reviewed
5:05 am
that policy planet made some decisions about coyotes and where i should focus my time. my first thing that i did in conjunction with other staff members including our current investigator catherine was to review the current enforcement process and she was an excellent teacher and help me understand how works quite well. i also asked andrew to reach out to them. that's what omar go over with you to because i think that will be helpful. essentially the charter is what governs and enforcement as an initial matter. is that a lot of provisions in its fairly detailed about how investigations and enforcement is most work at the staff level. you have adopted regulation to the enforcement regulation those were first adopted i believe in 1997 and were amended periodically but last, in 2013. those enforcement regulations would appear to be the best attempt to marry reality with how the charter expects enforcement to happen. so initially i will say when the complaint comes to the door we consider that to be a matter under plymouth area review. retrieved all claims filed with us the same. we log
5:06 am
them on a system and assign them a case number and then contemplate what else needs to happen based on this complaint before we can move it along to probable cause or an investigatory phase. the information about what's log as complaints and what reaches the investigatory phase is provided to you by leeann on all monthly executive director report to that portion we pulled out and put it out into the enforcement report going forward. the complaint obligates us, however we treat all complete similitude even if it comes in verbally or in handwriting or by e-mail we treat them all the same as an initial matter were obligated to investigate any complaint that comes in that's been sworn under oath and that we have a reason to believe violation of law has occurred based on the allegations set forth in the complaint. so by that very definition the complaint it for good or
5:07 am
obligate to investigate it the complaint itself needs to be fairly robust at denny's be a fair amount of information there to credibly articulate what i wish of law has occurred did i say that because a lot of our complaints are one-page documents were simple e-mails. sometimes verbal complaints carefully do a lot about those things because there's not enough information to substantiate what we can do. we can initiate complaints on her own would do that fairly frequently and have our developing and have issued policy on how to do that as an internal matter. according to regulations to determine whether violation of law has occurred we are allowed to engage i mentioned before atlanta marriott review. we can view relevant documents: we can in formally interview a complainant. we can communicate with the respondent and we can conduct inquiry necessary to
5:08 am
reach the conclusion that there has been a violation of law weather hasn't released with a reason to believe a fair reason to believe one exists. if after that limit or and reviewed we think that doesn't appear to be a violation of the law and we can dismiss the complaint and we send summers ago dismissals to you every month. if we believe there has been a violation of law if we have reason to believe that dust immediately send those complaints to the city attorney and the dist. atty. for their review. in the city attorney and dist. atty. get to decide whether their offices want to investigate the complaints also. they have to get back to us within 10 days with their decision. their decision doesn't in any way impede our ability to continue with our investigation however. there are circumstances where the dist. atty. has indicated that criminal investigation would take precedence over our investigation and that would be to prevent like witness confusion or statement confusion in the two competing or julie investigation. whatever the dist. atty. is made that request historically we have adhered to that request. so the matter reaches
5:09 am
the point where we are referring to the city attorney and district attorneys office we got a reason to believe a violation of law has occurred we move forward with a formal investigation of the matter. in this phase we engage in what amounts to a full-blown investigation. we discussed the violations we can subpoena records. we look at everything we need to nor to formulate the basis for probable cause. we are aiming for probable cause because probable cause is the next age of the investigatory process according to the charter. the enforcement regulations further govern the process by setting forth how probable cause reports are developed, what they need to contain and how the commission needs to treat them. the probable cause report has to include a summary of the evidence and all the allegations against the respondent and respond well the right to counsel when the probable cause report is considered by the commission. the charter gives the commission the right to sit as a panel at the probable cause hearings but also says you can
5:10 am
appoint an individual commissioner to serve as a probable cause hearing officer or hire a note outside hearing office. impact as though the commission is that as a panel for these probable cause hearings. if the commission finds that there's been probable cause and a violation of the law has occurred than you are to order an administrative hearing. the administrative hearing is the full-blown hearing had with the netsuite last month with a court reporter comes and testimonies given under oath. staff must issue an accusation which is the equivalent of a complaint filed in trial court. against the respondent within 10 days of a finding of probable cause. parties engage in additional discovery but as a practical matter all the investigation has already occurred because we needed to put together a probable cause report. once again the commission seats as a panel to hear a hearing on the merits of an issue. however you have the
5:11 am
right in the charter to again, appoint an individual commissioner to hear the matter and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for the full panels consideration reagan hired outside hearing office. in practice though use that as a pair. now one thing i forgot to mention until now is that the probable cause process, from the complaint to the probable cause hearing conclusion is all confidential under the charter. the charter states all complains are to be treated confidentially to the extent allowable by state logic was probable cause has been issued in the accusation comes from accusation for the remainder of the process is open to the public. so after this review and with this understanding i got i identified some areas where we could use some improvement in terms of the prospect and in terms of resources. i'll start with some resources that we need to improve our process. you know with we completely and fully understand and do not back away from any allegations
5:12 am
we have too many matters in parliamentary rebuke it we have too many matters that are still in investigation and take long time those matters to be investigated. we know it's taking too long. so with an eye towards improving that efficiency improving a process, we've been working internally to identify those problem areas could the first that we have identified, which we and has artie got started before i came on board, his staffing issue. historically the commission has had--enjoyed really-four investigators are working towards full time to review matters that come in the door and to investigate those matters and bring them to the commission for final hearing. starting in 2008 we lost investigators and unable to replace them due to budget consideration in 2008 we went from four, 23 investigators and in 2004 team we went onto to inmate of this or we have one investigator. leon has been working diligently to fill those positions we're hoping will be able to post them two
5:13 am
of them at least very soon. that's an obvious first solution but what have we been doing in the interim and what can we keep doing it until there fills? honestly posting to fulfillment can take some time so my not be until winter until we have our full group back working on these matters. so in the interim, our investigator has been working diligently to work through the limitary review case look at a summit with andrew weasley and would look at some manpower on the subject and issue spot ideas where we could identify matters that need to be investigated. she has been doing a great job of going through a dismissing right-of-way matters where we lacked jurisdiction because we don't want the public to think they have something with us when they don't does we don't have jurisdiction. we also have been contemplating and theorizing how best to do an educational campaign for when we are fully staffed and we can alert the public how our
5:14 am
jurisdiction our authority relates to their daily lives and what they're seeing in their public officials and in their government employees. we have also been working to develop collaborative partnerships did i mention we been working with the city attorney's office on some review per limiter a matters. we also all travel to sacramento in september to meet with the f fpc do some research and introductions to open up doors for joint investigations would be at ppc. we are reviewing our internal enforcement process to determine where we can shorten times spent on each step as an internal matter. we also met with the district attorneys and city attorneys separately to discuss what matters are retaining what we can do to do a better job to get them the information they need in order to conduct the investigations
5:15 am
they need. you know that we are also undertaken according to the annual policy plan review of those regulations for recommendations for amendments and approvals. i set forth a detailed policy or detailed plan for how were going to go through that process at page, i think, six of the enforcement report. in case you want to see it in detail. i will say as an initial matter that ten-day turnaround from probable cause, funny, to accusation is something i've pinpointed as either needing to be expanded or rethought so that all the investigations isn't being undertaken pre-probable cause to the we can get matters to you for probable cause finding earlier and then go on with the discovery in the context of litigation quicker. we are also looking at approving the efficiencies in the regulations. finally, either
5:16 am
working with leeann and others would invite areas where we need to really hone in on how we prioritize our work. i think this is probably one of the more important areas because we can do all the regulation and ordinance changes we want to, but if we are not really having a discussion about internally and how we can change our processes that we are failing. so as you know we have three areas of original jurisdiction get governmental ethics laws and were the mayor's office would file charges before the commission for official misconduct and whistle power and sunshine ordinance matters. as a practical matter we've only had to the mayor's office charges ever filed before the commission in its history. we only spent a ton of time on the. that's not a time management issue. the majority the vast majority of our complaints come under the umbrella of governmental advocate the campaign finance, the conflict of interest code violations. then we get a minority [inaudible] not insignificant minority of complaints coming as a result
5:17 am
