>> 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 the sunshine.

>> yeah, i certainly have no objection to that. >> i don't either. >> it seems techically correct. >> it seems grammatically correct. >> where are you inserting the word handling? >> where it is under lined. >> the commission regulations for handling violations of the sunshine ordinance. >> do we need a motion for that? >> yes. >> okay. >> do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> i move that we amend the title to read ethics commission regulations for handling violations of the sunshine ordinance. i will second. >> thank you. >> and question, commissioners. >> any comments. >> public comment? >> >> commissioners, ray hartz,

director of san francisco open government. and the actions of this chising and the staff constitute a pattern that i have no trouble labeling it a conspiracy. >> for years the commission allowed the staff to deduce materials from the task force with any bs, excuse provided and then the commission spent more than two years pretending to confer with, the task force, and only to completely exclude them when it cames to finalizing these rules. once the regulations were in place, this commission not only found in favor of the city in every single hearing, and against the citizens in every single hearing, but found it necessary to actually vote the sunshine task force findings were wrong. >> you did not just say, we don't intend to do anything with this referral. you voted to find that their

finding of violation was not correct and that you no found no violation and you did so without any hearing and they at least held the hearing when they found the violation and you just decided to ignore the facts and as i read from the good government guide you are supposed to listen to the facts and make a decision based on it is facts and the law, you don't. you simply say, task force, you got it wrong. talk about adding insult to injury. and the members of the ethics commission have shown themself to be in the pocket of those who appoint them and i would think that they would be embarrassed to show their faces. and that quotation i read from the good government guide, i think that any citizen of this city would use common sense and any member of a jury of your peers will use the common sense to say that anybody that 100 percent of the time finds in favor of the city and against, the citizen who brings the

complaint, is biased. 100 percent of the time, you never find in favor of the complaint. you have never filed, i would bet you, one complaint before the sunshine task force and realize what the deal it is to go through the hearings and get a find and then for god sakes, to get it enforced. in fact, with this body, you can't get it enforced. so what is the point? >> and well the point is, we can come here and beat you over the head, by the fact that every single time you find against a citizen, you are saying that citizens bring specious complaints and complaints that are not valid or worth while and you do so without the hearings and in many cases without actually investigating them and you simply make it up as you go along out of whole cloth and you dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss and you not only dismiss the cases, you dismiss

the citizens of this city. >> mr. hartz. are you before or against adding the word handling? >> i think that it is... >> whether you add it or not. it does not make a... bit of difference because it is not going to change, it is not a subnative change. >> peter war field, the director of the library users association, i oppose, adding the word handling and i have a different word that i propose would be much more realistic. and given the record and the direction of the ethics commission. i think that it should say, ethics commission regulations for dismissing violations of the sunshine ordinance. and i think that that would be much more realistic and give the public a better sense for

what actually happens at ethics commission hearings. >> he also would like to propose that you put off the change so that the public might the broader public might weigh in and i am tempted to announce a contest that library users association would like to have or hold for the best title for these regulations and i would propose to bring the results and for you to solicit the results and bring them to the subsequent hearing. it could be very perfectly clear, commissioner hur, i'm speaking against this. all right? >> i appreciate it. >> >> the rationale that mr. st. croix included on 3 b is that

he was concerned about wanting to avoid imposing more or other ethics agencies. and how noble of him. and you know what? it is not his job. and your job is not to worry about imposing work on another agency. your job is to enforce, orders of a determination, that are sent over here for enforcement. so the handling part is... we are not dogs, we are not horses. we are people, we don't need to be handled. what you should do, is introduce a motion to change the title of this regulation to the ethic commission's regulation, for enforcement of

sunshine ordinance violations. your job is enforcement. and your job is not adjudication, it is not just to simply dismiss the cases at all, i mean, routinely and all 39 of them, xh is mitigated. and crossed out. your job is enforcement and the title of the document needs to reflect what it is that you are supposed to be doing. >> given my three minute limitation on my earlier remarks i want to annotate them a bit for the regulations as a whole.

and i commented earlier that i couldn't, or i was not provided with any record that indicated that you saw, these proposed regulations before i did. which was on friday. they were incubated for months and as i mentioned you really needed a serious legal, analysis before the so-called one l. it was proposed. and the facts are pretty clear, that this is an attempt to exclude mr. st. croix from the type of lawsuit that i filed three years ago, four year ago that cost the city 25,000 dollars. and that may cost the city and as i had to file my lawsuit involving the failure to

produce and disclose the public records notwithstanding the orders issued by the task force. and so, you know, it is important that you understand how the sunshine ordinance works. and i think that if you depend on the staff to inform you that you are going to miss quite a bit and even though you have all taken the exam or promised to take it, i'm not sure that it resonates or registered. that the section of the constitution that i read to you, is pretty serious, is if you check a recent case here in the sierra club and you can see that the supreme court of this state has use ited very dramatically in order to find for a party seeking a set of public records. and i will hope that if you do anything like this again, that there will be a serious legal approach to it because that is

what it really requires. thank you. >> don't give money to the friends of the library or accept money from the friends of the library. >> truthfully it does not matter whether you have handling violations or enforcement violations i do have a proposal though, and i suggest that they put the violations of the sunshine ordinance and, now what is the point, the point should be obvious. and are you going to come back in october propose, didling the violation and not take the public comment because it is not as subnative change? no.

