>> item number 2, hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending february 1, 2017, to the ethics commission. there is one seat and two applicants. >> okay. we will be hearing from the candidates in the order they appear on the agenda. if brett andrews is here, please approach the microphone. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to present my candidacy before you. as you know, the ethics commission plays an essential role in practicing and promoting high standards of ethical behavior and if given the opportunity i would approach this imposing work with the same level of integrity, professionalism, and interest as my nonprofit work. for the past 10 years i have had the pleasure of serving as the executive director of positive resource center, a

26-year-old san francisco-based organization that provides benefits counseling and employment services to over 2,500 clients a year. the agency is primarily governed and staffed by vocational professionals and attorneys. five of our board members are attorneys including the president, vice president, and secretary and with a staff of 29 there are 11 attorneys. given my ten years of supervising attorneys and being supervised by attorneys, i have developed a strong working knowledge and understanding of the importance of elevating accountability, transparency, integrity, and ethical behavior, particularly in light of our consequential work in the legal realm and in vocational services. building on my professional experience as far back as i can know and remember, i've held some office, participated in some way in community involvement and civic involvement. i am currently a member of a few community organizations that promote the support of vulnerable san franciscans, all with the goal of raising

awareness and resources, and most recently i served on the alice b. tucker democratic club for five years where i gained a deep knowledge of the san francisco government structure and the political process. i am a proud african-american gay man that is grateful for the educational and professional opportunities that have been afforded me, at the same time i am keenly aware that those opportunities for advancement often without government have historically been not available for everyone. if appointed, my priorities would be to work with the commission and staff on continued development of educational programs, making them available for all san franciscans and my second priority would be to work with the commission on strengthening and increasing the commission's enforcement, authority, and other efforts. while the commission must maintain an impartial stance on issues that are brought before them and work hard to avoid conflicts, it also must seek to possess broad knowledge and an understanding of the issue matter to minimize decisions that may have an unwanted and unintended consequence. i feel my professional

experience, my life experience, and my pursued interest contribute to broadening that knowledge base. i have attended many ethics commission meetings and have seen them in action and recognize that sometimes there is agreement, spirited debate, and at times we will just have to agree to disagree. that is just the nature and the scope of the commission's important work. work that i respect and would look forward to undertaking. lastly, i had an opportunity to attend the april meeting where the ethics commission met and commissioner lu announced her resignation. and i was impressed with the parting comments by other commissioners who shared their sentiments such as well respected, well prepared, insightful, fair minded, professional, and present. if appointed, i would make that same commitment to building on commissioner lu's legacy and with that i respectfully ask for the affirmative vote of the committee for my candidacy to the full board. >> thank you. i have a few questions. sure.

>> a very specific restriction at the ethics commission is that you cannot engage in any local political activity. i want to make sure you understand this and what you're comfortable with proceeding with your application. i am comfortable. >> the ethics commission -- commissioners have the job of vetting complex and detailed analysis on campaign finance, regulations, and issues related to compliance reporting and disclosure laws. can you tell the committee what experience you may have had that speaks to your ability to take on this responsibility? well, i have been an executive director for 20 years. in this most recent organization i've been with for the last 10 years, we deal with significant government contracts that have many objectives, that have significant consequence and

pr having an understanding that the legal community often has to engage with the nonprofit community, with government, and recognizing that those -- their duty of confidentiality, their duty of ethics, their duty of loyalty to their clients, and to their issue often can interfere with the work that is being done in a broader sense of the community. i've had 10 years of that experience, of navigating through those challenging issues. sometimes they are parallel and other times they do run contrary to each other and it is important to have productive, constructive, full conversation, leaving space for everyone to share their view, but at the end of the day it is important to address the particular issue that is ahead of you and in front of you, knowing that you may not always get exactly what you're looking for. >> thank you. are there any other questions? okay, thank you very much.

