one of the candidates unfortunately i don't think it was explicitly stated, but she is an employee of the city, and more particularly of the public library. the public library has been one of the worst violators of sunshine and there will come cases before the task force, that not only involve the library directly, but indirectly, for example library users has won five cases against the arts commission and one against a supervisor regarding library matters namely the mural destruction at bernal heights branch library. thank you. >> chair kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name's rita -- and i'm standing before you to use my first amendment rights to petition the government for redress. the board of supervisors' actions regarding existing sunshine ordinance task force has been called everything from

absurd and arbitrary to petty and punitive. it's completely shut down. you're denying us the rights to open government. the inability of this committee not to recognize one member of the task force needed to be physically disabled is until now unacceptable and inexcusable. it's your job to know what the requirements are when you put forth appointees to these petitions. your attempt to replace members to the board your uninformed or green cronies or supporters, some documents that are required for consideration is beyond insulting. the removal of bruce wolfe who meets all of the requirements for the seat of the task force intended to satisfy perhaps, i don't know, the fragile egos of

you who have been found in violation of the very charter that you've sworn to uphold to give you a task force that you can control is not acceptable. this is not -- sysco. with the power to open government to citizens again you can start by reappointing bruce force so that the sunshine task force can begin immediately to operate legally. >> i've been a grassroots worker since the last decade since 2002

when i worked on the animal guardian ordinance. i've known bruce wolfe for eight of those years. and i want to take a little bit of a different course here. i don't think that this hearing is a place to use for any side to accuse any other side of misdealing, or playing games, or, you know, he said, she said. i think this hearing's a place to decide on who the best person is to next seat on this body. i've watched bruce wolfe in action many times and i'm not exaggerating. he is the most honest, direct, and straightforward person i have ever witnessed in action in this building. that is not an exaggeration. i've even seen him when -- in meetings with solely progressives, admonish other progressives to be careful not to steer clear -- steer away

from ethics and sunshine rules. he doesn't play favorites on this stuff. he puts the hammer down on everybody. and most importantly, the internet is becoming a big deal. bruce and i have worked together before in campaigns. and one of them was internet democracy. so not only does he have a deep understanding of the tech issues, but has a deep understanding of what it means to bring democratic access to the public of government activities. and that is absolutely crucial. and so i think you can guess by now that i wholeheartedly support bruce being appointed to this position. thanks. >> chair kim: thank you, mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, chair. i'm patrick -- shaw, here as a private citizen today to support bruce wolfe, who's clearly the

most qualified of the two candidates, given that the third candidate, ms. forsley, is a city employee, should not even be considered by this committee for this appointment. to support a false claim that the sunshine task force had engaged in official misconduct and had undermined transparency in government mr. wiener failed to provide evidence and presented misinformation at least four times during the board's full meeting on may 22nd. wiener wrongly claimed the task force had exempted itself from the san francisco charter, wrongly claimed the task force had said how dare you, sunshinelight us end quote when the task force never claimed such thing. wiener claimed he asked for a, quote, audit, in compliance with this ordinance when in fact he had asked for a survey.

wiener also inflated the average number of times city employees had to attend hearings to resolve sunshine complaints. mr. wiener also claimed the sotf had ignored the city attorney's opinion but the fact is the city attorney's website that -- city attorney opinion, that have been issued lists no such opinion, and it's not posted. what was vice chair wolfe's crime to -- be removed from the task force? supervisor kim, mr. wiener claims mr. wolfe had been part of the task force when all these things had happened. ostensibly including when it found mr. wiener guilty of official misconduct on september 27, 2011. wiener presented no specific charges -- mr. wolfe, just that wolfe had been around. >> chair kim: wrap up your final sentence. >> as mr. planthold has written

to the mayor it's a simple matter ignoring the advice of the attorney is not grounds for action by any city agency or official. i recommend that you appoint and recommend mr. wolfe for this appointment. >> chair kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dr. derek cur. the removal of bruce wolfe from the sunshine task force was an act of political retaliation. it was also a slight to the disability community. there's a way to resolve all of this to make peace torques put it behind us. thank you. >> chair kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, put is now -- okay. if you'd like to speak for public comment, please do step up so i know that there are folks that would like to speak. if there are any others, please

do line up. >> well, i just see even, when you appoint wolfe, the damage has already been done. you've already gutted the sunshine ordinance task force. i mean do we have any faith in the sunshine ordinance task force with the new members that you appointed? i don't think any of them or the majority of them know anything about the regulation of sunshine ordinance. so you've already destroyed it, even with wolfe on board. you hear the lady yelling at the public speakers? it's a violation. she's not supposed to interrupt the speakers when they're talking. she comes into this meeting -- see there she go again. could you have her -- >> chair kim: no. there is no back and forth dialogue. this is opportunity to address the rules committee. if you would like to speak with ms. wilson or any others talk to them outside the committee room. >> you see how she acts toward the public.