of our authority under the whistleblower ordinance and sunshine speeders. i want to talk about those two specifically because there fairly time-consuming and our attention is required of those immediately because the way the laws are written. the whistleblower ordinance gives us authority to investigate complaints filed with our office and filed with the comptroller's office involving allegations of laws under our jurisdiction campaign-finance conflict of interest, etc. they also give us jurisdiction to investigate any retaliation complaint that filed our office, any retaliation complaint. that's where it gets a little bit tricky because we currently don't have any expertise in some of the areas where we are being asked to investigate claims of retaliation it is usually very complicated and complex personnel matters. that we are
5:18 am
doing with claims of retaliation so it takes a lot of time to get to know that department, to get to know the people involved to wonder stance of processes in place for that department terms of employee rights and employer responsibilities before we can reach the point of probable cause. so as a practical matter it takes a great deal of time but we also want to treat it with the sensitivity and care it deserves because these are people scares careers sunrise. the other area where we have authority and people can file complaint with us is under the sunshine speeders. there is as you know from last month, we've authority over willful violations of the sunshine speeders by elected officials and department heads that we have authority of referrals from the task force. we've authority in a couple of other ways but those are the main categories of information. the fact that we can initiate our own complaints be up or handle the referrals from the task force among these people believe they can file their original combines with the ethics commission did so that means that were getting people who've not gone to the task force, people love not reach out to any other agency for enforcement filing complaints with us for [inaudible]
5:19 am
sunshine speeders but what does that mean for? it means were spending a great real-time look at saks or records to determine whether or not information was properly redacted. spending time interviewing public information officers to see deadlines were complied with whether the nuts and bolts of the sunshine ordinance provisions were met. we are not sure the law requires us to do that might be a fix we can do within the regulations were within some policy change but as a practical matter what's happening and we are respectful of the people filing complaints with us and try to do our best job. the sunshine speeders in self requires us to have an answer for people very quickly and required to update them constantly. i think it's like every 10 days or 40 days we have to update people about the progress. we are also required to put it on your commission agenda for the very next meeting june which means we have to investigate and prepare for a commission meeting on
5:20 am
sunshine ordinance as quickly as pocket lemmings were dropping everything out you were a number any ongoing investigations and complex commitment in order to handle the sunshine ordinance matters. so long-term solutions evaluating the laws commissioner kopp rightly pointed to some areas that should be considered for revision at the last meeting but we were already going into it and alice of the sunshine spins and regulations to determine whether other areas we can improve the process of improving efficiency guide outlined a plan for how to do that on page 9 where page 8, i think, the enforcement report. and finally on to talking about just a plan for going forward. once again i mean this was all planned for going for immediate attempts at triaging and fixing the processes that are going on right now. that nature into my page of my report. i do know we have attached the data that you like to see every month. we
5:21 am
currently have 84 matters in preliminary review. i would like to put some context to that number for you. it's in april of this year before we left our second investigator left, only 43 matters were implementor eight review. so are matters implementor eight review the matters we been unable to get to have doubled since we lost our investigator. there was upper back and that we do not have an executive director who can approve dismissals and so the matters backed up as well. we've also had-we have been reorganizing and restructuring the office because for a number of reasons but within the enforcement program particularly tomorrow investigator is used to also manage compliance test for certain programs. so they were indian vice and reminder giving business in the intake of form business on entire programs
5:22 am
rather than doing investigations exclusively. now hopefully were transitioning them to doing investigations and enforcement 100% of the time. i also want to just statistically in october of this year of the 80 formatters are implementer eight review 74% of those are less than six months old. but in april only 56% of those were less than six months old. so we have been seeing a lot of complaints coming in because it's the election season that we are doing with those as quickly as we can with the staffing levels that we are faced with. so going forward, our immediate priorities to deal with that back load, august, were taken on these ongoing programmatic regulatory reviews processes very seriously and well reports for you on that process as we go forward. we are also going-we have been prioritizing. number one is elections related complaints. if the matter has to do with if
5:23 am
the complaint has to do with the matter right now that is a real-time impact on this election we are treating it with priority. our second priority has to be sunshine speeders and whistleblower investigations because of the way the laws are written on the subject. then our third priority is to go through the oldest matters implementor eight review and the oldest open investigations as quickly as we can get we are working toward that now. so with that i will conclude and take questions if you have them. >> anyone have any? mr. kopp >> yes. i appreciate the fact that complaints and the resultant complaint law which is provided to commissioners as
5:24 am
confidential is required by charter provisions. so i don't know how far i can go publicly asking questions but i think you said there are 84 pending complaints or did i miss here? >> that's great. there's 84 matters implementor eight review which means- >> under: interview, not reflected in the law? >> right. the law yes. >> all i know is the law >> you have the log which is 23 i think right now >> now one area your report didn't seem to cover was something i mentioned in passing but i will reiterate now is the number of planes
5:25 am
which investigations that because the da says don't investigate further on the premise of the da will handle this. without conveying any complaint log specifics, there's a lot of those andhave you considered whether there should be a time limitto cease investigation? >> yes. i, like you found that to be awed when i started and conducted my initial review. so what we did is that with the dist. atty.'s office. i can't recall how many matters were suspended by the district attorney at the time but was a
5:26 am
lot. they went through-we went through the list of matters that were suspended at the request. they explained to us that the reason why they were asking us to suspend our investigation was because they didn't have two lean investigations >> well that's always the claim. >> i agree >> for a prosecutor, always a claim. whether it's a legislative body or administrative body. >> we push them >> count me as a skeptic >> i might be in your camp. we push the district attorneys representatives there to list the bands and let us go forward with investigations were frequently and more openly can we even propose a joint investigations where we would both engage in investigations together so there would not be doing interviews. they were for that in some instances and
5:27 am
again sent in some others and compelling reasons we can discuss more privately discuss. >> is this allowable as a closed meeting issue spirit discussions. >> yesterday >> it is >> yes. in the future you want to discuss critically >> mr. chairman would like that to occur. >> on the november counter? we can put it on the november agenda >> please. >> okay >> so there's no resolution as far as an agreement with the da on a time and? >> we get reach a resolution. the da has agreed that unless the matter involves complex or complicated additional crimes like some of the things they've kept our for matters with the sei is involved, in the absence of that level of complexity, we
5:28 am
are going to be allowed to proceed with our investigation other simultaneously upon the filing of charging documents. >> on the what? >> on the filing of charging documents from the da >> but no particular limit like 90 days? >> no. >> we suspended if you don't do anything in 90 days we resume >> that's true. i think you'll see a decrease in the number of matters that are suspended however >> i also would like that enforcement with a time limit. i invite your advice and suggestions and recommendations on what would be appropriate. >> okay. >> finally, is there a generic reason why, for example, an item would be returned to us by the district attorney and then it just lingers for a year or
5:29 am
plus or minus? >> there is no specific reason for that is just the overarching issues identified previously. we are working very diligently to try to get to those matters as quickly as possible. >> the objective is to clean up the list? >> is to get justice, right could enforce the law. that's the objective. we don't like having people proper for the commission years after their election campaign or after the violations were committed. it doesn't help with deterrence. doesn't help with the purpose of enforcement doesn't help with our ability to get penalties we would like everything to be sure to get we like to get matters resolved bring much much more quickly than i have been able to be in the past >> thank you mr. chairman >> and? >> you mentioned undertaking the educational campaign of the public resume ugly, could you
5:30 am
talk about that a little bit? what would be the over arching reason and how would you go about it? i mean what you are talking about for the average individual, the average citizen is very complicated and one of the problems that i at least have perceived is that people still don't really understand what the jurisdiction of the ethics commission is to put it mildly. then they expect when they bring something to you they expected to be resolved very quickly without understanding all the complexities you've just outlined. there are so many areas that would seem to fall under the ethics commission but really where we have no jurisdiction or power to deal with. so i would hope that
5:31 am
would be part of the educational campaign, although i'm sure it's more complicated than what you might think in trying to educate the public on that. >> yes. absolutely. educating the public about our jurisdiction and how the enforcement process works and how to file and where to file a quality complaint are at the top of my list for subject matter in an education campaign. we are starting with a very significant and revision of our website, which we can put everything on the website but we are doing a complete overhaul in order to enter direct individual to traffic our website to the areas of inquiry where they came why they came to the website. in my view, in my vision of this educational campaign the coal would be to increase the public understanding of what we are authorized to do and also what we can do to help them and sort
5:32 am
