them for the fort mason position, recognizing that if it's not offered to you, that may be unnecessary, but at least to take that potential road block out of the way or let us consider that. am i going further than you meant in the. chairperson hur: i did ask whether that was something that would be helpful to mr. selna. i'm not sure how far along we can go in that. >> whether you would be to do it this evening? i'm sorry. i didn't know that's what you were asking. yeah, i would more than welcome your input or a decision on that particular -- that matter, and i'm happy to provide you with more detail about it if you'd like to the extent that i know it and again, so, please, yeah, i'd be more than happy for you to do that. and i can answer whatever questions that i can answer that may be relevant to it.

chairperson hur: i suggest we take public comment and then perhaps we'll invite you back up, mr. selna. >> thanks very much. i understand this is unprecedented and there are unknowns for you but i truly do believe, given the limited amount of time and limited contacts that i had, it's a unique situation. so i appreciate your time. i appreciate you considering it seriously and i understand the challenge you're confronting. chairperson hur: thanks very much. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is joe boss, i'm a native of san francisco. i'm here because i saw rob selna's name on your agenda as i was perusing my favorite thing,

city government. what i do for a living basically is strategy and outreach for businesses and developers, and it's really based on my activism in the neighborhood. i live in dog patch. i've been there for 28 years and worked many, many different projects, i've been on a lost task forces, the power plant task force for the board of supervisors or zero emotions task force for the mayor and i'm kind of a go-to person for the neighborhood, successfully filing several different actions against muni because they march by their own drummer, not because i'm trying to cause the city duress. what i have found is, i probably get as many phone calls from

supervisors or ledge aides or reporters, probably twice as many as i ever make to try to drive a point or discover something and i first met rob selna during -- while the city was fighting the power plant at patrarro, an expansion, and i've always found him to be the most straightforward and ethical reporter. now, that may be an oxymoron, i don't know. but -- so when i saw that, i said, well, hmm, good luck, rob, with a, you know, a straight-across-the-board waiver so i guess i'm here as much as a character witness as much as someone who is often could -- accused of being a lobbyist

because i may know who to call to file an appeal or try to get something resolved and i'm not a fighter, i'm a solver, and i think you get a lot more accomplished with education than you do with placating so that's why i'm here and i really -- anything you can do for mr. selna, he's a great asset to the city or anyone he works for. very bright guy. thank you. chairperson hur: thank you, mr. boss. >> i just happen to have with me the final e.i.s. for the f-line extension. if i can share that with mr. selna, we can go over it after the meeting. i think you've actually captured the issue very well. i think this request actually is a bit premature. i'm not sure given both the description on the agenda and the amount of information that you have in writing that you're

able to evaluate a specific request with regard to the fort mason center tonight. i would also note by the way that the new executive director of the fort mason center foundation, a former city employee, is now on the city's board of appeals so that may create the appearance of some convoluted mode of access and i want to be clear they know mr. selna a little bit, he's a fine, fine fellow, and my comments are not about his character but about the nature of the request that's before you and the approval process for a waiver, having been through this at many past meetings. i don't believe in this case that the criteria were met. i don't believe you should grant a broad waiver in the way that's being proposed. i don't believe that you have enough facts for a specific waiver and so i would recommend,

following further discussion, that you not act on this tonight but lay out some conditions perhaps for this to come back to you and if it's so warranted, the usual practice is that the individual leaves city service, lines up some other opportunity, either starts with that without communicating to city folks that that person is at that time unable to communicate with and then seeks the waiver and, if granted, is able to communicate. that's been the normal course of events. and i see no reason for that to be different in this case and finally to reiterate a point i've made several times before, where an individual is leaving city service in a compensated position, is obtaining employment in another compensated position, i believe that individual should have to pay some fee for the deliberation that you're now going through to consider this

