of last year, the transportation authority staff were led by lumbardo in that transition period, and under clearly, from under her leadership and the transition to your slaoed leadership, the staff have accomplished a lot and i just want to congratulate the staff on your great work and look forward to what we can do together this year. as well. >> colleagues, any comments or questions? >> why don't we go on to e oh, commissioner yee? >> i just have a brief comment or suggestion, and it is, thank you for giving me this director's report as we can see, the ta did a lot of work in 2013, and the comments on the annual report was just glancing through it and i realized that in your, the, your financial statement,

please? >> it seems is there a reason why you have a subtotal for each category. for a, b, c and so forth. but you don't have like a total for all of the categories together? >> on the sum, and the grand total? >> i am sorry i don't have a copy with me. maybe if cynthia or maria could answer that question on the grand total? is that of the program? >> page 46. >> sorry. >> i believe that is the total is on page 47. >> okay. >> got it. >> great. >> any other questions, commissioner yee? >> no. >> commissioner mar? >> yes, i just wanted to thank miss cheng also for and the staff for following through with creating a much better relations with the mta and

really much better communications and coordination, and i think that it shows, in a lot of the different projects that have been coming through the plans and programs and i also wantsed to say that as you mentioned the cac and the community based people that volunteer their time with many of the committees and the community meetings, and i wanted to say that cres ter fung is doing a great job with doing his best at getting the information out and that is not spread very evenly and i know that with the on-line tools that the ta is doing, and one of your slides that i think did not get shown was a lot of the improvements with the website that is helping, many of the people that are coming to cac meetings but many can't and so i think that it is a way for others to know about the work that the ta is doing in coordination with many of our other partners as well. >> thank you so much commissioner mar, i appreciate that and i certainly, echo, chester and the team have done a terrific job and we could not do it without the partnership of the mta and your office as well.

thank you. >> okay, thank you, thank you for your presentation. and, we can go on to the public comment, any member of the public that would like to comment on the end report, please come forward. >> having been on the cac since 97 i am familiar with the annual report and i am very much in support of it and i appreciate everything that everybody has done. and continue to do, and i hope that you helped them lead the way for the san francisco will definitely become a first rate first, from the city. and that sort of thing, and i think that everything that should, and everything that has

been said, is great. and i strongly approve of everything and i strongly hope that you do the same thing, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> good morning and thank you for the opportunity and my name is roland and i am from san jose, and i would like to turn your attention to a couple of slides, in the presentation. and you should look at slide number 30. and look at the central subway, and the contract is for 234 million dollars. that is how much that should cost. it is a good contract and it is a good project. and we will now move on to the next slide which is the downtown expansion. and you have got phase one as 1.6 and it is actually 1.9, and total costs 4.2 billion dollars. and the question is, why would a tunnel of an equivalent

distance cost 2 and a half million dollars and approximately ten times as much as a central subway? i suggest that you look into that and there is something seriously wrong there and now, the last thing that i would like to touch on is slide number 32. and if you look at it, we are going to spend a billion and a half on cal train at the end of the day, we are going to get an extra train a day. and this is an issue. and we have got to look at capacity, and we have got to look at what is happening there and what we are getting for a billion and a half. now, you also see that not all of the funds are secured and what we are talking about here, is the 600 million dollars, of property funds which right now are blocked by the courts and frankly i don't see them go any way. the good news, is that we recently looked, at the cost of electrickfiation, and specifically, for the supplies and the supports and the wires and estimated 785 million dollars.

and we have just discovered that is approximately between 600 and 650 million dollars more than it would cost to do the same work in europe and so this is more for you to think about, thank you very much. >> thank you, and are there any other members of the public that would like to comment? >> and seeing none, we will close the public comment. and colleagues, i would like to point on your desktop that you also have the monthly progress reports for the geary and bus rapid and transit and projects, and it is a great to share with your staff as well. it is something that we asked the transportation authority to share with us every meeting. and okay, so, can we colleagues could we take this item same house same call? ? and the item passes. >> next. >> 14, introduction of new items this is an information item. >> colleagues, any new items or issue to introduce? >> and seeing none, we will go on to public comment. >> we will close public comment. and we will go on to our next

item. >> 15, public comment. >> so general public comment is now open, and related to any subject matter under the transportation authority. and seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. and we will go on to our next item. >> 16, adjournment. colleagues, we are adjourned.

>> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3.

2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration

for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org. >> good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. we'll begin by take the roll. commissioner studley. >> thank you all. here. >> commissioner hayon? >> here. >> commissioner hur?

