not believe you can teach people to be funny. i think people can hone it and get better. but i do not think anybody who has no sense of humor is going to get one. do you? >> this is so exciting. the youngest member of our studio audience has submitted to the microphone. i have to say one thing. please keep your questions short and to the point. >> what point? comments. with that, the floor is yours. >> i have a quick statement before my question. it is not like there is a line. >> he is funny. you cannot teach that. >> actually, dave, i want to thank you. when i was in high school, my

cousin gave me one of your books, "dave barry talks back." i have not read anything like it before. i was on my couch laughing out loud. i went to college couple of years later and said i wanted to try this. i was at usc. i wrote a weekly humor column in a similar style to yours. i ended up writing 100 of these every week, every night. >> and you are homeless now. >> sincerely, it was one of the most rewarding experiences i had done, so thank you for that. >> is that the statement or the question? >> the statement. >> he is so much more a fan of mine and yours. if anybody has any questions about deli, i am here for you.

sliced meat? i am here for you. hitler, bin laden, and this kid. i hate him. >> you're right about that head comment. >> and you are standing pretty far away. [laughter] >> in transitioning from writing your short for humor to yearlong for narrative, what was the biggest challenge? >> being brave enough to try it. i was in my 40 pause before i even tried to write a novel. i said i did not know how to do it. if you read a lot, and you can figure out what you're supposed to do -- the hard part is -- the difference is, in the novel, the

long form, you need some sort of plot. when i wrote a humor column, i never a word about any structure. there was no point. it was pretty clear. you read them. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> now we have another question. >> i do not have a statement. >> actually, that was a statement. [laughter] >> my question to both of you is -- dave, your books have such a breath of topics. alan, saturday night live is such a huge thing in terms of the topics. where you get these ideas, where do they come from? >> we have no useful skills.

i am dead serious. we have talked about this. 3o was t thing, and the code got crinkled, i could not do anything. >> the mental energy the other people are using to make useful products in the world, things that people need, we have spent our entire lives trying to amuse ourselves. that is all we know how to do. so we are better at it than people who have real jobs the them i think that is absolutely right. if you want to feed your family, let's say, you have to discipline yourself. there is also a way of looking at the world. once again, my friend larry david, he would take a little more salt and make a whole meal out of it. it is about looking at the world

with a certain attitude. >> there are a lot of people who are funny and have a sense of humor, but they get sidetracked into productive work. we do not let that happen. [laughter] >> i am afraid we are out of as it is to believe. [applause] >> thank you. >> i do not even think we can ask a final question because it would take us past our time. >> our thanks to dave barry and alan zweibel, authors of "blue knit 6." -- lunatic." we also want to remind everyone here in the room that copies of the book are onlobby, and our ge

here to autograph them. >> anyone have a pen? >> we appreciate your allowing them to make their way to the lobby as quickly as possible. this meeting of the commonwealth club of california is adjourned. [applause]

>> meeting of the san francisco ethic's commission will now come to order. >> commissioner renne? >> here. >> commissioner studley. >> here. >> commissioner hur? >> here. >> and i would like to introduce our newest commissioner, brett andrews welcome. >> thank you. >> brett, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself. >> sure. so i have been here in san francisco for ten years. and i have been the executive director of positive resource center, at the mental health organization that provides benefits counseling and employment services. i have been active in the community at many different levels and i am just looking

forward to participating in the ethics commission. over the years of having conversation around this type of work, what is very clear is that there is a lot of interest, and a lot of passion and a lot of knowledge. as i have talked to the commissioners and advocates it is important that we have respectful engagement and i suspect to be a bridge in that regard and i look forward to participating with the staff and the commission and the community >> we are looking forward as well. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> now any public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda? >> commissioners, ray hartz director of san francisco open government. i would much rather be home

reading a good book and i am sure that you would rather i be anywhere else do anything else than here. i am going to talk tonight about the fact that although i am some what in some people's minds intemp erate and aggressive or whatever you want to call it. i have good reasons for doing so and i would like to spend this time talking about that. you all know gomez and wass the president of the library and you recommended to the mayor's office that she be removed for standards that fell below those

appropriate for a public official. the learned lesson of miss gomez, here we have a letter recommending the approval or the removal, a year later, they sent another letter saying what is going on. and as far as i know you have never gotten a response. it appeared in the paper waiting recall. and the lesson that miss gomez learned is that you can't stop people from speaking because you will have them nouned violation. so what she does in step is picks comments that i made in a library and quoted here in the paper and here are the three quotes. i know 12 people who could fing bury him. and he does... if i could walk out of here today. he does not know who he is f...ing with, i speak nicely

