it could be 1%, 20%. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. any other members of the public that wish to speak? >> supervisors, good morning. i am richard mcgarry. i have about 400 paid members and serves 4500 households around the park. i am here speaking as an individual, because we do not take positions on political dollars or candidates, but i can assure you the vast majority of

the members support the new bond for november and supports the trails allocation and a clarifying amendment that is before you today. we send an e-mail yesterday, which i hope most of you have had an opportunity to see, and we wholeheartedly support this. the capital funds are very badly needed. thank you for doing your part, and think you to supervisor wiener and the other sponsors for getting us this far. >> thank you, richard. come on up. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is ann gage. i support the new wording that goes a long way to alleviate my fear that the bond will contribute to deforestation. thank you. the natural habitats that support our wildlife are

precious and need to be passed on to future generations. please give us the opportunity to fix what is broken and our parks without having to at the same time provinot using the toc chemicals. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. and the other member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have two items before us. we have a motion by supervisor wiener to make an amendment to item number one. we will take them separately. item #one is the ordinance. a motion -- motion by supervisor elsbernd to amend item number one. we can do that without objection.

as to the underlying item number one, a motion to -- motion by supervisor elsbernd. we can do that without objection. item number two -- we have a motion by supervisor elsbernd to except supervisor wiener's m. and move item #2 forward with recommendation. any other items? thank you very much. meeting is adjourned. >> everyone deserves a bank

account. in san francisco, anyone can have a bank account, things to an innovative program, bank on s.f. >> everyone is welcome, even if you are not a citizen or have bad credit to qualify for a bank account is simple. just live or work in san francisco and have a form of id. >> we started bank on s.f. six years ago to reach out to folks in the city who do not have a bank account. we wanted to make sure they know they have options which should be more low-cost, more successful to them and using chat catchers. >> check cashing stores can be found all over the city, but they're convenient locations come with a hidden price. >> these are big. >> i remember coming in to collect -- charged a fee to collect a monogram. >> people who use check

catchers, particularly those who use them to cash their paychecks all year long, they can pay hundreds, even a thousand dollars a year just in fees to get access to their pay. >> i do not have that kind of money. >> i would not have to pay it if i had a bank account. >> bank accounts are essential. they keep your money saved and that helps save for the future. most banks require information that may limit its pool of qualified applicants. encouraging to turn to costly and unsafe check captures. >> i do not feel safe carrying the money order that i get home. >> without a bank account, you are more vulnerable to loss, robbery, or theft. thankfully, the program was designed to meet the needs of every kind, so qualifying for a bank account is no longer a problem.

even if you have had problems with an account in the past, have never had an account, or are not a u.s. citizen, bank on s.f. makes it easy for you to have an account. >> many people do not have a bank account because they might be in the check system, which means they had an account in the past but had problems managing it and it was closed. that gives them no option but to go to a cash -- check catcher for up to seven years. you want to give these people second chance. >> to find account best for you, follow these three easy steps. first, find a participating bank or credit union. call 211 or call one of our partner banks or credit unions and ask about the bank on s.f. account. both -- most bridges will have a sign in their window. second, ask about opening an account through bank on s.f.. a financial partner will guide you through this process and

connect you with the account that is best for you. third, bring some form of identification. the california id, for an id, or your passport is fine. >> now you have open your account. simple? that is exactly why it was designed. you can access your account online, set up direct deposit, and make transfers. it is a real bank account. >> it is very exciting. we see people opening up second accounts. a lot of these people never had account before. people who have problems with bank accounts, people without two ids, no minimum deposit. we are excited to have these people. >> it has been a great partnership with bank on s.f. because we are able to offer checking, savings, minimarkets, certificates, and loans to people who might not be about to get accounts anywhere else.

even if you have had a previous account at another financial institutions, we can still open an account for you, so you do not need to go to a check cashing place, which may turn to two percent of your monthly income. >> you can enroll in free educational services online. just as it -- visit sfsmartmoney.org. with services like financial education classes and one-on-one meetings with advisers, asset smart money network makes it easy for you to learn all you need to know about managing, saving, investing, and protecting your money. the network offers access to hundreds of financial aid programs. to help their eruptions, fill out the quick questionnaire, and you will be steered to the program you are looking for. >> who want to make sure everyone has the chance to manage their money successfully, keep their money safe, and avoid getting ripped off.