thank you. next person is hulda garfolo. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is hulda garfolo and i am also a candidate for the vacant seat on the ethics commission. in 2010-2011 i chaired the civil grand jury committee that published a report, the sleeping watchdog, which was a focus on the san francisco ethics commission. our grand jury's thorough investigation revealed the 1993 proposition k established an agency which failed in its mandated mission. it is not taking care of the

citizens as far as regulating transparency. the commission, in fact, was created for san franciscans that are losing -- that were losing faith in their government. my committee's grand jury report raised important issues surrounding the ethics commission that were not being addressed elsewhere. issues such as refusal to televise those commission meetings which we strongly recommended, and today are being televised. the failure to enforce violations of the sunshine ordinance, and they still are not doing -- meeting that mandated mission. the failure to investigate complaints of whistle blower retaliation, there are a number of other issues that today's ethics commission is not taking care of. steps must be taken to develop a schedule for setting fines in order to assure the public that favoritism is not being shown

to any one individual. i am aware that supervisor dado and dennis herrera have proposed lobbying reform and i strongly support that because that is something we clearly need. ~ chiu our ethics commission must create a bridge with the sunshine ordinance task force. it also needs to take care of lobbying concerns. there aren't enough -- there isn't enough transparency, and that is something that the ethics commission really needs to begin focusing on. citizens are entitled to know who is paying to influence city hall. they are entitled to know who the lobbyists are, and why they are seeking influence with special interests. the ethics commission must make it a priority not only to generate reports, but provide them in a complete and timely fashion for the public's benefit.

full public disclosure requires notification of lobbying efforts at the time decisions are made, not months later, or even years later in some instances. at the present i am serving on the 2010-2013 civil grand jury after being requested by the superior court to serve another term. my term will end on june 30th. i have no affiliation with any special interest groups or any political groups. i am a supervisor during -- inspector during elections and have worked at various precincts. so, i am very engaged in several community activities and would appreciate the support of the supervisors to be the individual that would

replace dorothy lu as commissioner on the ethics commission. >> okay, thank you. any questions? supervisor breed. >> hi, thank you so much. i just wanted to know, besides your work on the civil grand jury, is there anything else that's compelling in your history or your background that would make you the best choice for this position? yes, several -- actually i have a degree in nursing, but i also have worked as a security administrator at a very large hotel in los angeles when i lived there, the beverly hilton, which required me to work with the secret service, the fbi advance team, and with a lot of political dignitaries and foreign dignitaries. so, i've had a lot of experience working with people and coordinating big events, you know, and also security for

those individuals. >> thank you. no more questions. >> supervisor cohen. >> i was wondering if you had any experience with filing or auditing -- audit of campaign finance disclosure statements. during the civil grand jury experience, yes, we had to read many, many documents. because we did do a very thorough investigation of the ethics commission. >> can you describe your approach that you would take in exploring an ethics complaint? we would first look at when it was filed and the department that an individual -- are you referring to a retaliation complaint? >> any kind of ethics complaint. there are many. right. okay. we would look to see which department in the city, if there had been other complaints about that department.

and then start speaking to department heads, supervisors, and other individuals, possibly coworkers, and then start, you know, doing some excel spreadsheets and a variety of other steps that would help us to bring a clear conclusion to the complaint. >> i'm looking for a little more detail. when you say a variety of other steps. maybe you can give an example of -- you talked about the one example [speaker not understood] -- the joint -- yes, with the civil grand jury. i'm looking to better understand you. i don't know you. so, i'm trying to understand your thought process, your approach me toed li, how do you

approach -- your problem solving. okay. as an example, one of the complaints that we spoke about were the two doctors from lao abound a honda. i'll use that as an example. ~ laguna honda we looked to examine the complaint. it was turned over to the ethics commission because of the retaliation or the alleged retaliation that one of the doctors received. there was a back and forth ethics said no, that wasn't a report for us or a complaint for us. the controller's office who administered the whistle blower program said, it wasn't us. so, we had to start looking into all of the documented information. then we goed an audit. after reading the audit, we said this is not thorough

enough, we need something more detailed. so, we had to request that. then we spoke to the investigators who did the investigation for the whistleblower program. then on to the investigators at the ethics commission. started comparing the information, and then made our determination based on those findings. >> you at the civil grand jury made your determination, i understand that. what happened with the ethics commission? how did they -- we were told at first all information is confidential, which is true, but the grand jury operates under complete confidentiality, too. so, we almost had reached the point where we were going to have to subpoena the information, but fortunately we didn't have to take that step. and then we -- when we take

testimony from individuals, we basically admonish them, giving them the information that everything is in complete confidence -- >> my question is what did the ethics commission do? well, they basically said that they investigated and found no violations. >> um-hm. but we could not agree with that because there was clear evidence that there had been some retaliation. so, -- >> so, you'll be a member -- if you join the ethics commission, you'll be a member of a body that consists of five members. you'll have four other colleagues you'd have to work with. right. >> how would you begin the process to persuade them, in this case it sounds like you think the ethics commission was wrong. um-hm. >> how do you begin to persuade your colleagues to see things your way? well, i would show them the facts and the documentation, and then have a discussion with them. you know, trying to -- be very

