that accurately represented in the minutes of the meeting. it makes no difference if you can make public comment then someone can take the official record and put in their version of for you said. in many cases, with the version is, they put down all the good things you said, if you did, and exclude the things you did not. the main purpose of the brown act is to protect dissenting opinion. the sunshine ordinance expands the rights under the brown act and says very clearly and in unambiguous language as i have shown you here, i have gotten orders determination from the task force which were in most cases 7-48-nothing decisions saying the minutes be in the mets and that gives me an added protection that my publicly protected free speech is not going to be changed and misrepresented in the official record.

the city attorney issued a memorandum which he honestly put out at the same time got a copy of the requirements for illegal memoranda and it meets one of those requirements and yet they're using that to keep public comment and the summary is that people submit out of the official record. it is censorship, pure and simple. anybody who wants to argue with the other thing and say, go read a lot, it is the same thing i've said to the library commission. read the law, it is clear. anybody who submits a 150 words or less summary of their public comment, that some racial be included in the mets. how you get -- attaching. just as good to be the same thing, i have a hard time understanding why so many boards and commissions to have attorneys sitting on those

boards and commissions cannot seem to have much if a familiarity with constitutionally protected free speech and the right for me or any citizen of the city and county to have that politically -- politically protected free speech represented accurately in the record. except for the fact that public bodies in some cases wyck in this one, they do not like to point out the public mentioned something bad. they do not want somebody to be able to come back later and say, i told you about this. it is in the public record. they want to go back and look at -- he read a report. which is meaningless. >> i will break my usual practice -- all our usual practice traded to submit a 150 word report related to the accounting report? >> that one, i did not.

there were not going to put them in. he has already told -- i have the letters here feel like. -- if you like them. he said we do not care what you role. the city says we do not have to turn them in. we will tell other boards. >> if we have 150 words, it would be hard. i will not argue but i want you to understand that if you're saying you have given us -- >> the sunshine task force will advise all city bodies on what the meaning of that ordinance is and when they come out with four of determinations including one for the city attorney saying our reading of the law is a clear reading in the minutes, this is in the minutes.

i think you all know if being reasonable, the only reason you want to keep these comments at a the minutes is so the dissenting comments will be not seen. and it will be placed out of context as an attachment for people who will not read it at all or will not understand how it fit into the actual conversation at which it was injected. >> is there a motion to adopt the minutes of march 26, 2012, and april 13, 2012? >> moved. >> second. >> all in favor? opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. the next set -- item is the executive director's report. >> there is this one highlight i want to point out on item one. it states that one candidate has

submitted an been certified. there are a lot of candidates who have come to trainings or working with staff getting guidance about how to limit their -- line up their contributions. we expect the usual time out in terms of percentages and numbers of candidates. they did seem to be in a bit of a late start. part of them maybe there were moving the application times to a little bit later. i did not want to leave the impression that there is no interest. in the program. i will take any questions you have after prieta >> any questions? -- i will take any questions you have afterward. >> any questions?

public comment? the reports are always target- rich documents. every item deserves a full three minute public comment. our focus on no. 2 today, the investigation and enforcement program, part 2 of the sunshine ordinance category. he is off his game. by now, each of those nine complaints should have been dismissed without a hearing before the ethics commission. the one and only hearing this body has given to any sunshine ordinance task force referral was at the time of the grand jury report when it was issued and the report said you have never conducted a hearing. i would have a really hard time justifying the fact that in all of the hundreds of hearings, and a few dozen that were referred to this ethics commission, just one was even considered by the commissioners. in open government matters, you have effectively sided with the city and against the citizens in

every single case. you can use species ways of dismissing but realistically, can you say that hundreds of citizens who filed the complaints, it gets winnowed down by the task force to a few dozen and referred to you for enforcement and yet, you cannot even bother to consider them? elect a staff dismiss them, and you simply accept it bluntly. -- you simply dismiss them, and discipline except it. -- you simply acceoppt it. you can say, we are try to work on this but justice delayed is justice denied and have dozens of cases that have been referred to this task force