>> it sounds very good. i think people should try that one. >> to find out more, visit sfsmartmoney.org or call 211 and ask about the bank on s.f. program. >> now you can have a bank account. open one today.

>> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in

honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and

even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org. >> this is a continuation of the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission, in the matter of the conduct charges against sheriff mercury me. we begin by taking the role. of commission members being present, we will begin. we have a lot to cover today.

i think we should jump right into it. please come to the podium. i understand ms. lopez has submitted a declaration, that the sheriff has submitted it. is she willing to come to san francisco to testify? when can she be available? >> when the commission needs her to be available. there is the matter of how she is going to get here. >> what is the matter of how she is going to get here? >> it costs money. i am not trying to be flip. who is going to play -- going to pay the airplane ticket? >> you would like the city to pay? >> i would. >> what do the costs in tailbacks -- entail?

is this a round trip? >> do i address you as your honor? >> commissioner is fine. >> if there could be advanced notice, the airplane ticket would be cheaper. with two weeks' advance notice, a regular coach ticket round trip from caracas, you are looking at roughly $1,500. it is an approximate figure. my request would be that if she were to come and testify, a tuesday evening or thursday evening, she would fly in wednesday. she would testify that day and then return home after her testimony. >> the total of the cost is the air fare from here and back? >> i think so. >> can i hear from mr. keith or

ms. kaiser on this? does the mayor have a position on the costs of bringing ms. lopez to san francisco? >> she is a defense witness. normally, we would expect a defense witness to pay for it. we would consider their request. i will take it to the mayor. this is the first i have heard of it. i am happy to take it to the mayor. >> i am sorry. i have a couple more questions. if there is not an agreement for ms. lopez to appear live, is she willing to appear by video testimony? >> it is interesting. i have thought about it. i do not think skype would work. my preference is that she would come here to testify. i have never seen the president of skype testimony. i have a difficult time in my

experience. it drops. sometimes it works. sometimes it does not. ms. lopez was also listed by the mayor's office as a witness. >> the sheriff has submitted a declaration in support of the defense. she is here to be cross- examined by the mayor. any witness who does not appear for testimony, the declaration is going to receive little to no weight. given the status of her declaration, her testimony, whether live or by skype, is likely something that would give the declaration she submitted more weight, because she will

have been subjected to cross- examination. >> i believe my client is credible, telling the truth. that is why i am saying i want her to get to be here. >> are you saying you will not make her available by skype? >> i am saying i want to use all my efforts to get her personally here, so you can view her. you can see how credible she is. you can watch her demeanor as she testifies. i am saying my wish, commissioner, is that we get her here, but i figure out some way that she can be present. in a fallback position, perhaps -- i am reluctant to say yes, that she is willing to skype. it seems to me maybe that would almost forfeit the effort to try to get her to be here. my preference is, and ms. lopez

's preference, is that she appeared before you to give testimony. my plan does not have resources. -- my client does not have resources. her husband does not have a job. i know this is an unusual situation. that is why i am asking -- >> she is outside of the subpoena power of this body. >> i know. >> i am not aware of any authority the commission has to compel the mayor or any other city agency to pay for this trip. if they do not do it voluntarily, our options are video or no live testimony. >> i appreciate that, commissioners. i am saying to you that i hope that the mayor's office will pay approximately $1,500, so she can be brought here for them to

cross-examine her, and you can see her testimony. if the amounts that are unwilling to do it, i will try to figure out some other way. maybe i will have a raffle. maybe i will have a collection. if that does not work, the fallback position would be skype. what i am trying to get across is that i am trying to have it be that ms. lopez gets to appear before you. >> i appreciate that. i agree that her being live would be preferable. it would allow us to evaluate the testimony better than skype. i have done skype examinations. it is better than nothing. you have to work out the details in advance. >> maybe i can speak with the mayor's representatives, and at the break we can figure something out. i think that is what they would want as well. >> thank you. before we let you go, and there

