2008. an investigation they claim is complete, the question is, it is my district supervisor are residents during the 2008 election cycle? it ed chu was investigated publicly and chris daly was investigated publicly, then what happened to this sitting supervisor? there should be no difference between the three of them, and i take the viewpoint of is it is -- it is a simple question -- yes or no? for three years the city attorney's office has sat on it without doing anything about it. i was told on the phone that the same investigators that handle chris daly were supposed to handle this one. they were totally uncooperative with me.

i basically just gave up. my parting words for everyone in this room, that in the future everyone should remember the following three ideas -- #one, obstruction of justice, never to come a dereliction of duty, and number three, abuse of power. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public? former commissioner. good morning. how're you? >> i am an attorney who lives and practices in the city. i am a former member of the ethics commission. i served from 2004-2010. the proceedings here thus far almost make me miss city hall. [laughter] i came on to the commission during a time of great turmoil

in 2004 and had a different executive director, and i have to say -- i think i am in minority with regard to the public, but the commission has experienced a period of growth and stability. essex has a relatively small staff, 16 now, much smaller than when i first became chair. -- ethics has a relatively small step, 60 now, much smaller than when i first became chair. at least some of you know, perhaps from first-time experience, that there are works in connection with campaign finances that are quite remarkable. i hear from folks in the community how helpful and professional the staff of the ethics commission were to them when they had to file their campaign finance disclosure statements. our improvements needed? their course. what city agency does not?

speaking specifically to the findings there were too, for come in seven. should hearings be held in connections with sunshine complaints and should be open and held in a timely manner? absolutely. so much of what we're talking about has had to do with capacity. we of two investigators, maybe three at one point, what we did not always have that capacity. whenever you have less resources, it is hard to have things happen in a timely manner. with regard to increasing the number of commissioners, i think it makes that a little and willie adenine, but i will leave that to you all. -- unwilly, but i will leave that to you all. at least one of the suggestions i think was.

you may be looking at retired judges, government studies come other entities that are also in this space. with regard to the televised hearings, if there is money for it, absolutely. when we first looked at the issue, i looked at $65,000 per year. we have to make hard choices, we chose not to do that. i am happy to take any questions if you have any. supervisor campos: thank you. the to buy much, and thank you for your service. public comment is closed. in terms of proceeding, we have a resolution before us that as that the board of supervisors in this committee included to take this issue with respect to finding 2, 4, and seven and adjust to reiterate, basically

go back to what the findings are, finding no. 2 is stating familiar of the ethics commission to inform us -- and forced task force actions and reduces the effectiveness of the sunshine ordinance. there is a recommendation attached to that of all sunshine ordinance task force actions.

the recommendation is to maximize transparency. >> before we go on what would you like to table -- supervisor campos: we are still on item number three. item #3 is the hearing. can we table that item so we have a motion to table? we could take that without objection. we now go to an item number four. >> item number four, resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2010-200011 civil grand jury report entitled san francisco's ethics commission, the sleeping watchdog." wsupervisor campos: we have

before us a decision with regard to the findings of the resolutions. before we turn it to public comment if any of the commissioners would like to say anything. if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this item, please come forward. >> i have not quite finish my comment on the discussion earlier, but the mayor needs to be held to account, whether at question time or before this committee, about why he has taken no action on removing jewell gomez from the library at the recommendation of the ethics commission. when you begin drafting language for a charter change on the composition of the ethics commission and additional changes to increase transparency in city government, there needs

to be an enforcement and penalty added to the powers of the ethics commission, such that even the mayor should be penalized when he fails to take action on a recommendation that has taken years to wind through a hearing of the ethics commission, two years before sunshine task force member sue clausen's case even had a hearing. you may or may not at the conclusion of the ethics commission hearing that found miss gomez had violated the sunshine ordinance, i went to congratulate her being the first person in city history to have been found violative by the ethics commission, in the first person in city history to being

referred to the mayor for removal of office. when i approached her to congratulate her, she flipped her jacket at me trying to strike me. there does not need to be an actual strike to constitute an assault. she is salted meat in the hallway of city hall, and the mayor trying to run for elected office has no business doing so unless he is going to enforce referrals sent to him from the ethics commission. ed lee should not become mayor if he is going to willfully ignored the recommendation made from the ethics commission. thank you. supervisor campos: 6 speaker, please. >> my name is jeff ente.