interested to hear their point of view, but i would also want there to be clarity about where the violations were and if there was -- they weren't following the city charter or ignoring the mandates of, let's say, the sunshine ordinance task force. maybe they would need to be reminded in order to, you know, make a clear decision. >> i think one of the interesting situations that brought the ethics commission to the forefront of san francisco when we were dealing with ross mirkarimi and the sheriff's department. and a lot of it, a lot of discussion was around legal terms. i'm curious to know, since you don't have a legal background, how would you be able to

approach this from a layperson's perspective? okay. i did attend all of the hearings for sheriff mirkarimi -- >> you attended those hearings for fun? i attended those hearings. >> there were many of them. that's right. but i was interested to see -- because this was sort of a new situation. this was uncharted waters for the ethics commission. and, so, i was interested to see, given my experience and what i have seen of the ethics commission, how they would handle that particular situation. and i will say that under the chairmanship of bennedict herr, i was beginning to feel a little hopeful that things were turning a positive corner. but once that -- >> what do you mean hopeful? well, that maybe the sleeping watchdog was waking up and that they were taking steps to actually fulfill their, you

know, mission. but after that -- and i thought, you know, in all fairness to the commission, that they handled that very, very well. but once that was over, there seemed to be less -- they seemed to be moving back in their usual position. one of the things i feel very strongly about is that the ethics commissioners have mandated or -- given their authority to the executive director and the deputy, that they have not been as forceful -- i don't know that that's the appropriate word, but as -- that they haven't taken their responsibility as seriously as they should; that they allow

the executive director to basically run the agenda or to -- he tells them what to do and there isn't -- >> i'm sorry, are you talking about john st. croix? yes. >> he tells the commission what to do? yes. >> how did you get to that opinion? just based on conversations with the current -- a couple of the current and some former commissioners and mr. st. croix and other members of his staff. >> um-hm. so, i feel that the commissioners should be a little more authoritative in their role. >> okay, thank you. i have no further questions. but i would like to speak to mr. brett.

mr. brett andrews. thank you, sir. sorry, you're not going to get away -- yes. >> i'm warmed up now. i see that. >> okay. so, you know, i think a lot of my questions are very similar to what i was asking the previous speaker. i would like you to describe to me your methodical approach to, to ethics complaints. how do you begin -- how would you approach to begin to resolve these ethical complaints? well, first, there is a procedure in place. so, it's important to make sure that the procedure for filing that complaint was filed properly. a lot like in managing an organization, there is a procedure for filing a complaint and that would be in written form. we would make sure that, again, it was filed properly. and then engage the, the

complainant to find out exactly what it was all about, to get a full understanding of the particular complaint. i think after having a full understanding of the complaint, caucusing and meeting with the commission to have a better understanding if it has merit, full merit and if indeed it does, en engaging the proper parties individually, collectively, in o r sis of the i suspect there's probably more than even two sides of the story. so they have a full understanding of it. and then pursuing it to its end. and if it means engaging other bodies and other authoritative bodies, we would seek to do that as well. >> okay. and i think also you mentioned in your comments that you don't have a legal background either. >> i don't have a legal background. >> okay. a lot of times a lot of the discussion ~ around ethics really is centered around an interpretation of the law. so, and for full disclosure i don't have a law background

either. so, i would like to know how you would approach answering some legal questions without necessarily that training. well, i think i would do what any good manager does or any good executive director does, or any good commissioner or supervisor. you lean on the folks who do have a legal background. so, i would be using my colleagues for their expertise. i would daresay that i don't have a legal background, but i do have a strong organizational psychology background and a strong nonprofit background. so, equal to that, i would expect that they would see that as an invitation to engage me in those kinds of conversations where they don't have expertise as well. >> so, also what i'm looking for is someone to have the ability to have strong critical thinking skills and maybe you can point to an example in your past where you were able to think critically and analytically. and i'm also interested in hearing an experience of where

you went against the grain. sometimes it's very difficult to take an up popular position. sure. >> hose, i'd appreciate it. both of >> and i would say both of them involve the organization i'm with now, positive resource center. when i came in 2003, we were on sixth and market. and i'm taking the challenging one first so i can end on a high note. [laughter] we were challenged with space occupancy and we needed to move in a very -- in eight months and it wasn't an easy task, but i was tasked by the board of directors to do that. and one of the challenges that a lot of the staff had was location, where were we going to be geographically. it's important for our clients to be close to mass transit. and we were looking closer to downtown and there were more spaces that were available. met with the board, met with the staff, got a full understanding of what their concerns were. i think in the beginning they were not excited about moving to fourth and market because a lot of our clients, frankly,