>> here? >> commissioner liu? >> here. >> all members being present, first item on the agenda is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on matters of the ethics commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners and of course, stop the corporate rate of the public library and don't accept money from the friends of the library. you may remember that rights were violated on june 4th, 2009. you made a finding that she was guilty of official misconduct and made a reference to the mayor that the mayor should consider terminating her appointment on july 12th, 2011. you followed up with a direct request to the mayor, that he respond to you in some -- with some sort of explanation on september 24th, 2012.

i followed that up with an immediate disclosure request to the mayor on december 3rd, requesting any documents reflecting any internal consideration or any possible -- any documents indicating a response to your follow-up letter. what i received was an email that a constituent of supervisor kim, named andrew adams, which he sent to jane kim on september 28th. that was the only thing that i received. what is significant is that mr. adams' contacted information was redacted in that response. nothing else. no indication at all that they

intended, had considered any possible response to you or any consideration of a possible response to you. you have to realize that redacting that contact information is the city hall equivalent of flipping somebody the bird. it's been established by the sunshine ordinance task force and courts in state that a person can't invoke somebody else's right to privacy by redacting their contact information and once it's waived, it can't be reinvoked again. so they have no grounds to redact that contact information and they know it. this would be the equivalent as if the finding of official misconduct against ross mirkarimi was responded with well we're friends with ross mirkarimi and we don't have to give you an answer and, in fact nobody said that.

in this instance it's a badge of honor. they don't have it give you a reason. they haven't given you a reason. it's not official miscould be duct if it's only the sunshine ordinance. and that is the message. thank you very much. >> commissioners, as the previous speaker mentioned jul gomez has been elected to her position [twao-eupbs/] since you found her unanimously to have violated her responsibility under the sunshine ordinance and yes, the mayor has refused to even deal with it and it's interesting over the last year, he didn't mind spending $200,000 of money to get ross mirkarimi out of office and yet with one of his own appointees, you sent him a recommendation and he ignores it and he ignores that.

well, boys and girls, can anyone spell hypocritical? very frankly one of the reasons i have been adamant about the library commission is the fact that they come before the public and they lie. they present number relating to the finances of friends of the public library and through public records request i found they have absolutely nothing to back those numbers up. we're talking $10 million that they have claimed that the friends gave to benefit the public library, and they can't back up the numbers. and yet, they come before the public and say oh, yes, they are doing a wonderful job. now at the minimum, that is misrepresentation. if i am on a board or commission, and i go before and i present finances as part of a public record, and i say oh, yes, these are good numbers. and it turns out that i don't

know what i'm talking about, that is dereliction of duty as far as i'm concerned and malfeesance of office. you say show us something to prove that and they are just silent. we went before the government general bond oversight committee and said the number here is not a valid number. and they asked some questions of the chief financial officer of the library and she admitted yes we don't have anything to back that up. at that point it was only $6 million and now it's $10 million and it went from $1.6 million in january of last year to over $10 million by the end of the year. and none of that was contemporaneous documents.

it's all of them going back now and trying to justify all the lies that they have been telling to the public in the prior years. and i have also got a sunshine order against the city librarian for withholding -- primarily because he didn't want it exposed that he didn't have any idea whether those numbers were presented were valid. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm patrick -- here on my own time as a private citizen. first, i am going to ask mr. renne to recuse himself when you got to my item given the article about mrs. renne's foundation in last month's westside observer. second i would like to know when this commissioner is publicly going to inform members of the public what the delay is with the mayor?

removing miss gomez. you have let that matter drag on for a year, four months after your determination and you are letting the mayor just ignore this commissioner entirely. during your attention to allen garsman's analysis of the october 22nd hearing on my two matters, he outlined 16 questionable steps about how the october 22nd hearing progressed. first point getting around the ethics commission's representation to the san francisco city attorney, san francisco district attorney, me as the complainant and other respondents, and the san jose city attorney's office. that this commission cannot

adjudicate cases involving its own executive director. no problem, next issue. getting around your blatant conflict of interest, playing both judge of in the appointing authority for your respondent executive director. no problem, next issue. having the commission chair, that would be mr. hur, review the san jose city attorney's report and formed an opinion on the merits of my case before he allowed me as the complainant to provide my response or to hear the case in an open public meeting. and then mr. hur commented to deputy executive director of ethics, who reports to the ethics director, that the

respondent in the two cases, is there any reason why we can't just release the san jose's analysis about why the complaint fails? no problem, next issue. you just charged right through that october 22nd hearing with all sorts of irregularities of how you conducted that hearing. no. 11, allowing chair hur, who should have recused himself because of his opinion that was on the record before the hearing began, to vote on the substantive portions involved. thus improperly providing the three required votes. >> hi. my name is paula danish and i have a serious issue with the san francisco arts commission.

