a $20 million tax break to twitter. you just issued $110 million for certificates of participation for the missoni convention center -- mosconi convention center. i am sure supervisor farrell read the article regarding this issue. while it is welcome to supervisor farrell, it is finally addressing part of the problem. you cannot claim that we have austere times if you're not going to require require -- require it being approved by the voters. in addition, if you would do salary reform before attempting to do pension reform, you would

not have such an austere time of things, and you could easily fund that one position. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors could i am douglas. in regards to item number two, i would like to know whether you had a chance to talk to micki callahan and bill ginsberg? according to my information, the two of them are very influential on the current hiring practices. i think that it is only prudent that the two of them be consulted. i am surprise the both of them are not here, especially mr. ginsberg, given that there was a demonstration against mr. ginsberg on west portal last sunday. somehow the mayor did not show up in time to see it. anyway, in regards to the hiring practices, i am still wondering,

what ever happened to the public demonstrations that happened at the department of public works on army street where there were many minority workers who claimed that they were mistreated and were not given the proper hiring practices? also, i would like to know what ever happened to the x-ray tax which was involved in a so- called wildcat strike, which resulted in a secret meeting upstairs at general hospital and later that night the suspicious death of a union leader? i am kind of wondering if the hiring practices were ever fixed at san francisco general in regards to the x-ray tax, and were the complaints of the workers at the department of public works on army street were ever resolved? thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. any other member of the public

that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. with respect to item two, colleagues, i wonder if we can go back to the motion, and i apologize for failing to do it in the right sequence. if we can take that motion again by supervisor farrell, which is a motion to accept finding number 5 and to expect a recommendation to number 5, the language that was provided to us by ms. campbell. we have that motion. if we can take that without objection. gatt thank you. madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item 3, hearing on the 2010- 2011 civil grand jury report entitled "san francisco's ethics commission: the sleeping watchdog." >supervisor campos: thank you very much. i would like to call again on the foreperson at the civil

grand jury. before i turn it over to you, i wanted to say that, you know, i have been dealing with civil grand juries for a number of years in different capacities before i was elected to the board of supervisors. i was an attorney for the school district, and there were various reports that, over the years, that were submitted by the civil grand jury that implicated my client that involved the school district. and i really believe that there is a very important role that civil grand juries play. and i think it is a good thing for all government agency, all levels of government to have private citizens who are volunteering their time, who come in with a fresh set of eyes and provide their perspective on how government agencies are doing or not doing things. and i think that is a very, very and valuable.

-- invaluable. i cannot emphasize that enough. from my perspective, the best thing that a government agency can do when dealing with a report from a civil grand jury is to really keep an open mind and really try to understand where the civil grand jury is coming from. there may be agreement or disagreement, but i think that is important to hear that prospective. so i want to reiterate my appreciation for the work you do, and this item relates to a very important function in not just of this government but any government, and that is the role that such an agency plays. so this is a very important item. again, i want to thank you for the work that was done. with that, madam foreperson --

>> thank you. we appreciate your kind words about the civil grand jury. in some ways, you sort of usurped what i was going to say, which is to reiterate what mr. rothman said. we're 19 individuals, citizens of san francisco, who are working only for the remaining citizens of san francisco to review the various departments and their operations. again, to reiterate, we do act independently. we do not have consultants assisting us. we have access to the city attorney, should we need it. but other than that, these reports are totally investigated by private citizens, the 19 members of the grand jury, and the reports that they write are solely the reports of those citizens based upon the information gathered by the various committees of the grand jury. i think it is important to remember that. our report that we're going to review now is on the topic of the ethics commission, the

sleeping watchdog. i am going to turn this report over to mr. bryant clemmons, who was the juror who chaired that subcommittee for us. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. and thank you for your service, and welcome to the meeting. >> thank you, supervisors. when i started on the grand jury, and never thought that i would be investigating the ethics commission. initially, it was not even anything we were thinking about investigating. we were looking at something else, and that investigation brought us into the ethics commission for part of that other report. some of the things that we saw other kind of surprised us. because the ethics commission is supposed to be the organization that is watching out for the citizens and making sure that the rest of the government is functioning in the way we expected to. we found a number of things, and like we said in our report, we're not trying to be a complete review the ethics commission.

this is just a small part of the ethics commission. it was not the main focus. but we found a few things that seemed, looking at it with a fresh set of eyes, as you said, just did not make sense to us. so we thought we would bring these things separate from another report to make sure that they got enough information. one of the things that really disturbs us was relating to the sunshine or dance task force. and whenever the sunshine ordinance, whenever the task force found a problem, we noticed that there items have to get sent to the ethics commission for the hearing. from 2004 through 2010, in all of the cases that got sent to the ethics commission, every single one of them got dismissed. for various reasons. facts did not supported. yeah, one group of individuals

found that there was a problem. yet, another group found there was not. i could see it happening sometimes, but every single one has seemed a bit excessive. and it seemed like the sunshine or dance task force was being suppressed by the ethics commission because of the lack of a public hearing on the discussion topics that were brought forward to them. some of the other elements that we found were the membership of the commission and the way that the commission functions, while not directly towards your area, the scope and size of the commission, all the commission members are appointed by the people they are supposed to be overseeing. and while its -- there were not directed things that we could

see, there were items that were not brought up that we thought should have been brought up, but they got sidelined due to the processes that are currently engaged in the ethics commission. and we looked at a number of ways to try to rearrange some of that, and one of the approaches we came up with is one of our recommendations, which is number four, to add an additional members to the ethics commission which are not part of -- not appointed by the people they are overseeing. that they are appointed by independent groups. we feel that adding additional members to the commission would allow the commission to function better, and it would provide additional oversight within the structure of the commission to provide the transparency that the public is expecting with the ethics commission. and then, finally, the last item

i want to talk about is the recording of the commission meetings. currently, there audio recording, which is better than a lot of the commissions, but we feel that as the voice for the citizens and the ones that are supposed to be providing open government, that they do not provide and cannot find money in their budget to televise their sessions. it just seems disingenuous that only one-half of 1% of their total budget -- they cannot find that much money in their budget to spend to broadcast in their meetings, as opposed to providing an audio recording. with that, i will keep my comments brief, so thank you. supervisor campos: ok, thank you very much. why don't we now hear from the ethics commission? i do not know if -- or from the mayor's office?