of instruct him to file quality complaint with us to that we can investigate and handle. how that looks and how that shakes out is still in the very beginning stages. it just something we've been discussing internally right now but it's definitely something i think that's on my radar could i say it everybody has a little bit of a heart attack because we are not sure we are ready for an increase or significant increase in the filing of complaints rainout that is the right. absolutely spirited if tomorrow we got 100 complaints they'll be difficult for us to deal with but in the future getting 100 complaints is not something i want to shy away from. something we want to encourage >> particularly in the area of whistleblower complaints which have come to us there's a lot of discussion about who really olds jurisdiction whether or not it should come to us or whether it's hr, i think a lot of those complaints are much more human resource and they have more jurisdiction than we do and i think there's a lot of
5:33 am
misunderstanding about that and then i think also the redundancy or so it seems to me, of the sunshine ordinance task force and the complaints that they then filtered to us which are often dismissed for any variety of reasons but it does seem as if there's redundancy there in i don't know-i know we've worked with the sunshine ordinance task force in the past to resolve issues and misunderstandings between the commission and the task force but it seems to me there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in that area. so i don't know if you see it that way but perhaps- >> i absolutely do. i think at the november commission meeting were going to try to have several subject ordinance matters on the agenda no, it's december. november good one of
5:34 am
the upcoming commission meetings i think capt. not available in november so it might be december. where we have a number sunshine ordinance matters on the agenda for you to consider. with a memo for a proposal for how to deal with those matters and to do with the conflict between us and the sunshine ordinance task force. essentially a be honest with you my leaning is to be more deferential to their findings and to not undertake our own independent investigation of every matter that comes in the door the to view ourselves as an enforcement authority when they do her for a matter to us. >> any other-commissioner keane >> i just like your thoughts on one aspect of our process that you took us through quite nicely in terms of where complaint through to the determination of the complaint. that is, the probable cause hearings. in regard to the probable cause hearings that we have we have one of the things that this commission has always
5:35 am
put forth that we want as much transparency as possible get the public should know exactly what we are doing. so they can have respect for it and see we are doing it legitimately. the probable cause hearings that we have wheedled him in closed session. i come from a background of having been a criminal defense attorney and a public defender for 30 years or so, in which you give the ultimate due process to the person who is charged because you're taking away the person's life and freedom. the probable cause hearing in the criminal justice system which is a luminary hearing is open. the public sees it. the public sees what's going on and can make decisions in regard to a very important part of the process
5:36 am
of prosecution. why is it that our proceedings, we are due process in terms of what's at stake-no one way for freedom is at stake-the worst at stake is there some sort of ethical type of sanction may be a fine or whenever-why is it in your view, do we have to give that level of due process to someone who a complaint has been addressed in an epic situation and have a close probable cause hearing? why cannot we do it in the open like we do parliamentary hearings in criminal cases? >> i agree with you. i think it's odd they would be closed but i think that's the way our charter has laid out the process. so we are kind of
5:37 am
stuck with that aspect of the issue. we could improve the process though for the commission and for the public is by not having the full panel said the probable cause. but by assigning either single commissioner broadside administrative law judge to handle the probable cause hearing confidentially and quickly so that the full panel the commission does not use it twice because essentially you're hearing the same evidence twice at both probable cause and the hearing on the merits. that level of due process is certainly not required by the charter but currently being given. >> so in terms of remedying what we both think should be remedied, the answer is a charter change? >> yes. that would be the answer >> thank you >> anyone else? >> mr. chairman, let the record show i want to associate myself with commissioner keane's remarks. i had occasion
5:38 am
about your not the one maybe two years ago, were somebody calls me to tell me a long story problem with the ethics commission and referred to this confidential meeting with a commission and i was skeptical and i said, no, that can't be the law. but it is the law. >> so i would just like to encourage staff when you come back with recommendations either at the november or december meeting to think of the best in your best judgment will be the most effective ways to make the process more efficient and more effective both for the staff and also for the complainants going forward. that means to commissioner keane's point going back and revising the charter then we like to consider that as well. >> absolutely. november, december for the current discussion is a little soon
5:39 am
because we want to engage the public. the process i formulated with w-leeann and -i'm not doing this on my own-is to first start with a series of inches in person meetings with the public entity was publicly and openly engage the public in their ideas and their thoughts on how to change the enforcement process so it works better for everybody. then put pen to paper based on those after pointing those recommendations and ideas to come up with a suggested changes to the regulation. if ordinance or charter changes are necessary than to put those in a separate box that we need to consider before the commission. the regulations what the commission can deal with now. once we have the suggested recommendations will we will bring those to the commission to with you and open up eight period public comment for 30 days we can get written about, and on the actual draft language of the regulation. at
5:40 am
the conclusion of the public comment period we take another 30 days to incorporate and respond to those comments and then bring the full package of suggested recommendations back to the commission. we just want the process to be as open and public and of all the public as much as possible. >> one more comments. you noted earlier in the comments and also in your memo, that it is a sunshine ordinance or whistleblower complaint that comes in mistake priority over all other clients because it needs to be presented at the next commission meeting. i take that to mean if it came in the week before the commission meeting you would have to scramble to conduct all the background were to present it to us at the next meeting. is that correct? >> the regulations give us a little breathing room in circumstances and is as where appropriate or possible because there are notice deadline so we have to give the other parties
5:41 am
did it for a week before this commission meeting will be the next appropriate commission meeting. so in this case november. >> i guess my concern would be and without diminishing the importance of those complaints that come in under the sunshine ordinance what is of concern everything also get pushed to the back burner and i think it would contribute also to the backlog. i would love your best thinking in terms of how best to balance those competing priorities. >> absolutely. >> isn't it correct ms. pala, in los angeles the process was you as executive director did the probable cause determination and was only after you made a termination that was probable cause that then went to the mission for hearing on the merits >> yet get under the los angeles charter there was a probable cause process was again confidential as it is
5:42 am
here and wait unless waived by the respondent. so the probable cause determination hearings were held at the staff level. they were confidential and then based on that process was a 30 day time period for issuing a probable cause determination which was written it came out under my analysis in my signature. the rover 400 cases during my tenure as executive director there. then if probable cause was determined, found, then an accusation was issued publicly according to the rule and then went to the ethics commission for public hearing. the hearing on the merits at that point >> so, as you understand the charter is there any reason why we can't go that way without a charter change? >> i have to take a closer look at our charter. i think the two issues raised in your discussion is a degree of confidentiality the commission
5:43 am
desires for that process and separately the notion of two bites at the same panel in essence. is there way to separate out the due process so that there is one step for probable cause process and then a separate process and independent process for hearing on the merits >> it would seem that is more consistent with due process than to have the body who is going to be the making a determination as to whether there's a violation be the one that also looks at the evidence and without any public knowledge and makes a determination. >> i think that's a proposal that would be very helpful to take a close look at. i think that is something worthy of our focus on discussion. >> all right. any of the comments by the commission? any public comment? >> i just have one question. this law, all those kinds of
5:44 am
items can only be dismissed by the commission. is that accurate? no. the executive director can dismiss those items as well as a preliminary review? >> under the example in los angeles i was describing the executive director had authority to determine whether or not probable cause >> how about now? >> no. >> you have 84 pulmonary review. you've got a log that's confidential. items on that log , who can dismiss those? only the commission >> yes, that only the commission. >> that's my question. thank you. >> barry bush speaking as an individual. the civil grand
5:45 am
jury report on ethics we put out in june of 2014 look at number of these issues. as you have just discussed we quickly learn when we focus only on the ethics commission we do not have a very complete picture. we had to look down on the city attorney and district attorney and all the other arms of government involved in ethics policy and enforcement. one of the things that i did separately when i was doing city report was put in a request to the dist. atty. in the city attorney and ethics for how many cases have been referred from ethics over to the city attorney into the district budget. just the number. you could not get actual ticket when i discovered the district attorney had no record of any referral. they simply were not keeping track of them. i assume they had referrals because the were some indication ethics at
5:46 am
some things over but they just disappeared. so earlier i heard the commissioners discussing the fact that these referrals went to other agencies but then did not come back to the ethics commission and ugly was commissioner keane who is the point couldn't there be a deadline at which point the commission can either take it back or else do a parallel investigation. i think that's something that's only worth consideration especially since you have a more robust approach with staff know. thank you. >> thank you. >> i got 90 days in my- >> commissioners, san francisco (it. i've been coming to these hearings for about eight years. i'm a member of mensa and i read all the documents attached to the agenda every page every word. sometimes several times because it's hard to understand. i would like to complement ms.