request. there's been time at this meeting, staff time involved, your time, sfgtv, a lot of time that goes into processing these requests that is not captured and i think it's something we should consider in the future where it's a compensated position. i clearly see that the private interest is being served by this consideration and i see much less that a public interest is served. i see that we're establishing a process but i don't see that the general fund should have to bear the cost of these requests. chairperson hur: thank you. commissioners, comments on this matter? i think going back to commissioner hayon's point and looking at the language relating

to the fort mason center position, it's not clear to me that there would even be any communication on behalf of fort mason center with m.t.a. in this position as it is currently described and i am worried that it would be premature to grant a waiver. however, my personal view is that as described here, it seems like a waiver would be forthcomi with the subject to whatever the complete facts are based on what i see here if mr. selna were to come back, this seems like a waiver i would be in favor of but as of now, i'm reluctant to grant him a waiver given that there is no position to consider. any further thoughts or questions for mr. selna?

>> i have a question for staff related to this but separate from the waiver so when we are done with the waiver issues, i do have something i'd like to ask staff. chairperson hur: ok. is there a motion to grant the waiver? there being no motion, at this point, we cannot grant the waiver. miss ing, have i screwed that up procedurally? >> i believe so, yes. chairperson hur: there needs to be a motion to -- >> i'm sorry. was your question, if there's no motion to grant the waiver, is this done? are you done? i thought that was your

question. the answer is, yes, if that was your question. but if your question was something else, i'm sorry. chairperson hur: my question was had i screwed that up procedurally but it sounds like it was procedurally fine. >> yeah. chairperson hur: ok. mr. selna, you wanted to say something. >> i was just hoping to clarify what you said. you said because there's no -- you don't have enough information about the specific position that you cannot at this time entertain the possibility of a waiver. chairperson hur: it's my view as one member of the commission that the question is practice -- premature in light of the fact that you don't have the position, you're not asking us for a waiver for a specific position and it's not even chlor that the job would require communications with m.t.a., at least according to your letter. >> ok. going forward, just to give me

an idea going forward if i wanted to come back before you in march, what would you need to know from me? what are the things that -- mr. pelpel mentioned the criteria. i read the code pretty clearly. what things would you like to know about a prospective position because it may be a situation where i haven't, you know, necessarily nailed down the position and i'm trying to get it. i just don't know. i'm just interested in ideas about what would be helpful for you all to hear from me with regard to a particular potential position or a particular position. chairperson hur: i think in general the key is potential. i think what we don't want to see is sort of a request every month for jobs -- every job you're applying for because it's

difficult for us to decide without something concrete as to what the issue -- what the actual conflict is. it does sound like you've read the code and you understand what the criteria are and certainly a position that has as a requirement communication with a government entity would likely be more salient than one that didn't. i don't think i'm on a limb when i say that. but in general, i think you're going to be better off coming to us when you have a position and, again, we understand the urgency that comes when you're trying to get -- when you're applying for a job and you have this ban and so we will certainly do our best to be reasonable in responding. >> ok.

you mentioned special meetings. i know there's a meeting in march. would you urge me to request a special meeting if i get to a situation where there's more of an immediate answer that's required? chairperson hur: i can't urge you either way but i suggest that you talk to staff as i know you have in the past and seek their guidance to the extent that's relevant. >> ok. thank you very much. i hope to be before you soon. chairperson hur: thank you, mr. cell nampt good luck. >> thank you. >> my question for staff is this, how are employees of the city advised of the ethics rules that apply to them? it won't surprise you what i'm reacting to is the paragraph on

the last page of mr. selna's letter which said he did not receive information about the one-year restriction and i think it then is broader than that. so i will just like to be reminded about how we advise -- what part of new employee, i think the current terminology is "on-boarding," not a very attractive phrase -- in the hiring and orientation process, bringing new employees on board, where in the hiring and orientation process are people advised that there are ethics rules that apply to them and, in particular -- i don't want to presume that it's not happening and i don't want to presume that it happened and he didn't understand it but it did flag for me that at heart we don't

want the rules that will apply to people to be a surprise to them. so it may be that it would be easier to tell us this in the future and just summarize for us what the process is by which somebody would know they were covered by ethics rules, s.i.a.'s and so forth and in particular because this is a significant limitation on people within these offices, how they learn about it -- is there office supposed to tell them, is it within the larger documents they get. up to you whether you want to tell us what you know now. >> i can give you a very general response. generally all employees are provided an employee handbook issued by the city and county of san francisco. vice chair studley: how big? >> not too big.

