to require a lot of research. and i think that it is too much the burden on just two people. so why don't the three of you get together and have why don't you come back the first meeting in april. and report. is that enough time? a month and a half? six weeks? >> if you need more time you can ask for it, but you know? >> i need more time i am going to be gone the last two weeks of march. >> how about the second meeting in april? >> okay. so crystal do you have that second meeting in april? >> come back with something. and you guys, set your own meeting and vote in your own chair and stuff like that. okay? all right. >> anything else in questions? >> thank you very much for doing that. i really appreciate it. >> you are welcome. >> any other questions and comments? >> is there public comment on our questions and comments? >> i could see that you are standing there like waiting for

that gun to go off and saying, yes, i am ready to come up and talk about it. >> good evening, my name is tstephen and i am glad that you are discussing it in something is that i do and one of the starting point could be that your board of supervisors have a list and in order for consistentcy the lists from the various supervisors could be shared so that when an applicant comes in you can say okay, this is a list of lts a working list and at least it is a great starting point. it is kind fp the list does get adjusted because you know there are groups that the new groups form and things of that nature. but, a lot of relevant significant groups have been around for a while. and maybe they have changed their faces. but they still, the groups are in existence. so that is a good starting point. the cu process and the conditional use process, you are going to get out reach that says, okay, it is the nai

sayers that say it is compatible and you george to try to prove that. and it is some of those things are tough to prove and in your jurisdiction you are looking at applications filled out in entirety and you are looking at security plans and noise issues, and those are the kind of things that you weigh in. so there is a little bit of a difference from the two. and it is always nice that you know, people go through step one and then they go to step two. and i don't think that if you go through the first step that you should get a free pass going before you guys. i don't think that that is... i think that there is still needs to be additional. but it is not as heavy of a burden or a heavy load. this gentleman in district six, had he gone to the supervisor office he could have gotten a list and worked off that list. and he would have been in pretty good shape and some districts have more relevant

significant or people that are going to voice their opinions. than other districts. because six has a lot of activity. but, all in all i am glad that you guys are addressing this, there is no one answer that fits all. but the activity leads to productivity. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> mark graeny again. >> commissioner joseph, you are absolutely right there is nothing in the code that will allow this community out reach and it is really one of the most important things that they can do. they have had conversations about how do you make the industry stronger because they are constantly being bombarded with tax and craziness and labor issues and labor boards and on and on and on and why is it important? everybody who has an entertainment license, i would say that 99 percent of them have a liquor license and it is not in the code to make the community out reach, but how much money is that person going

to save by going at the beginning and talking to the alliance for better district six, talking to jane kim and getting everybody on their side before they start putting in the protests for the abc because what does that cost them? they get lousy conditions and they have to hire me and spend a bunch of money or somebody to deal with that and maybe they are going to pay the rent for 6 months and then what happens? now they are going into the business weekend and what do they do? >> they start taking chances and book parties that they should not take and bring in promoters and then the police have a problem. you know, in one sense, it is not good to spoon feed them, but in another sense, you got to help these people. because they have so much coming at them and you got to keep them stronger and i think that community out reach is absolutely right there. get them out there talking to people and making friends in the community, and realizing that they are part of a greater

community. and help them. because if you don't, you end up with lousy operators and the people that we see up here, because you know i am always here. the people that you see that don't do the community out reach, they come back and they are shootings and there is craziness and they don't give a damn, and it is like, you know? and so i think that it is important to help them right from the beginning, this is important and this is who you ought to be talking to and get them out there doing it so they don't get the protests on the liquor license >> thank you, any other public comment? >> public comment is closed. >> commissioners i want to thank, commissioner hyde because our bedazzled gavel is so entertainment commission, it is so cool. all right? >> that was from the harvey milk from for my birthday made last year, by dee lightener. naoe. i am bringing it to be here in the office because other than cracking my roommate over the head i have no use for

it at home. >> all right. any items for the next agenda? >> seeing none, i move to adjourn.

>> 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 what the sunshine ordinance task force says, we're not going to do it. we don't care what the law says; we're not going to do it and when it's referred over here, up until this effort op your part to actually enforce it, none more enforced that jul gomez which was basically ignored by the mayor. basically what we're talking about here is denial of due process. the law san francisco gives the citizens the right whente it they have been deadline the opportunity to make public comment, the avenue of going to the sunshine ordinance task

force and asking for their assistance. but what good does to do you? you go there and get the orders of determination, and yet, other city agencies including this body, just ignore those determinations. know your rights under the sunshine ordinance is printed on every agenda of every commission and board in this city and every meeting. and yet when people who actually do know their rights under the sunshine ordinance and come before the bodies and simply ask to have their constitutional rights respected, for heaven's sake, they get met with open hostility. i went to a meeting, a public meeting earlier this month. and every time i got up to speak one of the commissioners simply crossed his arms across his chest and rolled his chair away from the deis and back into the corner. and when i get done speaking he

came back to the table. and you say well, yeah, mr. hart, you deserve that. no member of the public deserves that. because what it is is sending a clear message to members of the public, we're going to say the words we want you to be here and we want you to participate, but we don't mean it. earlier this evening the arts commission had a meeting where they tried to blame an expense of the sunshine ordinance task force complaints on certain individuals, when it was them, sending people who couldn't answer the sunshine task force questions and couldn't respond appropriately and simply ignored the law and dragged it out as along as they could. blame the victim. >> good evening, david pelpil.

i only had a comment on the titles actually, the current regulations are entitled and i think it would help in some ways to add "handling," before "investigations," and more to the point on the new regulations regarding sunshine ordinance matters, i would actually title that "ethics commission regulations for handling alleged violations of the sunshine ordinance." i think it's confusing to suggest that the regulations for violations, when they are not necessarily violations. it's the procedures for handling alleged violations. so those are my only comments about titles. the substance is good and fine and i commend it to you for your approval. thanks. >> patrick again.

commissioner hur and honorable commissioners, i respectfully request you ignore mr. david pilpel. as you well-know complainants start out filing a complaint. they spend endless hours waiting for their items to be scheduled and calendared and they go through a rigorous process of evaluating alleged complaints, but when the sunshine task force finishes their determination they do not title and forward to you an alleged order of determination. they send you an order of determination. don't put the word "alleged" in

your title of the new proceedings. because the point the sunshine case ends up in a referral for enforcement, at ethics, it's no longer an allegation. thank you. >> on the -- with respect to the title of the ordinance, or our response to the ordinance and our handling of the ordinances, i think the titles are fine. i don't know if any other commissioners have thoughts. my view is that we do handle some sunshine complaints directly. we handle some that the task force would have made a determination on, but ultimately i think the regulations are clear and the

title accurately reflects more or less what we're trying to do with them. thoughts? >> i agree. i mean, i suppose we could say ethics commission regulations for complaints made under the sunshine ordinance, but i think violations is fine too. either way. i think it's fine. >> any other thoughts? does the city attorney have any view on that? >> john givener deputy city attorney. your current titles are fine from a legal perspective, the proposed title is fine from the legal perspective. the one thing i would say that you shouldn't amend any portion of the sunshine enforcement by enforcement regulations tonight because that is not on your agenda. >> mr. st. croix, can you

respond to dr. kur's question about 6a? >> dr. kerr is absolutely correct the bar is now one commissioner member can calendar a complaint. i'm not sure why this copy went out, but it's typographical or an old copy, but it's one that has already been voted on and in effect. >> thank you. any other discussion from the commissioners on this agenda item? is there a motion to approve the changes to the regulations for investigations and enforcement proceedings? >> is moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? hearing none the motioa