i have a street artist's permit and i have had a lot of problems and they have violated the sunshine ordinance repeatedly over so many years. and it's really affected my life. i have been speaking to your ethics office, about problems posting minutes of the executive committee. they haven't posted in years. and i just hope that you really do a thorough investigation on them, because there is a lot of things wrong with the way they run the meetings. thanks. >> the next item on the agenda is changes to our enforcement regulations, mr. st. croix

would you like to introduce the matters? >> these are largely housekeeping matters in following up on the changes that the commission has already made. and are pretty straightforward and i think self-explanatory. >> there are three decision points. the first is shall the commission approve the addition of section 3d as set forth on page 3 of the enforcement regulations? the second is to approve the deletion of other references to the sunshine ordinance and the enforcement regulations. and the third is to change the definition of "business day" to comply with the sunshine regulations that we propagated previously. these seem to me to be pretty straightforward administrative

changes. is there any discussion on these? anything from the city attorney? public comment on this item? >> [tkpwao-frpl/], my name is dr. derrick kur, my comment is not specific to the sunshine ordinance modifications, but does refer to section 6a of your enforcement guidelines. my recollection is that the ken civil grand jury when they did their report, they pointed out having two commissioners calling for an issue to be calendared is too high a

threshold. so at the discussion of the ethics commission, my recollection is that the commission agreed that one commissioner could question the executive director's dismissal and have the item calendared. but here in your enforcement guidelines it sill says thereafter any two or more members of commission can cause an item to be calendared. so i'm just raising the issue of whether it's two commissioners or whether it can be just one commissioner? thank you. >> commissioners, director of san francisco open government. you may wonder sometimes why i come here and seem so angry. well, because i have 14 or orders of determination from the sunshine ordinance task

force finding various commissioners, boards, city employees in violation of the ordinance and basically when you got when you get an order of determination is a body who will then look at it and simply say we don't give a damn what the sunshine ordinance task force says, we're not going to do it. we don't care what the law says; we're not going to do it and when it's referred over here, up until this effort op your part to actually enforce it, none more enforced that jul gomez which was basically ignored by the mayor. basically what we're talking about here is denial of due process. the law san francisco gives the citizens the right whente it they have been deadline the opportunity to make public comment, the avenue of going to the sunshine ordinance task force and asking for their assistance.

but what good does to do you? you go there and get the orders of determination, and yet, other city agencies including this body, just ignore those determinations. know your rights under the sunshine ordinance is printed on every agenda of every commission and board in this city and every meeting. and yet when people who actually do know their rights under the sunshine ordinance and come before the bodies and simply ask to have their constitutional rights respected, for heaven's sake, they get met with open hostility. i went to a meeting, a public meeting earlier this month. and every time i got up to speak one of the commissioners simply crossed his arms across his chest and rolled his chair away from the deis and back into the corner. and when i get done speaking he came back to the table.

and you say well, yeah, mr. hart, you deserve that. no member of the public deserves that. because what it is is sending a clear message to members of the public, we're going to say the words we want you to be here and we want you to participate, but we don't mean it. earlier this evening the arts commission had a meeting where they tried to blame an expense of the sunshine ordinance task force complaints on certain individuals, when it was them, sending people who couldn't answer the sunshine task force questions and couldn't respond appropriately and simply ignored the law and dragged it out as along as they could. blame the victim. >> good evening, david pelpil.

i only had a comment on the titles actually, the current regulations are entitled and i think it would help in some ways to add "handling," before "investigations," and more to the point on the new regulations regarding sunshine ordinance matters, i would actually title that "ethics commission regulations for handling alleged violations of the sunshine ordinance." i think it's confusing to suggest that the regulations for violations, when they are not necessarily violations. it's the procedures for handling alleged violations. so those are my only comments about titles. the substance is good and fine and i commend it to you for your approval. thanks. >> patrick again. commissioner hur and honorable

commissioners, i respectfully request you ignore mr. david pilpel. as you well-know complainants start out filing a complaint. they spend endless hours waiting for their items to be scheduled and calendared and they go through a rigorous process of evaluating alleged complaints, but when the sunshine task force finishes their determination they do not title and forward to you an alleged order of determination. they send you an order of determination. don't put the word "alleged" in your title of the new

proceedings. because the point the sunshine case ends up in a referral for enforcement, at ethics, it's no longer an allegation. thank you. >> on the -- with respect to the title of the ordinance, or our response to the ordinance and our handling of the ordinances, i think the titles are fine. i don't know if any other commissioners have thoughts. my view is that we do handle some sunshine complaints directly. we handle some that the task force would have made a determination on, but ultimately i think the regulations are clear and the title accurately reflects more or less what