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 discussed. the fact that you are complementing yourself for almost 82 full years of spinning your wheels does not impress me that much. i i am a little shocked. there is this mass of garbage that ended up at the bottom of the mountain at 17 years later.

let me begin by talking about official misconduct. if you look at the willful failure, the restriction there -- will fulfill your to discharge any duty is a sin of omission. they did not do what they were supposed to do. with respect to official misconduct itself, you might look at your own ethics commission regulations, which defined official misconduct in section 15 poin5.105. in the wrongful behavior by a

public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office. presumably, people can do all kinds of things without making an omission of the sunshine duty and be guilty of that section and that section would trigger your enforcement. i want to take a few moments to talk about the burden that you placed on the complacent. -- complaintant. it is the duty of every private citizen to defend his duties and rights from scratch, all over again, as if every other citizen has not come forward already and should have established the president's. we have a situation where he has wrongfully made a police complaint for purposes of

political retaliation. are we going to just go from scratch and make her guilty of official misconduct a second time so she can ignore it again? i hope that will not be the result. thank you. >> i realize that three of the commissioners are new and not around in june of 2010. i also realize, it may be correct to say that none of you have ever attended a sunshine enforcement task force meeting. complaints on public matters -- public records matters and the follow-up meetings to make sure

they had it right. my question is, have you ever wondered how it is bad in this seven-year period, somehow, through sheer coincidence or some other and know and intangible, every records case was dismissed. none of them had merits? how was that possible? i will give you an example of one of the reasons why i case was dismissed. november 5, 2008 -- when there is a conflict of opinion between the task force and the city attorney's office, the ethics commission, that is you, recognizes the city attorney as the lead attorney for the city and county of san francisco.

having been elected by the people of san francisco to that position, the city attorney is a higher authority than the task force. you are just appointed. that was the basis on which the case was dismissed. when i asked for copies of that legal opinion from the city attorney, and it did not exist. when i filed my lawsuit and asked for the file to see what was in it, there was nothing. 0. there is a reason why all of these cases were dismissed. i know what it is. and if you thought about it, at you would eventually come to the same conclusion. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, and members of the task force. i was a candidate for mayor in the november 2011 ballot. it is nice to see you guys trying to work together. it would be nice if the city family could get along and do their job. my concern is that to on november 11, essential tabulation units of the department of elections that was run by dominion systems completely through the vote. we know that in march of this year, 2012, dominion got busted in palm beach, florida. their citizens assigned votes to the wrong candidates. when you have a right choice of voting system with 16 candidates on the ballot, if this system is

citing the wrong votes to the right -- wrong candidates, we have a bad election. 460,000 registered voters, six out of 10 do not vote t. that is six out of 10 voting against the official family. that is only 18% of the voters in san francisco that voted for mayor that authorized an election system where the central tabulation is fraudulent. where did you go to make complaints for this type of thing? as a candidate, i was not allowed into the locked door to see the process. i am living in the housing authority. we have a problem at the housing authority where 30 or $40 million contracts are being

awarded routinely. no 72-hour notice is being given to anybody about what constitutes those contracts and to the bidders are and it is incomplete violation of the sunshine ordinance. amos brown and housing commission, complete violation of federal law, state law, and local law. where do go to make these complaints? i looked at some of these issues today, jurisdiction enforcement. as you go forward, the solution i would like to propose is, and give staff to the sunshine commission and said that a two- tiered process where they can handle some enforcement with some financial sanctions. if things require greater review, that could go to the ethics commission. thank you.