st. croix certainly is not sleeping, he is extremely alert and detail oriented but he has still and he is still dedicated as before to protecting the guilty, especially if those are city officials. now i won't go into the raft of delays that happened with this case which i filed to the sunshine task force on behave of library users association more than a year and a half ago. but, mr. st. croix has exerted legals to define this as a complaint by me personally against a staff member of the arts commission personally. and there by defining it away completely as to any responsibility. it is like saying the knife did it so too bad if there has been a murder but there is really nobody accountable. mr. st. croix goes on and on in

the letter about the complainant was peter warfield and then he goes on and defines, and so he talks about on page 2 of the letter, they referred it as a willful violation under section 67 hour miss patterson is not a elected official and will be held under chapter two. if you look at the order of determination and all of the documents, over and over and over again, mr. st. croix has overlooked the fact that it was the library users association against the arts commission which is headed by a department head who out to be responsible if not maybe the city attorney or the mayor. >> thank you you will have

additional time to speak on this. >> i would prefer not to have this go forward, thank you. >> any additional public comment at this time we are going to look at violations of the sunshine ordinance, and the first one, mr. st. croix? >> okay. >> inform us on this? >> you have the staff memo with the details before you. neither nigh of the complainant will be here, they can resolve the case without them. as this has been continued a

few times. if you prefer not to you have the option to continue the case. any opinions on whether we want to address this case or do a further continuance? >> commissioner hur? >> in light of the request to continue and the fact that there are no respondents, i don't see the harm in continuing this further, i understand that it has been continued. a couple of times before and on the other hand the complainant said that they prefer that it be delayed given that it is per complaint, and she at least

said that she has a >> i would agree with the conclusion and it is regrettable that we will be criticized very likely to delaying these and we were ready to bring it forward but i think that under the circumstances that the complainant requested that it not be considered tonight, that that would be acceptable. what happens the record could so in terms of the item, why it why it was continued. >> my own concern about continuing is looking through the papers and the communications from the complainant, i think that this is the third or fourth continuance. and all of which have been asked for by the complainant for the same reason.

and i although i might be sympathetic to the reason and i don't see any indication that reason is ever going to change. and the complainant has not given us any suggestion as to when she thinks that she will be cap able of appearing and when she would like to have us set it. >> that is a good point. >> so i guess what i would suggest is that we grant this continuance to a date certain far enough out, and make it very clear that there will be no further continuances by requested by either side. that we will accept. >> commissioner andrews anything that you would want to add? >> i am in agreement with that. i am looking that this is the third continuance and i saw that it was the set of circumstances so i think the date certain, and i agree with commissioner studley that we would need to clearly outline

in the minutes, the reasons for it and arguably that will build on why we would need a date certain. >> further comments? >> i would like to add that i understand the point of view expressed for allowing a further continuance, but i'm not really in support of that. i think that those individuals who bring forward a complaint to the sunshine task force ordinance committee, or task force i should say, and that when those issues are then forwarded to the ethics commission, i think that the complainants have a responsibility to pursue the matter which they have started and when we have continuance after continuance after continuance, on behalf of the complainant, and then it is

difficult for me to take the complaint as seriously as perhaps one should. you know? we often are criticized when there are delays in any decisions and in sort of the efficacy of the work that we do and that concerns me a great deal. so here we are, we have been ready to go forward with this complaint on a number of occasions and here we are looking at continuing it one more time. and i will go along with the rest of the commission, but i did want to make those points that i think, you know, to be taken seriously, then you have to act seriously. >> i find what each of you and commissioner renne and andrew have said pretty convincing. do we have an option of

addressing the merits but holding the final determination until the next meeting if the y wants to apart or would that be duplicate work for us. >> you can do that and you might feel compelled to rehash that detail again because there will be parties present that are not here now. >> but, you certainly have the option. >>, what if you issue an order to show cause as to why she has not been here, he or she has not been here and with the doctor's note explaining when she can be available. i am concerned that it is, that the basis at least asserted is a medical condition that is preventing her from being here. and to me that is a problem beyond, if true and proven is a legitimate basis for not attending and to me a

legitimate basis for continuing it. so something like that might give us a better sense of when pastor gavin will be available. and if we get no response we should schedule it and have it heard as soon as after as possible. >> mr. st. croix, can we require a doctor's note explaining? >> we can. >> why the continuance is necessary? >> and the last continuance actually made that stipulation that if a further continuance was requested, that documentation from a physician would be required by june 19th. >> and have we received any documentation from a physician? >> no. >> all right. >> that information causes me to sort of reconsider whether we ought to just proceed with it having pastor gavin has been

