action on the matter. and then, the second part of it, if someone brings a direct complaint to the commission regarding a commissioner and staff, the commissioner now and the staff will inform the complainant of other remedies available under the state and local law. and again, take no further action. and the ethic's commission will not be investigating itself or arranging investigations of itself. >> i certainly agree with that, and i think that it is awkward at the very least that the ethics committee should be investigating. >> in the past was it the practice to refer them to some other agency to handle? >> yes n general we have tried to find outside agencies that have capability of doing

investigations but ultimately those recommendations are referred back to the commission for a final decision. >> so what you are suggesting, or what this amendment will do is that procedure will no longer be followed, but, what would the complainant be told to do? >> well, whoever, and either the complainant in a direct complaint, will be given advice on other entities that will be appropriate to investigate a complaint against the commission or its task and referrals from another agency specifically the sunshine task force would be sent back to them to refer it to another agency, and specifically the district attorney or the attorney general. >> which are, you know, notated in the ordinance, as appropriate places to refer complaints. this to me is a difficult

amendment. i understand why, we should, or why the staff wants to do it and what the logic is for it, but the problem here is that there is no good solution. and if we adjudicate it, there is an appearance of inpropriety and we don't, i think that as a practical matter, people will say the da and the attorney general will not take it up. >> and so, i am not sure that what is being proposed is better than what we have which, although, is not perfect, at least has an outside agency to the extent they are findable and conduct an investigation. but i, i have certainly think that it is a tough issue.

>> i don't know what the write solution for this will be for this. i can see a referral coming before the commission for discussion. on the other hand, if it is a complaint about a commissioner, i don't see how we could handle that. we could certainly discuss a complaint against staff. but, in the end, i don't think that we would or should make a decision on that because of the basically it is between a rock and a hard place for us. but, in the end, i would say that it needs to be referred to another agency. and the question is what would be appropriate. >> and could you do a hybrid or at least a step in process so that the complaint that they would come to about one of the

commissioners and then we will develop a protocol by which one other commissioner will be assigned to work with the district attorney or the city attorney to figure out what the best process? >> and with the... that we will develop a protocol or a process by which another commissioner or two commissioners would work with the city attorney's office to figure out the best remedy. it seems that if you just have one body trying to figure it out, or if you look or let me flip it. if you have one body trying to figure it out, you stand to a chance of coming to a resolve in terms of an investigation going forward. and i know that that is not a process that is in place, now, i mean we would be developing that. but... >> one potential issue will be

that, so right now, they, it can be referred to the da. or the city attorneys, or maybe the district attorney. >> and or the attorney general. >> yes, the attorney general. >> and they can decide or not decide to adjudicate it or not. if we could see the benefit of involving other commissioners but there is also the down side of sort of tainting the process, and if it is one of the fellow commissioners, are you really in aa position to advise? >> yeah. >> well, it didn't we have a situation where something was referred to an ethics commission in another jurisdiction or city or county? >> oakland. >> okay. >> and it is not the possibility of it.

sni. we have done it for another jurisdiction and that is the current process. >> have we communicated with the district attorney to find out if he would be receptive to taking on that task? >> no, it is again in the ordinance, mentions them as appropriate agencies of referral. if they were to reject it, then the complainant has nowhere to go and i am wondering if there is any way that we could give any assurance to the public

that if they feel that they have a complaint, that they are going to get a hearing by someone. >> we would need to do the work on something like that. >> could we ever get assurance? >> filing a complaint does not assure you that you are going to get a hearing. there has to be merit. >> if the typical practice is not to take these up, then, i don't think that we can do anything to change that behave or. >> i agree. >> can we have them play a different role in determining the permit of the complaint >> that then would be forwarded to another ethics, or another ethic's commission? >> that is outside of our

jurisdiction. >> i would be interested in hearing public comment if there is any. if there is... >> commissioners? >> thank you, commissioners what you are doing is blai tantly attempting to use your authority to issue regulations to over turn the role of the voters who passed an ordinance that clearly said, in the referral, willful misconduct will be referred to a municipal agency for enforcement. the da investigates, criminal matters.

and the ag is not municipal agency, but you are. there is your reality. that is what you should be thinking about right now. not, striking a deal to arrange some other body to handle it. it is their responsibility and i am shocked commissioner hayon, that you can't have a commissioner accuse of willful misconduct or an ethics violation and have to take the side chair while you deliberate. if they are guilty and the sunshine ordinance task force has issued determination that they have violated some ethics provision, it is your responsibility to investigate your co-commissioners, no bones

about it miss hayon. >> i was one of those cases referred to another jurisdiction and it did not go to an ethics commission t went to a district attorney.. who did not have any training in ethics. you may remember the two words oliver luby. whose complaint against this body, was outsourced to oakland. and you have done it before. and you should do it again. you you have a ethical duty to not attempt to over turn an ordinance passed by the voters. and, that the board of supervisors has amended. and it would be as if this body

is trying to usurp the powers of the board of supervisors this is clearly an outrageous recommendation from the staff, that you may not even have a when whiff of when you walked in here and your duty is to introduction a motion and say no dice, mr. st. croix. and we will not vote on 3 b. we are going to throw it out. >> thank you. >> >> do we have a gentleman standing in line? >> pris wolf just speaking as a member of the public. i am concerned about this because i think that it creates a slippery slope. first what is the precedent set for non-sunshine violation and what about the ethics violations by a staff member and how do you deal with those?

