audio, if you feel the need. so there is plenty of information that you will have. and it will it should be fairly expedient because it leads all the way up to the point of the respondent having to prove their case why they should or should not have been in violation. i do not think that you should be concerned too much of it being organized pretty well. you will have documents and time because they would have been sent to you well in advance. we can appear to answer any questions and it would be a great idea that we would be there on hand to answer any questions that you might have said that we would be knowledgeable about it.

>> you would have a single person? >> yes, it can be a member of the task force or whatever. sure, we can do that. >> this is the reason why this task force recommended a two- pronged approach to your recommendations. that is what you will see when you leave out the response over proposed regulations. this might 8 be a good point -- this might be a good point to think about that. that is what it involves these two separate lines. >> thank you, ms. johnson. i tend to agree with you, but the procedures outlined in the staff memo for both of the violations, i think both of those are good and we should use those.

we should be following our mandate as well. is there any other comments. >> i agree with what you are suggesting, but rather than holding off until the next regular commission meeting, how about the idea of on a rotating basis, the chair appoints one of the commissioners to conduct the hearing and give a recommendation.

we can't do it after a couple of days. >> my suggestion is that perhaps another way to speed it up is that to have the hearing before a single commissioner. we are making a recommendation at the next meeting as to what should be done. >> if you want to do that on a

voluntary basis, that is fine but i'm not a position to take that on a mandatory rotating basis. >> i think the chair can take care of that. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to hear from staff as well on this. it seems that given that all your doing, this is something that might work well and better in terms of your timing and the best utilization of staff resources. >> the staff is anxious to move forward and get new regulations in place and an idea proposed

sounds workable to me speaking for the staff. we are interested in making it work. hopefully it will. if there are problems or unintended consequences, then we can revisit how we handle it. >> i but it least see some role for south -- fit for staff. being the body that receives the records, scheduled the hearing, so on. the idea is to not additionally

burdened staff with making recommendations or investigated the matter. >> the proposals were in response to a draft submitted by the task force. that draft represented the collective view of this group on what should be in that the regulations. that is what triggered this a very significant departure. in that draft, a staff member said these two tracks of a willful and a non willful violation.

this is a little different than what the task force perceived that should be. i think that the willful aspect of it, it would be helpful if the staff looked at that so that when and if they go forward on that, they will see what was of interest to the task force and if they would comment on it rather than doing it all over again, it would speed up the process. i have personally look at the proposed regulations dealing with those violations and there are a number of problems with them but i don't think this is the place to hear those. >> i'm sorry, i missed what you are suggesting that we do about that. >> there was a draft that the

mission staff prepared following your meeting. that was not responded to by the task force until august of last year. and rather than commenting on the draft, staff come up basically took over the responsibility of redoing another draft completely and eliminating all of the provisions that dealt with non willful violations. what i am suggesting is that if you will go back to the drawing board, to look at what was done by the task force. this represents at least some of the views of the task force and

try to incorporate them as best as possible host. >> this is an 11 member body. people approach us from all over, especially during election time. we have one person, one person

who is working on this. the burden that is placed on the staff is that we do this repeatedly, so we don't have a staff. i am just trying to -- mr. grossman is helping us out. we wanted to know what the jurisdictional response was from the staff. >> i have full confidence of the staff, hearing what this

discussion is going to put forth regulations that are consistent with our discussion. i appreciate that we all want that. the process has been that we recognized as you did that our procedures or not a good fit for sunshine issues and we all recognize that we needed to make changes several years ago. we developed a proposal, you reviewed it and make your changes. what came before is in november is that was meant to help the

commissioners. the staff brought something forward, based on their experience, was an effort to incorporate our concerns and yours and we said, let's talk with you and see what we can do going forward. so, i appreciate looking at where we can go together and how we can get there as efficiently as possible, but i would like to put aside this sense that the staff is putting this in the affirmative to. the staff is helping us and by

extension, all of us, in this place where we have rules that we think makes sense, and procedures that we don't keep wasting people's time or starting from scratch in a way that is not efficient. i appreciate the chair giving it this much thought. perhaps, your dog does, too. i would like to see where else we can find that kind of common ground. i agree with the chair that we will take all of this into account. >> following that, i would like to thank staff for the hard work on this. we have pulled you and pushed

you in all sorts of directions over the past few years. we are moving again. i recognize that high and our commission is a moving target because this is a difficult area and we have spent a tremendous amount of time looking at these recommendations and trying to craft something that makes sense with the ordinance and i appreciate the long hours and the hard work. are there any other issues within the memo that we shall address that are substantive? if not, perhaps we can move to public comment. >> i would just like to review where we are.