she's not qualified. you should have your sheriffs escort her out. this is totally unprofessional behavior. if you were at that meeting, where that last one, that when they first were appointed, it just -- the things i heard, a little bilt of what i seemed, it seemed more like a lynch mob because the citizens knew that the people that you all picked were not going to give us any sniglet of justice. >> chair kim: is there in he other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i think for a number of reasons, because it's time for members of the public to comment i really try not to restrict comments people make but there needs to be a general sense of cordiality and respect accorded to members of this room, whether they sit on the board of supervisors or members of the public that apply to serve on behalf of our city.

i want to reiterate that. i really try not to sensor comments that are made because it's the right of the public to speak but i hope people are careful in concentration of what they say and really take time not to insult one another or make mispronunciations of things that have happened. i don't know if there's some comments i have on supervisor campos on the roster. i wanted to address one issue around the city charter which supervisor wiener pointed out to us regarding the sunshine task force and there was general consensus among the board and our city attorney that the task force violated the city charter and it came up with the previous appointment for the member of the task force. i know comments were made that it was supervisor wiener only but i think that was the general consensus among the members of the rules committee at that hearing. supervisor campos. >> co-chair campos: thank you. i want to thank all the members of the public who have come out

for this item. before i talk about the specific applicants, i do want to make a point about the issue of failing to appoint a member of the disabled community. i think that every member of the public who spoke about that is absolutely right, that ultimately it's the obligation of this committee and of this body, the board of supervisors, to know that. and i think that all of us, and i certainly personally take responsibility for the fact that i frankly did not know that when we were having that discussion here, in committee. and i think it's regrettable that something like that was not something that we were aware of. and i think it's also regretible that not only did it not come up with committee, but also when it was actually happening at the board of supervisors, the entire meeting, that issue did not come up. i do take responsibility, as an elected official, for failing to

know that. and i think that the only thing you can do when something like that happens is to say, you know, that we take ownership. it is something that we shouldn't have done. and the hope is that we can learn from that. but i do want to apologize to the public because i think that that was something that should not have happened in committee and have not have happened at the board of supervisors. and my hope is that we have learned from that, and that going forward, to the extent that there is any kind of requirement along those lines, or any other legal requirement, that we do everything we can to ensure compliance with what is required. and i think an apology not only to the members of the public who are here, who are watching, but also to the members of the disabled community, because there is a reason why that requirement is in there, because we want to make sure that that community is adequately represented on that body. so i take responsibility for

that. the last thing that i will say is, you know, any time that there is more than -- there are more applicants than seats that are available it's always a difficult thing for us because i'm always grateful to anyone who comes forward and wants to serve the city. and i think that each one of the three applicants should be commended because the sunshine task force -- sunshine ordinance task force does do very important work, and it's time intensive work. so anyone who is willing to give back by serving in that fashion i think should be commended. we only have one seat, and at the end of the day for me, in making the appointment, it really comes down to who is the most qualified individual for the position. and to me, the issue of qualifications has to transcend, you know, what sometimes is our own individual preference in terms of some of the things that the task force has done.

i'll be honest, there have been a couple of instances where i have disagreed with the outcome, the decision that has taken place at the task force. but nevertheless, i respect the role that the task force plays, and believe that even when we disagree, we have to follow the rulings that they make. the reason that i am proud today to support and make a motion to move forward bruce wolfe to -- with a positive recommendation to the full board is because i have actually gone to task force meetings, and i do believe that bruce wolfe has played a really important role, and can play and needs to continue to play a very important role in that task force. i actually think that you're not going to find a more thoughtful,

prepared, and well-informed member of that task force. and even though mr. wolfe may have a respect perspective on a specific issue, i do believe that he is the kind of individual that goes out of his way to listen to the other side, and to take the other side -- the other perspective into consideration. i have seen that time and time again. and i actually was present at the last task force meeting that took place, the first meeting following the appointment of new members, and i have to say that i saw, firsthand, the need for the kind of experience and institutional knowledge that mr. wolfe has. i really believe that the work of that task force can be a lot better, that the work product can be more -- a lot better and more effective, if he is on that task force. i have not always agreed with

everything that mr. wolfe has decided on the task force, but i have respected where he's coming from, and i understand why, you know, he concluded in a certain way. so i really think that we have an opportunity to just move forward. mr. wolfe, i think, is someone who will bring not only the expertise and the knowledge, but also a fair approach. i think it will be even-handed. and i really hope that we give him opportunity to serve. so i proudly make a motion that we move forward bruce wolfe with a positive recommendation, and lastly i will say that i make that motion without taking anything away from the two other individuals who have come forward. they each bring something to the table. and, again, we are grateful to them and commend them for their willingness to serve.