in the employee handbook, there's reference to the ethics commission, also to conflict of interest laws and state of incompatibility. the handbook itself doesn't summarize every single rule but i believe employees are advised to contact the ethics commission if they have any questions. that's number one. number two is that when our commission -- when our staff provides ethics training and we have done that for a number of departments in the past, especially when we're dealing with the statements of incompatible activities, when we're rolling them out, we talk about the rules that governor city employees, in particular, post-employment rules. we have not hit every single department and one of them is timing issue, one of them is whether or not the other department has space available

for us to provide the training. but we try to do that. we do let people know, do let other departments know that we are available to provide training. the third thing is that all these things are posted on our website. one -- i mean, we try to inform people of what the rules are. we don't always succeed and i understand that but we're always trying. vice chair studley: you know, my question isn't really related to this particular individual situation but it's very -- i can imagine that it's very easy to say i will -- you're considering taking a new position, i will operate ethically and if i'm doing something that raises a question, i will seek out what the rules are and conflicts and watch for conflicts and you

think what you're describing are a group of rules that you'll run into if there are ethical concerns and while they may not all be absolutely clear on their faces that this one is different in its type because it is a -- an affirmative ban. it is a limitation that has nothing to do with whether you are getting involved in certain kinds of transactions. it is a restriction on what you -- or may be able to do after you've taken this job. any job with, in this case with the mayor's office or the board of supervisors, that is not obvious as a matter of common sense before you step in ethically sensitive territory find out what you're allowed to do, this is -- i may not be

describing this very well -- but it is a restriction that many people might feel they ought to know about that doesn't come with simply, "i will be a responsible, ethical employee of the agency" that i'm joining and i wondering at some point whether we might do something to help people and there's a lot we can do and we don't have time to hold everybody's hand through the orientation process but there are requirements like this or realities that sometimes people have to sign an affirmative letter at the time of hiring or that could be flagged within the orientation materials for city employees to just say that this is something you might want to be aware of before you -- maybe it's too

late at orientation where you've taken the job. maybe it should be part of the offer letter. it just is significant enough and unusual enough because it's not common, a common sort of limitation in the private sector or in academia or other kinds of roles, that might be worth calling attention to. what i can't say is whether this is the most important of those. it may be that if we actually asked ourselves the question, are people learning about enough when they enter city service about the way these rules could affect them, this may not be the most important of them or may not be the one that is the most surprising to people. it may just be a matter of having our education staff person aware of this question and thinking about it especially in the roles where we did change

it recently and therefore it has government-wide effect, to just ask if we are being helpful in letting people know about that consequence of entering public employment. end of speech. chairperson hur: commissioner hayon? commissioner hayon: as a follow-up, my question is, what is the penalty for violating this particular rule? i mean, what's to prevent people from just going ahead -- the same way other things, you know, someone reports, is a whistleblower and somebody brings it to our attention but there's no active enforcement of this rule, is there? >> the penalties are the same penalties that apply to any violations of the conflict of interest laws so there could be criminal penalties, administrative penalties, civil penalties, injunctive relief. we've never really encountered

it where we became aware of somebody violating the post-employment rules. chairperson hur: thank you, commissioners. i think point well taken. the next item on the agenda is the election of the chair and vice chair to serve for the coming year. are there -- is there a nomination for the chair? >> i would like to to nominate our current chair for a second term. chairperson hur: are there any other -- i understand we don't need seconds for nominations. are there any other nominations?

