it's entity and when we're dealing with hud the housing authority has to obey all local and state law and sunshine ordinance and we're given the run around over illegal elections. there's millions of dollars being stolen by the councils, the residence councils. it's off the hook and nobody talks about it. i want to mention a couple of points on the rush through this process here. there's a pattern of rushing through the process. when the sunshine task force didn't have one member who is disables, they stop and when the ethics commission has miss mean ors going on and the meeting is not properly agendaed and ada violations are going on you have an obligation

to stop the meeting until corrections can be made or you are under liability for ada lawsuit. this should be elementary in san francisco and in closure i want to come back to did you remove proceedings in the charter from the deal from the final document from fifteen dot one zero five? did i get that right? a. we haven't taken any action. speaker: okay thank you so much. this removal from office really needs to come forward especially when there's such an unequal application in the laws in this city. thanks. speaker: i'm not sure i heard

it right about sixty-seven thirty-four -- oh it's back on. okay. there are two provisions of sixty-seven thirty-four one which defines official misconduct and one which discusses willing violations of the law. the official misconduct provision talks about a willful failure of any elected official and so forth to discharge a duty imposed by the ordinance of the act. there are actually sixteen places in the city charter where there can be a finding of official misconduct. there's this one plus fifteen others. at some point you are going to need regulations on how to handle that. admittingly the charter provisions are a mess. once you

move away from what the mayor can do and the mayor cannot do but you still need the regulations. the other problems i have obviously the artificial statute of limitations one year from the date the records were asked for. it makes no sense and i think it's probably too restrictive to stand up to the constitutional requirement of how you interpret laws affecting public access. there's also a provision that the notes of the investigative individuals on investigating individuals are to be kept confidential until the decision is made. there's no basis for keeping any of those records confidential. that's been established. i think the quick case i filed a couple years ago

probably established that principle. other than that, there is any number of glitches and such but i really think that taking another look at it is very helpful. thank you. speaker: okay we'll work on those. thank you for your comments. i think they were helpful and we'll keep trying. the next item of the agenda is a consideration on the follow-up letter. does anybody need a break? we will -- let's

take a break after we get through this agenda item and then we'll resume. do you want to introduce this matter mr. sacrum? speaker: a couple of the commissioners want a specialized interest in this act taken by the commission on a prior date for the purposes of determining whether you were interested in requesting an update on follow-up actions by the mayor so the thought expressed was that possibly a follow-up letter would be drafted and sent. the staff took the liberty in drafting a letter for the commissioners to consider and edit provided you even decide to send one. speaker: any comments on the

commissioners? mr.: i think we should send the letter and i think we have comments about the specifics of the not we at least have a voice set on typewriter. commissioner: i would add to the letter which the staff did a very fine job of but i think i would add in the last paragraph after what's written language to this effect. alternatively i request you advice the commission as to the reasons why you decline to take any action in respect to miss g o /ph* go /phezs

conduct. speaker: commissioner souther land: if we're he hadilitying i think the phrase was i would say with the authority or power rather than ability and um, i guess i wish that i had and i didn't go back to see our specific vote or the letter that we sent initially but is the wording of the last sentence of the paragraph recommend that you remove her from appointed conduct from office, that's the language

that we used before. speaker: yes it is. speaker: okay. speaker: any other comments? i have a suggestion and i don't feel particularly strong about it but i wonder whether we need the first sentence of the third paragraph -- i'm not sure that we requested that the mayor keep us informed, did we? speaker: yeah. speaker: so the mayor may or not have give us a response if we asked him to speaker: he doesn't have a requirement. speaker: right so i would suggest we strike that

first sentence and begin the third paragraph with i am writing and add commissioners sentence at the end of that. and then it's typical that the chair would sign an act of the commission speaker: either the chair would sign or you could delegate someone to sign. i'm fine with that for logistics purposes. that would certainly be easier. speaker: i think you should sign speaker: you think i should sign? speaker: i don't think we've ever had all five do that speaker: you should sign speaker: i have two more

