due on a quarterly basis that he does not have i call it don't ask don't tell. don't tell us what you raise td don't tell us us what you did with the money and we won't ask you. at the same time, he has been accepting 36,000 on average a year and in fact this year it went up to 40,000 worth of gifts of travel, accommodation, registration, fees, etc., none of which has been reported to any body. not the controller's office not the board of supervisors and it has not been posted on the website. and i think that they have put the library staff in the position of being in violation of potentially in violation of both state and federal tax codes. because they accepted these gifts of traffic accommodation, registration, fees and were never given any information as to whether or not there was a tax liability and i'm in the process of putting this record together to send to the

franchise tax board and to the internal revenue service and hoping that i can get a pay off as a whistle blower. >> it has that i have 24 seconds. >> okay. >> more importantly, i want to bring this to light. you cannot have a position of public trust come before the public and tell them that everything is fine when you absolutely have no idea whether it is. and that is what they have done, it is a betrayal of the public trust and a betrayal of the fiduciary responsibility. >> commissioners? >> questions? >> >> yes, mr. hartz, i have a few questions. >> all of the subject matter of the complaints are all sets of

minutes that predate the session that we had in february 2013. are they not? >> yes, but that is not the point. >> okay. but that is what you are saying that we should find that their failure to include in the minutes as you define it, rather than attaching them to the minutes, that should be a willful violation, that is what you are contending on what the task force are contending. >> how many years do you have to do something before it is obvious that it is willful? >> i am just saying that... >> yes, it is what i am saying, but what i am saying is after repeated findings you continue to ignore it, could he do it for ten, 20, 30 years. >> he knew what he was doing he is a smart man and he knew exactly what he was doing.

>> and he did it on the basis of what the city attorney told him. >> no he did it on the basis of what he wanted to do to suppress public comment and use what the city attorney said which was refuted by the task force if you read the fafk force, it says that it shall give the directors to the bodies and agencies about what the law means and not the city attorney and for some strange reason you want to take the city attorney's right to interpret it as he sees fits and override the task force that has a legal right to decide. >> i would say that they both have a legal right. >> where does it say in the law that the city attorney has the right to interpret the sunshine ordinance? show me in the ordinance? >> because he is the attorney. >> where in the ordinance does it say that. >> it specifically says that the task force has the responsibility. >> i am not going to argue, we made the decision back in february.

>> i know. >> so long as the library adopted the policy >> they didn't. >> wait a minute. adopted the policy, that is that they prepared the minutes and included the statements in the minutes... >> you are changing the terms. you said that mr. herrara was asked, are you going to change the policy, his answer was yes and i reviewed that today and ha is what he answered. have they changed the policy? no they have not and just as long as they do something that is okay. >> i am saying that if he goes back to from my point of view, if he goes back to attaching the 150-word summaries to the minutes, rather than including them in the body of the minutes, i would be prepared to say that is a willful violation, as long as he continues to put them in the body of the minutes, there is no violation. >> and you make a joke of the process. i have spent three and a half years fighting this case and

now we are going to get here and you are going to give him the option of simply saying, well, mr. hartz is frustrated and we are going to leave him in a position where we can go ahead and do it and make m mr* hartz go through the same damn process, what a laughing stock you are. >> i just don't understand the issue. >> please explain to me number one, as simply as possible. you stand up and you have comments and you have a written version of your minutes. >> what is wrong with those comments, simply being an addendum and this is a general question, to any commission hearing or any commission meeting minutes? >> here we are going back to what was discussed before the sunshine ordinance task force

on multiple occasions, all seven cases. and it is the fact that they take your comment, which is exactly, which is an accurate representation, my representation, just... would your representation of your statements be more clear than the representation of someone else made of them? i think that most of you will say yes. what they want to do is take my 150-word summary which is exactly what i said and put it somewhere else and substitute in a body of the minutes, exactly what they say that i said, and which is censorship. >> you are saying that your written comments are edited by the library commission? >> no i am saying in the body of the minutes where the citizens read the minutes. >> they put what they say that i have said. >> they have changed what you have said and edited it. >> yes. and here is a footnote and if you want to know what he said go look on page 10.

