office, anyone who could help us put the requisite resolution or ordnance together, that would require the ethics commission meeting speech televised the link for work. the commission in your perspective would be supportive of that? >> sure. what the mayor's office brought up is something that i am already working on is that we work the second monday of every month. there is not a slot available in the current meeting time that would offer a stability to be televised, because you're only meeting at that time. we will have to find another slot where that is available. i have not been able to go through every single agency's monthly calendar and find where the slots are. supervisor campos: may be between now and tuesday you could work with my staff and we could work with the good folks from sfgtv to make this happen, but i think that the importance

of this is such that i think we need to move expeditiously -- whether you agree or disagree with the specific findings or recommendations, the one thing that is clear to me is we can all benefit from that added transparency. maybe we can work together between now and tuesday so we can introduce something at the next board meeting to move quickly to make that happen. >> we intend to make it happen. if this will make it happen more expeditiously, i am sure my commissioners will be grateful. fifth supervisor campos: please continue if you like anything else to be continued. i think doing that has helped to

bring about a lot more transparency and community support for the decisions of the commission, and i hope and think that might be the same with yours. whenever my office can do to help with that, we have gone through this discussion before with regard to very similar issues are around budget, and we figured out a way to deal with that. more than happy to support that effort and co-vaunted that effort. with regards to recommendation no. 4, just so i understand, and maybe this is a question of the city attorney's office, this is a question of chartered change, so stating this as a recommendation does not make this change happen. i understand the impulse to want to have non-elected officials be involved in this, and i love the organizations that are listed here, but i can imagine there might be lots of folks that would have different questions as to exactly which non-person community organization should be

selected. i was wondering if you have a perspective on that. i'm a big fan of uc dating -- uc-davis law school, but i've a feeling we have a couple of other educational institutions that may want to be part of that, and i want to get your feeling on the challenges of selecting specific community organizations and individuals that would be responsible for the apartment of members to the commission. >> i am not sure what to say, because my commissioners have decided to be neutral on this, and so have i.. there is a lot of wisdom out there, but those voters also have wisdom, and this is set up this way for a reason. supervisor [inaudible] : would it be helpful to figure

out why the specific organizations are listed here, and completely agree with and echoing president used comments when i understand there is a desire that it makes sense to somehow remove it from people they are overseeing, but why these folks and not others? >> if you look at the wording, it is such as, just possible suggestions -- suggestions for elements like this. we were looking at the sunshine ordinance task force membership and the appointment of the members of the sunshine ordinance is where we came up with the idea for appointing people that were not from -- elected officials to get the extra level of independence. that is where the idea came from. specific organizations -- we book the other organizations from other cities, and some did have outside appointments, and

where they were made there were similar to these types of organizations, but we mapped out san francisco organizations on to appointments that were made by other ethics commission's. supervisor campos: i do have a couple of follow-ups. i understand there have been some financial challenges in dealing with some of these issues, but there are a couple of questions that come to mind. with respect to the enforcement of this sunshine or dance task force, it seems to me that that in a way is a larger issue that needs to be addressed, and i see a member of the commission here , and from my perspective, i think it would be helpful for

this committee to follow up on that issue and to really have a hearing and discussion about how the process currently works, to have some dated information about the level of action or enforcement that has taken place of the ethics commission so that we have an understanding of what the numbers are, and also have a discussion about some of the proposed changes you have submitted, and you not only hear from the ethics commission, but also to hear from the sunshine task force and its members. that would be my suggestion. i think it is a larger issue, and it is one that is also very critical, and i do not know what the timing of this process that you described where you sent some changes to the sunshine

task force for comment and perhaps recommendation, but if we were to have a hearing of that sort, what would be inappropriate time for us to do that? >> i think you would probably have the best information to go on if you were to wait until after we consider the changes we propose, the ones that they included, and we intend to do that in november. supervisor campos: we will introduce a hearing requests, and maybe the timing is something we can work on, not only with coordination in your office but the chair of the sunshine task force to make sure we take their schedules into consideration. that is the point i wanted to make on that. with respect to the district attorney, and i see mr. pipefier

in audience, and i do not know the direct title, but waiting for the district attorney or city attorney to inform the ethics commission they will not pursue a case causes unnecessary delays, and then the recommendation after the 14- state ethics commission investigations should start. -- 14-state ethics commission investigation should start. >> each time we enter a formal investigation part of our investigation requires us to notify the city attorney and district attorney. in case they want to presume jurisdiction over that particular investigation. at the end of the 14-day window they usually send us a window saying they are or are not going to pursue the investigation themselves. in general are custom is if they