it is a substantial change, goodness knows that you should take the public comment. thank you. >> all of those in favor of changing the title, including the word handling of violations? >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> thank you. >> the contest is a creative idea. >> still could be done. >> next item is the annual report, the draft that you have in front of me, these language and the italics is last year's report and the leg is this year's report. and so, where the staff is here

to entertain any additions, changes or deletions that the commissioners are interested in conducting. >> could you say that one more time? >> the italic is last year's report and the regular is this year's draft report. so again, that staff of is hear to take any suggestions for the additions or changes that the commissioners have. >> and what is the deadline, on this. there is not a statutory deadline and we are required to do this every year. >> it seems to me that we need to read this carefully and give you our comments. and i don't know if the comments have to be given

during our public hearing, or can we forward those comments to you? >> you can do that. >> via e-mail? >> any comments that you want to share with us about the annual report that you have put together? >> i think that it is self-explanatory. >> mr. st. croix, so i was looking at the work chart. and that is his, so we have come up one fte. right? and i think that i saw that there was a special project assistant, is that right? >> yeah, that is not, here, but not there. >> and there is, was there a... >> restructuring of the existing staff? >> no, we have 18 statutory positions, the special project assistant is a temporary position. >> i see.

>> i had a suggestion. and i think that it will be helpful to include to the extent that we have records of them, the vote for each thing that we passed, whether it was 4-0 or 5-0 or 4-1 or three to two. >> okay. >> unless that is not in an inordinate about of work. >> we will let you know. >> if there are no questions or comments on the annual report at this point, perhaps we can move on to the next agenda item. >> i had one comment. that i want to thank the staff, i think, that you guys it has

accomplished a lot this year and i think that we have made a lot progress in several areas and i appreciate the hard work and effort that went into it. >> i concur. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> public comment on the proposed annual report? >> commissioners ray hartz, director of san francisco open government and to make sure that it is fair that commissioner hur is not upset, i will suggest modifications in the first grabing, strike the words the citizens of san francisco end quote and i would suggest that the same change be made throughout the report wherever the citizens of san francisco and in any form may appear. and the same paragraph, insert the word not, before the word enforcing. and in the second paragraph, on the fourth line, insert the word, fails to, before the

words raises public awareness of ethic laws and i have yet to see anything you do to raise the awareness of ethics laws. on page 16 under advise and opinions change answers public inquiries to read, evades public inquiries as is supported by mr. well the last lawsuit that has been filed against you for withholding public records. everything else in this report amount to nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on a titanic, the ethics commission and the staff expend all of the resources amounting to millions of dollars each year only to finally fail an enforcement and even provide exemptions from the regulations and every time that i see something come before you, where you make a rule, and somebody says, well i need to have an exception to this, and you grant it. and so you get these people who

were in the city of government making contracts with outside agencies who knew then and do simply ignore the law and allow to go to work for that same agency. what is the point of having a law if you are not going to enforce it? and this commission serves the exclusively, city employees, and elected officials and appointed officials. and there is really nobody, that i know, and all that you had to do was look at all of the people who spoke tonight, there is not one single person who spoke in anything that you plan to do. everybody that looks at this commission, studies its action and reads its document and looks in the procedures, and comes to the conclusion that it is either a, not worth the effort because you will not change or b, something that has to be said, simply to get it on the public record. and which is why, again, i fought so hard for my 150-word

summaries. for years, what you managed to do is play this hide and seek little game, and keep the public from getting anything in the official record to denounce it. >> ask yourselves what have you actually done to make this city more ethical? >> i dare you. to open that up to the public. >> good evening commissioners, dr. derek kurr, this annual report is much better than recent ones, particularly the section on investigations and enforcement. and you have provided the numbers that are required under the campaign and governmental conduct code that had not been provided since 2005 and so this is a big improvement and i very much appreciate the work that went into it.