>> but this is an issue that faces every commission in this city. you know, most commissions don't include testimony, such as yours, within the body of the minutes, but rather as an addendum, are you going to go to every commission... >> i take exception to that. >> your ethics commission includes it in the body. >> the library in the bod y >> the police commission in the bod y the arts commission and mr. renne at the last hearing we had in february said specifically i think that all city bodies should... >> yes. and i think that we are in agreement on that. but you now just said that the library commission is doing it. so then what is the problem? >> because it is arbitrary, my political free speech cannot be what bureau crat decides, and i will not go before the body

that i work for and have them discuss it and make a decision, i will do it on a whim and that is what mr. st. croix did. you have not had a discussion about the placements of these? he decided to stop thuting them in and put them in the body and portray it as an accommodation to me. >> commissioner studley? >> in my view there was no violation here of 67.16 because the library commission included the 150-word statements in the minutes. and in my view, in the minutes includes both in the body of the minutes, and in the addendum. one thing that i pointed out the last time is to me, a numbered document from one to... >> it is not your free speech. >> excuse me mr. hartz i'm speaking. i think that we have raised two completely separate issues here. these complaints before us,

relate to whether the inclusion of the 150-word statements in the minutes is a violation and we have to affirmatively find if we think that there was a violation. the commissioners may not all agree with me that the addendum is perfectly satisfactory way of accomplishing the statutory responsibilities. there is a separate issue that you commission have raced that is not before us and that is the responsibility of a city body that is required by law to maintain minutes. and under 67-16, the sunshine ordinance requires the boards and commissions to record minutes for each regular and special meeting. our minutes characterized what i say, they are not the same as the transcript. the minutes are something else. and they summarize what each of

us says. and that is different from the inclusion of the 150-word statement that allows the speakers before the commissions to be absolutely clear about what they want to say. the commissions that have been criticized before have done both they have carried out the responsibility under 67-16 to record minutes, not to record transcripts that is a separate obligation but to record the minutes in which they say, what happened at the meeting. if there is a complaint, that those minutes are not being kept appropriately by any commission that will be a separate question. that is not on the floor before us right now. and on the matters before us, it seems clear to me, that the library commission that these complaints do not carry weight and there is not a violation of 67-16 and the 150-word statements have been included without any editing and without change, there is no question on

the record before us about whether they have been revised shortened tampered with or otherwise reduced from what was presented by the complainant or anyone else. i think that it is a simple matter and i think that we should act in a way that follows the decisions that we have made in the past on this issue. >> thank you, commissioner studley. >> may i respond to that? >> mr. hartz. >> why are they fighting so hard to keep these summaries out? >> what is it thatvy to say that they don't want heard? i'm not just fighting this for my own sake, i'm fighting this for the sake of any citizen in this city who has gone before a public body, made a statement and had that statement either deleted, sensored, misrepresented and the sunshine ordinance offers an extra layer

of protection. and what you do in each of these cases you say that even though the body who is legally charged with deciding these cases has found a violation, we are going to ignore what they have to say, and never having looked at any of the evidence involved. and say that they are wrong. >> thank you, mr. hartz. >> commissioner hur you have a question or a comment? >> i was just going to say that i, concur with commissioner studley and i would be prepared to hear public comment and vote. >> i would move that we make a finding as suggested by commissioners. >> i would be happy to make that motion. and then we can have public comment on the motion, would that be helpful? >> yes. >> i believe that the motion is that the commission, find a better way to articulate this. the commission finds that the city library did not violate the sunshine ordinance as to all allegations referred to by the task force because the

150-word written summaries were included within the minutes as required by the sunshine ordinance and under section 677-hp 16.