and so you already have some precedent and some process for dealing with that. and at the same token you have a process for dealing with yourselves as commissioners. and when it comes to ethics violations, so why wouldn't you reflect on those things. also, the task, the sunshine ordinance does not provide any ability to specify or cherry pick any one or another public employee or official when it comes to being examined or ruled on such violations. and so i don't think that it is appropriate to have staff say just because it would, we don't have a process above us, to just say that they are exempt when no other city employee has that same privilege. and so i think that you should continue ahead with moving it

to a different jurisdiction and there are other ethics commissions and they have the ability to do some what of the same kind of scoping as you do and i would urge you to do that. thank you. >> >> yes, thank you. very much. and of course, the staff at the public library and don't accept or give money to the friends of the library. i think that it is wonderful when we find so many elements coming together, let me explain. substantial, means contain any substance. subnative means independent or standing alone, and there are all kinds of things which are substantial, which may or may not be subnative and for example, if you are facing a decision, to change your regulations, regarding putting it in print, that you would

take up complaints just because even though a complainant dropped it, and then you decide to not make a decision about that, that is substantial decision. and a member of the public, might convince you to take action. and in fact, if you look at the sunshine ordinance, and a decision to act or not act accountser is an action for purposes of public comment. and both of those principals apply here with respect to your obligation to be the foundation of ethical and good government for lack of a better word, findings. and, to say that you are conflicted out because you are

all have personal relationships, what does that say that about your independent judgment. you are all appointed here from different sources presumably you come here with judgment, that is informed by your independent perspective. and to, exercise that obligation, and to rule on ethical interpretations. and good government interpretations. and just because it implicates somebody that you know, does not change because that person you know is on the body with you. your obligation remains the same, which is to give guidance to the city and to the citizens on these ethical principals. and it is the ethical principals that you are

interpreting. and you need to find a way to make sure that you are fulfilling that role as i say, this obligation does not go away, and you need to find a way to make sure that you are held by the same standards as anyone else. and thank you very much. >> i brought with me a copy of the sunshine ordinance. i looked in 6734. and i didn't see anything that said at the end of it except the ethics commission, it is executive director and it is staff. and i also checked section 6730 c. which empowers the commission to enforce, task force referrals. and i didn't find any exception

for the commission, its executive director and its staff. what we have here is a failure to understand the implications of what is going on. the basic premises, or the basis bed rock principles are set in the california constitution, and section 3 btwo and i will read it to you. a statute court rule or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly con trued if it furthers the people's right of access and narrowly con trued if it limits the right of access. a statute court rule or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision, that limits the right of access, shall be adopted with findings, demonstrating the interest, protected by the limitation, and the need for that interest.

that is what is in the constitution. and it is governing what you are doing right now. as we speak. so, what you have to do, is construe 6734, and 673 c. and determine whether you can do those exceptions and you also have to look at your power. which you will have through the city charter, section 15102 and if that says that you can further the purposes of the ordinance, by adopting restrictions, on what you can hear against your own staff, and executive director and yourself, and then, i am misreading it. and it took me a little while because we only saw this on friday. and to put it together something that makes, i think, the point, that you just cannot adopt this. you need a reason, opinion, and

you need the finding and if you don't do that, then you are truly violated the sunshine ordinance and the constitutional right of public access, thank you. >> peter war field, executive director of the library users association. section 67.34 of the sunshine ordinance has two sentences, the second of which i think is particularly notable. and i would like to read it. and read, the entire section, 67.34, willful failure shall be official misconduct. and so let me start out over

all saying that i agree with the predecessor speakers you should not be cutting yourself out of the scope of your jurisdiction. and section, 67.34, willful failure will be official misconduct and the willful failure of any elected official and the brown act or the public records act will be deemed official misconduct. and complaints, involving allegations of willful violations of this ordinance, the brown act or the public records act by elected officials or department heads of the city and county of san francisco, shall be handled by the ethics commission. added by proposition g11299. that is 14 years ago. i will read that last sentence again, complaints involving

allegations of willful violations of this ordinance, the brown act by the department heads or elected officials of the city and county of san francisco shall be handled by the ethics commission. now my reading of that is that it is unequivical there are no if, ands or butt and if you know anybody in that position or this position you are not going to do it. and it was suggested to ask whether the commission has read this section. and i hope that you have and i would like to know how you justify cutting a piece of jurisdiction out when the law as it is written here appears to be unequivocal. thank you. >> shall, is... (inaudible) >> commissioners, ray hartz, director of san francisco open government. a couple of points, before i