ms. simon, my partner worked with latifa simon so we recognize the history of your service. whether it's ms. simon or ms. forsley, that we have the opportunity to appoint you to city commission at some point because i think each one of you has something to offer that the city could benefit from. so i make that motion. thank you. >> chair kim: thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor chiu: sprank tra , chair kim. these are always difficult decisions but we have to move forward with someone. let me say a few things because a lot was brought up in the public comment and otherwise. speaking as someone who did not vote to seat mr. wolfe, i guess

it was a number of months now to the sunshine ordinance task force, there was certainly no intent to stop the task force from meeting, and agree that there was, as supervisor campos mentioned, a general unawareness of what was happening by doing so, and stopping the task force from meeting by our charter. i do have a bit of a different approach though. i don't -- just because of that, i don't believe we need to seat someone necessarily. we still want to find the right person, and someone that we believe in to sit on the sunshine ordinance task force or any other task force or commission that we appoint. i don't believe just because there's one requirement that we're going to have to appoint someone that we don't believe in that will do the right job. despite a lot of comments i think everyone who voted not to seat mr. wolfe wants to see the task force seated and see the task force in action. we believe it's a vital part of our city government. similar to my reasoning before,

this was not a -- although some of the appointments out of the rules committee and otherwise, that the full board have become political, to me the reasoning that i did not feel comfortable agreeing to vote for people on the task force before, was -- and we're talking about the rule of law here, when they violated the rule of law and amended their own bylaws in the face of our city charter relating to the quorum requirements and the voting requirements i cannot in good faith sit here and vote for someone to seat someone that voted in favor of that, whether they led the charge or just voted on it. to me it's not something that's appropriate and not something that i can support. however i appreciate the fact that right now we need to seat someone from the handicapped community. i believe that needs to be a priority of ours. i believe we had -- you know, it was ms. simon who i think would be eminently qualified. i also know and am aware of that bruce oka, who was a former mta

commissioner, who served with -- as a distinguished member there, someone that i didn't agree with many of his actions as well, but someone i would be very happy to support here at the sunshine ordinance task force, submitting his application today or submitting it in the next few days and someone i believe we could get full support. i think we talk about diversity here at the rules committee. someone that would bring the first asian member to the sunshine ordinance task force. i think that would be very important, and someone that i would support and i think would have the full support of the board of supervisors. to me, my approach, i appreciate the motion, it's not something that i would support today because, in my opinion, we're going to go through this same thing we went through a number of months ago, where mr. wolfe -- unless maybe some things change, but i don't believe will have the full support of the board of supervisors, and wil we'll be bk

here again. i would prefer to continue this item, wait 'til mr. oka comes forward and i would bet that mr. oka would have the support of the board of supervisors, and at least six members of the board so we can seat the sunshine ordinance task force as soon as possible and really get moving with the business of what that task force is all about. again, i appreciate that there's difference much opinions here on that, but that's something that i would certainly support. again, i want to emphasize from my perspective, this is about following the rule of the law. it's about what happened before. to me it is not a political thing. this is about getting someone that everyone can agree with, that has served the city before, in a distinguished fashion and can serve it again, even though i've disagreed with mr. oka on a number of matters at mta board, he's someone i would support for this commission. i appreciate, chair kim, your opinion on this. i don't think we need to do a procedural motion over motion

but that is something i would support and would recommend here. >> chair kim: thank you. we do have a motion to move forward on bruce wolfe with recommendation to the full board. i know that we actually previously had recommended bruce wolfe to the full board and i was one of the members who supported bruce. there was concern i had with the sunshine task force around the city charter and some violations that were made but bruce was one individual that i thought was very committed to making reforms that were necessary to follow the city charter and i also believe has a strong commitment to sunshine and i will continue to support bruce wolfe as our appointee to the sunshine task force. i do want to thank both ms. simon and ms. forsley for your interest to serve. i think that there are a number of different committees and task force that your background would ideally suit and it seems there's more of a general interest to serve in any capacity, more than just

