>> no questions for mr. lazar? >> no. >> comments? from the commissioners? any points on this item? >> when i first read the complaint i thought there might be an issue because there wasn't request for documents. but i underlined what he pointed out which was the definition section does include oral communication as public information. with that guidance i think there is an obligation it looks like under the ordinance to respond for request for public information even if it's for oral information and not necessarily just the document request.

>> trying to understand how this works in practice. if you send or make a request for information not documents then, the only obligation is to get provided an oral response. if you don't to have create a document, i e type out the answers to the question so can you call them and say this was what we are doing or answer the questions orally. >> that's right. or make someone available to answer the questions simply. i would note that while we are on the this issue, mr. lazar is not was not charged by the sunshine force with a violation of that section of the ordinance. he

was charged with the failure to respond to a public records question, i believe. no. sorry. i meant that 10:30. >> well, that looks like he's met his burden on that. >> what he, mr. lazar has met his burden? >> i'm sorry. he has not met his burden on 67.22 b. " " >> both. 21 and 22.

>> 67.21 b appears to refer to a custodian of the public record. and i think that's a document, isn't it? it doesn't sound like there were any documents. so if he's not requesting documents, but he said he's requesting information could mr. lazar be liable for failure to provide a record? >> i don't believe so. 67.21 b specifically address the situations where the custodian has received a request for inspection or copy of a public

record. >> right. >> yeah. 67.21 b relies on e. >> i don't think 67.21 e was warranted either. >> which one, it doesn't track 22 b? >> which one? >> 21 e you are saying depends only on -- >> yes. it says the custodian refuse to comply with b above.

>> yeah, 67.22 seems completely different. >> for the record i would say although -- i would say it wasn't willful because he relied on the city attorney but that it pertains to document can ustodian, thissen then that maybe moved. >> if what only applied to document custodian. >> if 67.21 e that only applies to document custodian, that person may not have been

knowledgeable. that's not applicable. if the volition on the merits is 22 b. >> i think that's right. >> mr. lazar, i apologize that you have now come up from the back row twice. i have one other question for you. >> if the answer to the

question was there hasn't been any communication, why not just tell that to mr. clark? why go through all of this? >> i'm honestly can't answer that. i would tell him, i don't know. i don't remember that. i believe i did say what was happening in terms of that lack of compromise on the part of the -- at the committee meeting. but i just right now i have no recollection. i'm not going to deny it. i said do what you have to do. okay? thanks. >> are there any views with respect to the 67.34 willful

violation finding? >> i have to say i was a little troubled by -- if that's the interpretation that you can find a willful violation based on a pattern of practice but that it's not inadequate response but that there is the alleged practice is not before us. i find that troubling that it was just out there that there is this practice and no evidence of it at least not that was compiled in front of us with any basis. there might be a basis but i don't think

the ground work wasn't laid for it. that's what i'm saying. >> i agree with that. >> any other? >> then would you find a violation but not a willful violation of 22 e? >> i think in the materials that were given to us, oh, you are back to 22 b? >> i think commissioner was talking about 67.34. >> right. further found. >> right, the chair was asking about 67.34, based on the practice allegation i wouldn't be able to find that based on the materials provided to us. to be honest mr. lazar's few

file that he's compiled i don't know what to make of the entire chart of the history of hearings before the task force. i don't know which way that cuts because i don't have any background on any of those other alleged pattern and practice. so that was what i was responding to commissioners. >> any other comments or viewpoints? >> i don't believe so that mr. lazar has presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the task force finding is to 67.22 b or that there wasn't a violation of

that section. i don't think we need to get to whether it was willful or not. he just simply has not overcome the presumption of the violation of that section. >> is that right? >> that's right. >> i would agree with that. >> okay. >> is there a motion to find that mr. lazar has overcome his burden with respect to 67.21 b and 67.21 e but not with respect to 67.22 b. >> [inaudible] >> my understanding is that we don't have to address that. >> is that right. >> based on the statement there is simply no evidence in the

violation. >> i think that's a different question. i think what commissioner was saying was -- maybe i misinterpreted it. i thought he said we don't have to reach 67.34. is that right? >> that's my understanding of section 2 is that we can find a violation but you don't need to find that it was willful but it maybe better to do it in the context of that e -- that there is insufficient showing by mr. lazar that he did not violate 67.22 b. but that we did not find that he violated 67.21 b

or 67.21 e or that there was a pattern of practice of inadequate responses or willfulness. >> i'm completely with commissioner raenie with 67.22 b. and i think i come to the same result on the other three but i'm wondering what is the best way for to us reflect it. on the first two, i think we are not saying that he prevailed in overcoming the presumption. i think we are saying they don't seem to apply at all i think the difference might matter if other people are thinking, what does it take to overcome and burden or sunshine to know what applies or not. just a thought. i'm just offering that up. we can do those two and as for 67.34 i

don't think he overcame a presumption by demonstration there was no pattern in practice that sunshine did not in fact carry it's burden to build that presumption, not that he overcame it. >> i think that was what commissioner was saying. >> yeah. they didn't -- the construct that he could kick over. >> right. i think that was the guidance to that. >> i think that's going to cause more confusion because it's the respondent's burden, we are giving some weight to the task force. i think he has overcome that presumption to 67.21 b and e because they have showed. >> even though he didn't make

exertions they are made that -- we look at the evidence in the record. he presented his arguments and i think we can find that the burden has been overcome with respect to 67.34. it is his burden. if we are saying that the task force if it were the task force burden then they wouldn't meet it then that's a different thing. what i think we should say that he's established that there was no -- that the finding of a pattern in practice wasn't reasonable in light of the evidence. >> maybe we are thinking it has to come out of his mouth or his pleadings, if we take what he said plus if we add what our -- add it to the rebuttal to