given certainly ample opportunity. but if we are going to continue it, commissioner studley, i would not be in favor of our dealing with the merits today because the argument as to why it is necessary for her to be here is to cry to address the merits. and is the stipulation that you referred to mr. st. croix, in the record? is that? >> well it is part of the minute. >> well it is a public document that was sent on march 25th, the continuance is offered originally by chair person hur and then renewed by chair person hayon in the subsequent month. >> commissioner andrews? >> it is not recorded in minutes, however. so, if what we are suggesting that you might want to do if you do want to continue it is

say to the september meeting but on the record make that motion that documentation will be required and no further continuances will be grapted. >> commissioner andrew? s >> i am thinking of both sides and i believe in one of the communications the complainant wanted an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and there could be the situation where the complainant is here and none of the respondents are here and so then where do we go with that? and if that is the case, then, you know, we need to carry, i recognize that in accommodation is probably the serious request, but i think that still does not necessarily and keep moving forward and guarantee that will move forward if those were the reasons why we needed to continue for the opportunity

for the complainant to cross-examine them. >> just as a point of information cross-examination is not part of the process. >> so if that... >> they represent themselves and then the respondent represents themselves and rebuttal. >> if that is not the procedure it seems to me then that they are both out. and that, you know what i mean? it feels a little bit more balanced in that regard. >> do i have a motion on whether or not to continue this matter? >> i will move that we continue this matter to the september meeting that in the minutes we

include a statement that the commission agrees that this is the final continuance, unless the complainant comes forward within 45 days with medical verification of why she can't attend the next schedule hearing. and that if we don't receive anything from complainant that we will go forward with or without pastor gavin. at the september meeting. >> second. >> any further discussion on that? >> well, i guess that i am not in favor of the condition that you put in there. just seems to me we ought to schedule it for a hearing on september, whatever the date is of our meeting in september, and that we are going to go

forward because as mr. st. croix has pointed out. they can make their presentation. but, if pastor gavin for any reason feels that she can't be present, there were other people that she can get to stand in for and make the arguments that she wants to make for us. and so i would not be prepared to support a motion that has in it a condition, that there might be further continuance of the doctor's excuse. >> is there anything that counsel would like to add? >> to hear the public comment. >> before voting? >> right. >> of course. public comment. >> please. commissioners ray hartz, director of san francisco open

government. i know pastor gavin quite well and it relates to the board of supervisors handling of the park and she has been evicted and has been for a large part homeless during a significant portion of the ongoing efforts here. and this was also subject to the case in federal court one in superior court and that throws an extra winkle into it. i also believe that she is unable to get healthcare, and as a result asking her to produce a doctor's note when she has no access to a doctor, is an reasonable expectation. now, i will be honest with you and you can take this as it is and you will not like it. you guys have dragged your feet on sunshine issues for literally a decade. and it went on and on and on and on and on and on. and as it is, even though the law specifically says that the complaints have to be heard in

45 days, it usually takes 6 to 9 months to he even get your first hearing and then to subcommittee and then round and round in circles and then you drag it on for six months and a year and now you are sitting here saying oh, this is really terrible. we are having to delay our procedure and what exactly are you having to suffer? you are suffering nothing because you are just not hearing it. if you really don't mind, waiting literally years to complainants to bring cases before you, why should you now use that discuss as one that you just can't wait any longer? >> i can think of a lot of unfortunate words to explain that but i would like to hear any of you try to justify that. >> the civil grand jury send you a sleeping watch dog and pointed out the fact that the only case that you have ever handled that was referred to you by the task force and done

anything about was the one that i talked about earlier was the president of the library commission and every other single case that has come before you, you have dismissed and sided with the city, 98 percent of the time and against the citizens of this city and sided or with the citizens of this city, 2 percent of the time. and so don't sit here and give all of this moaning and groaning about how difficult the complainants, when they have to go through a gauntlet lasting years to get the damn case before you. look at the historic record and it is all a matter of public record and you all know it and three of you are attorneys. and if people are doing stuff like this in court the judge would probably put sanctions against the attorneys involved.

don't be hypocrites. >> any further public comment on this matter? >> yes, i'm peter warfield, director of the library users association and i don't have any direct interest in this case as a participant in any way but i do want to take exception to something that the sheriff said. to be taken seriously you have to act seriously. i think with respect to pastor gavin, who i have also known for a number of years, i know her as a very serious and very devoted person to issues that are public issues that she is not profiting from in a personal way. she has spent untold hours and evenings at sunshine ordinance task force meetings and at other meetings concerned with

respect to issues that such as this where there are sunshine issues and other public concerns, and she is a very serious person. and she cares a great deal about her community, and what goes on in the city. i don't know the specifics of what has gone between you and her, but i would certainly suggest at the very least two things. one is why not ask her when would you like to have this heard? ask her. and the second option would be to alert her to what the options are with respect to this or perhaps generally cases that come before you. such as, you can withdraw the case and refile.