pursue an investigation, we do not, because is duplication of effort, and we have constrained resources. >> in response to finding no. 3, and maybe the city attorney has some thoughts on this, the city attorney's office response that the ethics commission does not have to wait to undertake its own investigation, wait for either the d.a. or city attorney, so is that different? does that mean you are waiting even though you do not have to? is that what is going on? >> bill law does not require us to wait, the regulations do. -- the law does not require us to wait, the regulations do. supervisor campos: mr. city attorney -- >> good morning. what the director said is

correct. if he feels and the ethics commission feels amending the regulations at that point is worthwhile, we're certainly happy to do so and streamline the process even further. >supervisor campos: it seems to me the threshold for the district attorney to pursue an investigation and file a charge is a different thresholds legally, and certainly the burden of proof is different in that there may be policy reasons why, even though the district attorney's office may not be pursuing a specific case, that you still want action, or from the ethics commission, or even when a case is pursued, you may still want action from the ethics commission. i am not sure if we are missing something by making the two mutually exclusive. that is my point and concern. i would ask you to at least

reconsider the existing regulation. i want to give mr. piper an opportunity to say something. i do not know if you want to add something, but for those of you that may or may not know david piper, i have had the opportunity to work with him in the past, and you will not find a more ethical and diligent public servants, and i know that he takes these matters very seriously, and i want to thank you for being here today. >> thank you, commissioner compos, for the kind words. we have no position on the actual recommendation. we always tried to respond to essex within 10 days, pursuant to the board's wants.

our feeling is if the regulation was changed, that would be fine with us. if the commission wanted to proceed after therose 14 days, there have been a couple of instances where we have had a very complicated situation where we were about to a thin -- about to begin an investigation where it would be preferable when the ethics commission deferred for a little while while we were completing something. there are a couple of cases that have resulted in substantial criminal charges beyond the penalties. as a general rule it the commission wanted to start the investigation in 14 days with the disk -- the district attorney's office has no objection to that. supervisor campos: so if the regulation were to be changed, there is still on opportunity by

way of communication between your office and the ethics commission to make sure there are steps taken to the extent they are proceeding with their own matter, that that is not in any way negatively impacting your investigation? >> correct. supervisor campos: thank you very much. ok. i think that is it for me. thank you very much. i am wondering for the members of the civil grand jury there is anything else you would like to add? thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? let me just read a few leaves here on this item. francisco decaste, and anyone else would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> supervisors, the list you

could have done today is because we have a few people commenting that have given us three minutes. you choose to give us two minutes. supervisor campos: i thought we had given you three minutes. i am sorry. >> now that it is three minutes, you make my heart happy. i have been listening very carefully, and from the year 2004-2010, we appear before the sunshine task force on many issues, primarily with the shipyard, and you heard all the deliberations of the sunshine task force were sent to the ethics commission, and they did nothing about it. thousands of our children were impacted, the city attorney was involved, the district attorney was involved, and other entities were involved, and they

did nothing about the adverse impact to our children. bthe majority of the board of supervisors gave it to arroba developer who is now biting, laid to rest. i am here to state to you that we need the deliberations of the ethics commission on the television, and we have, according to the latest reports, 23 billion in our city. we can get money from other sources to make this happen, and there are numerous places, not only here at city hall, but the port authority were things can be televised and other areas, too. supervisors, as i stated to

you, many of us are fed up coming here talking to you supervisors, but you guys are not listening. i hear some comments from one or two of you that you do not like what the grand jury is saying because they represent us, and they have stated very clearly they do not use legalese and lying attorneys that come over here in use, belated -- and use convoluted language and say something but it means nothing. there is -- we have reached a stage in this city, and you stated recently of the board of supervisors that people are simply fed up. they're taking their grievances on line, and when you take it on line to the internet, it spreads everywhere, but i know, and i

hope those who went to harvard or some other higher institution will do the right thing. those who are just what products, i am one, they will be able to discern. i am asking you on behalf of the people of san francisco. thank you. supervisor campos: think you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i became a whistleblower in shortly there after i was forced out of my job. two years ago we made three whistle-blower complaints to the ethics commission, and i would like to tell you about each of them. the first one involves a conflict of interest between a contractor and the department of public health. two years went by before we took matters into our own hands and covered the dr. john had

received a $1.9 million contract from the comptroller's office and the department of public health, but his wife, high-level department of health manager had written and was intimately involved with. after sending numerous memos to the comptroller's office and ethics commission, the contract was revoked and the city save $400,000. then we reported the gift fund, a charitable trust for patients that was plundered by the book could haunt the administration to pay for staff amenities. -- by the lagunahonda hospital administration to pay for amenities. last week, we complained to ethics about the financial relationship between the health

