>> before we go round and introduce ourselves, of like to thank the task force of compliance amendment committee for the very helpful information you provided to us in writing and for meeting with us here today. of afford to a productive conversation. we certainly on the commission are trying to do our best to figure out a way to really welcome your health and advise in that regard, so thank you very much. >> defied the had a comment on that, this has been a long process. we do appreciate the patience you have shown us in waiting for

us to weigh in on this very important process, so thank you. >> would you like to introduce yourself? we can go around quickly, since we normally don't meet together. >> i am a member of the sunshine ordnance taskforce. >> i am hoping johnson, the chair of the task force. >> members will, the vice chair of taskforce. >> i am currently the chair of the compliance committee. and of like to express my appreciation for agreeing to meet with us after what has been several years of back and forth about some complex issues. >> i am paul of the ethics commission. >>-beverly, but have you here.

gosh i cheer the ethics commission. dodge vice chair of the ethics commission. >> i thought that we could start this meeting with the very productive and pressing concerns that were raised in the task force mello. and in particular, the concern that the task force raised about the commission handling non vocal violations of the hornets. >> we will take public comment at the end. >> before we began, i wanted to address our legal assistance,

the legal counsel here today. did you want to? the deputy city attorney, the sunshine ordnance taskforce, it is severely limited. in light of that, they were unable to assist us in outside of what was already over the allotted hours for the regular task force. and the city attorney, there is a seat on the taskforce that requires you the an attorney. he is not able to participate, so we asked a member of the public to help us. ahead and your staff is here, so we may sometimes referred to him, he relied in part on his legal adviser for some of our worth. >> i would welcome, from him whenever you deem that it is

inappropriate. >> i want to make sure that people knew who we may be referring to. >> i see him in the front row, and i am glad to see he is here. >> perhaps a comment about how you would like to proceed, the view like to have someone either introduce or summarize the memo, i think we have all read it and understand its content. but for the public, a brief summary might be helpful. >> i think the person ideally suited the would be the author of the memo. if they are inclined to speak to the principal point in the memo. >> unfortunately for both of us or all of us, i am trying out some new hearing aids, and they

are not as advertised, let's say. i think the first coin from my point of view is hardly radical change and that was made from the june of 2010 policy decisions to the draft that was presented to the taskforce the june 14, 2010 minutes, i think adequately describe the long discussion haunt the policy issues that were faced by the commission at that time. and the level of input that was given by members of the public and have the task force members, ahead and the work that went in

the including my own meetings with susan. so the change of course which was a dramatic and shocking, without having the same policy body that made those decisions here in a public meeting, these are what the policy decisions are being reversed by staff. i think it is the hot problems. those of us that have a chance for the last few years. reach a the ethics commission.

as mentioned, the staff is not authorized an empowered to enforce those decisions. only the ethics commission can do that. it is the policy body that made those decisions, and the staff is simply staff. it has no in a or other authority if you can be given such authority to take the steps that it cut in the proposed regulations that were submitted in november of last year. it was pretty clear of the brown act that they couldn't do it, but i think it is also evident that it would have to be the case. and could not be otherwise. unless you have some disagreement with that

position, that pretty much says what we have to say on it. >> i appreciate your comments, and as far as whether the commission has the authority to implement the regulations, we understand that we are the ones that make the decisions, staff provides recommendations, staff has done its best to serve that role as best they can, and i think they have given considerable analysis to it. i don't think it would be productive for us to sort of a argue about or discuss his staff and the interactions have the staff and the commission, i think it would be more productive to talk substantively about your concerns, which i share, that i think the commission needs to have a rule in adjudicating and in forcing

non-woeful violations. i would welcome the thoughts of my colleagues on this issue. i am also 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.