>> thank you. i am from the mayor's budget office. thank you for letting me speak briefly about this report. the ethics commission, in conjunction with the offices of the district attorney and city attorney, have and will continue to work diligently to approach all complaints received. the ethics commission does investigate a variety of matters on a case by case basis. but the commission does strive to address all complaints in a timely manner. the mayor's office believes that many of the recommendations of the civil grand jury are reasonable. however, either because of limited resources or competing jurisdictions over subject matter or because some recommended changes require voter approval, certain recommendations may not be appropriate or feasible in all instances. with respect to the recommendations needing mayor's office responses, the mayor's office is believes, for recommendation four, that it would require further analysis,

as this recommendation requires voter approval. with respect to recommendations 7, this also requires further analysis. but the mayor's office will work with the ethics commission on broadcasting meetings on the city's television network. supervisor campos: i would like to ask a little bit more about that. i mean, why does that require further analysis? from my perspective, if you are going to have the kind of robust agency that you want to see, then one of the key elements of that is making sure that the public is aware, you know, of what the agency is doing. and that is why, with respect to the board of supervisors and many commissions, the meetings are televised.

and i think that any supervisor here on the board can tell you that we definitely here, from time to time, as we're walking around our neighborhoods are our districts, around the city, people provide specific comments about something we said or did or did not say or deny do, and i think that is important. so why should that level of transparency and scrutiny not apply to the ethics commission, which plays such an important role in making sure that government functions with a degree of, you know, the highest ethical standards possible? what further analysis do you need to have on that? >> well, one of the main things in our response is there is a budgetary impact or the department does have to find money in its budget to fund the

services of the city's television network. but more importantly, and this is for the further analysis comes in, is that there are a finite number of rooms in city hall that are available at certain times. so we would have to look at what time the ethics commission meets in which rooms are available that are hooked up for broadcast. you know, this is the first time that i am hearing of the particular recommendation, so we will work with the ethics commission if this is of the end of the board of supervisors wants to push forward to find the available space that has broadcast capabilities and work with the ethics commission to see what can be done with its budget with respect to funding this particular service. and that is why it requires further analysis. supervisor campos: ok. i am sure that is something that

can be worked out. i think that finding a room in city hall should not be that difficult. but in any event, i do not know if there's anything elsewe see i did not know if you want to add anything? >> did you want me to talk specifically to this? supervisor farrellcampos: it iso you. >> thank you, supervisor. if i could just very briefly address each of the recommendations. >> each of the grand jury suggested a fixed fine structure to have some continuity. in this particular case, the ethics commission does disagree with the finding, because we

believe that there are a host of different reasons were identical infractions occur, and the punishment needs to fit the crime, and that we need to analyze these. we are, however, going to more formalized the nature of the criteria that we determine the kinds, so there is an explanatory process about how we reach the decisions. on the side of finding regarding sunshine -- second finding regarding sunshine, in august of 2010 the ethics commission adopted a series of proposals to treat this differently, including sunshine hearings and public and expediting the process by which the researy ree full commission for hearing. we refer to the task force and

their comments. this past august they issued the response to us. in addition to commenting on our proposals, they suggested a large number of their own. we are currently reviewing those, in the ethics commission plans to consider them at the november meeting of this year. that will, i believe, dissuade some of the concerns regarding sunshine actions. supervisor farrell: do you disagree with the language? -- supervisor chiu: the language we're being asked to consider is all sunshine ordnances deserve a time when hearing. are you ok with that language? >> yes. the third recommendation regarding the investigation should begin immediately upon

the close of the 14-day reply window offered to the city attorney, this the commission agrees with and will endeavor to get to investigations in a fast and efficient method. using the best way it has to prioritize cases. finding for the ethics commission is neutral on. elected officials appoint the ethics commission. obviously the elected are the representatives of the people. if the voters choose to make this change, the ethics commission will switch up the case. finding no. 5, the ethics commission has already acted on prior to this report. two members of the ethics commission had to request that i

am become entered for dismissal or settlement. the ethics commission has adopted a new regulation that a single member of the commission can cause these to be countered for consideration by the full commission. finding number six, we take seriously our ability to track issues efficiently. we're always upgrading our system, trying to make it interactive and user friendly. we certainly continue to do that. we do have a system in place to track records and record request that we think is working, but we are talking with that to ensure request for documents of information are handled properly. finally, on the television issue, the ethics commission has decided to endorse televising its meetings. in the past i understand we're talking about $24,000 per year, which day -- may not be a lot of

money, but my the commission has been a shortstop since i got there. my priority has always been when we got budget request for additional staff, we have reduced every other account we have except salaries. even so, we had 18 staffers a few years ago and 16 now. it is not a case of i cannot find $24,000 on my budget. i will be able to do that one way or another. it was not again -- the ethics commission did not have this oas a priority. supervisor chiuampos: you and i have talked about this in the past. in terms of good government, $24,000 pays for itself in a matter of minutes. if i introduced something on tuesday, but this coming tuesday, and i would ask the

city attorney, the comptroller's 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.