now but i did grow up in the ghetto and i used to carry a straight raiser. she was recorded or without her knowledge by the library and it was posted on the library public website for a month. now this person who was afraid of the comment that i had made went to the san francisco police department and filed a police report against me. and i thought, with the police department, to get the information they held it for one year and three days. three days longer than it was necessary for me to file a complaint against her for filing a false police report. and then here we have the latest, the referal to the board of supervisors again the city library, herrara for withholding public records that he had in his position and did so for four years and continues

to do so. >> any other public comment at this time? >> yes, i'm peter war field executive director of the li first of all i d say that i ev sunshine ordinance task force referals should be represented on the complainant side by themselves since they are the ones that have proposed to send this to the ethics commission. and i think that aspect of your procedures needs to be reviewed. if there are problems with what the sunshine task force does and legal questions they will be good if not best at answering those questions. it does not mean that you

should exclude the complainant. or not have a complainant available to answer questions. i would like to talk very briefly about why i think that today's case of braruser's association verses the arts commission is one of the slimyist things that has ever happened here to my knowledge. the civil grand jury called this body, the sleeping watch dog. and i don't know where folks here may be sleeping, but mr. st. croix certainly is not sleeping, he is extremely alert and detail oriented but he has still and he is still dedicated as before to protecting the guilty, especially if those are city officials. now i won't go into the raft of delays that happened with this case which i filed to the sunshine task force on behave of library users association more than a year and a half mr.

legals to define this as a complaint by me personally against a staff member of the arts commission personally. and there by deaway completely as to any responsibility. it is like saying the knife did it so too bad if there has been a murder but there is really nobody accountable. mr. st. croix goes on and on in the letter about the complainant was peter warfield and then he goes on and defines, and so he talks about on page 2 of the letter, they referred it as a willful violation under section 67 hour miss patterson is not a elected official and will be held under chapter two. if you look at the order of

determination and all of the documents, over and over and over again, mr. st. croix has overlooked the fact that it was the library users association against the arts commission which is headed by a department head who out to be responsible if not maybe the city attorney or the mayor. >> thank you you will have additional time to speak on this. >> i would prefer not to have this go forward, thank you. >> any additional public comment at this time

we are going to look at violations of the sunshine ordinance, and the first one, mr. st. croix? >> okay. >> inform us on this? >> you have the staff memo with the details before you. neither nigh of the complainant will be here, they can resolve the case without them. as this has been continued a few times. if you prefer not to you have the option to continue the case. any opinions on whether we want to address this case or do a further continuance? >> commissioner hur? >> in light of the request to

continue and the fact that there are no respondents, i don't see the harm in continuing this further, i understand that it has been continued. a couple of times before and on the other hand the complainant said that they prefer that it be delayed given that it is per complaint, and she at least said that she has a >> i would agree with the conclusion and it is regrettable that we will be criticized very likely to delaying these and we were ready to bring it forward but i think that under the circumstances that the complainant requested that it not be considered tonight, that that would be acceptable.

what happens the record could so in terms of the item, why it why it was continued. >> my own concern about continuing is looking through the papers and the communications from the complainant, i think that this is the third or fourth continuance. and all of which have been asked for by the complainant for the same reason. and i although i might be sympathetic to the reason and i don't see any indication that reason is ever going to change. and the complainant has not given us any suggestion as to when she thinks that she will be cap able of appearing and when she would like to have us set it. >> that is a good point. >> so i guess what i would suggest is that we grant this continuance to a date certain far enough out, and make it

very clear that there will be no further continuances by requested by either side. that we will accept. >> commissioner andrews anything that you would want to add? >> i am in agreement with that. i am looking that this is the third continuance and i saw that it was the set of circumstances so i think the date certain, and i agree with commissioner studley that we would need to clearly outline in the minutes, the reasons for it and arguably that will build on why we would need a date certain. >> further comments? >> i would like to add that i understand the point of view expressed for allowing a further continuance, but i'm not really in support of that.

i think that those individuals who bring forward a complaint to the sunshine task force ordinance committee, or task force i should say, and that when those issues are then forwarded to the ethics commission, i think that the complainants have a responsibility to pursue the matter which they have started and when we have continuance after continuance after continuance, on behalf of the complainant, and then it is difficult for me to take the complaint as seriously as perhaps one should. you know? we often are criticized when there are delays in any decisions and in sort of the efficacy of the work that we do and that concerns me a great deal. so here we are, we have been ready to go forward with this complaint on a number of occasions and here we are

looking at continuing it one more time. and i will go along with the rest of the commission, but i did want to make those points that i think, you know, to be taken seriously, then you have to act seriously. >> i find what each of you and commissioner renne and andrew have said pretty convincing. do we have an option of addressing the merits but holding the final determination until the next meeting if the party wants to apart or would that be duplicate work for us. >> you can do that and you might feel compelled to rehash that detail again because there will be parties present that are not here now. >> but, you certainly have the

