cognizant that the task force does not want or think that the commission should be free adjudicating matter is that you have decided. i see the merit in that as well. i think one of my concerns, on the other hand, i don't think the taskforce wants us to simply be of body that doesn't all looked at what was passed on to us. when i think might be helpful as a process that lahore allow some sort of expedited procedure for non-willful violations clearly would take the task force, what they found, and put the burden on the other side. it then made the determination the violation had occurred and the other side responded to show cause why that shouldn't be

enforced. i think that is consistent with 67.35, and our responsibility on the commission to enforce the ordinance, if there are referrals honda are made after a 40-day waiting period. >> i'm a little concerned about that because it is the charge of the task force to be making determinations. in the enforcement purely is to come from the ethics commission. the enforcement should be as it is, enforcement. if you find there is a violation that is brought to you, take it out of the sunshine ordnance and take it from any other part of the work that you do. you have the determination that comes forward, there is a recommendation for certain enforcement, either a penalty or a fine. that is what you would be

concerned about, you wouldn't believe adjudicating it on the enforcement and, you can hear what the issues are prior to that. once you have determined it is a violation, you improve the enforcement. we are doing that work for you. we're doing the determination for you. that the ethics commission would provide the enforcement of the willful failure matters. at that point, there is no need to hear the entire merits of the case over again. because then if defeats the whole purpose of the process. and i think that we should move ahead with the knowledge and the way it is written in the law that the task force deals with the adjudication portion, making the order of the termination,

and if it feels the need to send it off to an enforcement agency that would take action on the order, much in the way a court would issue an order and it would have to be enforced by whichever enforcement agency or body would do that. i like to see if we can proceed along those lines, the think that is where the crux of the issue is here that we have had ongoing issues with. >> certainly, i agree that with the problem you brought up, but i think we need to backtrack a little better and we will think very carefully. there is a summary of what he thought he was hearing, and our most recent memo on third and was a hearing such things as you believed that the ethics commission does have a role in

certain non-will violations, perhaps. that was proposed in the november regulations. the views more closely connacht's you also could see a role for the ethics commission under 6735 for enforcing indeed orders of determination, and that is probably, the crux of a lot of this, that it gives you the authority to help us, the members of the public received the documents and are for the members of the public, and the public meeting laws are enforced, and so forth. i really wonder, if we could, focused on that issue, first of all. enforcement.

so much else hinges on that deciding issue. >> and go back a little bit further, one of the things we are not addressing, which we don't know what your stance is on this particular issue, that the memo and that is our recommendation from the staff, who discusses this idea of an elected official alzheimer's, department heads, and managerial employees. when you say you would be willing to -- you are open or want to enforce the non-willful violations, that is going to be for all of those? if you limit it as you did in bejeweled gomez case, it eliminates the enforcement for a huge number of city departments

and employees. it is an enormous number of people. i think we need be here from the ethics commissioners about that. i went back and reviewed the minutes in some portions of the gomez case, and toward the end of that, there is a discussion were your executive director states horvath 67-34, what was in question in that case korea felt like you were unable to actually taken action against that particular individual was a policy decision and that the commissioners could have the staff research data. and i don't know if that was something that you have them do and that is how we ended up with this new sort of stance in the november issue, and i am not exactly sure from reviewing that where the stand was on a, i know

that at the time, it was decided that you couldn't take action, but if it is a policy issue, and i'm not sure why it was the only choice at that time. when you say that, can you clarify? >> ms. washburn raised the issue of focusing on how and if the commission is open to ahead and the handling non-will violations, as johnson raises the issue of willful violations that are beyond the department heads and elected officials. in my view, the second question first, i am in favor of the commission handling non-willful violations. again, i think that based on and the ordinance, and based on the tenth hole of their and the language, i think that is

something that you can handle. as far as the mechanics of the woodwork, we would have to work that out, but i would welcome of the thoughts of the fellow commissioners on either of those two issues. >> i agree, i am sympathetic to the concept of dealing and with official misconduct by at those other than in the department heads, managerial all elected officials, managerial city employee categories, the strain the i had with of the case that was raise here is i am not sure it was so much a policy discussion has been felt constrained by the language of the ordinance itself, 5734, and i think as were we started thinking that maybe another way