5:47 am
bloom-is a balloon? this and most coherent cogent understandable comprehensive document i've ever read presented to this ethics commission. i would also like to complement of her on the fact that the sunshine ordinance got a full-page which is something that typically never happens. it would get to or three lines while everything else got very thorough treatment. i particularly was amazed and heartened by the fact that her public comment was the fact that she said we are to give more deference to the findings of the sunshine ordinance passport. the reason i say that as i've said before about 27 orders of determination but that's over nine years is about three years and every one of those years there were 30-40 orders issued by the task force
5:48 am
and not one of them in all these years has ever been enforced. only one was even attempted to be enforced. so it's all well and good to keep looking at the procedures and policies etc. but at the end if push comes to shove and you think findings you can enforce them it's really kind of a useless effort. the only one that everyone was the president of the lottery commission they watched a video of her-the actual event. they voted unanimously that she violated the rights of a member of the public to make public comment. they recommended the mayor unanimously that she be removed for conduct unbecoming and the mayor ignored it. a year later it was in the newspaper and we got them to send another letter and they ignored that. so basically unless you can find some mechanism to enforce your orders it's really kind of odd
5:49 am
to have the hearings in the first place. i've said it before and i'll say that in sarcastic ways because i didn't know how to get across to people but if you're going to have hearings make determinations but you can enforce them that just hurts your own credibility. that's something i try to say politely for several years just got so frustrated and angry by the fact that everybody seem to think i was just coming out of left field with some bizarre notion. the task force works very hard. they sure a lot of hearings in the issue orders of determination probably about 1/10 case. but when they do they honestly do a very good job at doing the facts and the chairman is usually right good referral letters and i give them credit for that. >> thank you. >> dr. jared kurt whistleblower. it's not enough to talk about resources and regulations and improving
5:50 am
investigations particularly of whistleblower claims.. you also have to address a political milieu, a mindset that affects the staff and the commission. whistleblowers represent a threat because they break ranks with the city family. you are part of the city family. you know many of these officials. you empathize with him. you are affiliated with them. so it is scary, or introduces some fears, when you have to deal with an accusation of wrongdoing by a fellow city official. potentially, for the staff they have to worry about what will happen to them if they find in favor of a whistleblower. this is a problem in all
5:51 am
whistleblower programs, not just here. so i hope the staff will address implicit bias against whistleblowers and feared for their own careers if they pursue a case. these are real things and you really should address them. thank you very much >> thank you. >> i want to say that in my 19 years, almost 20,following ethics meetings this is been the most robust discussion we had on the enforcement program. i see light bulbs going up-going off all over the room on how we can get ourselves in
5:52 am
a much better position to represent the public interest. because i think we have not been , and there is a growing period as bodies like this form it takes 10 years to get underway but were now over 20 and were so finding our way. but i want to just say to the new commissioner particularly, that the shocker to me is the fact that our deputy director, who adjusted our analysis has only just been here six weeks-two months. i am personally awed. so her training and intelligence is becoming. i did want to ask a question that is, on staff appointments, when do you see those appointments coming for the two new investigators? roughly what time frames. i know you talk about advertising them but i'm
5:53 am
concerned, two, one of the propositions on the ballot may actually fail in the city may not have revenue and consequently there may be a freezing of hiring. that could occur obviously within a couple of weeks or within the month after the mayors see the results of the election. >> thank you. you want to answer his question? >> yes. we have two positions were open to post this. the senior investigator legal analyst position. they're both civil service positions that process is fairly lengthy. i would assume if all goes well we would hope to have somebody on board at the end of the calendar year. most likely beginning of january. >> all right. turning to agenda items six, executive directors report. ms. halim
5:54 am
>> of those good enough for the second directors reported a one and take a moment today to introduce to you our executive fellow joined us from the hughes corp. program out of the mayors office.--is our net you a second file advisor to injuries herself from him. she's working with us on many of the topics on the front of your mind making sure wheezing technology and the smartest way possible to provide compliance assistance and guidance but i want to take a moment to intersperse to you. >> conducted. my name is--as mentioned the executive fellow with the ethics commission. i'm very excited to be here and need everybody in person. justice a little bit about myself my background is in software development and technology operations both in the private sector for 10 years. i'll be working with the ethics commission staff to look for ways to gather organize and disseminate information on our website and other channels to make it easier for the public to find it right now i'm
5:55 am
focused on learning about the responsible december functions and the systems within the organization. in the upcoming week so we work with the team closely to identify where i can help with. i'm also looking for to working with all of the stakeholders at large in the up coming year to really work on these efforts. some glad to be here. thank you could >> thank you and welcome. >> i'm sure you look for to having one on one conversations with her as well as others who are involved in working commotion get one last note but important when we do have two positions under recruitment. there posed at the city and county jobs page at the department of human resources website. for a senior policy analyst and 48 education and compliance management assistant. both of those sessions are exempt in the deadlines are coming up by the first week of november. so we've encouraged folks we got the word out
5:56 am
probably were hoping to move that process along a bit more expeditious. i look forward to keeping you informed about that process. happy to take any questions if you have them. >> does anyone have any question? public comment? >> one quick question. so that is to investigators and educational specialist or out reach and information-no, there's a policy analyst but there's an educator? >> the senior policy analyst and policy analyst again about role in doing education as well as running- >> i see. there's four positions you're hoping to hire by the end of the you. >> yes, i am hoping to higher by the end of the year >> i am and in awe as you are with your deputy executives
5:57 am
report. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good afternoon commission give members of the public money ms.-and i were touring party of san francisco. i can to speak on another matter but at some tangential questions that executive director. i also want to know when is the time to raise the issues not specifically on the agenda? i noticed a copy of my letter to the commission was here provided for the public. however i do want to point out the letter is apparently missing a page. this part of the letter and the cover letter but the other is missing a lease from the copy i picked up. also i go by start child not mr. starr told >> if you want to speak about a matter not on the agenda the last item on the calendar gives you an opportunity to do it.
5:58 am
you could've done it at the beginning but when we reached the last one i'll call for public comment. items either on or not on >> thank you good i did have a couple questions for the executive director though. when i filed my complaint i wasn't told by staff what the procedure was to get something placed on the agenda. as a result i made the request apparently too late for the item to be placed on the agenda for this meeting. i'm wondering what the protocols are there for staff to inform members, whistleblowers, bringing for the complaint, but the rights and opportunities under the law gather information presented? >> the matter of course is there's a matter that comes to us that that is a complaint it's not something we handle the commission's agenda until such time it comes to us were discussing the last item is a probable cause matter where hearing on the matter. simply
5:59 am
by filing a complaint with the ethics commission that does not place it on the public agenda for the commission. if we are provided with information that we do not understand to be a complaint the point of information, again that something we would take under advisement and look to see if there was a need to pursue an investigation but as a matter of course information brought to us is not automatically placed on the commission's agenda. >> i guess my concern would be with that process the numbers of the public with myself for not familiar with the proceedings what i was bringing forward in my mind was complaint but i wasn't told that it had to be worded in some specific fashion in order to be recognized as you. also when i dropped off a hard copy under the door of the ethics commission office--by the time i got over there from city hall after having to go to the
6:00 am
security, they keep getting more and more adverse to the fourth amendment around here-but by the time i got over there your office was closed. i put the letter under the door, hardcopy, but when i followed up by phone a day or two later i was told they never received perhaps the gender might have thrown it out. which kind of was disturbing to me. things that are placed clearly copied to the ethics commission may not be reaching the commission depending on how they're delivered. but no time during the follow-up conversation cycled back-the lady on her staff i don't recall immediately but i wasn't told procedures to get some input on the agenda or had to be worded in a certain fashion in order to the recognizes a complaint and to start the wheels in motion. >> i don't think it's germane
6:01 am
to the subject matter of this particular report and we will take it up at the end of the meeting. >> i guess my understanding was that when official like the executive director gives a report that it's proper and germane to ask her russians even if it wasn't in the specific subject of report but falls under her job duties could would that be incorrect to? >> i'm happy to answer the question. in terms of your concern about whether information gets to the staff and whether were giving information to public correctly but the process, we are happy to take that feedback and make sure we've got all of our information straight in the office so there is in confusion about the prospect we certainly would not want that >> thank you. i will be held. also the attached photograph which wasn't included in this divided publicly provided to the public and be put in the record of the proceedings and made available in hard copy at the next ethics commission meeting. >> thank you. i will take a 10
6:02 am
min. recess before we go to item number seven. coming back at 3:15 pm. i'm sorry. >> commissioners san francisco (the. governments. when president clinton-i'm getting ahead of myself when secretary of state clinton took her job she wanted to do a reset with russia. that was at the direction of the president obama. i would like to take this opportunity to propose a reset with the ethics commission. i've been coming here for 8.5 years now. the treatment i've received and watched other members of the public receive was i thought beyond the pale in many case. after eight while when you ask questions and get the responses were few get response it's a denigrating or insulting or demeaning response. you have a
6:03 am
tendency to kind of look asking and at everything. the executive director obviously hired ms. blume referred several members of the public give her life habits for her performance in this particular issue. you heard another member of the public say that the last meeting and this meeting of the first serious discussion that he had overheard in his time coming to the ethics commission regarding some of these issues like open government and transparency. so obviously there is a movement in the right direction and i would like to take this opportunity to say please understand my prior comments were in some cases very well tempered by the years of bad actions. now given
6:04 am
that, would like to say i still was very concerned about the fact that it put into complaints under the sunshine ordinance and both of those i was denied a hearing. one of the things that the sunshine ordinance requires, it basically says and 6734, in willful violation is any duty member of the public and elected official and so forth fails to do which is their responsibility under the law is a misdemeanor. in the case of mark farrell supervisor farrell refused to answer and idr. he got a complaint and refused to knowledge of the complaint. that hearing. he refused to scuttle the hearing they issued an order of determinative he refused to answer the order of determination and finally well into compliance and amendment descent very terse memo saying we have no responsive documents that was nine months after the idr. he out when a public
6:05 am
official so blatantly violates the responsibilities under the law i think it's something worth this party hearing. i am still upset by the fact that it was denied a hearing. >> thank you. now we will take a break until proximally 3:16 pm. thank you. >> consideration in mark farrell for district 2 supervisor in 2010 at all versus the city and county of san francisco. per $25,000 payment by supervisor farrell and mutual release of legal claims. this item-you been working on this matter. do you