get to the main one. on the previous matter which you did not take public comment, the withdraw of the complaint. and as previously speaker has already mentioned many of us did not get any of this information until friday afternoon, i sometimes don't get it until the day of the hearing. and as a result, i may get an opinion see the opinion for the first time of the staff, recommending to you a dismissal which they always do i have never seen anything where they said we recommend that you find a violation not one single time and they also throw in things that there never has been discussed before and i made choose to withdraw my complaint, so that i can later resubmit it and then include my rationale as to why that argument makes no sense. i should not be put in a position as a complainant and of having to get a last minute, surprise that i have to spend my time dealing with when i probably spent weeks if not

months preparing for the hearing. the good government guide states stalling, we must afford a fair hearing before the parties before then and central to the fair hearing is that the decision makers come to the hearing with an open mind prepared to hear both sides and to decide the case on the merits of the evidence presented and the governing law. and i see this as nothing but an end run by the staff to attempt to exempt themselves from the sunshine ordinance, findings, and against them. and simply saying, well, we don't want to hear the cases against us, and so we will just send it back to the task force and let the complainant and let the citizens of san francisco, figure it out themselves. and even though we know the history and you have all mentioned the history, the da won't take it and the attorney general considers it a local matter and will not take it and so you are saying, let's send it to them. and why? because you know that they will

not take it. the bottom line is that the task force is a separate body and this body has disrespected it to the ultimate degree by dismissing every single complaint referred to this body. and you know the hearings and the staff does not do an investigation and they simply say that everything that the sunshine ordinance decided or the task force decided was wrong. and this has been the history of this body. and for years, you dismissed them out of hand, by the executive director. and then, for two years, you pretended to come up with the instructions, and then, finalized the instructions without any input from the task force and now what you want to do is exempt your own staff, from the sunshine ordinance, altogether. and by simply removing the due process. >> thank you.

>> >> good evening, commissioners, i'm dr. derek (inaudible) and good evening mr. st. croix. the proposal to botch the sunshine complaints against them would make sense, if those complaints were very common. and but they are rare. and as far as i know there has only been three in the last 13 years since the sunshine ordinance was passed. and one was in 2004, and when the oakland ethics commission handled a complaint by oliver nuby and kevin (inaudible) against the directors (inaudible) and maple (inaudible). and last year, the san jose election's commission had a city attorney, handling the patrick shaw claim against mr. st. croix. and now, we have allegrossman

filing a complaint against mr. st. croix. you know that the attorney general rejects all of your sunshine referrals because they are local matters. and but the district attorney has not acted and even has not responded in writing as he supposed to, to your referrals. also, it is much, much harder for a citizen to retain a sunshine competent attorney, than it is for your staff to retain an outside ethics agency. and you also know that the board of supervisors and the mayor's office have also ignored the sunshine complaints referred to them. on the other hand, referring sunshine complaints against your staff, to outside agencies, makes sense, for four

reasons. number one, such cases are relevant to those agencies and even intriguing to them. and number two, those agencies have a track record of handling these cases diligently. >> you can reduce conflicts of interest, by having a commissioner rather than a staff person or the executive director approach those outside agencies. and you could reduce the imposition by offering reciprocity. so, the objections raised are that it is challenging for you, it is an imposition on other agencies, and it creates a conflict of interest, but all of those can be mitigated, thank you. >> any further public comment? >> commissioners?

>> in view of the public comment, and so it might be interested to hear from the city attorney, i mean, to me, this is doable in part to the extent that there is a conflict or a commissioner deems he has a conflict, and he could recuse himself from adjudicating the matter. >> absolutely. >> so in the instance where we all have a conflict, it seems that at least theoretically we could all recuse ourselves in which case, the matter could not be adjudicated by the ethics commission. >> i think that is right, if you feel okay with that conclusion. >> that would be acceptable. >> okay >> so then to me the question is, as a matter of course, are

we always going to be in a motion on to adjudicate against the commissioner and given that we have done it in the sxaft we have not recused ourselves we can do it without recusal. >> so if that is the case, then, maybe we leave it as is. and although, the procedure is clearly imperfect, and i agree with what mr. st. croix has said about the burdens, maybe it is the least objectionable of many bad options. >> >> i would agree with that. commissioner hur, i don't think that we are trying to avoid our responsibility in any way, whatsoever. i think that the issue as i have or was concerned about it is the perceived conflict of

interest. >> correct. >> and in passing judgment on our own, if you will, whether it is the staff or whether it is other commissioners. but, perhaps, the best solution is to leave it as it is. >> okay. >> okay, so moving on to decision point 4, >> there is month motion is necessary on that. >> okay. >> and the decision 0.4 is more a grammatical correction than anything else. >> and changing the title will be the ethics, handling of regulations for violations? >> it was adding. >> is that what you procedure posing just adding the word handling. >> it will read like this. >> for handling violations of