any person shall provide a statement, and this is the responsibility of the secretary of the clerk to take down and i appreciate you commissioner studley for creating the distinction or outlining the distinction between a transcript and minutes which is to summarize all of us that is the role and the responsibility and the job description of the secretary and the clerk and it says that you were a manager and you decided to do an evaluate on me and you called me into our office of a year's worth of work and as you have done good due diligence of talking to me and observing me and talking to the people that i supervise and you wrote up an evaluation and at the end of that you have the opportunity to sign-off on it with no comment and say that i agree and i have a comment or i disagree and here are the reasons why. but you don't get to do is to

have the opportunity to change the words within the evaluation. and i think that is in many ways what the role of your 150-word summary can do when you are summarizing the minutes because the minutes are not there to capture the meeting the transcript is there. but clarification happens for that, and this is the role of the clerk and the secretary and i, concur with commissioner studley. >> can i respond to that? >> we are going to have public comment. >> the comment was made and i think that it is time that i respond to it appropriately. >> i think that mr. hartz has had plenty to say on this issue. >> are you afraid of what i have to say? >> hardly. >> you make it a joke, mr. hur. you sit there and you smile and you laugh, and you make derog torrey comments because you have the power. >> you are a bully. >> i think that the only person

that is making derog torrey comments in this chamber is you. >> i asked to respond to this comment. and i was told that mr. hartz has had a lot of time. >> you have a lot of time, more than the normally allotted time. >> so we are opening this up to public comment and i believe that mr. warfield was going to speak. >> mr. warfield, were you going to speak? >> peter warfield, executive director of library users, i have had a long history with the library and unfortunately i can say that the new commissioner is mistaken. the job of the minutes is not necessarily to include anything that the commissioners say. or anything that their officials might say,vy been to

a lot with the library commission. let me tell you they have it on frid which they wanted to put into the library and which we and the aclu at the chronic foundation thought or it was the technology that was highly privacy funding and so they had a forum and a fixed time went for two hours, and they had all kinds of invited people. and minutes, you know what they said? at the library commission for that meeting for the presenters and their two hours of discussion? nothing. not one word. and the library commission has also discussed on again, off again, over the years how about we just have action minutes, meaning we will only discuss or put into the minutes, the actual motions and votes for

ourselves. because the sunshine... ordinance does require some summary of public comments. i have taken complaints about the comments when they gave five words on that hearing for my comments. incomprehensive and not even a sentence and that is all that they gave the electronic frontier. >> and he said those and that was represented as his. and if you listen to any library commission meeting and even the smallest requests of collections that would be simple, or even to correct or in some case to reverse a backwards meeting are ignored routinely and it is seldom that they make a change.

last sentence of 67-16 was an added thing. and 150-word summaries were added as proposition g to strengthen the sunshine ordinance originally passed some years earlier presumably because they recognize that without the public's opportunity to speak in their own voice. as i well know and mr. hartz and otherwise know has happened and to the library has played all kinds of games to say that they are knocking the doors and to make the document and they need to be in the minutes as the sunshine ordinance. >> thank you mr. warfield. >> commissioners? >> call the question.

>> on commissioner studley motion. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> motion is passed. unanimously. push >> i would like to make a quick comment. one could not sit here for the length of time that we have without recognizing that there is tension in the library community. i think that there is fair to say that that i am educated by our commenters to understand that is happening. we can only act on what is brought to us and there is... and i am glad that others agree that there is not a violation along these lines. and these things that are discussed here are not related to the comments, or are now embodied in a legal way of the complaints that were brought to

us. so whatever unhappiness is going on we have not been getting. and we may not have the authority to deal with those issue and only acting on what is brought here and we have reached the result. >> i agree with you. >> if there are violations and not necessarily referring to to the sunshine ordinances and to other activities and you have the evidence and why not take it to an investigative reporter. >> and then you surprised me.

>> and so, we have raoefmd that conclusion and now we are moving on to the next case. >> mr. st. croix? >> so, under chapter two the regulations there is not a staff memo or a staff recommendation, there is a presumption of the task force findings are correct and the respondent in this case bears the burden to show that the task force errored in this determination, three commissioners are responsible to make sure that they have met his or her burden and so the respondent is permitted to speak first for five minutes. and complainant has five minutes to speak and then the respondent has a three-minute rebuttal. >> my name is kate patterson and in i am the primary

responder to the sunshine requests that come to the agency. first i would like to acknowledge that responding in the task force order april 5, 2012, the arts commission failed to respond within the designated time frame. we don't have a good excuse, and it was simply overlooked and it was overlooked by me, specifically and for this, we have apologized on the numerous occasions to mr. warfield and to the sunshine task force and have attempted to rectify the situation. i have submitted the copy of the last response to the body back in april, i believe as it includes all of our priary arguments for not complying with the order of determination. in a response, to the order of determination of april 5th, 2012, we reiterated that we have no speaker cards to present to mr. war field in the response for cards from the meetings of september, october and november of 2009, however