6:06 am
want to bring up just where the matter stands for the commissions consideration and then we will go to the question of a closed session for some further elaboration from you? >> sure. since this matter was last before the commission there's been a number of developments that i want to discuss the very briefly. first, supervisor farrell filed a lawsuit against the city seeking a court declaration of forfeiture demand was improper. the city filed a counter suit seeking a declaration that was proper and seeking for forfeiture of the amount. after the city filed its lawsuit supervisor farrell filed an
6:07 am
anti-flab suit arguing our case arises out of protected first amendment activity and the law says if the gays arises out of protected first amendment activity than the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits at the very early stages of the litigation. so supervisor farrell argued because there's a road out of his protected activity is his campaign we had to show the likelihood of success and were unable to do so because of the four-year statute of limitations on such actions had already run. we filed an opposition to that notion. our first argument in that opposition was that visibility slap motion does not apply to our case because when the city brings an action is a public prosecutor bnt slap motion is inapplicable. unfortunately, when we boldly reefed the case in charlotte before it was scheduled to be heard by the court the california supreme court ruled that the anti-flab statute does apply in such circumstances. if
6:08 am
we lose that anti-flab motion the result of that would be our case would be dismissed in the city could potentially be required to pay supervisor farrell attorneys fees. accordingly and simultaneously were working on the briefing and litigation in this regard and at the commissions request, we continued working to see there was an avenue to resolve the matter out of court. working at the chairman's direction with the chairman renne and following many hours of discussions with supervisor farrell counsel we have proposed settlement agreement to resolve this matter. we have previously advised all of you about the issues and the potential risks of this case and ultimately committed to her decision whether to settle but this settlement represents the best settlement that we could
6:09 am
negotiate on behalf of the city in light of the circumstances and the issues that we have addressed with you in the past. if the case is not settle the anti-flab motion is currently scheduled to be heard by the court on november 3. we are prepared to litigate that but as i mentioned, if that motion is unsuccessful on our side in our case will be over and we will be at risk of being charged with attorneys fees. we are prepared today to give additional guidance in analysis on this settlement agreement and the legal issues presented by the case that we previously discussed with you in closed session today. >> guerra motion we go to closed session? >> all seconds >> but me ask a
6:10 am
way or another will take public comment, correct? >> absolutely. one way or the other we may, during that we go into closed session agreed to reveal everything that we've done in closed session. that's one of her options as well. a discussion relating to it >> i support that. >> any public comment on our decision to go into closed session? >> members of the commission san francisco open government. this has dragged on literally for years. i think this is the first on the we've heard anything of substance about where this case is at this point. i understand the logic. in fact i was just mentioning that to someone another member of the public and the fact there probably if you lose the
6:11 am
case the cities can be stocked for the attorneys fees which is better than what you can get. i want to complement commissioner keane and the fact this is the first on during all the discussions held in this manner that any sort of an indication has been given to the public that they would get some information about how we reach this point. i think that is one of the most frustrating points for the public is you see things going on and with much that's going on in the government right now, the government really isn't trusted by a lot of people. unfortunately donald trump i think is getting as many votes as these getting simply because people would rather deal with anything rather than what they presently have. so i would encourage i understand the legal necessity for going into closed session but i also want to say that i believe in i may be wrong, and maybe your expirations after if there are
6:12 am
any, will do that well but i really do believe that this all will probably in the end come back to the responsibility of the former executive director mr. john st. croix whose direction of the excavation staff literally for years seem to be one of, don't keep people from committing ethical violations. simply find ways of getting them off the hook when they do. that unfortunately has resulted a lot of people getting away with a lot of things. the public seeing it enough to why we look at things like--[inaudible] and start to get the impression that the only way the city is going to take any action against its own is if the feds come in monday fbi comes in, the attorney general comes in, and that's what we are seeing now with the bunglers in the mayor's office being taken to jail. that's what we saw with the state sen.
6:13 am
leland yee. the only reason he was held accountable because people from the outside came in. there really does diminish not only the expectation of the public but the credibility of anybody that is doing with ethics issues because the question is always, well, we know what they did. it looks on the face of it just horrendous and they never come out and say ,, let's disclose. i have been believe me i been going to these public meetings here in san francisco for nine years and i've never seen anybody disclose. >> thank you. >>[inaudible]
6:14 am
6:15 am
>> mr. chairman, without going into any of the legal >> before you any other public comment? >> dr. derek kerr again. in this case the ethics commission took a standagainst the impunity of big money in political campaigns. you could've back down for a number of reasons. your former a second director remains inert and kept you in the dark during a four-year spc investigation at the city attorney's office thought this case.under pressure from the sutton law firm and the city attorney mr.
6:16 am
st. croix caved. then you are seeking a budget increase before the budget and finance committee that is chaired by supervisor farrell. and supervisor farrell refused to appear before you, calling it a waste of time. so in view of these factors i think that the ethics commission performed courageously and honorably. small as it is the $25,000 settlement proposal represents an advance for this commission and for campaign ethics. thank you very much >> thank you. any other public comment? >> start child again with the libertarian party of san francisco. i agree with the previous gentleman who spoke in favor of discussing this
6:17 am
openly. unless there are specific things you legally prohibited from discussing openly i think openness is always the best policy and i know nothing about the particular case in question so i don't have a horse in the fight for all you know maybe mark farrell has a legitimate case. maybe he doesn't. i don't know but whatever the truth is the truth is better served by discussing it out in public and is much as possible. if you feel you can't do that i would recommend a couple of steps. first, identifying very narrowly and specifically the things we do need to be discussed secretly and discussing everything else out in the open. second, putting a sunset clause on the secrecy so that it's not in perpetuity
6:18 am
but it automatically becomes public after a certain date. say after the lawsuit is out of the courts and settled or after certain length of time, etc. you can craft language if you wanted. my other suggestion is to if you are going into closed session for non-certain amount of time if you can't tell the public in advance how long you're going to be the private meeting, then a public comment first so those of us who wish to comment afterwards don't have to wait around for an indefinite period of time while you're doing this secret meeting. but i would urge you to consider the possibility of not having a secret meeting especially that would result in appearance before your commission and open public discussion of things that won't happen otherwise as the previous speakers seem to be suggestion would be the case. thank you. >> thank you. any other comments? >> charles marsteller again. i want to say that i'm not an attorney and i'm glad most of
6:19 am
you are. on a matter like this. i do, however, question whether this issue is right and i guess i mean that more literally were liberally in the legal sense. i realize it's right because it's before you but on the other hand, i would say how many of you have read the f ppc investigative report and understand the implications as it applies to this settlement or to this case here in san francisco because i see and others have seen aspects of that report that indicate possible issues that should be raised with the dist. atty. or become a matter of criminal law. as i say, though i'm not
6:20 am
an attorney but it seems to me that it bears on this case and i think if you have the latitude that question should be raised in your deliberations. i don't know if you're making strictly decisions based on the factual record or you can go back and look at the f ppc report but if you have to do that, my guess is you want to read it thoroughly and understand the implied portions of it that indicate possible criminal intent or criminal violation and as a result that might delay their decision today. >> any other public comment? hearing none, i will call the question. i'm sorry. >> charles bill henderson held that. i just like to ask a question of you in if you go
6:21 am
into closed session you intend to come out and to liberate the matter in the public? because i would like to at least have an opportunity to comment on that.. i know you the right to go to close session to discuss legal matters but the city attorney may want to >> that'll be a subject matter when were closed session deciding what disclosures we wish to make as to the decision and the reasons for the decision. >> well it's uncertain as to whether you're going to make a decision in closed session then let me just briefly comment. i have appeared before you today on this matter. our view the farrell concerned citizens matter was one of the greatest frauds on san francisco voters in recent history. forest was able to essentially double the amount of contribution limited
6:22 am
money that he used for campaign purposes in a very close election the outcome of which may well have been affected by that substantial amount of money. you commendably, in my view, took the bit and made a decision to go forward with the forfeiture action in july and it was quite a bit of presentation before you about number of issues including the statute of limitations issue and the fraudulent concealment exception to that. i'm applicable labor that because i briefed it extensively and discussed it extensively. insert questions of commissioners during public comment but you now have a settlement before good i understand the concerns about
6:23 am
potential liability in such circumstances but i think that the important thing to bear in mind the commendable action that you did take in july is that there is a public issue here as well. what kind of signal is sent by the settlement? what is the respondent in this case, the supervisor going to be held responsible in a way that he acknowledges.. one of the things that was troublesome about the f ppc matter which i discussed with you, i give them two cheers for entering into it but mr. farrell agent was permitted to essentially, admit liability before the af ppc. mr. farrell was not acquired by the f ppc to make any sign on the dotted line on that settlement admitting any
6:24 am
liability and self. as a result of that and comments made to the f ppc they have ceased allowing that to occur. so a candidate in the case of a situation where a controlled committee violation is found is required to sign the stipulation is so let me just conclude with that. i think the important thing regardless of where you go on this in terms of the fine, which is not substantial in relation to the total amount of the forfeiture is the personal liability for the assumption of personal responsibility for. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, before we-we have already voted >> no, we have not voted. >> will it doesn't matter >> i will call the question. >> well something comes to me. one of the speakers raises the
6:25 am
question, even an implication that this commission is somehow influenced by mr. farrell vote in what committee and then on the full board of supervisors floor to approve the requested budget. let the record show that i wrote the city, i think with the city attorney or maybe it was mr. farrell directly, a letter to manning that he recuse himself from voting in the committee could what committee is it? is it the budget committee? yes, i think of was to him demanding he recuse. because there was speculation that he would punish the commission for having the gall to engage in litigation with a
6:26 am
cross-complaint against him. in any event the rest of the record is clear that he voted for the budget there in the budget committee voted for at the board of supervisors, but i can't imagine any member of the commission, or, its executive director, or other members of the staff being influenced by that series of events. >> i will call the question. ongoing to close session, all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? unanimous. we'll go into closed session. i can only guess when we will come back into open session. i would expect a half-hour at a minimum and probably longer.