i was one of the complaints. i want to give you first-hand experience of what that was like. it was my only complaint, and i tried not to do it, but i heard the supervisor talk of that document that did not exist. i filed a complaint to the supervisors and let's see these documents and it was ignored. i want to frank darby. i got an e-mail back from the supervisors that sang perhaps it would delete it. i know about emails and knew they could not be deleted. i filed the sunshine complaint. the supervisor in question ignored the task force. i would go and sit and do my homework and we would be called and i would be there, and the supervisors representative did not show up. finally after nasty letters from the task force, they did show

up and said about the deleted thing and the task force said you should not have deleted them, and you did not believe them, because you can go to the court and get them back, so why don't you do that? from that fit was a bad deal. as i was there i noticed there was not the only one showing up. i remember saying how can this be? how can the city on every page of the website say we were right? he said something very telling, and it applies to previous remarks about being resource- wrapped. it it really was just being resources-wrapped, they would better serve the public by saying we know what the obligation is, we will get to it, but it may not be as quickly and timely or as the row as either one of us look like. perhaps you should look at alternative legal remedies. instead they did not say

anything, and they give members of the public the feeling they will pursue it. for that reason the whole thing fell apart. it went on for literally a year or so for waiting for the supervisor to show up. from the very start people are telling me you are wasting your time. people in the building know they have nothing to fear from the ethics commission on sunshine. i did not believe it. i want up wasting a year or so, and quite frankly, i was the person who believed what i read that came out of this government before that, in my interaction with ethics is now i take -- think everything needs to be verified at this point. this falthank you. supervisor campos: thank you. net speaker. -- next speaker. >> my name is douglas yelp.

if mr. joe lynn was here the ethics commission would be far different and actually accomplish something they would be proud of. if they do not have the money to televise, where does he get the money on the tony hall case? in my opinion that case could have been resolved in roughly 30 minutes of face-to-face negotiation. secondly, mr. lynn mentioned to me that the ethics commission has the ability to refuse to put its findings in writing using different loopholes as he told me over the phone, even joe live in that cannot stop him. of course i had nothing to do after he told me that. what i feel the ethics

commission should be doing is to protect the citizens. in the case that i had mentioned earlier, there were two witnesses committed. i asked the enforcement officer at the ethics commission for a simple yes or no answer. number one, did you talk with the first witness? no answer. no. two, did you talk with the second witness, mr. phil ginsberg? no answer. to this day i still do not have a written answer whether they even talked to the witnesses. obviously if they are not want to tell me they even talk to the witnesses, i can see why the case is still unresolved. you were telling me the city has the money to support an agency like this? -- you are telling me the city has no money to support an

agency like this? it the ethics that fell want to do the job, they are free to go do another job. i hear they're hiring in china, so maybe they can go there, and i am sure they can lose -- learn chinese. back to the ethics commission -- it is not a sleeping watchdog, it is not a watchdog at all. it is basically a lap dog, just like are referred to the local press. that is why there is very little criticism of what goes on in the city and county of san francisco. if you have a lap dog press and laptop ethics commission, obviously the citizens throw up their hands and pray we could vote for new president. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. any of the member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, we have heard from the civil grand jury. we have heard from the mayor's office. the ethics commission. the public. now we have to take a position with respect to findings 2, 4 and 7. supervisor farrell -- president chu. supervisor chiiu. supervisor chiu: thank you. i think we had a good discussion. colleagues, my perspective on these recommendations, as i stated before, i am comfortable with the board supporting recommendations 2 and 7 with regard to time the hearings and the enforcement action recommendations as well as moving forward around broadcasting meetings on sfgov tv, although a hope we can

figure out how to do that with regards to the budget unsettling. with regards to item four, i am not prepared to support specific recommendations that a laid out in the proposed recommendations. what i might suggest is that of language that states with regards to item number four, we did not take a position with regards to the specific legislation, but we would be open to considering other options to think about the ethics commission could continue to not involve any appearances of impropriety and leave it open for the future if there will be other discussions by the board. supervisor campos: we have a motion by president chiu. supervisor farrell: that is fine with me. vice thing was listing specific