we were able to furnish mr. war field with cards for several meet thatings took place in the time line requested by mr. warfield to clarify this was september of 2011 through december, 4, 2011 and the visual arts committee meetings of 2011, through january, 2012. and in our initial response, we indicated that in order to protect the individual's right to privacy under the california constitution article one, section one, we redacted the personal addresses but not the business addresses that have been written on the cards before making pdf files and photo copies and also provided mr. warfield with paper copies of the same documents. >> on the advise of the city attorney we have a standard practice of redacting in order to protect privacy, we are careful to site the constitution article one section one as a rationale for these edits by redacting this the arts commission was in no

way trying to obstruct his right to assemble and gather support, we are protecting those who had not consented with us sharing the information with someone who is interested in soliciting them with the private e-mail telephone number and residence, despite the finding, the arts commission main that i should that it acted appropriately by redacting the personal information of those who filled out the speaker cards at past meetings because of the at the time it was unclear to the arts commission and to the individuals in question, that they would be waving their constitutional rights to privacy by participating in a commission meeting by filling out resident information on a card. at no point did the cards include information alerting the individuals to the fa account that once handed to the commission that the private be a record. it assumed that the citizens are conversant with all of the rules, after conducting with the city attorney on the legalities of this issue we modified the speaker cards so that it does not ask for one

person's is address and will dlud this, you are not required to complete this card and you may speak anonymously if you wish. protecting the rights of individuals to privacy, the arts commission properly withheld the private home, address of citizen whose submitted public comment at the commission meetings. the findings and purpose section of the sunshine ordinance makes it clear that it is not intended to eliminate or interfere with privacy rights, specifically 67.1 g, states that private entities and individuals and employees and officials of the city and county of san francisco have rights to privacy that must be respected. >> it was adopted in the spirit of being mindful to the right to privacy. and so this is the essentially a recap of the letter that i sent and i am running out of

time, that i sent to this body a while back and i spent a number of cases where this was an issue so although the home addresses and telephone numbers are often publicly available through telephone directors or similar services such as google and it does not eliminate the interest, and the arts commission feels that disclosing the information will make them vulnerable from the entities from a corporation to a cult that wish to sell something and use this for something such as identity theft. >> and all of the private citizens in for participate ng ining a democratic process, and i think that the question is not what they will use the information for but the question is that we don't know, the individual so it is a hard call for us to make. thank you. >> do you want to take or if

you have questions or would you like to hold it until after the complainant speaks >> what happens we should take the questions now. it is up to you. >> and the complainant. >> respect to the failure to respond to an immediate disclosure request in a timely manner, although you addressed that very candidly, i will have to say that i am... could you point to me. >> could i, it was not a failure to respond to an immediate disclosure, it was a failure to respond to an order of determination from the sunshine task force. >> okay. >> thank you. >> but what there is an element of the proceedings before us, is failure to respond to an

immediate disclosure request in a timely manner and the dates that i see are december 15th, and i am speaking now from the task forces order of determination, dated april 5th, 2012. this says on december 15, 2011, the library users association requested electronic copies and december 19, 2011, the ac secretary, produced electronic copy and on december 20th, mr. warfield inspected them. so i think that my question is for you that i will ask mr. warfield why this was not timely. and it is whether that directly tracks your understanding of the timing or the request on december the 15th and a response on the december 19th ni have a letter, february 6, 2012, from the commission secretary to the members of the sunshine traffic force regarding the request made on

december 15th, 2011, and what i don't have in front of me is a calendar and i don't know if this is a situation whereby it was the friday request and we got back to him on monday and i don't know. >> it was a thursday and the response came on monday. >> okay. >> so what she says is on december 19, i reply by e-mail saying that there were no speaker cards response to his request number one, and i supplied copies of the speaker cards for the following meetings in response to his request and explained that there were no cards for any of the other meetings he had requested. so i don't recall it does not say in her letter to the sunshine task force whether it was an idr. and so, i don't know. >> for the record, what is the time requirement for the request? >> the business day the following day.