time refer the whole case to the oakland or berkley or san jose ethics commission and let them hear the complaint. you shouldn't be involved in it. you are too close to your own executive director to hear and adjudicate this matter without a perception of a conflict of interest. when you deliberate this when you put it on your next agenda i'm going to be back here asking you to put it on another jurisdiction so i can handleage ethical point of view on both of these cases. speaker: i believe i heard a suggestion that the city

attorney provide the precedent for your hearing a case involving discipline of your own executive director. if the city attorney provides you with that information i would hope it's made available to the public as well. i think it's important. thank you. speaker: johnson i quickly wanted to say that um, please take into consideration that it's not just a member of the staff. this is more of the executive director who is managing all of the staff and i think that that leads to a bit of a conflict of interest for you to decide to dismiss it or not and to send it over to a different ethics commission. the city attorneys

office i'll say is technically supposed to have ethical walls, fire walls, but there was some question as to whether our own deputy city attorney for the task force could help us with some of these ethics commission matters. that leads me to believe that there could be a conflict. i encourage you to send it to a different jurisdiction based on the fact that it is a department head managerial employee. thank you. speaker: david, i do recall the case and i don't actually recall the case but i do recall the executive director, the oakland commission did perform this kind of recommendation on a prior manner when the staff was conflicted and i think that's the case that was

referred to. with regard to these two items i believe they are properly before you. i do believe that you followed and the staff followed the procedures for what happens whether it's a conflict and until we have rights to handle sunshine refederals these appear to have been handled consistent with the regulars for handling investigation matters so it appears to be procedurally you seem to be in a good place and we'll deal with that in future meeting. thank you. speaker: one other thing i'd like to clarify for the public who think that i decided at the beginning that we were going to move this and didn't notify you until now, that is not the case. i did not have an opportunity to look at it until the break realizing

how sub stan tiff it was i think i need to study it more and i apologize again for the delay but to me that's a better course than to do it on the fly so again my apologizes. the next item on the agenda is closed session. do we need a vote to hold it over? we're holding it over, right? we're good. okay. the next item on the agenda is a closed session how pursuent to section c dash section [indiscernible]

can you anticipate how long this will take so we can judge if we should stay for those of us interested in the following items. speaker: i was going to say three hours but i don't think it should take long. is there a motion for me to close session? all in favor, speaker: we're back if public session. the complaints are

confidential. speaker: did i do that wrong? speaker: is there a motion? speaker: so moved speaker: second? public comment? all in favor, i. any opposed? hearing none. the commission entered into a settlement in the matter of alex torque principle ground floor public affairs in the amount of six thousand dollars. order will be published to the commission website tomorrow and the commission also decided that a matter would be referred to another department agency that will handle the issue in a

different matter. the next item on the agenda is admitted for the commissions regular meeting of july twenty third. actually that's going to be held over speaker: can you explain what the matter will be held over to? speaker: i've been told no. i'm trying to figure out what was -- speaker: this is discussion on the matter that's confidential under the charter so the commission referred that to another force agency and the

chair announced that the details of that matter remain confidential under the charter speaker: and will continue to be so per mennently? speaker: until the ethics commission issues probable cause speaker: which could still happen based on the refederal to the outside agency speaker: unlike /hreuly and the other matter will be posted tomorrow speaker: looking forward to it. thanks. speaker: just one thing i wanted to highlight. just another well another nice improvement on the website

would e recalling task force is a new way to access information that's on the website. it's already on the website but in order to do searchs that will compose not only reports tailored to what the user is trying to do research on but charts and graphs that are very probable in giving people visuals that support the information that they are looking for. i wanted to highlight that we continue to work to improve the access of information by the public various ways to manipulate the dat /taeu that we have in our

possession. speaker: commissioner sudden: i'm sorry i know it's late. this is information not in our possession and people who haven't filed their form seven hundreds has provided public with getting this information and there's also the fact that hundreds of other people did manage to do their forms at some person inconvenience and sacrifice and i think it's better that everyone was held to the requirement to do it. i appreciate the responsibilities that staff have at a challenging time and i realize we couldn't do everything in cadillac fashion but i wonder

whether we could be more imagine /tphau a list and putting it in our website if we haven't done that, sharing it at a meeting asking people if they have thoughts about what we can do about it using the public value. you may want to remind us about what we've done to raise these people or follow-up with them or give a list to the mayor and the people who do appointments to these folks and reappointments to other folks and i know we've talked about this before but it might be helpful on the record to tell us what has been done and for all of us to think about what we can do that could reinforcelet seriousness of this without putting

unreasonable expectations on the staff that's spread thin. speaker: based on my prior directions to the staff i understood that because of resources no non filers were being turned over and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my

failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in a box where nothing is going to change, commissioner as a communications expert once

you start communicating to a wider audience sometimes things crack loose where people respond differently so i think what you said is good. we might want to consider as a commission what we want to suggest as or at what point do we post this or not make the public have to ask for the list but make it available or do other things that wouldn't be terribly burden on some but it would make your letter stronger saying if we do not receive the form seven hundred by x and the fine you are now supposed to pay this is now what's going to happen. i don't know if these people would be embarrassed or feel awkward about it, i don't know. also, to think that our cities culture is to say we want people to do this and we will affect those that don't

and given the hundreds of people that have filed that are not on this list there are folks who say do it, i did it and they might actually get it. speaker: understood speaker thank you chair: i want to thank the commission that for doing an excellent job posting the official misconduct document quickly and they were there relatively easy to find and thanks for keeping up with all that. speaker: we had an interesting day distributing those. chair: i imagine there was a little bit of paper: speaker: the cameras were enforced chair:

you were being filmed door to door. is there any public comment? speaker: a couple things. on the dash board project and the posting of documents relating to the official conduct precedeings massy should be congratulated. he doesn't get credit but does a lot behind the scenes. i'm sure he's embarrassed but he really does do a lot of great work. on some other points i appreciate commissioners concern about non filers and i have said many times before this commission i would like to see on a regular

basis whether it's monthly quarterly every six months but periodically a comprehensive list for everybody in a bad place whether it's for not filing forms, not paying fines, being overdue on penalties. with all due respect it's not just seven hundred forms but in some forms it's lobbyists, campaign consult ants and there are a lot of folks that get into a bad place and we've never had a comprehensive way to keep track of that. it would be great to have some form of mechanism to take care of that. as we see if page two of the directors report we're asking some success in getting folks

off there but in the past month there hasn't been implemented. on that point item eight /khrudz an in couple bent member of the college board and i ask publicly if that person is reelected will he in this case be able to be certified as a candidate if he has overdue fines, forms, et cetera and if not, that's a great example of where we should be proactive in saying that's a problem and frankly if our laws allow this person and i have nothing against this person but someone in this status to file in reelection having overdue fines, forms, fees, pen al tease, we should adjust the laws so they can't do that. it's one thing if you are in office but if you are a candidate that's kind of a problem, i think, and again,

having nothing to do with the individual but clearing things up so that are able to go forward, i think that's for the moment. thank you for the interesting long meeting. speaker: item ten, public comment? public comment appearing and not appearing in the agenda commission? meeting adjourned.