>> yeah. >> no, the city attorney provided those case studies. >> thank you. >> that is all. >> public comment? >> commissioners ray hartz director of san francisco open government. after all of this you have decided for the arts commission that they can redact the addresses. but what about every other city body? when i go to the library commission, and i fill out a card could they redact it or just pass it out? >> if i come here could you redact it or pass it out? >> i mean, the very, if you listened to your own arguments and your own discussions, that is the real question. what is right? what does the law require and what does it prohibt. >> you are willing to take

these very vague things about we think that we know what was redacted and we are told what the city attorney said and we don't have anything in writing to actually say that. we have a memo that refers to the constitution. but, is there any legal statement as to what part of the constitution and what specifically had addresses? and as a result, you may, and in this case, you may decide that it is as far as this particular matter and this particular arts commission, they were okay. and if there are five other ones out there and they are given out the information and could i file a sunshine complaint and file it for giving it out and you have set the precedent and no, the city attorney said that the city attorney would hold it and they followed the advice and we are saying that they were right in doing so. >> they were not in violation. and yet we have all of these people and basically what you are saying in my privacy in

dealing with government is at the whim of whoever happened to get the information, and i don't know about you but i am not comfort with my information being that open. and to say that someone's address is confidential. and i may go to that meeting because i would like to talk to other people and maybe i want the information given out so that people of the like can associate with me which is my right under the constitution again. and we could get together and talk about this and decide how to fight it or support it or whatever it is. >> and what i am saying is you are making a determination in one particular case which is going to have ramifications and a lot of other areas, and you

are doing so based on on not any facts that i can see, simply a bunch of we talked to the city attorney and the attorney said this. you know, i hate to tell you that i had a lot of conversations that i thought that i understood what the person said and found out later that i was wrong. >> further public comment? >> glen rogers. you know what? when i speak with or e-mail nancy pelosi, she is requested in my address i could be from out of state. when i webt to the budget meetings with the mayor, i think that i don't recall if i was asked my address, but i think that he needs to know, if i am really in his district. so i think that this information, that address is too private and i think that

this is more of a concern of a particular person's feeling of a privacy issue that is based on the way that they look at life but i don't think that most of us look at it that way. thank you. >> further public comment? >> i would just like to say that it is to me there a difference between saying that the information about one's address is inherently private and another thing to say that it is not a violation of sunshine ordinance because they have kept withholding to a minimum, if they choose to redact addresses that serve no purpose for the thing at issue.

i mean, that i am certainly not trying to say that for all purposes the address can never be disclosed like a social security number. i am just saying that on these facts on this case, i think that i think that the withholding was appropriately kept to a minimum. >> any further commission comment? >> call the question. >> could you read that back to us the motion? >> commissioner hur moved to find that the respondent met the burden to establish that the record may not be publicly disclosed in an unredacted fashion. >> >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> agreed to that >> thank you, commissioners. >> next item. did we do the 67.34. >> no we didn't. >> were we going to do that? or were we going to keep it to the 67-26, 27? >> so 34 is the third thing that the task force identified whether the failure to follow the task force order, the violation. >> there was some discussion about whether or not that was... >> and that was the one that... the discrepancy. >> no, it is in the march

order, in the march referal to. i was mistaken when i said that they were inconsistent it was the april letter when they had not gotten to the order of determination yet. >> can i also say that i thank the complainant and respondent and thoughtful comments, at a minimum i hope that you appreciate that we are trying very hard. >> >> and we appreciate your candor and professionalism. >> 34 is to comply with the

order of determination. >> do we need to discuss that? >> procedurally what would be the effect if we don't act on it, does it because it came from the sunshine task force, become effective or whatever the right term is? >> i think so. >> i think that procedurally we don't act on it then you would not have to determined that respondent has met his burden. so we do need to. >> yes. >> even the last motion it seems like we have to follow. and i move that the respondent has met the burden of establishing that there was no violation of 67.34 for failure to comply... >> failure to comply with the

sotfs april 5, 2012 order. >> i second it. >> discussion? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> just note for the record there is no public here for comment. >> thank you. >> okay. >> the next addenda item. >> i believe that is the contributor guide. >> yeah. >> so, just as an fyi, the pending legislation that is being worked on by president chiu and the board and the city attorney, among the proposals that we will be sending forward soon is a requirement that the ethics commission publish a contributor guide in addition to all of the guides that we have, something that we have not done in the past.

it just so happens that we already had one in the works. so we bring to you a proposed draft of that, we think that it is fairly comprehensive. and the only other thing that i want to say it has a few minute of last minute typos that we want to correct before the commission considers adopting this document. >> okay. >> let's see the first typo is right at the very beginning. where in the introduction, there is just a space between the and the end of this page. so it is just a movement. >> second typo is page 4. first line, yes, as long as the

contribution is under 100,000 dollars. and the third typo, is on page 5, make a contribution, and the word contribution was spelled incorrectly. >> and the other thing that i wanted to say was generally speaking the commission approves these guides initially. but as legislation and regulation pass that it is just the staff that modifies them going forward.