i don't know what your situation is. but if that is the case, that might be something that might be helpful for someone who has filed a case. particularly if a withdraw and a refiling could be done without prejudice to the filer. and i do think that she has had without getting to the details, i know that she has had some very considerable obstacles to surmount and issues to deal with in her personal life. which i could understand would be difficult to deal with, for anybody, let alone try and pursue something like a case against a number of supervisors at the ethic's commission. so i think there should be some respect for who she is and what she has done and just to give her a reasonable chance as i said, ask her when she would

like to have the hearing, and if you have guidelines that you want to insist on, lay those out and if there are options you might also lay those out as well. thanks. >> any further public comment? >> shall we call the question? >> do we need to amend the motion as stated by commissioner hur? >> i am still? favor of giving her an opportunity to come forth, with evidence explaining why she can't appear. i think having it in the minutes, having it along with issuing a formal order to show cause is worth while. but, it is all yours. >> on further reflection and going back to my original

comment of balancing this complainant request for us not to consider it against the delay, i actually would like to withdraw my second to the motion. my suggestion to the movement and the others that we might just say to be schedule between now and september. and as i think about it, i am not comfortable with putting the owness on her for the complexity that was described here, although i think that acknowledging the reasoning in the minutes for why we are holding off makes sense. she does refer to having a physician, but i think that it is burdensome to ask us to schedule something. i would like to come off of the motion but would i like to see this schedule from now to september. and if she or someone else could speak to the motion, or to go forward, on the papers if that is not an option.

>> don't mean to complicate it. >> well, okay i am not clear. we need another seconder. >> okay. >> we can have another second. >> i am sorry, i don't follow it either. >> i mean, essentially what you are saying is that you do support a continuance? >> yes. >> so, how is that different from your original seconding of commissioner hur's motion? >> because it puts the complainant to the proof of medical documentation and so forth and i think that that may be tilting the tables a little more than i would like to do. >> could i make a suggestion? >> yes. >> i would suggestion a motion postponing or continuing the item subject to the call of the

chair. we can only communicate with her by mail. we generally do not get responses to requests. as a practical matter, i am not sure how we would get the things schedule between now and september. i do feel like, there is a competing interest to get this matter resolved that we have all addressed. and i think that the challenges coming up with the compromise and giving it to the call of the chair or something. but we could very well be in the same position at the next meeting where we don't have evidence of her meeting an accommodation and she is not here and then what? >> which is why i think at least giving, or saying, look if you don't give us some proof, we are going to go forward, the next time whenever it is schedule, but if you don't have that, then i don't know how we would make our

decision at the next meeting. >> my only suggestion is that we do it at a point by your date certain but not demand the proof. >> yeah. >> i see. >> i understand that. >> i would propose a motion to... >> i will withdraw my motion. >> that we schedule it for the september meeting with the statement that we will go forward and there will be no continuances absence, some showing either side, that there is a good cause basis for a continuance. and put a burden on anybody to do it and they can't just write a letter. because i understand that there may be difficulties that pastor gavin has and i am, sympathetic

to it. there are two sides to a complaint, it is not just the complainant rights but we have four supervisors who are accused on the record of having official misconduct. they have a right to have a determination made by us whether or not we believe that they did in fact commit official misconduct. so i would... my motion would be that we schedule it for the september meeting with a provision that there will be no continuance, absence of good showing of good cause of either side for a need for a continuance at that point. >> i must be having a bad day, i thought that is what i moved for. except that i was focused on the complainant because she is the one requesting the continuance, the supervisors are ready to go from the beginning. >> so, i mean, i thought that yours was more focused on a

doctor's note. >> she wanted a continuance, which is a good idea. >> if not, let's go forward in september. >> and that is where i am a little nervous and then we get into what is defined as good cause. and that could lead down another road that will lead down to further continuances. >> so i guess my question is if not the accommodation for a continuance and is it too bad to move forward in some level, knowing that there is two sides to this? and just have a date certain? and it be done? >> i will second commissioner renne's motion. >> do i need more public comment? >> any further public comment on this version of the motion?

>> hello, i'm glen rogers and i wanted to mention that it is going to be contact pastor gavin if she is homeless by mail. i just wanted to offer that as a problem that you are going to have. as far as we know she does have a post office box that she does use and our understanding is that she does collect her mail and so we are going on that assumption. >> who would like to read back

the motion to us? >> commissioner the matter will be moved to september and the ethics commission will go forward and no continuances will be granted for either side unless they are showing for good cause for the continuance. >> seconded by commissioner hur. >> call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> the next item. >> okay. again you have the informational memo in front of you. and i would just point out that early they are year in

february, the commissioner voted unanimously that this particular type of practice of a pending written statements to the end of the minutes is acceptable prior to that in 2011, the commissioner reached the same conclusion. and it is continues to be the advice of the city attorney that is an effective practice. >> we would like to hear from the complainant? mr. ray hartz. >> i assume that i have ten minutes. >> ray hartz san francisco open government what changed from the time that this was heard back in february? for the benefit of the