6:27 am
>>[gavel] >> we will reconvene in open session on the first item for discussion is whether or not the commission should disclose the closed session deliberation. do i hear a motion in that regard? >> i move we disclose the closed session spews second >> any discussions you want? i will call the vote. all in favor all those in favor say, aye opposed? >>[chorus of ayes] opposed?. carried unanimously could i guess is chairman i will start off with saying that the commission voted 3-2 in favor of accepting the settlement. i would like to
6:28 am
just spend a few minutes explaining why i supported the settlement and so that the public can understand the reasoning and how i came to the position of supporting it. as you may recall when this matter was first sent to the treasurer's office for collection the commission authorized me to see whether or not there was a way in which it could be resolved short of litigation. the mediation was set up with judge warren as a mediator and i was there as the representative of the commission with the understanding that i didn't have any authority to
6:29 am
enter into a settlement. i was there only to state the commissions position and said that it was essentially we had to have two things. we had to have a admission of responsibility by mr. farrell for the wrongdoing of the committee and we needed a significant payment of a fine. didn't specify what the dollar amount could be but those were the two elements. in the course of the mediation and because mediations are confidential, i can go into it, mr. farrell came with a proposed settlement although the terms of the
6:30 am
settlement agreement and what terms were going to be agreed to and not been finalized came with an offer to settle which i took back to the commission and it was rejected. as inadequate in amount.when i convey that information to mr. farrell yet to come up with some much more substantial amount then he was talking about that if he was going to get us to enter into a settlement, the next day they filed suit. attacking the legal
6:31 am
position and the procedural position that the commission had taken in trying to enforce the forfeiture. we, then, filed an answer and then filed a cross-complaint in which we rejected his claims that--and we were seeking the total amount of the work that sure some. he filed a answer to that and in his filings, and he filed all of them under oath. in other words it was not the attorneys filing but he swore under oath to the truth of the documents and in those-in that
6:32 am
complaint, that he filed, he swore under oath that he knew nothing about the creation of the commission, of the committee, that he had no knowledge of his agents activities and files i can then they subsequently filed with the ent slap motion with the court which was scheduled to be heard i guess about a month and a half ago because this is statutory period of how much time you have unless the parties agree to extend it. meanwhile the city attorney's office was working hard to see whether or not she could get some kind of a settlement particularly in the face of a slap motion which if we were to not prevail we would be-the
6:33 am
city would be obligated for what we assumed were very substantial legal fees. the city attorney's office, sarah did a yeoman's job trying to get the psalms up, trying to get the language in the agreement as to his accepting responsibility and eventually was able to get him to the $25,000 which was in the settlement that i approved, that i agreed to, which i think was a very significant amount of money and i think sends a very strong message. when this matter was first sent to the
6:34 am
treasurer with instructions to proceed to collect i always had troubles procedurally what it happened procedurally, and also substantively. as to whether or not we were going to prevail but i think we all felt, what is the choice. we are going to try and enforce it and see what happens. but with the exception of commissioner kopp on probably the oldest lawyer in this room and the longest period of being a trial lawyer. spent my whole life trying cases in this courthouse and in courthouses around the country and understand the vagaries of litigation. it was my judgment,, based upon sarah's
6:35 am
analysis of the case, that a settlement was in our best interests and the best interests of the citizens of san francisco. i know that some of the other commissioners don't feel that we got as clear a statement of responsibility in the settlement agreement but i am convinced we got a strong a statement eight we could get where he said here colleges is the ultimate responsibility for the wrongful acts of mark farrell for district number two supervisor 2010 committee and its agents. so that it's not a question, i do not do anything. he is admitting he has a responsibility to keep his
6:36 am
agents abiding by the law. so, on balance, i think it's a good disposition. any other commissioners want to weigh in? commissioner kane >> i would have voted for the $25,000 settlement good mainly because i was convinced by our attorneys, sarah, who did an amazing job and king added that she and i argued for hours and hours over a number of weekends in regards to her conclusions of bruce's mind that ultimately the case would be lost on the statute of limitations, not on the merits. that we would never get to the merits of whether or not mark farrell did indeed
6:37 am
intentionally the liberally and fraudulently set up, be it be involved in the coordination of this committee with his own committee. which is one of the most egregious things that a modern politician can do in regard to campaign contributions in terms of fraudulently wandering campaign contributions. i still believe he did that. but i don't believe we would have gotten there because of the statute of limitations. i believe that if we had the merits would be decided clearly on-mainly on the fact that $200,000, which was almost the entire amount that committee spent, was
6:38 am
brought from to individual , to socially prominent individuals, tom coates, [inaudible] both friends of mark farrell both with him been with him at an event the night before they wrote the checks. and the f ppc never even interviewed these people. when they gave their judgment they just found that once chris lee this little lackey of farrell fell on his sword and said i did it all, that was enough and under the law that is not because he's ultimately responsible for the actions of his agents if they are using another committee to go mingle combing go. that was
6:39 am
the end of the f ppc. def ppc never made a finding that farrell was not involved in this combing the lien activity. that is simply an untruth. they just stuck with the whole idea we've got the case made. because of chris lee. so again i was ready to vote for the settlement of the $25,000 settlement reluctantly except for the language that farrell lawyer just tenaciously insisted be in the recycle recycle a of the settlement. which talks about, as our chairman said, he does admit that farrell acknowledges he
6:40 am
has the ultimate responsibility for the wrongful acts, but that it also says he was not aware of mr. lee's actions and that the ethics commission concurs with the f ppc's conclusion. the f ppc and did not conclude that it we should not concur with that because that is simply false. if we could get to a trial on the merits any lawyer worth their salt could have proven that was false and that farrell was up to his neck in regard to this fraudulent illegal campaign contribution that he was getting from this committee that had been set up at a been financed by his rich friends. the last thing i want
6:41 am
to talk about is in regard to the fact as to how we got to this point to begin with. that is, the ethics commission as a commission bears tremendous responsibility for this. the responsibility, all of it falls on the former executive director of the attics commission, john st. croix who was clearly totally incompetent in allowing the statute of limitations to run or even marginally corrupt by going along with the whole idea of not pursuing it until it did run. and that is the result of that, which is, by the way, the reason in croix is no longer with us, that's the underlying reason, he is not here. and decided to retire because otherwise he was going -he knew
6:42 am
he was good to get the fire that's coming in regard to this. he got it at the time in closed session when it was brought to us by the city attorney that looked like the statute of limitations had run and city attorney dennis herrera nothing out of school in terms of closed session he was furious did the city attorney's office bears no responsibility for this. he was furious at farrell, excuse me, at st. croix, too. so we are here because we had for many years a director who did not serve the people of san francisco who did not do his job and allowed probably the most egregious act of a politician
6:43 am
in terms of money laundering and campaign contributions to take place in san francisco's history. and pretty much got away with. he did not get away with it. we got a statement of responsibility but the weasel language and that statement of responsibility is going to be spun tomorrow by mr. sutton and by mr. farrell as, see, the ethics commission of greece i had nothing to do with it. that's not true. also, the last thing that should be commented about is that mr. farrell and elected supervisor of the city and county of san francisco has never had the political will or courage or integrity to come before this commission this ethics commission command look us in the face and address it and say the things that his lawyer has negotiated for.
