million unaccounted for. in addition, what they did not include in the report, which i got from this, which is an audited statement that the friends of the library are required to provide the city library in each year, was that they also drew down their assets by $2.22 million. that was not even mentioned. so basic leerks the friends spent more than $5 million and accounted to the library commission for $750,000, period. now, this is similar to what they always do when they present this to the commission and the commission goes, oh, how wonderful, and it is a pattern that has consisted for at least the five years as reported by the friends of the library to charity navigator. i have repeatedly tried to get documents to look into this and

this is a sunshine task force determination finding luis herrera, the city librarian, in violation of withholding public records because the only records they will release are what the friends say they gave and they have nothing they have produced to substantiate anything that the library actually got, whether in cash or in kind. so the library commission is not watching what they're doing although they're raising more than $5 million a year and spending another $2 million of priorly raised assets, the library commission has no idea where that money goes and what they're spending it on. the only one who does is mr. herrera and because i'm talking about this, it relates to the statement of incompatible activities. mr. herrera, for one specific thing, gets over $35,000 a year from the friends to spend at his discretion. and he has provided no documents to show other than what he spends it on is taking people to lunch, paying for dues and other

things and i've tried to get a hold of the city budget to see if the library actually pays. i find it hard to believe that we have the librarian of the year and the city budget doesn't include his dues for the national library association and california library association. something is rotten in the state of denmark and at the library commission and especially at the friends of the public library. >> hi. my name is catherine bremmer. i'm an officer of the library chapter of ceiu, local 1021. i'm here to congratulate the library and our group for working hard to make this an agreement that the library workers could live with and that's my perspective on it, is that the library as you've discovered is a special place with special kinds of conflicts or investment with literature so it can be a problem but i thank

you so much and thank everyone at the library who worked so hard for this. >> peter warfield, library users association. i think i also have come with some concerns but i don't think that you should make life easier and less accountable for a library that's already sadly lacking in accountability. there are some cross-outs here. i just don't think that the conflicts that you thought were a potential problem need to be removed because here and there an employee or another may write a book or provide some kind of a service. the employees at the library presumably we hope and expect are well paid for their service and don't need to work for

tutoring or educational institutions that provide services within the library and so on and so forth. if they do, let it be public and let it be excused publicly. i have a problem on page three with activities called -- item 2, activities with excessive time demands. if there's no clarity as to who determines whether those are excessive, it says "absent from his or her assignments on a regular basis," what does that mean, once, twice, quarterly, that are demonstrated to interfere with the city librarian performance, demonstrated by whom, to whom, totally vague, something like inls, what our president appointed the librarian to, even small responsibilities in terms of time potentially can add up when you add travel time, preparation time,

correspondence, appointment making, talking about it and so on and so forth. the decision maker, item 2 on page five, the public visibility for this is not specified and i think the decision maker needs to be -- this needs to be a process that's visible to the public and that's posted in a public place so that people can see what kinds of conflicts there are. i wanted to point out some conflicts at the library. the library gets donations from the friends, luis herrera, $35,000 in a discretionary fund two years in a row and more. what do the library friends get? naming opportunities, $1 million they boast in book sales, most or all of them obtained through the library's collection assistance. imbibe, a party that the library has after hours on given friday so that the friends can use their facility to make money. is any of that contractual?

i don't think so. the main annual author dinner, the step sales where discarded books are put out by library workers and money collected by the friends and secrecy. i can show you a contract that says for the bernal library art project where they want to get rid of a mural, the friends are swearing to secrecy the so-called community group that is dealing with this and is not allowed to say anything about their relationship with the friends. that's not a good deal and i'd like to see what in your statement of incompatible activities deals with any of these conflicts. thank you. >> good evening, david pillpel. i wanted to recognize the recent's appointment of commissioner hayon, a former member of the library commission. anyway, and secondly, i wanted to support the final adoption of the amendments to this statement of incompatible activities.

we've discussed this at many meetings, staff of the commission and at the library have been very diligent. this is ripe and timely for your action and i support the motion before you. thanks. >> are there any other comments? seeing none, we'll proceed to the vote. all in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> thank you very much. the next item is selection of random audits for 2011 electoral committee. mr. st. croix, would you or ms. shaikh like to describe the process that we carry on and your estimate here. >> i have a hearing problem. >> i'm sorry, it's further away than usual.