>> made available. >> i am clearly looking through my non-profit eyes, and i was wondering for corporations i am on page 7 and for those who function with the corporation and they know that they are a corporation and interestingly enough thatvy learned particularly to the work that i have been doing with the human services network is that non-profits really need an ongoing amount of education around these types of things. and so i am wondering if we could put the word may a corporation or non-profit, make a campaign contribution which then you will answer very clearly, corporations where

they are profit or not. and because i think that it is non-profits see it in bold, they will be more willing to read it which then obviously more clearly allows them to just be educated. and so i guess that the question that i have are all non-profits corporations? >> they are. but they don't know it. and that is and that is what i am trying to say, and i think that they may not treat themselves as that. and a lot are grass roots are really just believing that i am not a corporation i am just a well meaning group of people that are trying to do good in the world. >> i might suggest that it be worded may a for profit or a non-profit corporation, would that be clear enough? >> may a for profit or a non-profit corporation make a campaign contribution? >> even better. >> it will track the language

closer. >> anything else that you want to add. >> i would like to commend the staff and i think that it is clear and it is going to be helpful. two comments, one i think that the language saying this is not the law and it needs to be a little strong and her it needs to refer to the specific code whether it is the cng code or whatever it is. to send the people there hey you got to look at the code this is not the law. >> and i think that it also would be helpful if possible to put citations for the boxes and i don't know if that makes it too busy or we are going to refer to the code and it will be quite helpful to actually refer to it in each box so that

if they want to know what the law says for each box that they can... >> right. >> unless you all think that is too much work or over kill? >> it was too much work. >> we love hearing that. >> the fact that we are practicing what we just talked about. >> and nicely done. >> i think that it is a very readable. and very helpful. >> any other notes on the contributor's guide? >> so when will the final guide be ready? >> it will be ready, if the commission adopts it, it will be ready by tomorrow and should be posted on our website some time, the problem is that steven our tech guy is on vacation. and he is out training and so he could post it.

>> so do we want to... >> the suggestions. >> okay. >> make a motion to adopt it with the suggestions that have been made? >> yes. >> i move that we adopt the contributor's guide with these changes that were suggested in the discussion. >> second. >> any further discussions? >> all in favor? >> we got to ask for public comment public comment? >> okay. >> all right. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> good. we have had adopted the contributor's guide and i think that it is a very good one. >> okay. >> and again, with the minutes, we have a few last minute typo corrections. >> yes. on page 1, where we say the fifth commission member was vacant, it should say the 5th commission seat was vacant.

push on page 2, in the motion it is actually the historic preservation commission not the committee. >> i notice that mr. martinez name is misspelled and it is missing a t. >> you are right, you are absolutely right. >> on page 4, in question 7, i guess that there is an under score that does not belong there between that and its. and then on page 5, the fourth paragraph, actually what happened was david pilpal a member of the public actually

alerted us that the filers identified in draft regulations 3.1-500-1, 3.1500-2, and 3.1-500-3 were already in the other draft regulations. so, my suggestion is that we change the first sentence to read, after david pilpal alerted them that... identified in those drafts that regulations after on the third line, after 3.1-103-3, put a comma there and the commission agreed, and accordingly, blah, blah, blah. >> and... >> the action is taken because david made the suggestion that the commission found reasonable.

>> yes. >> and so we just wanted to throw the credit his way. >> thank you. >> and then on page 7, in the paragraph under the motion the second line the word should be governmental conduct code. and that is all that i found. >> where is that? >> the last one was on page 6. >> after the moegts. >> i think that i said 7, on the second line, the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code not conduce code. >> >> i move that we approve the minutes as edited.