there is more information that needs to be determined and gathered. for example, your process for show clouds, which i think is a good way of going about it. we have some questions hanging about managerial employees. i don't want us to leave here. this is not a common meeting. it is important for us in the task force and for you to get some closure on these items and then we can meet again if there are some other items that come up beyond that. >> it is a very good suggestion to make sure that we summarize

and clarify where we think we are going. i will make an attempt to do that, please jump then if i have misstated something. the ethics commission will handle the alleged willful failure of an elected official, department head, or city employee perspective violations of the sunshine ordinance. we will also handle referrals from the task force of any violation of the ordinance, a willful violation of non department heads for the employees and elected officials, and non local violations as well. for non local -- for non will full violations, we will have a hearing that will have to work

at the details of, which will entail the responded to showing cause why the sunshine ordinance order should not be enforced. in addition, we will have to discuss with the city's attorney's office and the commissioners specifically what sort of enforcement, penalties come up for outcomes that we will have to -- that we can and should put in place. obviously, if we enforce something, we would like to be actually able to do something and make sure that the enforcement is carried through. that is something that we will have to address. is anything that i missed? >> in june of 2010, the

commission voted on three procedures. when you do the regulations and recommendations -- my question is, how are you going to deal with the decisions that were already made? will you go back and revisit them and revise them based on what we do here and vote on them again as the commission? >> what i thought was that the staff would go back and put together revised regulations, or maybe it is more efficient to do a memo outlining what the policy points would be and instituting the policies that we talked about here.

i guess i am unclear as to what you mean by -- >> well, what we discussed today is pretty similar to what you discussed back in june and actually voted on. so, when the new recommendations came out, it is very much departed from that discussion. now, we're back on the other side. the commission did take a vote. there has been a couple of times where new information came over the years and we had to unto our vote before we could hear something that we voted on. i just wanted to make sure that these discussions would not get lost and your vote as a body

would not be lost as the new commissioners come in. you have voted on three procedures which are similar to what you have now than it was revisited by staff and changed after the jeweled gomez case because it removed some of your jurisdictions. so, now, you will go back and revisit and i'm curious. i want to make sure that members of the public would be able to hear your vote again and make a comment again. >> i think the short answer is that we change is something that we had done at that point, we would do this in the usual way it. i don't mean this flippantly, but did you like what we did in june? do you think that we did the right thing? >> this is in your packet. in your minutes are in the

packets. some of it, i was there. and there are a number of people there at that commented on it. like as said, are concerned about it is that we did agree with the findings at the time in japan banned the november jurisdiction which was much more limited. >> this was to do those things that look like we were all moving in the same direction. we were beside the one that we have not achieved resolution. >> my recollection is that the sunshine or dance task force's memo came out with this and i hear your concern. do we need to do any vote on

this? >> you cannot. this is just a public discussion. >> >> the agenda is the discussion. there is no action plan. >> thank you. >> could you hear that, sir? >> i could. >> when the new regulations are drafted, at that point we would carry out the usual, we would have another discussion and vote at that point and public notice and everything would be usual. >> mr. chairman, when public comment begins, i will have a statement to read. i can do that from here or from the public podium.

>> sometime during public comment, i would like to read this statement. >> ok. >> did you get an answer to your question about whether you had covered all of the points? >> ok, public comment. >> ok. i am here are my own time as a private citizen.

>> like to read a memo. "the primary concern had been that the staff draft, this is so drastically restricted to the commission's enforcement jurisdiction as to render it nonexistent. another part of the memo is that the staff draft would be the jurisdiction. we should completely rewrite the guidelines for enforcement. those guidelines must be

written. finally, i would like to remained both the ethics commission and the sunshine task force members, that the task force found mr. st. croix in willful violation on my sunshine complaint and the city comptroller was also an willful violation on 113 and 11. i have begged to over and over to schedule a public hearing on both of these complaints. obviously, mr. st. croix will have a refusal problem. -- recusal problem.

unlike get some justice on these? there may are may not been some about them. we must expedite me with a public hearing on my two complaints. >> members of the commission, members of the task force, the director of san francisco open government. i want to take a moment to go back to what i believe is the core of everything you are discussing here and that is the oath that each and every one of you took to support and defend the constitution, the state of california, and subsequently all of the laws that flow therefrom.

the first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and i think the sunshine ordinance and the brown act both go to support and ensure that members of the public that wish to participate in public meetings are able to do so and to make comments including those meeting predicted the protection which are descending comments. the right to petition government for redress of grievances in most cases is going to demand that unless you are making wild accusations, you have the public records so that you can proof and show that what you are saying has a basis in fact but the california public records act and the sunshine ordinance are there to establish the right of a citizens access to the necessary public records so that they can put forward a cogent case to support what they are presenting.

one question that the task force members can say, yes, something that is one of his bugaboos, i asked him to consider their performance in the light of what have you done to support the right of a citizen to speak freely at public meetings and what have you done to support the right of public citizens to access public records in their efforts to petition government for redress of grievances. that is the very basic core of what they are there to do. i believe that the discussions go to that same thing for the ethics commission. what have you done to support the rights of citizens to ensure that they have the ability to participate in government and make public comment and what have you done to ensure that members of the public sunni public records are given the proper access to support that effort?

if you can look back and say, well, the record is not that good, that is one of the main underpinnings for everything you were doing right now. if a citizen cannot come and speak openly and speak honestly and get the records they need to do so, then basically anybody who denies them that right is violating their oath of office and i think that that is something that unfortunately many city bodies do not take seriously. >> let me begin by saying that i came to the meetings in june of 2010 where these were last