maybe we'll take public comment on this? any discussion among the commissioners? >> i would let the record reflect that we got a thumb's up from public comment on that nomination, two thumb's up. chairperson hur: all in favor of the nomination for chair? >> aye. chairperson hur: any opposed? so i guess i have been re-elected chair for the coming year. nominations for vice chair? nominations for vice chair? >> i nominate commissioner studley for vice chair, as she is in her current position. chairperson hur: any other nominations for vice chair? public comment?

>> i'm certainly in support. i want to be clear. the leadership of this commission involves not just what we see in public but a lot of discussion with staff on timing and appropriateness of things and i appreciate the work that happens that we don't see and i hope the other three commissioners will think about their roles in the future since you serve longer terms than some so the public out here does expect some level of rotation so don't think that if you're not getting hit this time that we're not going to ask at some point in the future. but with that, you're both doing a fine job and so are all of you. thank you very much. >> the rules as well as the public require a certain degree of rotation, as well. >> we can't get entrenched. chairperson hur: we've had a nomination so we need a note. all in favor of the nomination

of commissioner studley to remain at vice chair? >> aye. chairperson hur: opposed? is there being none, commissioner studley is elected as vice chair. the next item on the agenda is the minutes of the commission's meeting of january 23. commissioners, any comments or changes? miss ing? >> there's one spelling error for hillary ronan. we understand the correct spelling is r-o-n-e-n. chairperson hur: any other comments from the commissioners? public comment? >> david pillpill, two items on page three in the middle, donna marion, human resources director of the san francisco -- i think

it should say public library, to be clear. and at the top of page four, the reference to deputy city attorney shen should probably be spelled out, "deputy city attorney." i think the minutes should be a little more formal. thank you very much. chairperson hur: thank you. with those changes, would anybody like to discuss those changes? with those changes, is there a motion to approve the minutes from the january 2012 meeting? >> so moved. >> second. chairperson hur: all in favor? >> aye. chairperson hur: opposed? there being none, that motion passes. just for clarification, does commissioner renee vote in that even though he was not here? commissioner renee: i didn't know anything about it. >> yes, you do vote.

chairperson hur: i don't think commissioner renee voted. commissioner renee: i did. chairperson hur: you did, ok. commissioner renee: you didn't ask for an abstention so i voted. chairperson hur: thank you. the next item on the agenda is the executive director's report. >> could the executive director succumb to the dread disease running all over time? chairperson hur: the executive director has indeed appeared to have succumbed to that nasty virus. any questions or comments from the commissioners with respect to the executive director's report? public comment? >> david pillpel again. i think there were a couple of typos on page three about the

year, wasn't the november 2012 meetings, i believe it was november 2011, page three, in the middle. >> we're now in 2012. >> right, that were approved by the commission at its october and november 2012 meetings. i don't think those have happened yet. >> gotcha. thank you. >> i would note that the legislation that was at the rules committee last week and the previous week, actually, are both at the board tomorrow, i believe, so we'll see what happens there. perhaps they will seek a legislatively solution and we will not be on the ballot. we will see how that all rolls out. there was one other thing here and i forget what now. oh, it's nice to see that dr. greer is now off the b.d.r.

list. i've mentioned before that there were a number, as in three, current or former members of the college board on the b.d.r. list and i think we should seek ways to deal with the other two. it seems odd to me that a seven-member elected board would have three current or former members with fines outstanding. that seems like something we should try to avoid. i'll leave it at that the for the moment. more in a bit. thanks. >> i do have a question that i would have asked the executive director. i understand why it's not in his report. we're attempting to schedule the joint meeting with the sunshine task force. do you know how that is proceeding? chairperson hur: yes. we had a tentative date of february 24 where all of the february 24 where all of the ethics commissioners could