>> second. >> public comment? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the minutes stand approved. >> okay. >> and do you have a report? >> yeah, a few quick highlights. and item number for you and notice that the revenues for the year, exceeded what we are anticipating. which is good. and the number 7, the statements of economic interest, we are pursuing on filers, the one thing that i will point out is right now we are at 17 non-filers for seis which is you know, obviously we are concerned that we want 100 percent, but, normally, we have between 50 and 70 non-file and hers so we are doing better this year than we are in the past and i will point that out and number eight, i just want you to know that we have a productive meeting with the

ethics committee in san diego and los angeles in sacramento and we shared a lot of ideas and rereinvigorated our working relationship. and in case you have not seen, the chair person in ravel was not nominated by president obama to the federal election commission yesterday. and obviously the senate confirmation hearings take time, but this is an appointment that was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm. both here in california and in washington. >> fantastic. >> if she gets confirmed she will be moving on. >> i would like to mention that i am glad that you flagged number 8. i recall that as the times are certain of budget stringency, the staff has not been able to participate in the national

activities of ethics organizations so one is that i am glad that we have that california exchange. but also it makes me want to ask, whether or not we are able to do that kind of national professional participation or whether we use stringency is effecting that. >> even though it is improving that was something that was not timely to ask for. i think that maybe next year, the thing that educated my thinking about this too is just this convention was in canada which might add to the expense and so on. although, that is a goal that we would have for the future years. and that was again, we always set aside a night for the california commission to get together and update and talk and communicate. and again, we do communicate well already. but this is always, it is

always good to sit down with the faces and the names and not just be on the phone and be together and that is always valuable and of course, mable and i and other folks were members of panels and so we made presentations of our own. >> we will fill the position of our education out reach person,

coordinator. and hopefully as soon as possible. in fact, we would be doing that now, except that the human resources requires us to hire from a set pool that they established. and there is not one. >> so we can't hire until there is a pool. and they are is supposed to be one in the coming months. i believe that if we are careful, we will also be able to fund the vacant investigator position that has been vacant for years and i anticipate that this is enough to do that. the caviot is that we got through the budget hearing of the board and the budget has not been adopted yet. next week after the board is done with whatever cuts and everything else that they do, then they do add backs and everything else and the final negotiations with the mayor's office. and i am in constant touch with the board and with the mayor's office about this. so, you know try to keep abreast of what is going on in the developments so we should have the final numbers for us for next year by the next

meeting. obviously i will get it before then and i will let you know. but in terms of you know the report. we will know next month for sure. >> but i have my fingers crossed. >> okay. >> anything else on that? >> no. >> item for future meetings? >> well, this is not exactly an item for a future meeting, it is an item for this evening but it effects our future meetings and that is that commissioner jamie studley will be leaving us and tonight is her last meeting. because as she had informed us earlier she will not be here for the july meeting and then we have made a decision to cancel the august meeting because of the number of us will be traveling or out of town. so tonight, is her last evening, as a commissioner on

the ethics commission and fairly memorable one at that. >> and i am sure. >> you will be missed greatly. >> i will miss everyone on the commission and the commission staff a great deal. >> but in the as much as we will miss you. >> and it is just it has been a rare pleasure and a rare honor to work with you and have you not only a member but a marvelous chair. and you know, i think that you have been a great leader and just so wise, wise and underline wise because you have this body of knowledge and this acute level of inquiry and insight in things and you have tried so hard to be thoughtful and fair and succeeded, well succeeded. and you bring to it also, not only thoughtfulness, but compassion which is so

important and truly an academic and i have learned so much from you and it feels wonderful to know at my age i have people around that are mentors and also friends and it just means the world that you have been here. >> and we will miss you. i can guarantee. >> it is a truly a pleasure of serving with you and you helped me and your advice and counsel have been invaluable throughout my experience here and i echo comments about your wisdom being a huge asset on this commission and i also add that your leadership ability to build consensus which things are breaking down, the 100 percent effort that you gave each meeting and in struggling

with issues that may have felt either mundane or difficult, it is truly admirable and you will very much be missed on this commission and i appreciated getting a chance to know you. >> thank you. >> just tell me when it is my turn i will be brief. >> the one person who does not need to be brief. >> i am a complete sucker for the opportunity to serve and i care so very, very much about government meeting the highest expectations that we set for it. and so let me start by talking about the staff. one thing that i think that we have in common even the newest commissioner can see it that this is not an easy

responsibility and we do it in a fish bowl with very high standards and some extreme difficulties and i have been just tremendously impressed by the way that the staff led by jack and mable but all of the people that i have dealt with on the staff have soldiered on to do right and to carry out their sworn responsibilities as representatives of the city and county of san francisco against some very, formittable criticism, and to up hold the expectations about open and responsible government. and i know that it has been hard. although, it will appear on the record that i am departing before the end of my term. i have heard that 6 months and three months. and who is counting.

and holding on by one fingernail to do that some days. but it is an honor, san francisco asks a lot of our public officials. and we ask a lot of ourselves as a city and these are incredible standards that we are asked to try to carry out, to be ethical and open and at the same time, careful and accurate and respect privacy, tonight's conversation could not capture it, better. and as we are trying to balance all of those things, knowing what the voters have put in place and what they have asked and what individuals expect of the way that their government deals with them. and so, i am very touched by what you said that jack and dev and ben, we all take it very seriously and i have