have outstanding warrants and there is a larger police presence down on union square. and after meeting with the staff more and getting a clear understanding of what the police are looking for and what they're interested in engaging in on union square, we made the decision to move to fourth and market. and daresay that my staff is overjoyed that we're there because it's the powell street stop, it's easily accessible to our clients. again, it wasn't a popular decision at the time, but we've been there for the last nine years and we've come to love the space that we're in. the staff and the clients. so, that was a difficult decision to make as a new executive director, but one that had to be made for the agency's sake financially, fiscally, and geographically. an example of critical thought, the second year that we moved in to this space, we moved into a strategic planning process to have an understanding about what we're going to look like

over the next three to five years and we've been known as an hiv organization for the past 18 years or 17 years. we knew that there was opportunity for the mental health clients, but we also didn't want to look like we were turning our back on hiv positive clients so we engaged in a full strategic planning process to engage stakeholders, our many stakeholders over the many years to get a clear understanding of what their thoughts were as we sought to expand our mission, wanted to expand our mission. and with the good information that we did gain from them, we did make that decision to expand our mission to the mental health clients. that decision allowed the organization to, one, increase its population that it was serving, but it also helped to grow that organization. it's tripled in size over the last 10 years. >> thank you very much. i think i have no further questions. thank you. >> thank you. thank you.

>> is there any public comment for this item? speakers, you have two minutes. please indicate your support and appointment. so, i have -- besides people standing up, eileen hanson. charles mar stellar. and [speaker not understood] bush. so come on up. and anybody else after that can come on up. thank you. excuse me. thank you, my name is eileen hanson. i am a former ethics commissioner. i served one term, as you may know, ethics commission terms are for six years and then you cannot be reappointed. dorothy lu replaced me at the end of my term. there's a reason that ethics commission terms are six years and that you can't be reappointed, and that is because there was i think good

thinking on those who drafted the initial ordinance that it takes a very long time to understand the many rules, regulations, laws governing ethics in this city. and we wanted people to serve those terms who were committed to ethics reform, who were committed to moving the city forward in terms of ethics, and not worried about being reappointed. i will say that dorothy lu was appointed to -- at the end of my term in spite of having no ethics experience. she resigned a year later. she worked very hard during that year, but it wasn't enough really to leave a legacy. and what is important, i think, about appointing someone to this term is to find someone who already has a leg up on the understanding of our ethics commission and our ethics laws. i support hulda garfolo because, as you heard, she has significant experience in terms

of her work on ethics through the civil grand jury. neither candidate has many, many, many years of experience. i have never seen mr. andrews at an ethics commission meeting. i don't believe ethics commission has really anything to do with nonprofits. i work with nonprofits. it's not something the ethics commission takes on. but certainly ms. garfolo has since 2010 dug in deep to ethics and what needs to be done in this city and has proven herself as really the only experienced and committed candidate to ethics. so, i would just say my preference would be that you forward ms. garfolo solely, but if you can't do that, then i would ask that you forward both candidates to the full board. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm charles mar stellar. i'm former head of common

cause, but i'm in san francisco, but i'm representing myself today. and i do want to say that starting in about '97 i attended most ethics commission meetings up until about 2011. so, that would be scores, if not hundreds of meetings. so, i've seen a good many of the plays in that body and most of it's quite compatible. i do think, though, that many of the commissioners that are appointed walk in as -- and have as their first meeting with that body or being in the chambers for the first time, that very first meeting. most of them do not have an ethics background, so, i'm please today see that candidates before you today do. but i will say that i know most of the people that come into

the certainly have been following thcivil grand jury, but i'm not aware of mr. andrews as much, but i think maybe he's been there recently. and i haven't been since 2011. there is a problem with leadership. it's not so much money at ethics as it is leadership. most commissions, as you know, are staff driven. i don't think that should be the case at ethics. and i hope your appointee does, in fact, take a leadership position and not a sit-back position. i will say that. i think the cause of much of ethics' problem. ~ so, i hope you'll consider. i think the best candidate is the person who is from the civil grand jury, ms. garfolo. thank you very much. >> thank you.