know of, and to find evidence that there was not intent to deceive. and i guess that you are making credibility and determinations based on how she answers the questions and what the evidence is before you, and so i am curious about what she said, or what evidence she presented to you to indicate that this was somehow accidental, or just negligent and not deliberate. >> the basic presentation that she made was that she was just completely oblivious that it would make a conflict of interest and that one of superiors were aware and no one raised a flag and so there was no case from people that should have known if there was a conflict and since they did not indicate to her, she felt that she was acting appropriately. >> and what about that

statement to the staff was believable? was that a typical occurrence, that if the senior member does not raise an eye brow, is that typically considered evidence that. >> it is just making a determination without any evidence to contrary. we have to make assumptions based on oral testimony. >> okay. >> by the way, is her testimony under oath to you? >> no. >> mr. andrews? >> so also on page seven and this is, we may or may not know this, it says that the respondent was a member of the board of directors of green for all for 2009, to january of 2013. the respondent disclosed income for green for all for worth

that she performed. and as the acting executive director from 2012, to 2013, and so she was on the board and 2012, and 2013, did she, and and we have stepped down from the board to become the acting executive director and she also have been a voting member on the board of directors and an acting executive director? >> i don't have the answer to that question. i'm assuming that she remained as a member of the board. and i don't, i never asked her the question of whether or not she voted on the board for green for all during that time. >> because within that, just within that organizational structure, you could find yourself having a conflict of interest, undue influence on deciding should you take the contract, and is it something that we should do, and is it something that we should not do? and it just, generally, is a

practice, and in different by laws, and differently for different non-profit and corporations and it is just a general, and often they do step down as an acting executive director when there is the opening at the ceo and the eeed level but usually they recuse themselves from voting during that process to avoid any undue influence or conflict of interest. >> and that may have happened. >> i would assume for these purposes, that she has the member of the board had the right to vote. and her membership on that board, in and of itself is not a conflict with her position at the puc and it was when, scoping a contract, that would eventually go to that board, that is where the primary conflict came in, by the fact that when the director took maternity leave and she stepped in as the acting director for a salary and that complicated and

intensified the conflict. one of the indicators that i did leave out back to your question was that she did report that income on her 4700 which say public document. and so, she was not trying to hide the fact that she was a paid member of the board of directors during the course of the events. >> madam chair? >> a couple of things that are articulated in here that i have further questions on, so she takes the training, so she is aware of the fact that something like this is a pretty obvious conflict of interest, what is the explanation for still not realizing that it was a violation and what was the expiration there so that we could be comfortable that it was not a deliberate attempt to violate it. >> and i think as it was stated

earlier that she did not understand that this scenario was the same as what was described in the training. i don't believe that she understood the rule i do not believe that. >> anything further? >> those are my questions. >> thank you. are there comments from the audience? >> dr. derek kur a whistle blower and i would like to appreciate commissioner keane's comments and insights, i think that the problem is that the government officials create these ethics commission to

serve government officials, and also then the public. there is a built-in bias and all of the confidencalty serves that bias, and protects the officials. i was disheartened by the city attorney's effort to sort of side track the discussion. and this was a central core issue. and directly, derived from the case in question and so it was not off of the agenda. and i do disagree with the commissioner keane in saying that this was an example of the case where the staff do their job. and this is an unusual case where there was a smoking gun and it is a blatant example of a conflict of interest. and most complaints don't have the smoking gun. and they will have the bullet wounds, and the powder burns, and all kinds of other

information. to get the smoking gun, you need to do an investigation and this is what the ethics commission does not do. they are very superficial investigations and they bend over backwards to give the respondent the benefit of the doubt and they are swayed by the empathy for the public officials. and that is something that the rest of us don't get. but, thank you for all participation and discussing it is very encouraging. >> and as i said before, this disturbs me very much. and i am the director of environmental advocacy and i have a good track record and i am very well known and your commissioners, superficially, are trying to adjudicate

something without diving into it. and into this, situation, and we have organizations in san francisco, and we don't have to go to green for all. and if you go a little deeper, then the new direct for green for all that replaced juliet ellis and his wife, now works for her. how did that happen? >> so, if you commissioners superficially assume that your staff did a wonderful job, i think you don't know the difference between the reality and the fluff.

that is too much fluff. this woman today is arrogant, tomorrow, she is going to have opened up a new section of the south east commission in the bay view. she is going to be introducing the board of supervisors cohen and doing the introduction. she has been saying openly, that they can do anything about this. and as i told you earlier in my comments, she is looking forward to her pension and her benefits. and this is, is this the type of public official, she by the way is assistant general manager of the sfpuc. and she by the way was a commissioner, is there a precedence before that some of the commissioner to such a position to relief the fpuc and i can go on and on with her job.

and now, there are some people who think that if they are visit the white house or they speak to obama, or president obama, sorry, that we know, that it matters, it does not matter. i spoken to the president, and it does not matter. if you are a professional person, you have got to have standards. this woman has no standards. and i think that by looking at me but this woman has no standards and i was approached by a number of journalists who told me that the ethics commission would not give them the required documents, thank you very much. >> further comments from the public? >> commissioners, any further comments from you before we move toward making a decision on this? >> mr. hur? >> could i just for purposes of

my own understanding, did the staff believe that it was that there was an absence of an intent to deceive here? >> yes? >> yes. >> and did the staff believe that this was inad inadvertent, specifically look the at c. >> yes. >> had the staff determined that it was deliberate? what do you think the range of penalty recommendations would have been? >> much higher. i don't know. i can't give you an amount. >> okay. >> mr. st. croix, i had asked you this at one time, but if you could refresh my memory, does this commission have the authority to recommend that a person be in a case like this be removed from their position? >> that is not one of ours.