that presumption then i agree that we have defeated the presumption. that may not be the right standard. that maybe irrelevant. >> i would recommend that the motion be that the commission finds a violation of 67.22 b and no violation of any of the other sections charged or alleged violations based on the standards and regulation. the motion does not need to parse out the reasons for each if you meet that finding, you are by definition find that go he has met his presumption on the three where you find no violation that he has not found a presumption on 22 b. >> is there a motion to find

that there has been a violation of 67.22 b and that under the regulations we should make a finding of no violation with respect to 67.21 b and 67.21 e and 67.34? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? none. motion passes. >> for the record i suggested that we not have all of these in the same day. i changed my mind and now we are all suffering. >> we are done.

>> i just wanted to ask in support of this decision that you just made, are you issuing orders under subsection e or are you as required staff to prepare an order and you are authorized to sign that? >> yeah. you are right. >> i'm not sure if that all happened? >> we did in this. i think this order should be similar to the others in that we notified them of the violation and cease and desist of such contract in the future. any objection? >> no objection. >> the next item on the agenda are the minutes. >> mr. papal, that was part of the motion. you want a motion

and a second on the order asking the staff to prepare a letter. you adopted a motion finding a violation, you want a motion directing the staff to issue a letter. >> okay. is there a motion to prepare a letter in accordance with what we've just described? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> david papal just that this letter should be aspect as possible because this is the first time we are going through this process and we want to be really sure that it's covering what the action that you took, some of the thinking, however you want this to appear in the future because you are setting a template. >> we found other violations earlier this evening. >> yeah. and you will use your good judgment. thank you. >> can we vote? all in favor?

>> aye. >> opposed? none. it passes. okay. the minutes. public comment? >> david papal, a couple items i believe on page 1 what was his name? josh was also present from the city attorneys office and that should be reflected on page 2 and 3 with respect to commissioner rene's recusal. i they he either did vote or should be reflected on the second motion. i think one does vote on one, does one vote on one's own recusal? >> no, he did not. not on

another but do you recuse? >> i think if you recuse then you vote. i don't know how that is to be reflected button page 3 it should say he recused and not retaining. >> on page 4 as well and finally with respect to top of page 5, the closed session doesn't properly disclose consistent with 67.16 who was present in the closed session. >> 67.15 of the ordinance has specific language about closed the minutes of a closed session which asks to include who was present and it's not clear from the context who was. so those are my suggested amendments to the minutes. thanks. >> did you get those? they all

seem? any other amendments to the minutes? is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> none opposed. it passes. >> i apologize for the indentations on the next item. >> that is an egregious error. >> sometimes word gets away from us. >> public comment? >> david papal i'm now inquiring if this now exposes all of the shun shine ordinance

or recuse for a commission >> there is one out there and there is an additional referral pending. >> sorry if i had anything to do with it. okay. >> otherwise good report and i hope to see additional content in these reports in the future. i will end it there. thank you. >> item for meeting? >> public comments on matters appearing -- public comment? >> it can go in either place. >> i suggest that we have some opportunity to talk at a future meeting about how this went tonight and lessons learned consistent with the list and maybe some procedural stuff. i probably did all kinds of things i shouldn't have done. but, we you feel -- for better

or worse we are doing this from time to time and we should figure out how to do it as best we can. >> i'm in all favor of figuring out how we can do this better. >> also i noted in the report that the electronic filing legislation passed and we'll implement that. i don't want to slow it down but if there is a way to know in advance what's coming soon that would help everyone. thank you. i'm done. >> okay. commissioners? >> i apologize there was one item. i know that there is an interested party, the interested person's gathering on wednesday, the subject of the report and i wondered if any commissioners were going to be able to attend that?

>> what time? 3:00. >> would you like me to attend? >> i would love you to attend. >> i think i can do it if it's at 3:00. >> it's in this room. >> i can thank you. that is excellent. i chatted with somebody from the audience earlier who came, she said just because she was interested in ethics and wanted to see how it works and wanted to come to the board of supervisors and it would be nice if there were other citizens who were motivated in that way who came to see how it was done and broadened our pool. but i commend the staff to let people know about the interested

person's meetings and i hope that it is a good and thoughtful discussion. thank you very much commissioner rainy for making yourself available if you can. >> agree. >> we need to make public comment on that? public comment on matters appearing or not appearing? is there a motion to an adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? none? meeting is adjourned.

>> welcome, everyone, to this

launch of the public service announcement on behalf of the california grand jury's association. i'd like to thank all of you for being here today. being in the presence of such a political [speaker not understood], reminds me of a story a good friend of mine told me about meeting president george h.w. bush. he was in washington meeting with willard e. mills in arkansas at the time mr. mills was the chair of the house ways and means committee, probably one of the most powerful and influential people in washington. upon being introduced to the president, my friend was struck speechless. he just was stammering and stuttering. at which point the president put his hand on his shoulder and said, it's okay, dan, i always get nervous around him, too. [laughter]

>> it's a special honor for me to be here today. i'd like to introduce our special guest, lieutenant government gavin newsome. it (applause) at the thank you. >> also represent state mark malone's office tom ammiano. (applause) * >> all will return momentarily, i'm sure. paul henderson, representing mayor ed lee's office. [laughter] >> and to my right, i have the open house, our state association vice president and i'm sure other names, past president san francisco chapter. we have lots of our membership here including a