legislation wise are having a quiet legislative - not much legislation has been introduced. next meeting you will be hearing is tobacco register restriction. we're going to get a presentation about clove restrictive ice areas. there are several throughout this community and you'll be able to hear with the alcohol restrict areas. and then the c r v the outreach committee will be reviewing the.

draft and the commission will receive it on february 11th. the letter that the commission approved it is - did it make it into the binder? >> and so that letter has been forwarded onto the mayor. and the examiner made note of the xhoirgss discussion and our recommendations >> and comments. next dp h is xhooern a meeting >> highway education will be taking place. so this is to really take a look at the uninsured of san francisco some will be going

into medi-cal and covered california is the name of the exchange program for of the state of california. and it is through the exchange program that i think - this is where i think this is where small business either really, you know, working with their individual employees to be doing their own purchasing or small businesses doing the purchases with the small business program how their - it's still being sdurmd so this thursday dp h is hosting a meeting to give us some information on how all that will be working. so quick question for you.

how fame are you with the concept of the exchange program with the affordable exchange act >> not fame. >> i think it would be good for us to have that information. >> i mean - >> the exchange program is the concept - as a business you're looking for insurance you might be to look at what you're able to purchase within your budget. one of the things that people who are self-employed is the high cost of self-insuring

yourself. so in the affordable care act is to allow individuals to purchase it more at a group rate vs. an individual rate and whose running the exchange program? >> as i understand it, it's not completely finally, the state develops the program and i think they're going to have county by county having someone at the accounting level run and manager the program but to be determined. these are some of the details i hope to be getting at this meeting. and then the last note is just a reminder

>> february 7th. >> okay february 7th i have that completely wrong in my calendar. febrile 7th so that is a >> thursday. >> week from this coming thursday. and it's the 60th anniversary for the county of merchants. so you can see the highlight of the mayors city he'd i have attacked the press release for you. you can take a look at other elements of the city and the successes that have trans paradise throughout the year.

and that concludes my report >> public comment 1, 2, 3, 4. seeing none. i wanted to see the date >> i thought that was a bit awkward but i trusted my calendar. and their website isn't up so i couldn't go back and verify. we'll we will verify that for you >> it is the 7 accounting. >> our retreat is on the 28 of february. is it the rae treat the wednesday >> i believe it was a thursday and thursday. >> commissioners should have -

i don't know if you have. >> it's at 1 clock. >> we just changed over from different softwares. i'm going to blame it on that and mr. president, would i like the next item called >> it allows the president to make announcements that are of interest to the small business community. >> and we're going to talk about b - i want to give you some information the fundraising efforts we raised $70,000 raised. we're right on track. we're currently selecting businesses to be photographed

for a small business campaign so if anyone has any ideas let us know. our small business week is going to be may 13 through 18. our theme is shaping communities. it's pretty much along the lines. on may 13th we'll be doing the favors of the city. we expect to have about 15 hundred people. you'll have to register online and we're limiting tickets on how many people can come. on tuesday may fourteen the

board of supervisors will be - each supervisor will be selecting the winner and the mayor will select the winner from the whole city. and then we're going to be offering 50 workshops and the topics is doing business with the government to how to toward a mobile truck business. we'll have other activities from 530 to 9:00 p.m. and small business commissioners we'll all be in attendance. then on friday may 17th small things will be taking place

around the city we'll have more information later. on saturday may 18 there will be sidewalk sales. and we once again will wave the sidewalk fees. and thalz i have at the moment >> what date again is the deal at the met iron. >> may 13 that can and we're trying, you know, if we get our funding we'd like to tint the outside because we'd like to have leave people come and so there's two key opportunities for the commission may fourteen

the there no awards of sermons and then thursday evening for the awards. those are the two key things for the commissions to be attending >> and may 13 to may 18th is what. commissioners i'll follow-up >> are we going to have a reception again. >> excuse me. and then the board of supervisors we will be hosting the reception. >> and is supervisors need to start picking somebody. >> businesses and they've already been notified.