option. >>, what if you issue an order to show cause as to why she has not been here, he or she has not been here and with the doctor's note explaining when she can be available. i am concerned that it is, that the basis at least asserted is a medical condition that is preventing her from being here. and to me that is a problem beyond, if true and proven is a legitimate basis for not attending and to me a legitimate basis for continuing it. so something like that might give us a better sense of when pastor gavin will be available. and if we get no response we should schedule it and have it heard as soon as after as possible. >> mr. st. croix, can we require a doctor's note explaining? >> we can. >> why the continuance is necessary? >> and the last continuance actually made that stipulation

that if a further continuance was requested, that documentation from a physician would be required by june 19th. >> and have we received any documentation from a physician? >> no. >> all right. >> that information causes me to sort of reconsider whether we ought to just proceed with it having pastor gavin has been given certainly ample opportunity. but if we are going to continue it, commissioner studley, i would not be in favor of our dealing with the merits today because the argument as to why it is necessary for her to be here is to cry to address the merits. and is the stipulation that you referred to mr. st. croix, in the record? is that? >> well it is part of the

minute. >> well it is a public document that was sent on march 25th, the continuance is offered originally by chair person hur and then renewed by chair person hayon in the subsequent month. >> commissioner andrews? >> it is not recorded in minutes, however. so, if what we are suggesting that you might want to do if you do want to continue it is say to the september meeting but on the record make that motion that documentation will be required and no further continuances will be grapted. >> commissioner andrew? s >> i am thinking of both sides and i believe in one of the communications the complainant wanted an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and there could be the situation where the complainant is here and none of the respondents are here and so

then where do we go with that? and if that is the case, then, you know, we need to carry, i recognize that in accommodation is probably the serious request, but i think that still does not necessarily and keep moving forward and guarantee that will move forward if those were the reasons why we needed to continue for the opportunity for the complainant to cross-examine them. >> just as a point of information cross-examination is not part of the process. >> so if that... >> they represent themselves and then the respondent represents themselves and rebuttal. >> if that is not the procedure it seems to me then that they are both out. and that, you know what i mean? it feels a little bit more balanced in that regard.

>> do i have a motion on whether or not to continue this matter? >> i will move that we continue this matter to the september meeting that in the minutes we include a statement that the commission agrees that this is the final continuance, unless the complainant comes forward within 45 days with medical verification of why she can't attend the next schedule hearing. and that if we don't receive anything from complainant that we will go forward with or

without pastor gavin. at the september meeting. >> second. >> any further discussion on that? >> well, i guess that i am not in favor of the condition that you put in there. just seems to me we ought to schedule it for a hearing on september, whatever the date is of our meeting in september, and that we are going to go forward because as mr. st. croix has pointed out. they can make their presentation. but, if pastor gavin for any reason feels that she can't be present, there were other people that she can get to stand in for and make the arguments that she wants to make for us. and so i would not be prepared

to support a motion that has in it a condition, that there might be further continuance of the doctor's excuse. >> is there anything that counsel would like to add? >> to hear the public comment. >> before voting? >> right. >> of course. public comment. >> please. commissioners ray hartz, director of san francisco open government. i know pastor gavin quite well and it relates to the board of supervisors handling of the park and she has been evicted and has been for a large part homeless during a significant portion of the ongoing efforts here. and this was also subject to the case in federal court one in superior court and that throws an extra winkle into it. i also believe that she is unable to get healthcare, and as a result asking her to

produce a doctor's note when she has no access to a doctor, is an reasonable expectation. now, i will be honest with you and you can take this as it is and you will not like it. you guys have dragged your feet on sunshine issues for literally a decade. and it went on and on and on and on and on and on. and as it is, even though the law specifically says that the complaints have to be heard in 45 days, it usually takes 6 to 9 months to he even get your first hearing and then to subcommittee and then round and round in circles and then you drag it on for six months and a year and now you are sitting here saying oh, this is really terrible. we are having to delay our procedure and what exactly are you having to suffer? you are suffering nothing because you are just not hearing it. if you really don't mind,

waiting literally years to complainants to bring cases before you, why should you now use that discuss as one that you just can't wait any longer? >> i can think of a lot of unfortunate words to explain that but i would like to hear any of you try to justify that. >> the civil grand jury send you a sleeping watch dog and pointed out the fact that the only case that you have ever handled that was referred to you by the task force and done anything about was the one that i talked about earlier was the president of the library commission and every other single case that has come before you, you have dismissed and sided with the city, 98 percent of the time and against the citizens of this city and sided or with the citizens of this city, 2 percent of the time. and so don't sit here and give all of this moaning