6:44 am
[inaudible] mr. sutton did a hell of a job and i hope is getting a hell of a fee. at least that will help as well. in terms of-but mark farrell has a lot to be ashamed of. the voters in the city and county of san francisco should know that and they should not accept any kind of spin that is can i put on it now. that it's over. even the ethics commission they agreed, i do not have anything to do with this. he did. >> i would be recognize. i adopt all the statements commissioner keane has just made. he is been a member of this commission much longer than i and during the period in which this litigation was generated. i want it clear that
6:45 am
it is not my conclusion that mark farrell did not authorize the actions of his former campaign consultant with respect to common sense of voters. i note that mr. farrell attorney has departed, which indicates some of the same disdain for the ethics commission, which his client demonstrated with her remarks to the effect of not appearing at the ethics commission because it was a waste of time. there are certainly not a
6:46 am
current user trite word, legal issues and the pending litigation. as a footnote, i am exercised by the fact that i was in the california state senate and was a supporter of the then president oh tim bill lockyer who was the author of the strategic lawsuit against public policy statute which has been invoked in the pending motion to dismiss the ethics commissions cross-complaint. i can state that that legislation was never meant to apply to a city and county attempting to enforce laws against cheating
6:47 am
in election campaigns. as commissioner keane noted in different words, this is a case a stoop on it prior city employees malpractice. if he was in private employment he would be the subject of a lawsuit for damages himself. like commissioner keane i would probably accept the $25,000 compromised payment could i will not, however, accept the recitals, unnecessary and a settlement agreement, recitals that were, of course, a result
6:48 am
of a practice of the city attorney's office of which i had no prior knowledge of including recitals in the settlement agreement. the settlement agreement can be on one page. there is a dispute between you and me. and i am paying you $25,000 of so you will dismiss your suit against me and release me from any claims and i will releasing you from any claims against me. these recitals are intended with the unfortunate custom and practice of the city attorney's office for mr. farrell to escape public opprobrium first cheating conduct. in any event,
6:49 am
i am pleased mr. chairman, that the commission adopt that on motion a policy of permitting each commissioner to express his or her views on the reason for his or her vote. that is important as citizens have pointed out today and i suspect that almost everything said in the closed session is being said in public and in this particular session itself. it is sad and, it saddens me, to see a teacher get away with recitals that will be used with
6:50 am
a public and with them media that doesn't pay as close attention to the nuances of this litigation as the members of the commission do. thank you mr. chairman >> commissioner hayon >> as a citizen and voter of san francisco and the only non-lawyer on this panel, i respect all of the legal opinions of my esteemed colleagues. they are right. but the bottom line is this for the citizens of san francisco. supervisor farrell has taken responsibility for soliciting an illegal contribution and he's going to pay a fine. not as much as we would've liked but at least it's $25,000 that will be returned to the voters of san francisco for the illegal contribution that was
6:51 am
made to his campaign by individuals during his campaign. so i think the voters can feel satisfied with that and we hope that in the future we will take such complaints and deal with them quickly and appropriately so that we don't have something that hangs over the ethics commission and over the citizens of san francisco for an unduly long period of time. so i am satisfied with the outcome and just remember, he has taken responsibility and he is paying a major fine. >> commissioner chiu >> i like to echo commissioner jan kings and renne's, script given that postures of this case in the difficulty in proceeding that we got from supervisor farrell a statement of responsibility. ultimately he did not direct the formation
6:52 am
of the commission. he said he does acknowledge and accept responsibility for the acts of his agents and to me that was very important for him to put that in writing. then, second, in terms of the amount of the fine i think we'd all like to be more than what it is but it's also real market is $25,000. it's more than what he had originally offered to pay and i think that is a success. i would concur with commissioner hayon that money is rightfully going back to the citizens of san francisco and that we will have a different executive director and staff team and also in the event there are future violations of campaign law we will act much more expeditiously and effectively been addressing
6:53 am
them. >> thank you. let me just say in response to commissioner keane's statements saying the f ppc did not make a finding, the specific language of the decision and order of the f ppc with the evidence supports the findings that mark farrell did not authorize lee to coordinate with the sparrow and that is the language that was in the recycle taken from the f ppc. in all the sworn documents filed by supervisor farrell he denied any knowledge and the commission, one of the things important, the commission had
6:54 am
no evidence to counter his denial. it's nice to make accusations about his criminal activity but we had no evidence to support that. absolutely none. the only evidence was we had was his sworn statement under penalty of perjury that he had nothing to do with it and we did not make a finding that he did. we simply said we concur with the statement that the ftp see made. so there are been i've got to say, from my point of view this and a lot of accusations made against supervisor farrell that there is no evidence before the commission that would support it. i guess you can tell from the statements that of inmate who the three support who supported the settlement and the two who dissented from it. i don't think i'm required, am
6:55 am
i, to a public comment on this spirit we had public comment before >> commissioner kopp >> do we vote on the record >> no. what commissioner renne re: didn't it was reported on the closed session what the vote was. it was 3-2 commissioner kopp and renne dissenting >> turning to item 8, we had public, the on this item. we had this public comment on this item and i been advised by the city attorney that we only have one need for one comment on an item but i'm willing to disregard his instructions and i'll take public comments. >> respectfully i think the will, and we had weathers to vote on closed session not the settlement itself. i would like
6:56 am
to point out that what the f ppc said there was no evidence to connect him to mr. lee. there no discussion about mr. nilsson who is the principal person in the case. mr. howson was also by the affidavit was provided to the f ppc which i provided to the commission direct supervisor mr. farrell during this project done. that certainly does not visit be an arms distance kind of relationship. there's nothing in the record that says that mr. farrell and mr. hilton were not involved together in collusion with this did i would also like to make sure the record is very clear that the result of this financing of the independent expenditure with the election of mr. farrell two office. he won by a few hundred votes. this was not simply money-laundering. this was stealing office. that's what he
6:57 am
ended up doing and by allowing him to do this in absentia through his attorney instead of standing up in front of this commission where everybody in the city could see them on the camera, you have allowed this to be under wraps to the extent that i hope in the future you decide as a commission that in such cases the person who's being charged must appear before the commission and take responsibility personally and not just in a signed statement submitted by an attorney. >> thank you. >> for the record on charles marsteller. i will be brief. i would say i concur with everything mr. bush has said. since were in that mode. i also want to say that i think while mr. singh croix screwed up,
6:58 am
clearly the commission itself could not provide as much proactive and concurrent oversight as it needed to. we are all thrilled to see this is changing. i am want to assure the public that i think we are all now on the right track finally after 21 years or so of this existence of this agency that we are finally starting to smell the coffee. now i would say in specifics of this case like the wind that sweet case, there is much to be learned from this mistake and we need to scrub both of those things come up both cases, to see where we could improve process
6:59 am
goes after all, former head of common cause in san francisco that is my greatest concern is the integrity of the process, the process which here as in the sweet case had failed. it had failed our public trust on public financing in the suite of matter and in this case on a her rent this stealing of an election. i think that if we scrub hard enough were going to find answers about what things we need to do to make sure this type of crap does not come to us again. we have a lot of ideas already. i think but i would also say is mr. bush said, i do think that no matter what even in non-criminal matters that elected officials should appear before the body to state for the record what they have done in violating the
7:00 am
public trust. i realize what i'm saying but there seems to me they plead the fifth and maybe that's what he would've had to have done but it seems to me that justice was not served in this matter. >> thank you. any other public comment? turning to item 8, agenda item 8, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. we had the one earlier today. the thing put on the november agenda. any other commissioners have any- >> yes good on the to follow it doesn't have to be done with any kind of dispatch with our going forward to get the charter amended in regards to probable cause hearings so that they are no longer done in closed
7:01 am
session. or some other change for probable cause the way probable cause is determined to get rid of that secret proceeding that we've had up till now. to determine probable cause. due process does not require its and again it goes against the transparency that we want. so at some point in the future. i leave it to the executive director to maybe think about it and work on it. put something together in proposal for it months down the line but we ought to do it. >> any public comment? on that item? >> public comment is on anything come of spirits to see was any new matters on the agenda >> yes. the new matter larry bush front of ethics we were
7:02 am
impressed with the calendar agenda items for the next calendar year of 2017. we note early in the year the plan to have a community outreach on issues that are relevant to the ethics commission and our experience working on both proposition t and proposition c before his or the missing piece of stronger outreach to unions in the city as well as to minority organizations. so i would encourage the commission to ask the staff to direct a much more robust effort to contact the unions would have a great deal at issue were these matters as well as the minority communities did we do fairly well with the latino community but we do not do very well with the asian community and we do not do well with the african-american community. so i requested that the on your