thank you. >> >> peter warfield, i unfortunately have not had an opportunity to review the 21-page report prior to the meeting, so i certainly agree with the direction that you are taking which is to hold off a decision on this. or that is what i understood you to be doing. so, i agree with that. and think that you should go right ahead and do that. and in practical terms, i think that a 21-page report or one much shorter, would usefully have a table of contents. the previous speaker mentioned a section that he appreciated and the only way that i have of knowing that it even exists, or where to find it is to try and go through 21 pages or wherever it is that i will run into that section. >> so i think that it will actually be helpful to have a table of contents and i don't think that will be a lot of work and i think that it will

add one page or your last page is blank. so, i don't think that it will add any sheets of paper. when i picked up my copy of the report or i tried to on the table, i noticed if we could go to the display, i noticed there seems to be a hair on the top copy, which i tried to brush off, and was unable to do. so, i went to the second copy, hoping that what looks like a hair would be not there. but, i found as you can see from this copy and this several others, that what looked like a hair on the cover, was present at all of the copies that i could see. and so i asked myself, is there some significance to what looks like the hair or maybe the nose of an airplane, it seems to are

lacking windows for the pilot to see out of. so i would like to inquire whether that is a part of the report and what if any significance it might have for the public to understand because if it has significance it is a code that i don't understand. >> thanks very much. >> commissioners? >> i appreciate the humor mr. warfield. we will make sure that the final copy is a clean copy. >> you make sure of that mr. st. croix? >> i will. >> thank you. >> so any further public comment? >> all right.

our next item is performance evaluation for mr. st. croix. and we need to decide whether or not we want to go into executive session. >> executive session for the evaluation of mr. st. croix. >> is there a motion to go into private session? >> i move that we go into private session. >> second. >> all in favor? >> public comment? >> of course. >> commissioners ray hartz director of san francisco open government, and i do believe that these should not be in closed session, they ought to be open to the public so we can see what your directions to the directive are and how well he concludes in your opinion his job. wonlt i like to be a to be a fly on the wall in this closed session. my real feeling is that neither

executive director st. croix would want the documents produced in the closed session to be see the light of day or the public to it overhear the discussion. i am certain eb that the (inaudible) intended, and has for many years evaded any real enforcement of ethics in the city of san francisco. one only has to look at the public record to see that year after year, after year nothing changes. and city employees, elected in the appointed officials does whatever they want without fear of repercussions, what we need is a valid initiative is to change the appointment of them over the commissioners of who they over see to direct the elections of the citizens of this city, the only way that we are going to get ethical oversight of other bodies is to make your positions elected by the set sens so that they don't have a private ax to grind.

you are all appointed by various city agencies over whom you hold hearings. and surprisingly, and in every case you find them not in violation. and if someone looks at it, and actually looks at the public record, you see that is the case. and i want to make it very clear that the sunshine ordinance and while it does not require you to respond to any comments of the public and i noticed that whenever i make my comments, you always make funny faces and things like that but nobody ever responds. >> silence gives consent, i really see nothing in the last three or four years that i have been watching this ethics commission that has done anything, any single action, any group action, any collective action, that has made this city more ethical. but that has made the city

officials more responsive and more likely to produce public records and to allow the people to speak in public forum and nothing. and if you are satisfied with serving terms on these bodies and having at the end of the time, produced absolutely nothing, and to be satisfied only with the plaudits of your fellow commissioners and absent any positive remarks, from the public, who are the receipt of your actions, then so be it. >> peter warfield, executive director of library users association. regarding the performance evaluation for mr. st. croix, i suppose that he has already written it for you. but, to the degree that you or any member of the public or the

press have the ability to think independently, and to come to conclusions independently and to take actions independently, as otherwise have noted and myself, too, his actions seem always to diminish and disrespect the public interest and the law. and his methods of and he is a very intelligent man and his methods are at times down right dishonest. and i will take as an example my own recent experience with a complaint that library users association brought to this sunshine ordinance task force. they found in our favor and forwarded it, the determination the order of determination to you. what happened?

mr. st. croix wrote a description for your benefit of what the issues were and right from the start asserted that it was a complaint from an individual peter warfield against another individual who happened to be the public relations person at the agency who had never had anything to do with the case whatsoever other than come in to represent the city agency at the sunshine task force. multiple times, in that case, from the sunshine ordinance task force from our complaint, it was very clear, our complaint was a library users association complaint against the arts commission. that is what the order of determination said etc., etc.. i will not go into how many times and how many places the complaint and the order of determination and the descriptions that were included

with the material that you got from sunshine task force asserted that. but, mr. st. croix found that it was a complaint by an individual against an individual and therefore, very substantially or substantively, you would follow a whole select of rules that were different from the rules that you would follow were it against the agency. and that was fundamentally dishonest and at the very least inaccurate. and it completely tilted the whole procedure as well as the out come, so that there could be no effective action taken and that i think is something that you should take into... >> thank you mr. warfield. >> thank you. >> yes, thank you very much. and of course, step the

corporate read do not give money to the library or accept the money from the friends of the library. and it is restrictive enough to use the one public comments on four separate items i hope that you have taken a look at mr. grossman's latest lawsuit and it tells of a very interesting story. and mr. grossman tries to obtain his rights under the sunshine ordinance with respect to mr. st. croix. and treat it not only with the complete incompetence about the underlying issue but no attempt on mr. st. croix to learn what the issues are. and in fact, treats the entire controversy with nothing but arrogance as a se