ms. shaikh from the staff will introduce the item on selection of random audits for 2011. >> ok. so as the memo from staff on this item recommends, we will be selecting five committees for audit and they will be selected from three different levels of financial activity and we will have a member of the public read out the names of the committees before we draw them from a box. >> and i get to select the member of the public. why don't we do different people for each of the three sets. >> that sounds good. it looks like we have a volunteer. >> it would you like to do whatever set she considers first. are there any questions or do we take comment before the process

or is this simply procedural? are you volunteering? >> i had public comment on the selection. could i make that now prior to? >> yes. >> ok. david pillpel again. >> you can take a seat. we're going to take public comment about the process or any questions and then we will do the selection. >> thank you, david pillpel. my concern was, given the number of committees in the total pool and the number to be selected from each category, it appears to be somewhat disproportionate in the 10,000 to $50, 000 level. i understand there are staffing concerns about resources to conduct the audits but my suggestion is to increase the number selected to six, having two from the $10,000 to $50,000 pool rather than one so there's a proportionate selection of one

out of six. this would provide, as you see, a somewhat disproportionate selection. it would obviously slightly extend the resources required to complete six audits rather than five but i just think that the selection ought to be proportionate to the number in the pool for each category. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> public comment. patrick minnetsov. i'm here on my own time as always. i request that the public at in the meeting be permitted to inspect the names in the containers used to randomly select committees for the audits before or after the audit selections have been made, whichever is least disruptive to your process. thank you. >> thank you. let me explain and also ask ms. shaikh to help us here. on the second point, as soon as

we begin the process, she will explain how we do this but we do make sure that all of the names that belong in that category are actually in the box before we do the drawing. can you explain how the recommendation was developed by the allocation of committees from these amounts? >> so, in the past, the commission has set a precedent to audit larger number of committees from greater financial activity levels than the smaller activity levels and also treasurers of smaller committees have indicated that they are grass roots types of committees that don't necessarily have many resources and have asked that we focus our attention more on committees with higher levels of financial

activity. >> at this point, let's see if the commissioners have any questions or comments about the allocation or the process. either of you? >> the only comment that i would have is it does seem to me to make more stones put our efforts into those committees that spend a much greater amount of money than the grass roots committees which really have very limited resources. i think that makes more sense but i'd welcome comment. mr. pillpel, you seem to feel we should have more -- this is a disproportionate number. is that what you're saying? >> if i can respond, david

pillpel. it was just to increase the total number from five to six and select two committees from the $10,000 to $50,50,000 pool o that proportionality is maintained, not to select a lot more. i think the countervailing argument is that those committees that raise and spend over $100,000 tend to have professional assistance and tend to be more in compliance and those at lower thresholds, although they're doing less activity, often have more problems that are uncovered. so it cuts both ways. all i was suggesting was rough proportionality. thanks. >> and while we're discussing these, let me just share my thoughts. i came into this conversation concerned even about doing five, but i -- because i think the staff has been under a lot of

pressure, has had a back log in vacancies and we don't want -- i'd rather not pile things on them that can only take place well down the road or that risk burdening them further. so i was even going to ask whether five was necessary. i think given this array, that five is important and i appreciate that the staff has made a good faith estimate that they can accomplish this number. for my part, i think that one in each of the -- one in the lower two categories is sufficient. it's the fact that there will be audits in each category and that every committee is subject to the possibility of audit that really has the protective effect from the outset and since we're not endeavoring to audit all of them, we're not trying to catch

every possible violation. we are, as i understand this process, it's more to have everybody involved in the process know that there is a chance that they will, in fact, be audited randomly as well as audited if there is a specific cause, reason for concern about them. so i would share with commissioner hayon the idea that this allocation of tight resources seems like a reasonable one although i appreciate thinking about what the purpose of all this is. seeing no further comment from the commissioners or from the public, why don't we proceed to the selections and perhaps the two members of the public would help us by splitting up the work. sir, would you be willing to read for the first group, read the names of the organizations that are in here. ms. shaikh will explain what she would like you to do. >> absolutely.

>> as i hand these little pieces of paper to you, you will read off the committee name and you will read off the committee -- the financial activity level so that other members of the public can cross reference those names against this list, which is part of the memo. >> part of which memo? >> the audit selection memo. >> which is available as a public record? is it on the website? >> yes. >> can i ask, are we, in this process, separating them at the same time or are you going to give him the $10,000 to $50,000 group the one? >> i'm going to give him all the committees that are part of the first financial activity level which is the 10,000 to 50,000. >> thank you. >> the 22 organization names. can i read the organization name? >> yes, read the organization name and even else can follow

the list to make sure that every name -- >> it's in the right category. >> as you read it, fold it in half and put it in the box for the drawing. >> thank you. you'll have to bear with me, with folding. >> if you hand them to staff, they can fold and place them in for you. >> good. i'm having trouble with letter openers, dropped wrist. a couple of weeks, my nerve will be back hopefully. >> good luck. >> the first few are the friends of. >> please read them in order because it will be easier for everybody to look at the list and make sure they're all in there. >> and mr. pillpel, would you be willing to do the third group as he does two of them? thank you. >> so the first one in this

first category is friends of ethics committee opposed to measures e and f. the next one is committee opposing forced male circumcision. it's a pity that didn't end up on the ballot. i would have voted to prevent it. all right. committee to stop mass demolition to housing, a committee to support proposition -- >> i think that's all that fit on there but that's sufficient to identify it. >> that's fine. the next one is san franciscans for ballot measure reform supported by supervisor scott wiener. students first, yes on h. michael evans for sheriff 2011. >> follow the ones. >> got it, sorry. >> sherry baum for mayor, 2011. committee to elect caesar

escrum, oscar ruinhouse for mayor 2011. forgive my pronunciation, oscar. the next one is building and manager's association of san francisco political action committee, ballot issues, a.k.a., boma-sf pact ballot issues. the next one is san francisco building and construction trades council, political organization of workers for employees rights, power pack. the next one is the san francisco coalition for responsible growth political action committee. the next one is san francisco young democrats. the next one is the san francisco sheriff's managers and supervisors political action committee. the next one is the district 11 democratic club. the next one is coleman action fund for children committee.