to handle it is to take a look at the definition of managerial city employees and maybe redefining it. it was my recollection, not just that we had a policy willy-nilly and thought that these are the only categories that we can handle, it was that the actual language of the ordinance that this was what we're going to handle, will fulfill your of an elected official or a department head. lee felt constrained by the definition given the ordinance, and we thought maybe there is some room if we are open to a military redefining managerial city employers and some other way. while i am sympathetic to handling other types of official misconduct that is not perhaps enumerated in the ordinance, i also would like if we are going to go there, figure out what the parameters and boundaries would

be if we are going beyond what the ordinance gives us the authority to do. that is my recollection of how we came to that decision. it wasn't necessarily of policy that the five of us just came up with are that the executive director just came off with, we were looking at the language of the ordinance itself. >> in my humble opinion, the ordinance does have some ambiguity, and i think that certainly, it is an evolving process for us and the staff. i know that the staff has worked extremely hard to figure out how to best to implement policies while being consistent and faithful to the language. if the view is changing and evolving, it is only natural in light of the complexity that we are dealing with here. >> as the newest commissioner, and one who does not have the

background of the two or three years that the commission has been working on this problem, i decided to spend a lot of time going back to those earlier discussions, looking at the sunshine ordinance, somebody who had not spent any time looking at it, and high have concluded the horvath v position and that was expressed by you in your april 4 letter, is the position that i would come to, leading the statutes. for the ordinance. that 6734, it will be official misconduct. high view that it was sort of the signaling and that for

elected officials, there can be no question about whether or not it constitutes official misconduct for purposes of the charter provision and that talks about the implications ahead. and 6735 is the paragraph that deals with enforcement. and under that, if you wanted to go and get some preventive relief at the front and, you fail to notice them meeting properly. trying to get the documents, you had to go to court to do that.

if the procedure had been exhausted, the question is if they have to exhaust them, the complaint and would have a right to go to court or to the ethics commission. i see nothing in that the section that limits the ability of a complaint to come to the ethics commission to only consider a willful misconduct. the fact that i say that we have the jurisdiction, i respectfully, with all due respect to the staff that i agree with, does a wonderful job and is over-worked as it is.

i can't agree with their conclusion as set out in the november proposed regulations that are before you. i don't think we're that limited in our jurisdiction. whether we choose to exercise the jurisdiction in every case is a different question. and so it is the first question if i were asked to vote, i would say that i think that we have jurisdiction to deal with any claim, violations of the sunshine ordinance, her whether willful or whatever her. whether we choose to do is maybe a different question, and if we do choose to do it, for what might be a more minor violation, they might want to have some summary processes so we can deal with it quickly. if that is where i am coming

from. if i will address some of the other issues that have been raised when we get to it. >> can i respond briefly? i appreciate your comment about the legal analysis that is in the memorandum, but, you know, there is a history here. it didn't start in just in november. it goes back many years. i am sure that with three new members on the ethics commission, there may be a lack of sensitivity simply because you are not exposed to this history that goes back, i believe, to 2004 when the complaint went through the process of the task force.

i was dismissed after a lengthy delay. and there were almost 40 records that have been referred to by the task force. it was made the subject of a civil grand jury report. i don't know if you are familiar with it. over the course of that time, when those of us that spent a lot of time looking at it, each of these dismissals was based upon a set of regulations that did not apply to sunshine cases. the regulations that were followed by the staff and were limited by what the charter said they applied to.