may be some other questions -- are you telling me that she could be available on july 18 or 19, either live or by skype? >> yes, commissioner. >> any other questions while we have heard? if you would not mind sticking around a few minutes? >> absolutely. mr. kopp, this is a witness from home you submitted a declaration on the sheriff's behalf. i do not know exactly how this would work, to share in the cost of the ticket to bring ms. lopez

here. >> not at the present moment. if the mayor were to reinstate his pay, pending the outcome of these proceedings, would be able to get that done. there is the willingness. there is just not the resources. >> i understand. any questions for mr., regarding this issue? -- for mr. kopp, regarding this issue? mr. keith, when you think you will have an answer on this issue? >> i can talk to the mayor tomorrow. i may not have an answer by tomorrow, but certainly, some time shortly after, i could have an answer.

>> much appreciated. thank you, sir. we also should deal with the declaration that ms. lopez submitted, and whether or not the mayor has objections to that declaration. i am not going to require that you make them orally, or that we address them now, given that she would not be testifying until the middle of july. do you have objections to her declaration? >> we do, commissioner, in terms of when we could have them put together, i expect the second week of july. i will not have much time next week to do it. there is one basic objection that i wanted to call the attention of counsel, which is t of the declaration is not valid, because it does not

state it is worn under penalty of perjury, which is required for any declaration executed outside the state of california, to make it a valid both. -- valid oath. if they can cure it, i wanted to give them notice of that right away. >> ok. why don't we have the objection to the lopez declaration by july 9? it is not particularly long. >> i could do it by the 10th. >> by july 10.

if the sheriff would like to submit a response, we can do that by -- a week? july 17? >> i am not a huge fan of capering you folks. presumably, i would be able to make my arguments orally. we have those states down. july 10, for any objections, july 17 for any response. the next issue, as it relates to ms. lopez, is the video. i understand that you did not submit a brief in response to

the mayor's brief. >> correct. what is your position, with respect to the video? >> i would stand on the objections i believe we made previously, that it is here say, not subject to an exception. i know commissioner randy was interested in why you might decide this differently than the superior court. i will reiterate that i do not think the superior court ruling on this issue provides any sort of collateral. i think there is no probity between parties. i think you folks are a completely different body, and you can decide this issue for yourselves. we believe the superior court wrongly decides the issue. i submit. >> having reviewed the brief, and having reviewed the video, i think the video is admissible. i think that, under the case

law, it does qualify as an excited utterance. i think it also could be admissible to indicate physical injury and describe it. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on the admissibility of the lopez video. commissioner liu? commissioner liu: i agree we are not bound by the superior court. but i also agree that, in reviewing the video and the case authority cited in the brief, that it does meet the criteria for the perce exception under evidence code 1240. she was cheerful, emotional, and holding in her speech. i do not think it is very different from what was described in the case cited by

the mayor's office. >> just from the perspective of a lay person, we would not be here. we would not be going through any of this, if it were not for that video. i think we certainly should take a look at it as a commission. i think it is absolutely relevant and important for us to see it. >> i just want to say that my client continues to assert that that video was a privilege to video, made in the context of an attorney-client relationship. that has been shot down, but, for the record, had my client not [inaudible]

>> hearing no objection from the commission, i think we should preliminarily admit the video. it should come into evidence. the other declarations, unless the commission thinks there is something else we should discuss, with respect to ms. lopez? there is one thing. mr. keith and mr. kopp, do either of you have an objection to ms. lopez appearing by skype if payment of her plane ticket cannot be worked out? >> no. >> commissioner, i do not know if we have an objection. the reason is this. when this issue was raised by the other side, we did some research into the validity of

oaths and testimony given from abroad. it is not clear to us that, under the various treaties that govern these, that the oath would be valid. i do not have any other problem with the testimony being by skype. we are not convinced that the of itself would be valid, and we are not sure if that is a risk we want to take, given the validity of the oath. >> let us say that we take the testimony. we get the transcript. we send the transcript to ms. lopez. she signs the transcript, under penalty of perjury. does that obviate your concern? >> i think it would. >> great. thank you. i apologize. this is the third time i have asked you to come up, and i appreciate your willingness. indeed.