which just got dismissed about -- without anybody on the commission bothering to listen to the complainant. and you decided the city was right in the citizen was wrong. it is a denial of due process and i think that you cannot justify not here in one single complaint other than that one. it looks bad for you and it is bad given the mirkarimi situation because the only case you have ever heard was against jewell gomez. you voted to recommend that should be removed. the mayor ignored that. how is it going to look when you make a recommendation to the mayor and he chooses to act upon it? the first time you heard a case about official misconduct, other

than a politically motivated one. >> the next item is items for future meetings. >> this goes back to the first or second commission meeting that i ever sat on was this issue of the findings that the commission had made about the chairman of the library. the letter that was sent to the mayor and i do not remember which of the commissioners suggested that maybe an agenda item should be a follow-up to that finding. to the mayor to demonstrate we

do not necessarily what it drops in a black hole. [inaudible] if this commission should take some further action. >> i was going to follow up that item as well but i have a slightly different way of coming at it. i would be -- my suggestion would be that we ask the mayor for his response, ask the mayor to tell us how he has handled the letter that we sent. and i think that maybe something that does not need to await for

a future meeting. my question would be, could the commissioners -- the chair sent a letter to the mayor asking that on our behalf so that we can move more expeditiously, or would it be more prudent to have us look at such a letter at a future meeting? >> you cannot authorize the chair to send the letter in this agenda item. because it is only for -- >> it was not on our agenda for tonight. i would agree with commissioner renne, as i told you. i think we should have some follow-up on that matter.>> any? >> i will discuss it with the city attorney after the meeting.

it may be that it is within the authority of the chair to do something like that. >> ok. i have no objection to having it put on the agenda for a future meeting. to request follow-up from the mayor. any other items? commissioner studley: i am interested in the report from the analyst and i am interested to put discussion of that report on our agenda. at that point, it might be useful companion for the executive director to tell us how he and his staff coordinate with the other cities in california with substantial ethics functions and related roles. he has told us on specific items a number of times about how those -- how the ethics officials and agencies for

several california cities take advantage of each other's experience or expertise, share ideas, compare and contrast. i think this seems like something that will be a useful document for us to review and at the same time, to understand what other comparative activities: because sometimes we have already been the beneficiaries of this. -- beneficiaries of this insights and experiences, and sometimes we have jointly developed solutions to technical or policy issues. >> commissioner hayon: do we want to hear from mr. st. croix? or do we want to read it and see

what would be useful? >> it is a good idea. this budget analyst is here in san francisco. >> he is a private contractor contract by the board. >> ok. i would be happy to invite him. i am not sure what half the budget to pay for his time is what would be -- we have the budget to pay for his time is what would be required. >> who signed this? ok, that is his signature? ok. it is not likely have to pay him to come and talk about the analysis. i would reconsider. if it is possible, i certainly would like to hear from him directly.

>> i like that idea. any other agenda items for future meetings? >> i meant to say this earlier. in the various draft minutes related to the special meetings we have been having, there is a systematic misspelling of sheriff. somebody needs to go through and correct. left out that we knew how to do it. there is a certain list in which is appears that way. i am sorry but better to [inaudible] >> ok. public comment. >> i would think both the commissioners for -- thank both

the commissioners for making the motion to put this on a future agenda for the referral regarding jewel gomez. a lot of people have felt it is kind of not good for your purchase -- your disposition if you make a recommendation and it disappears and that is the end of it. if the mayor wrote a letter and said, i considered to recommendation and decided no, fine. if he writes a letter and take some action, find. but simply to have nothing is not acceptable. i think it is an insult to the commission and i think it puts them in the awkward position of saying we make recommendations and they sometimes just disappear and we do not know what happens to them because occasionally, as has happened a number of times in jewel gomez's case, people will say

what happened and your answer is -- that does not reflect well. i did not come here to cause problems, but i do come here to point out areas where i think things are not being handled properly. when i go to other public meetings, i tell them, my two main concerns here are to ensure that members of the public are free to make meaningful public comment and they're given access to public records which in most cases you need access in order to form a format. a friend went with me to an arts commission meeting and after he recommended they might get some sunshine ordinance training, one of the commissioner said, and my allowed to comment to him? which if they knew the ordinance which he signed he have known td to respond and he said to the man, mr. whatever your name is,