suggestions for you to add. first i testified before this body before and mrs. go mess when i con grad lated her to be the first person to be referred for official misconduct i said sunshine task force in which you actually held a meeting and she didn't like my sarcasm which is too bad and that's too bad and her response bending over to pick up her book bag and jacket, she had come to strike me with her coat. what's the phrase? you don't have to have batteries to have assault. her behavior was reprehensible and it has sat stingingly

reprehensible for over a year while you've waited for the mayor to get back to you. one suggestion is to put in your letter to the mayor is to ask for an explanation from mrs. go mess why she thought that behavior in a public forum was -- what's the phrase? right conduct bee fitting an officer of the city blah, blah, blah, you know the phrase the mayor used? was that right action of a public official? the second question you should ask him on my behalf if you'd like in your letter is to ask him why he hasn't taken any action on miss go mess who was found by two bodies both of them ethical over set

boundaries which both concluded she had engaged in official misconduct and when that was brought to the mayors attention he chose to do nothing in stark contrast to what he did to official [indiscernible] and we're still wondering. you can't charge the sheriff with official misconduct over false charges and then let a library commission president off the hook for proven charges. speaker: thank you very much. i do have graphic presentation but there are only two reel points i want to make. first of

all, with respect to official misconduct in general, there have been questions about the appending charges against the elected sheriff about whether it was related to his office and whether he acted in his official capacity with respect to mrs. go mess there is no question this took place at an official public meeting and that she was conducting the office that she was appointed to while this was happening but more importantly the mayor removed while charges were pending yet he did nothing, not even make a response after miss

go mess was found guilty. you may remember that after this happened there was an altercation in which some comments of mrs. go mess was posted on the library website and my democracy on demonstration is a little bit slow here. this is more than the tip of the iceberg. this is a tip -- i've played this once before but there may be people who haven't heard it yet. video clip: [indiscernible] speaker: you have to understand that not only is she discussing

her possible revenge but she took that revenge by filing a /tprad lent police report against the speaker which wasn't me. the only accountability that she is susceptible to and there's no response at all that effectively rat and when the mayor does not respond in any way he's basically saying it doesn't rise to the level of his attention. he's basically ratifying it. well that's like a referee taking a punch at somebody. everyone just go home. thank you very much.

speaker: library association first of all certainly do send the letter. i appreciate that you do have it. i only wish it would have come sooner and i do hope you've repeated followups and as a previous speaker said, thank you for the petition that was suggested by commissioner /repby. the sunshine task force was essentially that her behavior in the room was so shocking and so intimidating that others not myself or the previous speaker said that they were actually intimidated and did not make public comment on an item that they had actually come to make

public comment on and it was the item generally speaking that was under discussion by the person who had been violently shouted down. in addition, as the previous speaker mentioned, there was a whole series of follow-up one hardly knows how to describe the behavior that followed but um, -- which is to say the police report, the apparent and it was witnessed by somebody else that we heard from at that time about the attempt to hit mr. mow nay and my mind is going blank at the moment. not

only was miss go mess reappointed to the library commission but earlier this year following your letter and the sunshine task force, mrs. go mess was nominated as the only nominee by the other library commissioners who are all appoint tees of the mayors office and was reelected unanimously as chair of the library commission. i would urge you not only to send this very promptly but to make it even stronger if you can find it to do so and i would say that the mayor has taken action in connection with this matter. he has reappointed miss go mess and he has allowed presumably his offices appoint tees to rea