>> we'll sent out the safe the day invitation. we don't send them out earlier because they get lost and just a note for businesses we'll be looking at their permits so we can make sure that businesss are meeting the requirement of city mandates. what's that? >> next item. >> i have a brief report and just for the record. >> i attended the district 3 allocation of discretionary

fund. district 3 is the first grew up in san francisco where they will be taking us to the residence and to district 3 they'll decide how they want to spend their funds. so people were able to submit their requests for these funds. they're number one interest was funding forecast inspections for ada businesses. i told them to contact the funds off. i want to say that was very high for people's interests >> next item.

>> commissioners item 12 general public commit and do we have any people in the audience who would like to make any public comment? anybody have they items for new business? seeing then next item >> commissioners item fourteen and i want to know there was any letters in your folder. >> any motion for adjourn? with that meeting

>> good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. we'll begin by take the roll. commissioner studley. >> thank you all. here. >> commissioner hayon? >> here. >> commissioner hur? >> here? >> commissioner liu? >> here. >> all members being present, first item on the agenda is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on matters of the ethics

commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners and of course, stop the corporate rate of the public library and don't accept money from the friends of the library. you may remember that rights were violated on june 4th, 2009. you made a finding that she was guilty of official misconduct and made a reference to the mayor that the mayor should consider terminating her appointment on july 12th, 2011. you followed up with a direct request to the mayor, that he respond to you in some -- with some sort of explanation on september 24th, 2012. i followed that up with an immediate disclosure request to the mayor on december 3rd, requesting any documents

reflecting any internal consideration or any possible -- any documents indicating a response to your follow-up letter. what i received was an email that a constituent of supervisor kim, named andrew adams, which he sent to jane kim on september 28th. that was the only thing that i received. what is significant is that mr. adams' contacted information was redacted in that response. nothing else. no indication at all that they intended, had considered any possible response to you or any consideration of a possible response to you. you have to realize that

redacting that contact information is the city hall equivalent of flipping somebody the bird. it's been established by the sunshine ordinance task force and courts in state that a person can't invoke somebody else's right to privacy by redacting their contact information and once it's waived, it can't be reinvoked again. so they have no grounds to redact that contact information and they know it. this would be the equivalent as if the finding of official misconduct against ross mirkarimi was responded with well we're friends with ross mirkarimi and we don't have to give you an answer and, in fact nobody said that. in this instance it's a badge of honor. they don't have it give you a reason. they haven't given you a reason. it's not official miscould be duct if it's only the sunshine ordinance. and that is the message.

thank you very much. >> commissioners, as the previous speaker mentioned jul gomez has been elected to her position [twao-eupbs/] since you found her unanimously to have violated her responsibility under the sunshine ordinance and yes, the mayor has refused to even deal with it and it's interesting over the last year, he didn't mind spending $200,000 of money to get ross mirkarimi out of office and yet with one of his own appointees, you sent him a recommendation and he ignores it and he ignores that. well, boys and girls, can anyone spell hypocritical? very frankly one of the reasons i have been adamant about the

library commission is the fact that they come before the public and they lie. they present number relating to the finances of friends of the public library and through public records request i found they have absolutely nothing to back those numbers up. we're talking $10 million that they have claimed that the friends gave to benefit the public library, and they can't back up the numbers. and yet, they come before the public and say oh, yes, they are doing a wonderful job. now at the minimum, that is misrepresentation. if i am on a board or commission, and i go before and i present finances as part of a public record, and i say oh, yes, these are good numbers. and it turns out that i don't know what i'm talking about, that is dereliction of duty as far as i'm concerned and