director, and another for-profit consoles that help management. this was a straight forward violation of the city charter. the health director was working for a paid consultant while they were given the sole source no- bid contract by the department of public health. after two years, the ethics commission is still investigating the conflict of interest. it has been our experience that the findings of the civil grand jury are true, that the commission does not conduct timely and appropriate investigations. what about using some of the monies that are complaints save to televise the ethics commission meeting? in times of austerity, should the ethics commission look the other way while there are sweetheart deals going on between the director of helping contractors and why -- while the

contracts are being awarded to members and families of high- level managers? >> think ythank you. supervisor campos: thank you. that speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is there occur. i give a whistleblower and was laid off. -- name is david kerr. we filed the conflicts of interest report with the ethics commission and. we found the health director had collected over $30,000 from a city contractor named health management associates. at the same time, help manage and associates had received a hundred thousand dollars no-bid contract from the health department. after one most -- month the ethics commission sent are complete to the d.a.'s office

and city attorney, and then they stopped looking at it. meanwhile, i was terminated. i then filed a whistle-low or retaliation complaint and was told to get a lawyer. after nine months, the d a decline to press criminal charges and referred the criminal complaint back to ethics that have not done nothing. they told us our policy is not to investigate it the d.a. is involved. i said ok, show me a copy of the policy. there was no record responsive to my request. it was just what they were doing. two years after we filed the complaint remains under investigation. the sleeping watchdog moniker is appropriate the ethics commission is either unable or unwilling to act on complaints

against high-level city officials. there is increasing public concern that the ethics commission carries out such complaints. our only recourse thieves to be the media or the courts. it really should not be this way. please attempt to fill the grand jury's recommendations. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you, doctor. next speaker. >> this particular grand jury has inspired me. when i retire, i am going to apply for a seat on that body. given what has transpired during this hearing, i have changed by it remarks. i appreciate you introducing a resolution of some sort next week, but i ask you to expand

how the debt burden of televising commission hearings to also include the health department. it consumes 16 of the city budget and they should be required to hold their hearings in city hall and televise them. it is just as important to have that the commission meetings on tv. i would also ask you to consider the process of drafting language for city charter change to increase the commission membership by four. that is a long, convoluted process to write the language and move it through the board. the sooner you began writing that, i ask that you consider including in such a reform measure, not just the

membership, but other aspects that the family has been trying to move through the sunshine task force and to find a sponsor on the board of supervisors to deal with several transparency issues in city government. finally, the recommendation that you delay holding a hearing at this body on enforcement of sunshine actions, i respectfully disagree with them. i think the board of supervisors should try to be involved in the process of the process sees that will be worked out between the ethics commission and that this is an opportune time for you to be

involved in that, rather than waiting until the end of the process. finally, your resolution today indicates that the board's response to the grand jury states that you are urging the mayor to response -- to respond before this commission. i urge you to ask him to come before this commission. why he has taken no action on the ethics commission recommendation to remove her from the library. that is long overdue. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> walter folsom. ♪ find a slot of sfgovtv.

and when the day is cloudy, there is still a sunshine task force that shines on me. shine down on the ethics won't you please. ♪ whisper words of wisdom and find a slot on sfgovtv. and when the day is cloudy, sunshine task force shines down on me. ♪ supervisor campos: thank you, mr. paulson. next speaker, please. >> that was hot from better of

humor -- was one of the better ones. i think you very much for the comments you have made here today. televising the ethics commission is a crucial element. people of san francisco would really like to see that. they are concerned about it and want to know what is going on in city government. change is not easy. if you read the original report from mr. st. croix it was not very nice. in fact, it was very derogatory towards the circle grand jury. he has changed over the past couple of months, he has changed because of public opinion and because many of the remarks of the civil grand jury just makes sense. change is not easy. no one likes change, except for maybe the baby with the bad diaper.

think of the ethics commission as the bad diaper and make changes. i really feel good about what you folks are doing here today, the comet to amate, and please continue that and hold them to accountability. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is douglas yep. i am glad the constitution but people like me be politically incorrect. number one, the ethics commission should be headed by mr. joe quinlynn. i am sure he is looking down from heaven and has plenty to say. secondly, i am wondering by mr. oliver no longer works at the end of this commission. that in itself deserves an ethics commission. thirdly, a director says he does not have the money.

where does he get all the money for the tony hall case? i am still wondering what ever happened to the controversy will check? i am kind of figuring that somebody is stonewalling that aspect of the case. on the title it says it is a sleeping watchdog. i would like to suggest a more appropriate description of the ethics commission. i would describe it as a lap dog that kisses too much. one word was left out because it is a family tv show. now here is the bomb shell, and i am sure a lot of people know what i'm calling to say. the ethics commission uses loopholes to stonewalled