/hrebgt a reelect her without any point. if you can make this even stronger and undertake to do this more than once a year i think that would be terrific. this is good and i appreciate you doing this letter. speaker: is there a motion to approve the letter as amended. all in favor? the motion passes. we'll take a short break. we'll spea

back in session. the next item on the agenda is consideration of ethics complaint numbers eight one one zero eight one six and zero 911 zero eight one six. we have recommendations. speaker: before we proceed with items five, i would ask the commissions permission to be excused from any of the proceedings actually with item five, six and seven as has been pointed out correctly my wife both as city attorney and in her private capacity has been closely associated with lieu gun awe hospital and is also

chair of the lagoon awe /hopbd awe foundation. i for the record will tell you i have no idea what any of those complaints are about , i have not spoken with any of the staff and have not looked at any of the papers associated with items five and six but i would think it more appropriate receipt if i'm excused. i am more than willing to go in the back while you are considering those items or with the permission of the commission that i be excused from the balance of the meeting as the items eight through twelve do not appear to be of census but

i'm happy to stay if you want me to stay but i would like to be excused from the consideration of those three items. speaker: i certainly have no exception to you being excused from the remainder of the items. anyality net view from any of the commissioners? thank you. we need to make a motion and vote. we need to make a motion as to whether -- is there a motion to except commissioners accuse al? we have to take public comment. speaker: i just want to understand further that the commissioner may have bias in the matter. i would urge a no vote on the motion and have

commissioner continue to participate if he believes he might be biased in the matter then that would result in a different conclusion. in general, i would rather have people participate if it makes sense that he can. i appreciate his cautions and that's my comment. thanks. speaker: thank you commissioner remy for being the gentlemen they are. speaker: all in favor everyone: i speaker: proposed? hearing none. we have recently received a memo that is from mr. shaw and we just got it over the

weekend. and i confess i have not had an opportunity to efficiently review it. mr. shaw i don't know if i can ask you some questions about it? speaker: commissioner may i draw your attention to the data on the letter? it should not have taken for over the weekend for you to look at it but be that as it may there are questions? speaker: is this addressed only to both the complaint against mr. saint /tproeu -- speaker: both memos

are identical except towards the end. speaker: but your view is they are directed both to saint /tproeu and [indiscernible] speaker: absolutely and both dated september nineteenth, um, pretty much in a nutshell indicate that because charter section c3 dot six nine nine dash one three applies only to the ethics laws and not to the public access laws as was held in the allen gross man verses san francisco ethics commission memorandum of points and authorities petition for

preemptory mandate october fifth 2009 which was settled in mr. gross man's favor, c3 dot six nine nine dash thirteen was relied on by both the controllers office and by the ethics commissioner mr. saint c r o y as being their main claim that they had an exception but it is not upheld by [indiscernible] and the majority of their case plied on this and because of that i am going to repeat what i said in public comment of this meeting

tonight that i don't believe this matter should be before you whatsoever for a number of reasons which i'll get to. speaker: mr. shaw the other thing i've realized is that the city attorney hasn't had an opportunity to review it either and it's not his fault and me not reviewing it is my fault. speaker: it's not entirely your fault because of the timeline speaker: mr. shaw let me finish. i don't think it fair to you or fair to the process for me to try to read it on the fly and figure it out. i propose that we put it over and i apology to my fellow commissioners for that request and especially with only three of us here i propose we pull it

over. speaker: supervisor weener has claimed that the sunshine task force didn't happen their agenda properly and that charge could legally be against the commission as well and if you are going to request to postpone which i would probably entertain, i would like you to consider -- speaker: we don't need to consult you. we're going to put it over. speaker: i know but i don't think you should hear this case at all. my case should have been assigned to a different jurisdiction for /-td entire process. it's not that another jurisdiction gets to write a recommendation which then comes back to you and while you still have a conflict of interest -- speaker: commissioner i'm going to stop you there. i understand your viewpoint. we may put this over

at which point you'll have your opportunity to speak on it speaker: on whether it will be transferred to a different jurisdiction? speaker: yes speaker: absolutely speaker: commissioners? are you okay to hold it over? in addition, i understand that there is precedent for the commission handling a matter that has been investigated by a different entity, a different body. i don't know before we take it up the next time if you can tell me whether or not there is such precedent? that would be helpful. speaker: off the top of my head i do recall one precedent. i think a couple years ago there was a filing complaint