in the minutes from february 27, her -- 27, and may have been unclear, but on page two, fourth paragraph, i believe that my question, the intent of my question which i may not have communicated was whether or not library staff provides training through some outside agency is to san francisco public library staff, and i can imagine that i garbled it, but i think if we leave it this way, it creates the impression that i did not want them to be training, and that was not my intent, so if folks are comfortable with making that revision, i think it

would be truer to the conversation. does anybody else have any questions or comments about these minutes? do i hear a motion to approve the february 27 minutes? a second? public comment? >> david pilpel, i think the comment that i made could be misinterpreted. the second sentence, where he also stated that two college board members should not be on the list. i think what i was referencing would essentially it would be nice if efforts were made to resolve the issues so they were not on the list, not that they were incorrectly listed, and i will leave that to staff to word that in a way that makes sense.

vice president studely: ok. i understand that change. ok. thank you. there is a motion to approve the minutes of february 27. all in favor, please say aye. as amended. all in favor, please say aye. thank you very much. ok, and march 9, the special meeting minutes, any questions or comments from the commissioners? do i hear a motion? public comment? >> david pilpel again. at the top of page two, i'd think that reference should be spelled out, and again, on my

public comment, the second paragraph that started, "he stated that there could be a possible lawsuit from treating incumbents differently than other candidates." i am not sure that i refer to a lawsuit. if i said lawsuits, then feel free to use that, but if i did not, then i think "concern" or "problem" is a better word. also, moving the filing back to election -146 days, the proposal actually changes it to the election minus selling 146 days. i supported the election of minus 88 days, so, again, it just needs to read better, and that was to not extend the campaign season. vice president studely: so also

moving the election back minus 88 days an order not to extend? or an order to avoid extending prove a case. we have a motion on the table to approve the minutes of march 9 with those two changes. all in favor, please say aye. thank you very much. and now it is time for the executive director's report. executive director: just a couple of things. the matter regarding the sheriff, scheduling is very difficult. bear with me as i try to get those dates, because i have to get all five of you and the mayor's representatives and the sheriff and his representatives. there are only two rooms that really are available, so i will

continue to keep working on that. i will be -- vice president studely: have you found a day where all of the people are available but the room is not prove frustrating. >> i would not press you to make it on a day when there is no point, but -- vice president studely: but there are days that you have not tried it. >> right. vice president studely: does it look like we will be able to add least have the initial meeting in april? >> yes, but it will probably not be the first or second week. i do not want to speculate too much because i just do not know, and i do not want to leave anyone with an impression that we know. it is, even though there are two

dates that may be likely, i do not want to burn it in anybody's memory, so i will continue to stay in touch with you. the measure on public financing that the commission adopted, there will be a rules committee this thursday, so i will keep you posted. i expect that than to go to the full board next tuesday, and then, i will be testifying at the state assembly in sacramento on may 1 before the elections commission. the assembly member has proposed an amendment that would allow us to move forward with all the electronic filing, which has been a priority of ours for a long time, so this is very good news. the city's legislative affairs committee has voted to approve the legislation. actually, they wanted to sponsor it. they normally only suppose it or

not, so this takes it one step further. so it has been endorsed by the city itself, and i've found that this afternoon that staff is recommending that another indorse it at their april 5 meeting, so that is good news for us, and i believe it has got fairly smooth sailing ahead. this will be a good chance for san francisco once again to sort of take the lead in doing something new with electronic filing, which, for a lot of reasons, say does not only staff resources but all kinds of paper and other things. >> so is this legislation to allow san francisco to do it or others? executive director: i am sorry.

that is completely wrong. it allows -- it would be anybody who wants to do it, but they have to get permission. in our case, the board of supervisors. i am sorry i was completely out of the field there. a lot of people are not ready for it. i think most people are not ready. we are, and i think we can set a model for how to do it right, so this is a very good thing. vice president studely: commissioners? >> i do not have a direct question about the report, but i do every question going back to some of the earlier public comment. is inappropriate for me to pose that question at this time? and that is when we have made a ruling, such as in the case of

the library commission president, are there any other further steps that we can take to urged the mayor to make a decision or to take some action? or, essentially, we make a recommendation, and that is the end of it in this particular case or similar cases? the executive director: there is nothing official batting powers the commission to do something like that, but there is no prohibition on determining the communication. like that. you would have to, the chair would have to calendar id so you can discuss it, and then determine what message if any wanted to send and go from there.

>> since it could be an item on the agenda, what would you think of suggesting to chair chur that he put it on the agenda for next meeting? vice president studely: that would probably be a good idea, because my concern is when we take an action and then nothing, there is no further action at the next step in the process, it really does i think harm the image of the ethics commission, even though it is out of our hands, but i think some discussion about that perhaps would be valuable, should we run into these cases again. certainly not in the upcoming hearings. that is a little bit different, but there may be other situations where we rule on

something where it is not clear what further action will be taken if any. commissioner: i think we can make that recommendation to the chair for doing something further. vice president studely: thank you. any other comments or questions for the executive director? public comment. >> david pilpel. three brief points. on page 3 of the report, there is a typo on the second line in reference to the commission's october meetings. i think this was in a previous report as well. i am not aware that those meetings that happened yet, but i look forward to them. with respect to the testimony in sacramento, if there are prepared remarks that the director is entering, it those

could be attached to a future directors reports, i think it would be good to memorialize those. i think that is actually a very good effort on the city's part advancing the electronic filing statewide, and finally, the report does not remind people that form 700, annual filings are due next monday, not later than, so we would like people to comply and file them on a timely basis rather than having to deal with non filing and late filing after the fact. a public-service announcement. vice president studely: i did not follow your first item. what were they? >> on page 3. thank you very much. vice president studely: there is

one other item, in your continuing to seek a joint meeting with the task force, and we may just want to share that on the record. >> -- executive director: the tapes that we have sent them included april 13, which is the date that they chinos. -- they chose. unfortunately, they took two weeks from when they said the potential dates to answer, and by the time they answered, there were no more rams left on the 13th, so i'm trying to get someone who has got a reservation to move the time to accommodate, so that date is still on the table, but i am working on it.

vice president studely: and if that were to happen, that would be in the afternoon? >> yes, 2:00 until 5:00. or 1:00 until 4:00. vice president studely: ok. >> david pilpel, and on that point, i recognize that there now is required that they televise this, i am not sure that is required with the sunshine ordinance, so if one of the issues is the availability of 400, 416, i would be a of an opinion that that special joint meeting not be televised. bank. vice president studely: a little bit of history.

thank you very much. we have concluded the executive director's meeting. commissioners, anything? noted for future meetings. executive director: a and i will communicate that to the chair. vice president studely: is there any public comment? going right to number nine. public comment, we are voting -- we are having public comment on items about future meetings. seeing none, lamont -- public comment on items appearing are not appearing on the agenda of the ethics commission? seeing none, do i hear a motion to adjourn? i heard commissioner renne first. all in favor, please say aye.

thank you very much. good evening.