the next one is d-10 ford sponsored by the san francisco building and construction trades council. the next one is san francisco deputy sheriff's association political action committee. the next one is plan c san francisco p.a.c. the next one, san francisco women's political committee. the next one is the harvey melk lbgt democratic club p.a.c. the next one is educating voters for jobs against avalos and aa dochy for mayor 2011, coalition for police unions and the final one is the alice toglis lesbian and democratic gay p.a.c. >> i'll ask you to do the second

one, as well. shake the box and who does the picking? would you be willing to -- we'll ask our public assistant to make the selection, please. >> me? >> i get -- >> i get to pick one. >> i'm going to use my good hand. >> that seems appropriate. >> and the winner is, terry baum for mayor 2011. >> thank you very much. we have a second group that we would ask you to do and mr. pillpel has volunteered under duress to do the third group. >> good, i'm running out of -- >> we don't want over-strain you. >> so this group, we have 10 committees. >> and this is the group of above $50,000 and up to

$100,000. >> the first one is the municipal attorneys association yes on c, no on d. second, committee for a fair and better san francisco, no on g. third, bill fazio for district attorney 2011. fourth, vu trend for sf district attorney 2011. five, golden gate restaurant association p.a.c. six, asian pacific democratic club p.a.c. seven, san franciscans for new priorities and dennis ferrara for mayor 2011. eight, san francisco labor council labor and neighbor independent political action committee. >> can i see that?

>> ok. so this one is quite similar. it's the san francisco labor council labor and neighbor p.a.c. and the final one, our friend the municipal executive association of san francisco p.a.c. >> we'll shake and you can pick. >> i swear on a stack of bibles my eyes are closed. and the award winner, san francisco labor council labor and neighbor p.a.c. >> that's 941562 are the numbers on there? >> you're correct. it's 941562.

>> because as you pointed out, there is a similarity. thank you very much. >> i've done my ethical duty for the evening. >> we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> now that you've set the standard, mr. pillpel will assist us with the category of $100,000 and above financial activity. >> feel free to double my salary. >> ours, too. >> yes, absolutely. and we are folding? >> no, no. >> i'm just reading, one california for all, aye for a. san francisco firefighters local 798, yes on c, no on d. seiu united healthcare workers west political issues committee. support quality neighborhood schools for all, yes on h, supported by entrepreneur joanna

reese and education reform advocates. committee for parental choice and religious freedom sponsored by the jewish community relations council. h no, let parents decide, sponsored by and with major funding from united educators of san francisco. fix our streets, yes on b. yes on proposition g2011, see additional page for full committee name. it was a longer name that involved seiu and labor unions in support of proposition g, a sales tax measure. rebuilding san francisco schools, yes on proposition a. yes on proposition d, supported by public defender jeff hadachy, basic american foods executive george hume and business investor michael moritz.

standing up for working families, yes on c, no on d, a coalition of teachers, nurses, firefighters, public employees and healthcare advocates. and finally, san franciscans -- and finally, until the next stack is handed to me, san franciscans united on pension and health reform, yes on c, no on d, a coalition of public employees, taxpayers and business groups. but wait, there's more. >> more to come. >> remember our old friend, mord come. mo motofor sheriff, 2011. ross mirkarimi for sheriff, 2011. chris cuny for sheriff, san francisco sheriff, 2011.

anec for district attorney, 2011. gas gone for d.a.2011. shar mean bach for district attorney 2011. and ed lee for mayor 2011. and yet more. progress for all, building owners and managers association of san francisco political action committee independent expenditures a.k.a. beamaf-p.a.c. and committee in support of ed lee for mayor 2011. coalition for sensible government with major funding by san francisco association of realtors. san francisco police officers association independent expenditure committee. committee on jobs, government reform fund.

sf neighborhood alliance for ed lee for mayor 2011. committee for a safer san francisco supporting sharmine bach and opposing george gascone for district attorney 2011. san francisco police officer association issues p.a.c. united here local 2 p.a.c. i could tell you the longer name. never mind. nfers employees international union local 1021 issues p.a.c. san francisco alliance for jobs and sustainable growth p.a.c. san franciscans for jobs and good government supporting ed lee for mayor 2011. last but not least, city residents opposing ed lee for mayor 2011 sponsored by american

federation of state, county, municipal employees, afl-cio and afscme. >> i can see why you referred to double your salary. clearly voice-over is part of your experience. >> and i thank you very much. >> ok, shaking is taking place. >> there's seiu but not --. >> close enough to find the box. >> we'll be selecting three from this group. >> we have ed lee for mayor 2011. >> two more.