7:03 am
radar. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again commission. members of the public. i'm*child outreach director for the libertarian party of san francisco. i would ask you to face the following item on an agenda for future meetings. i regret only a week happen after the election apparently since you don't have another meeting scheduled between now and the election and it's actually a matter of electioneering that really should be heard sooner but i have a photo here for the-the overhead projector >> mr. chairman middeck and shorten. is this your memorandum on the blue fraud and red foot? >> yes. he was the chairman
7:04 am
understands it. >> the chairman understands. >>would this lop a little bit. this was published in the san francisco examiner in august of footprints at the polling station in the basement of city hall. as you can see looking at the photos the footprints are red and blue could all the rate for poems are read and left footprints are blue. i wrote a letter about this to the head of the elections department john ahrens under excessively try to get him to return my calls in the most and i finally delivered in person and spoken briefly hit knowledge my previous communications and i asked him why he didn't got
7:05 am
back to me his response was he didn't think was important. i as i said in the letter, unfortunately there's little to be done now about any eyes impact this might have had on the election results of the primary elected our chief concern these footprints stickers or subtle message to influence voters not be placed in future elections including the upcoming presidential election scheduled for november 8. he said unfortunately in response that they've already purchased the stickers. they were going to put them out again. he was quite dismissive of these concerns but i think it's well known among the public that the color blue has been widely associated with the democrats and the media and generally democrats are seen as on the left. if i could've the image shown up again? and the
7:06 am
color red associate with the commonly with the republicans being seen as on the right. the caption down near the bottom reads, red and blue footprints direct voters to polling places at san francisco city hall. the problem is always good i don't think was: said unto. i think a subtle message was being sent to voters. this is an election between team letter also and team were brought. the regimental to the republicans and democrats. pick your chicken of course the problem with that is not everybody's in one of what i call the two old cartel parties. there are many thousands of san franciscans especially younger voters were banning the cartel and are independent or members of alternative political parties believe these parties as well as those voters are being discriminated against by this display. coming into the building to that check in the basement and the footprints are still out on. however, they did make a change to them. as you can see in the mentoring now
7:07 am
here on the screen all the left footprints are blue and the right footprints are rigid now they've redeployed the footprints but impairs others to blue footprints left and right footprint next to each other and then to read up footprints next to each other and to blue ones, to read once. so although they do not show me they were going to make this change and they did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, i think they perhaps sought after we brought this to her attention there was a serious problem. now i drove home is entirely alleviated although it's lessons. the association with left, right, red, blue under this new configuration that's no presently in the basement of the floor of city hall is different but there still is the issue of there
7:08 am
still using those two colors, red and blue, leading voters to the polling places. i think it is still an issue. the law is as you know bans electioneering near polling places and i note in the document here about in response to the patrols versus -matter the any person has the right to file the complaint with elections commission engage in improper government activity and number four is abusing his or her city position to advance a private interest. i believe that was done in this case could summon up the elections department about stops of course with the head of the department connected this action that invents a private interest mainly of the two cartel parties. i would ask you to please investigate >> thank you. >> i would like to point out red and blue are our national colors on the flag. the only
7:09 am
thing lacking is white. so i think most people would just see that as patriotic colors used at the voting polls. i don't know how many people would actually view it with a subtlety that you're looking at it but i respect your point of view. it sounds as if the elections department try to alleviate or sponsor your concern in some way. maybe not satisfactorily to you but i just want to comment on that. >> i don't know whether that was-i don't think i would call nine but you came additional opportunity for public opportunity on matters
7:10 am
appearing or not appearing. you have made your presentation could i have some serious question whether the ethics commission has jurisdiction over that matter. in any case, but is there any other public comment before we adjourn? >> [inaudible] >> public comment on some other matter? >> [inaudible] >> you've had your opportunity. i think we understand and the matter is with the staff at this time. do i hear motion to adjourn >> i move we adjourn >> second >> all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] adjourned.
7:11 am
thank you. >> >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >> >> really glad to have you here for this dedication ceremony for the new air traffic control tower at sfo we'll begin
7:12 am
our speaking portion and spanned a welcome to michael administrator. >> (clapping.) >> thank you very much and good morning san francisco and . >> morning. >> i'm delighted to be back in any home state of california and i want to begin by welcoming everyone who took time out from in their busy schedules to join us today what we're celebrating a significant milestone it is a significant milestone for the faa and san francisco international airport city and county of san francisco and for the millions and millions of travelers that pass there to at&t park every year it is undertaking and completion was the result of something unique a unique partnership i'm wondering talk about that in just a moment before i do that i
7:13 am
want to recognize some distinguished guests wave or you're all standing wave when i call your name alice if nancy pelosis office alex there he is. >> (clapping.) >> karen chapman for congresswoman aaron. >> (clapping.) >> okay kathleen deputy for jackie spier and, of course, my great friend the honorable mayor ed lee. >> (clapping.) >> and mayor, i have to take a moment and thank you for eyes and ears to represent the u.s. conference of mayors as we look at the next century of aviation
7:14 am
my history with san francisco at&t park goes back a way to the 1980s and early 1990s when i lived here and executive director of port of san francisco san francisco is changed a lot since then and so has this airport those days you even though emigrate feeling when you come into that building you stepped into an architecture digest spread as stroll through certain parts of airport including the spot we're gathered in with this incredible view of the tower that is rising upright behind us here now san francisco has proven that infrastructure can be fundamental and eloquent at the same time as faa administrator i
7:15 am
objective find myself reflecting on the big infrastructure projects as much as how important that these investments are to our national economy and aviation and era space are 5 percent of the gross domestic product some 12 million american jobs that is working in the aviation and era space industry to say for those investments continue because they contribute to great jobs for american workers and help to insure that our transportation system is going to remain save and plea of for many, many decades to come i also find myself thinking about all the core graphed work into planning, designing and building those structures and i'd like to acknowledge some
7:16 am
of the groups who's close collaboration insured the process was moved and efficient and it was safe our air traffic managers and kroerldz and the national air traffic controllers association those people not only operate this tower but are involved in the planning and design and the functionality of this tower from the very beginning our technical operations managers the technicians and the professional specialist who are responsible for maintaining this facility in the infrastructure in it the project design built team architects and others and, of course, our faa engineering services personnel and the leadership right here at san francisco airport and the construction management team now faa and sfo are not
7:17 am
strangers to working collaboratively with one another in the last few years we've worked closely to improve runway safety and skis in more arrivals when the bad weather comes in not a problem today but this control tower to the collaboration to a new level what we added at the faa was a no air traffic control tower that met the schematic standards and which met all of our operational needs sfo wanted a tower that reflected the city its unique culture and distinguished itself from every other air traffic control tower in the era space system do you
7:18 am
think they've succeeded. >> (clapping.) >> now on top of that the structure had to be integrated into the existing airport terminals that is no easy feat in an air traffic controller that at&t park that has as busy and come pack as san francisco bus because of the unique circumstances the few agencies shared the costs of this project and in a striking departure from the faas normal way of doing busy 70 designed the tower and oversaw united states construction work while insuring the twoeb tower was built to faa specifications and so i really have to sweat shirt to the team here at san francisco airport that did a
7:19 am
great job. >> (clapping.) >> now this was a pretty ambitious undertaking neither of our agrees are used to doing business we're controllers we like to be in control. (laughter) so to make this collaborative approach work each of the agencies need to relinquish some of that control to the other now our engineering team told me earlier today when i was walking around the facility this approach - they didn't know there approach would have worked with any other airport authority anywhere in the country and at the is that the key to the success here at sfo was an exceptionally professional trust worthy and flexible partnering at san francisco airport i know
7:20 am
your to hell in a hand basket at tower that is 200 he 21 feet tall the cab is 6 hundred and 50 square feet and gives our controllers unobstructed views of airport runways and take ways contains sfpuc air traffic controller equipment a a host of green features that reflect the faa and san francisco's shared commitment to responsible environmental stewardship that reflects the similar culture of our two agencies we both embrace tough tasks and embrace pushing the envelope to see what we can accomplish when we see a challenge we don't not only try to that how we'll get it done safely and get it done ci