entities. and -- my specific thing was listing specific entities. i would prefer we do not specifically name any organizations here, so that satisfies that and is fine by me. supervisor campos: city attorney. >> the committee should also respond to the findings, as well as the recommendation. i am not sure that was it implied. supervisor campos: i think president chiu to clarify -- does that mean you agree with the findings 2, 4, 7, but have a different take on recommendation 4? supervisor chiu: i am fine with finding membenumber 7. i would be curious to know what

others think about that. supervisor campos: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: to be honest, i have no opinion you can take it on face value, but it does weaken the cool, so i am fine with it the way it is. ansupervisor campos: from my perspective i agree with the findings. i think there are maybe differences in opinion as to what some of the reasons maybe, and i think staffing may be one of those issues, but i do have a very real concern about what is happening with respect to the issue and find a number two in the enforcement of sunshine or dance task force actions, and i think that needs further discussion, and i think the recommendation as stated makes sense, which is that all enforcement actions deserve a timely hearing by the ethics

commission. i do not think that it's a radical concept. with respect to finding member four, i again, i think that there is an issue there about the appearance of impropriety. i agree with president chiu, i am not sure the specific recommendation is necessarily the way to go. it maybe there are some elements here that can be emulated. i think what we need to do is to have a larger discussion about what the makeup of the ethics commission should look like, and i think that is something that will take more time, and hopefully more input than only from the civil grand jury, but from the community at large. i think the language used suggested that leads that open it makes sense, but i think that

it is important for us to agree with the finding, and i think an example where the civil grand jury has been very helpful in opening a dialogue that needs to be had. with respect to number seven, i am fine with the findings and recommendation. it would basically be agreeing with the findings and agreeing with the recommendation, except with recommendation no. four as modified by president chiu. we have a motion by president chiu. supervisor chiu: with regards to recommendations #four, it should probably reap the board of supervisors this topic of this is the -- specific position but it is appropriate to consider future options to reduce the appearance of impropriety on the part of the ethics commission -- something like that. supervisor campos: yes. we have that motion.

can we take that motion without objection? again, i want to thank the members of the civil grand jury for the service to the city and county of san francisco. there will be more reports hurt by this committee in coming weeks. i want to thank the executive director of the ethics commission for being here. there may be differences of opinion from different folks on these issues, but i want to reiterate my thanks for your responsiveness and presence and for the work you and your staff are trying to do at the ethics commission. mayor's office for being here. city attorney. district attorney's office, and especially to members of the public who have taken time out of their schedules to be here today. and to those of you watching. madam clerk, is there any other business before the committee? >> there is no other business. supervisor campos: think you. meeting adjourned.

-- thank you. >> good morning, everyone.

we're coming up of a busy weekend. our efforts have been validated from huge crowds over the weekend. highlight clip. ♪

>> a hit the ways. ve. >> it was very exciting. we had over 100,000 watching on the shore. that really helped to solidify the idea that this would be quite exciting. i have incurred all of you to have a look at the pilots that are online from yesterday's final day of racing. we had another capsize which is not shown in this video. there was a crash before the start. we also have some pretty spectacular performance on the water by these guys. lots of positive comments coming out of this event. getting you some background on the concept, more death of mayor

we are going with this, -- depth, where we are going with this. being in newport, rhode island this past weekend, there is a whole community of jealous people that wish that they were in your shoes. as we talk about the concept, it has always been about technology, innovation. it has a wonderful 160-year history, and now we are combining that history and tradition with a new approach, still paying tribute to the innovation, with these catamaran that are unbelievably fast, and they are the star of the show. this is very much like formula one racing.

>> would you mind sitting down and getting closer to the microphone? >> ok, to touch further on the point and to explain what is going on, the ac 45 is the catamaran that you see being featured in the america's cup series. that will be featured through the end of the year. for the final, which means the bulk of what you will see in 2013, will be sailed in ac-72's, the much larger, faster version of craft.

that will be debuted in training and practices happening in the events of the louis vuitton cup. our theme and mono is, the best sailors, the fastest votes. as we build the products and redefine the future of america's cup, it is our intention and motivation to take this message around the world so that every youth sailor, every non-sailor, professional sailor is aware of the fact that this is the pinnacle of the sport, the highest level of competition, and the aspirational target for any young athlete who would want to reach the pinnacle of their sport. the first time