malfeesance of office. you say show us something to prove that and they are just silent. we went before the government general bond oversight committee and said the number here is not a valid number. and they asked some questions of the chief financial officer of the library and she admitted yes we don't have anything to back that up. at that point it was only $6 million and now it's $10 million and it went from $1.6 million in january of last year to over $10 million by the end of the year. and none of that was contemporaneous documents. it's all of them going back now and trying to justify all the lies that they have been telling to the public in the prior years. and i have also got a sunshine order against the city librarian for withholding --

primarily because he didn't want it exposed that he didn't have any idea whether those numbers were presented were valid. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm patrick -- here on my own time as a private citizen. first, i am going to ask mr. renne to recuse himself when you got to my item given the article about mrs. renne's foundation in last month's westside observer. second i would like to know when this commissioner is publicly going to inform members of the public what the delay is with the mayor? removing miss gomez. you have let that matter drag on for a year, four months after your determination and you are letting the mayor just

ignore this commissioner entirely. during your attention to allen garsman's analysis of the october 22nd hearing on my two matters, he outlined 16 questionable steps about how the october 22nd hearing progressed. first point getting around the ethics commission's representation to the san francisco city attorney, san francisco district attorney, me as the complainant and other respondents, and the san jose city attorney's office. that this commission cannot adjudicate cases involving its own executive director. no problem, next issue. getting around your blatant conflict of interest, playing

both judge of in the appointing authority for your respondent executive director. no problem, next issue. having the commission chair, that would be mr. hur, review the san jose city attorney's report and formed an opinion on the merits of my case before he allowed me as the complainant to provide my response or to hear the case in an open public meeting. and then mr. hur commented to deputy executive director of ethics, who reports to the ethics director, that the respondent in the two cases, is there any reason why we can't just release the san jose's analysis about why the complaint fails? no problem, next issue.

you just charged right through that october 22nd hearing with all sorts of irregularities of how you conducted that hearing. no. 11, allowing chair hur, who should have recused himself because of his opinion that was on the record before the hearing began, to vote on the substantive portions involved. thus improperly providing the three required votes. >> hi. my name is paula danish and i have a serious issue with the san francisco arts commission. i have a street artist's permit and i have had a lot of problems and they have violated the sunshine ordinance repeatedly over so many years. and it's really affected my life.

i have been speaking to your ethics office, about problems posting minutes of the executive committee. they haven't posted in years. and i just hope that you really do a thorough investigation on them, because there is a lot of things wrong with the way they run the meetings. thanks. >> the next item on the agenda is changes to our enforcement regulations, mr. st. croix would you like to introduce the matters? >> these are largely housekeeping matters in following up on the changes that the commission has already made.

and are pretty straightforward and i think self-explanatory. >> there are three decision points. the first is shall the commission approve the addition of section 3d as set forth on page 3 of the enforcement regulations? the second is to approve the deletion of other references to the sunshine ordinance and the enforcement regulations. and the third is to change the definition of "business day" to comply with the sunshine regulations that we propagated previously. these seem to me to be pretty straightforward administrative changes. is there any discussion on these? anything from the city attorney?

public comment on this item? >> [tkpwao-frpl/], my name is dr. derrick kur, my comment is not specific to the sunshine ordinance modifications, but does refer to section 6a of your enforcement guidelines. my recollection is that the ken civil grand jury when they did their report, they pointed out having two commissioners calling for an issue to be calendared is too high a threshold. so at the discussion of the ethics commission, my recollection is that the commission agreed that

one commissioner could question the executive director's dismissal and have the item calendared. but here in your enforcement guidelines it sill says thereafter any two or more members of commission can cause an item to be calendared. so i'm just raising the issue of whether it's two commissioners or whether it can be just one commissioner? thank you. >> commissioners, director of san francisco open government. you may wonder sometimes why i come here and seem so angry. well, because i have 14 or orders of determination from the sunshine ordinance task force finding various commissioners, boards, city employees in violation of the ordinance and basically when you got when you get an order of determination is a body who will then look at it and simply say we don't give a damn