if they are going to hear sunshine cases, let them differently and have some process. the reasons aren't evident. sunshine cases are totally open. there is no secrecy collected. sunshine cases are pretty complicated because of the statute. you are using the wrong regulations, this is not official misconduct. ultimately, the case was

dismissed by the commission. they are very different in one respect. the staff has the right to review the complaint that it has filed. with it, the executive director analyzes the information that has been blamed by the members of the staff, and he writes a report to the commission which contains a recommendation of either probable cause or no probable cause. if two or more commissioners don't ask for a hearing, from the time to receive the report, it automatically is not hurt by the commission. it is a default type of

arrangement. the case gives the dismissed under those regulations. >> let me stop you right there. >> you are jumping ahead of where the discussion is. at the moment, we are just discussing if we have the power to deal with it. we may get to, and i am sure we will, what might be suggested as a weighted deal with these things in the past. i agree with the jurisdictional issues. >> this is not a jurisdictional issue, sir. >> please don't interrupt, mr. renney. >> if we get to the decision that is made and that the ethics

commission should deal with any claim filed by complaint about a violation of the sunshine ordinance, will deal with the question whether or not there should be at different or special set of procedures. interesting enough, the june proposed regulation took the position that we didn't have jurisdiction to deal with non willful violations. >> i don't need to do it now. >> to not get too far past the previous point, one of the reasons i've mentionedje thewel

gomez -- the jewel gomez case, the staff had red 1634 in one direction so that the second sentence that says he will fall violations by elected officials shall be handled by the ethics commission limited them to those only. perhaps it means that those are definitively heard by the ethics commission but doesn't limit what the ethics commission can hear. i did not see that addressed in the staff memo. i would certainly like to hear the views as we go along for a more broad light.

they direct you to read it in more of our broad sense. >> i think if i am remembering my understanding correctly, it provides us with enforcement power over the willful or non- willful. i don't take we need to necessarily get to 6734 to deal with the situation that you described. >> it is not just elected officials. >> is conceivably those under there. >> 6730c deals with this in a much better way. they are not wanting to come to

the task force if they want to go about it in their own way. in the middle, it says the task force with enforcement powers. any provisions of this ordinance or the acts. that is where we talk about non- willful issues and where we are directing our vehicle for finding enforcement. we are choosing your commission to be the enforcement body to do that. we can choose any number of other ones, but we don't feel how to do enforcement on these particular items.

this is where the thrust of the task force as non-woeful comes from. >> i agree with you that the task force can make that determination. they have one of two choices as a read this. you can either go the court or you can come to the ethics committee. and i heard your earlier statement about the only role that the ethics commission would have is that they would have to accept your finding as a matter

of law and would just impose a penalty. no court -- if you said to enforce this determination there has been a violation, the judge might give some presumption to the agency, but he or she would make an independent judgment whether or not your determination was correct. coming up with some mechanism that would allow the determination to come before the ethics commission has and possibly in some kind of much more streamlined procedures so that it can be dealt with, i would never say that the commission cannot make its independent judgment as to if

that determination is correct. >> let me stop you there. i think it would be productive for us to discuss what enforcement looks like. i think whether it should handle non-willful violation and willful violation, i view it as the most important issue. whether we should have a discussion about our jurisdiction in that regard. >> this is just a matter of information, but i would like examples of non-willful violations. that is not clear to me.

i think that is one issue. the willful and non-willful. who are the individuals that we have jurisdiction over? that is obviously very important, but to me, i have a lot of trouble with the non- willful because we ensure a lot of violations occur that are non-woeful. -- non-willful. i'm sure non-willful violations at lower levels of managers is where it occurs to a much larger extent. the their managers or employees of departments that are not really familiar with what these violations are. >> i can give you a quick and

recent example of one that we just found. it involves an elected official that redacted some information of bauhaus -- about some records and cited the california constitution has the right to privacy as the reason for redacting that information. that is not an exemption under the california public records act. we are not redacting them purposefully, unknowingly, they thought that they were following a particular exemption that did not apply. that is an example of something does not necessarily well full glare they know they should not be redacting that kind of information. that is one example. >> in an instance where is

remedied and comes before you, do i have that about right? >> they are improperly redacted or redacted under an improper exemption. we have our compliance and this committee monitoring whether it was complied or not. it may end up being referred to ethics. if there was compliance, we resolve that. >> i don't think as a commission we necessarily expect to handle a lot of non-willful violations