i do not know who the hell you think you are but that is a bunch of bullshit and i do not appreciate coming here and being lectured by someone like you. if that is the response by the board commissioner to public comment, especially of legitimate public comment, it is disgraceful. people have a hard enough time public speaking. it is one of the things people fear most in their life and it is hard enough for citizens of the city to come to a board or commission when they are concerned about an item then address those boards and commissions and to be aware of the fact that members in the auditorium and members on sfgtv are also watching them. to have someone showed a total animosity not only says that message to that individual but it sends a message to every other person in the chamber and every person watching on

government television. it's as we did not want your comments, we did not appreciate them, and if you see the wrong thing to us, we will attack you. our response is ok, the ordinance clearly says members are free to express their opinions, to respond, and i want to thank you for the responses i have gone although i may have not agreed with each one. i respect the fact there were given and it is that give-and- take that really encourages people to participate in government. i think one of the things that i see separately is the fact that many people to not go to boards and commissions because they really do not feel that the board and commissions care about what they say. i have heard them do it. one time in a police commission meeting, they went to item no. 2 and covered a and b and went into closed session for four

hours, it made everyone leave the chamber. there were 15 people that came to talk about item number two. after the four hours, they came back, covered agenda item 2c, and asked for public comment and i was the only one that was left and i said that was not right. i was told by the vice- president, you cannot talk about that. it can only address the substance of the item, you cannot address -- you cannot address how you handle that. i respect the constitution and whenever i see people who are not allowed to comment freely without being discouraged, i will speak out. >> the last item on the agenda is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda within the

jurisdiction of the ethics commission. >> when i joined the navy, i took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith -- true faith and allegiance. one of the interesting things about that later when i left the armed forces examining station, i realized i had lived 20 years of my life, had these liberties granted to me by the constitution, not only in this case of the u.s. but in california, and i had never had to do anything in return. i also realized at that point i was never going to be able to and accountants to put the burden down. polehinke no me by my

appearances here and i am not too shy about -- i think you know me by my parents is here and i am not too sure about my parents is. it is my right to do so and i feel it is my right to do so, petitioning government for redress of grievances. when i see of their careers of the public and they're not given an opportunity to speak, or their comments are disparaged or whatever, i find that totally unacceptable. primarily because in many of those meetings, every member of the commission or board is taken -- has taken an oath to support the constitution of the ninth seat in california. by denying people those rights, they are violating that both in my mind. it is critical that people participate in government. one of the things i have learned in life, none of us is smart as all of us. one of the raises the bay area

is such a magnet and such a vibrant and dynamic area is because we have people here who've come, who are free to express themselves, whether it is the technology field or any other field and i think that shows well. government benefits at all times by being open and not just accepting public comment. so let's have a public comment. we're not just going to allow you to speak, why it to speak. thank you. >> is there a motion to adjourn >> all in favor? opposed? the motion passes. the meeting is adjourned.

>> 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. we are celebrating the glorious grand opening of the chinese rec center. ♪ 1951, 60 years ago, our first

kids began to play in the chinese wrecks center -- rec center. >> i was 10 years old at the time. i spent just about my whole life here. >> i came here to learn dancing. by we came -- >> we had a good time. made a lot of friends here. crisises part of the 2008 clean neighborhood park fund, and this is so important to our families. for many people who live in chinatown, this is their backyard. this is where many people come to congregate, and we are so happy to be able to deliver this project on time and under budget. >> a reason we all agreed to name this memorex center is because it is part of the history of i hear -- to name this rec center, is because it

is part of the history of san francisco. >> they took off from logan airport, and the call of duty was to alert american airlines that her plane was hijacked, and she stayed on the phone prior to the crash into the no. 9 world trade center. >> i would like to claim today the center and the naming of it. [applause] >> kmer i actually challenged me to a little bit of a ping pong -- the mayor actually challenge me to a little bit of a ping- pong, so i accept your challenge. ♪

>> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center. >> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come here and join them