specifically the sunshine task force itself. i know in mr. wolfe's circumstances he is specifically interested in sunshine and transparency and open government and for that reason i would like to support him as well. i want to recognize supervisor farrell's comments though regarding the fact that -- (no audio) -- i do want to give him an opportunity to do so, to meet with my colleagues and see if he's able to garner some other support. if it isn't, i suspect -- i know that this item will then come back and be referred to rules committee. i know mr. oka, i'm a huge fan of mr. oka. i'm glad that he's interested in this committee. unfortunately his application did not come in by the the time we agendized the rules committee and for that reason i feel for the sake of the process and honoring the process i will be supporting moving this motion out to the full board. but i do think that there is some -- i do think that

supervisor farrell had brought some valid concerns but i want to give mr. wolfe that opportunity to lobby and make his case to other members of this board of supervisors. so, supervisor farrell, i don't believe you actually made the motion that you had discussed, and i appreciate your willingness to not engage in the rigmarole. we have a motion to move forward mr. wolfe with recommendation. and we do have a comment from supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you very much. when i came in today, his i was not planning on saying anything. i actually came for the next item, the very important lgbt senior task force. and i look forward to getting to that so i was not planning on commenting on this. but there were a number of comments that were made by members of the public that could be i think confusing to both

those that are here today and those who are watching, who have not followed this saga. and personal attacks and personalizing things are really pretty misleading way. smns, once a prominent member of the san francisco political progressive community told me a number of years ago that you know you've made it big time when people start seeing your fingerprints on things you didn't touch, and people start at tributing all sorts of power to you that you don't have. as much as it might be nice to make decisions for the entire board of supervisors, i don't have that power. i'm one out of 11. the fact is that what happened with the previous members of the task force not being reappointed, all of the ones -- incumbents that were rejected, except for mr. wolfe, were removed by the rules committee.

i'm not on the rules committee. i was not even at that meeting. one incumbent made it to the full board, bruce wolfe, and six supervisors, not one, six voted to appoint someone in his stead. while i'm flattered that some members of the public appear to believe that i have the power to act or to in any way pressure the board of supervisors to do anything i do not have that power. just to be very clear about the issues of the sunshine -- the previous sunshine ordinance task force composition, some of my colleagues have mentioned the brazen violation of the city charter when that task force decided to exempt itself from the charter's quorum requirement. you have to have a majority of all members vote for something to pass it, not just those present. this board has to act with six supervisors, his even if we have

only six members present. the sunshine ordinance task force, because of attendance issues, exempted itself from that charter requirement. the task force, according to the reports prepared by the board's legislative and budget analyst determined that city employees had to go to the task force to have their case adjudicated 1.9 times. the task force was not handling its agenda property and as a result city employees would have to go multiple times, and that is a waste of taxpayer money, and it generates unneeded overtime. there were reference made to sunshine ordinance complaints against members of this board, it is true that since i've been on, there have been sunshine complaints filed against almost every member of the board. that's part of life in san francisco. people file complaints and they get adjudicated. sunshine ordinance task force has sometimes exonerated members of this board, has sometimes

found against us. and that is what it is. and that had nothing to do with any of the actions of this board, as far as i can tell. i also just want toindicate that my position has not changed with respect to mr. wolfe. on a personal level, i like mr. wolfe. i have nothing against him. i worked closely with him when we were fighting against the dog restrictions proposed by the golden gate national recreation area and we i think did very well in that fight. so this is not personal. this is about the task force. and i understand there's a disagreement, and i completely respect that. but i did want to provide my perspective. thank you. >> chair kim: thank you, supervisor wiener. we have a motion on the floor and i'd like to take roll call on that motion. >> linda wong: on the motion, supervisor farrell, no. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor kim, aye. >> linda wong: twoize, one no. >> chair kim: thank you. motion passes. madam clerk, can you please call item 4.

>> linda wong: hearing to consider appointing 15 members in -- terms to the lgbt seniors task force. there are 15 seats and 44 applicants. >> chair kim: thank you. and ms. wong, could you list the members that have e-mailed either the clerk or our office that have withdrawn their application. i've got at least two e-mails. i'm not sure if there are more. >> linda wong: yes. we received two from applicants wishing to withdraw and they are cynthia davis and richard appl appleby. >> chair kim: given the great number of applicants that we have, which is unusual, that is because it is a completely new task force that is being created and that legislation was authored by supervisor wiener who is here today, and i believe coauthored by supervisor campos and supervisor olague, i think that is the reason why we have such a great number but i will be limiting