clearly it is something you have talked about, but that is an important pivot for me. >> when i write the referrals, under 67.34c, what you are talking about, interpreting -- when we refer that, the intent is, why would refer to something with enforcement power? it could be interpreted to anything other than to enforce it would be difficult. but we combine that with 15.102, which gives you the authority to carry out the purposes and provisions and ordinances regarding open meetings and public records. that gives you the authority. you are allowed at the ethics commission to write rules and regulations based on that open

government laws. and because you did not hear a lot of them, one of the things that is different, don in court, is that all records are public. you don't have to prove they are public. the person who wants to withhold it has to demonstrate there is an existing exemption. that is why the burden shifts. you see what i'm saying? when you go to court and somebody makes an accusation, that person has to prove the accusation. when the complaint says i went public record or public information, and the california public records act and in the sunshine ordinance, it requires the person who wants to withhold that information to provide a reason, an exemption. >> could i just say -- >> yes. >> i think the bird and i am describing it is at the next page. i understand what you are saying. -- i think the bird and i am

describing it is at the next stage. it has to make that case to us. >> my point in saying that was just -- maybe i did not make myself clear, but i was trying to dress just what you are saying, and that is that our order is generally telling you this is public information, and you need to provide it. so enforcing it, the person would need to tell you why they should not have to turn it over. it would almost be the same idea. when we send something for enforcement, we want them to turn over the document. we are not necessarily asking you to punish them in some way. say we send the order saying, we find the respond that it improperly withheld a document, and they will not release, they will not disclose it.

so we refer it to you. when it came to you, we might say that we were referring this under 15.102, and under 67.30c, and what we want is the document. we want to the planet to receive their information. so you will still be faced with this idea, whether there is an exemption or not. it is a public record. i am just addressing how we combine that when we send them over. >> the commissioner asked me how i saw 67.30c and 67.35d interacting. i can imagine some areas where we have made it the task force has made an order of determination. that order of determination is

for a person to, in most cases, to receive documents that are public. so i think he could read 67.35d in such a way that that person has an order to be enforced and to bring that to the ethics commission. we are doing the referrals for that person. i'm not an attorney, on a college professor. -- i'm a college professor. but reading the plain language of it, that makes sense to me. >> you mean the task force gives an order to the person, and the person -- >> the order is on the behalf of the person, the complainant. the complaint that has requested this public document. but they want the ethics commission to help that person obtained that information.

that is the primary purpose. there are all kinds of ways city employees can violate the ordinance, and timing and not showing up at the meetings, but at the very bottom, the most basic thing is that the public its records and the public has access and public meetings. >> i'm very sensitive to that, and fully understand, but the goal here is to make sure the ordinance is complied with. i think now is a good time to move to the enforcement question. i think it is one where we have already had a lot of discussion. >> can i ask one question, mr. grossman? mr. grossman, you said from your point of view, that when the task force issued an order, when the complaints come to them, and

the task force says the documents and public record should be produced, and it is not produced, that is a separate violation of the sunshine ordinance? >> a violation. >> how was it a violation? the violation is the failure to turn over the document that they have been ordered to produce. >> i'm willing to accept that. either way, it is a violation. either the initial failure that has been determined to be a failure by the task force, which then is a violation, which the custodian under 67.21e can remedy by turning over the records. if the custodian does not do that, it becomes a violation

that can then be moved by action of the task force to another body for enforcement. it need not be the ethics commission. >> but what is being moved to the other body is the underlying violation? >> well, it is probably the failure to comply with the water. -- with the order. but the point i was just alluding to is the reference in 67.35d to a person seeking a remedy before the ethics commission is for enforcement. because the task force is not always referred these violations to the ethics commission. it can refer them to other bodies, as it has. >> thank you. >> on the question of

enforcement, i think two competing concerns, my perspective on this, the first is to expediently resolve the matter so the person -- so be a violation is remedied, the purported violation is remedied. the second concern on the ethics commission is when we enforce the matter, i think we have to have some review of what we were given. if a court were to receive a request to enforce, there would be some review of what we were asked to enforce. it would not just be and it administrative matter, ok, here is, stamped it, wanted the next one. one thing i had in mind was to have a hearing where the respondent -- i'm sorry, where the complaint, who had an order from the sunshine ordinance task force that was not being

complied with would submit directly to the commission, no involvement of staff, and we would have a show cause hearing as expediently as we could, at the next regularly scheduled meeting, where the matter would be adjudicated. i certainly have concerns with staff has a lot to do, not enough time to do it, and i think this could be one way where we could enforce these matters in a timely, expedient manner, but also provide us with some review of what went on so that we could, in confidence, in the public's confidence, enforce the order. >> a quick question. you mentioned that the complainant. sometimes that is exactly who wants to do with and who should do it. i wonder about putting the burden on somebody, for those

complaints whom it is for a burden, to keep appearing are returning or who are not as skilled. have you thought about the possibility where the sunshine ordinance task force could choose someone to stand in the shoes of the complainant, with the complaint's permission, to at the show calls, if that was the more expeditious or more comfortable for the plaintiff. i don't want to make it harder on somebody who has been frustrated. >> right, that is exactly right, and i apologize, i think i misspoke. in an instance where a referral is made to the commission, respondent would be ordered to show cause as to why the order should not be enforced. if the respondent did not appear at that, i think we would be left with no choice but to go with the record we have and

enforcement would be made. i think it would be helpful for the complained to appear at that proceeding. but certainly the burden is on the responded to show cause as to why it should not be enforced. >> i would say that the order of determination, while it is maybe a few pages with an encapsulation of what had happened, it is not the complete record. what you receive as the complete record will be the advisement of legal counsel, will be all of the evidence that has been presented, either by the complainant and/or the respondent, and then there could be some other documents that might be supporting that. so by the time we are through with our process, as you receive it, you will have a very complete picture of what has happened, and then you will have the opportunity to review the

minutes and/or the testimony by 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?