>> there is nothing spelled out in the statute or in the charter, that gives us the authority over that kind of thing for this level. i am not being an elected official or a board member or a department head. it is beyond the scope of ours. ultimately, if the commission determines that they want to communicate to superiors that, you know, their deep concern about something like this and what, a remedy that they feel is more appropriate, you could probably do something like that. as a separate action. but, that would be outside of the scope of the settlement. >> but, if we were to do something like that, you are saying, we could write a letter to the fpuc, or, whatever, the case would be. recommending that? or you are just saying or doing something informally. >> yeah, i would assume that and i am going to ask josh to

confirm this, if we were to take an action like that, we would probably have to reagendaize. >> i agree with that. i think that it is beyond the scope of what is agendaized tonight, and i think that for tonight, the question is whether or not to approve the settlement, if there was something additional that you want to do beyond that it will have to be. >> that action could be done. >> it is not, within, i mean, are you... so basically the action that you are contemplating would be just some sort of communication by the commission to the puc, sort of recommending some kind of an employment decision to be made? >> yes. >> it is not one of the,... it is not one of the penalties that is contemplated by the political reform act which is the state law here or the conduct code. i don't think that there is anything that is preincluding the commission from just simply making that recommendation. >> i was asking it as a general

question, and you know, in terms of all of the work and all of the cases that have been investigated. and i have... that has never come to our attention. you know, is that something that we should recommend or that we have the authority to actually do? >> commissioner? >> madam chair, i would think that we as a commission would have the inherent right and power to publicize what we do and to write to other agency and to other governmental entities that might have an interest in what we do and tell them what we have found, and tell them what has occurred as a result of our actions. and i think that in that situation, if i were on the receiving end of that, that would be enough. and i don't think that we have to go any further than that. >> yeah. >> and we actually have been faced with a situation like that. and although, not an actual employee. but, a fellow commissioner on

another commissioner, where we have recommended that some action be taken but we don't have the power to enforce that in any event. >> and maybe, i can ask the city attorney, this question. if we were to find, and i decided if not with this, the agregious conflict of interest by a city official, don't we have the power to determine if there is official misconduct justifying determination? >> i would have to check the specific language in the code and i am happy to do that and provide you with an answer after this meeting. >> okay. >> madam chair? >> so, we were just wondering what the... is this not the maximum penalty administrative that i see here if you added those up it was $5,000 for count one and $5,000 for the violation and comes to a total

of $20,000 was the max? >> correct. >> and you were... when you referenced earlier that you said that it would be much larger than that, and this is the $20,000 that is the max. >> right. >> and it is proposed penalty is not the maximum. >> no. >> i understand it. >> and in addition to the type that the $17,000 has been returned. >> okay. >> commissioners? >> do we have a motion? >> i am troubled by this case, i must say. and if the settlement were for something that was north of half of the max at least, i think that i would be more comfortable but i mean, that from, i'm not, i'm not convinced that there was not deliberate misconduct here, frankly. and so, i, while i think that the staff is very good job of negotiating the settlement and getting, you know, getting a

resolution and while i in general favor the resolution, and because i think that it is efficient and clearly here this person is recognizing that there was a problem, and cooperated fully with the staff and deserves a lot of credit for that, i guess that i am just having read this and having a hard time with the conclusion that it was negligent. >> commissioner keane? >> i don't have any problem voting for this mainly because what this shows on the face of this is this woman is admitting to all sorts of derelections of duty and corrupt action and these are the finding, counts of one and two, influencing a government decision in which the official has a financial interest. that is not jay walking or spitting on the sidewalk, that is a fairly serious finding of

guilt in regard to official misconduct. and the second in count three, contracts, sales and purchases made in official capacity. and that, again, is someone who, a member of an agency who was saying that she did that. she is admitting to something to use commissioner renne's term, rather aggregous in my opinion and in count four, she is admitting that she did engage in incompatible activities with her job. and after this stipulation is in effect, voted on by us, and the fppc. and it is a finding of guilt in my opinion, that disgraces this woman and puts her in a position where any further employment, we are not recommending it, but, just,

talk and just speaking hypothetically and for anything to continue employing something like this i think would be very strange if nothing else and so here, i'm not troubled by the penalty, as is my colleague commissioner hur, i mean, the fine, and the 5,000, and to me that is, negligible compared with the findings of guilt official misconduct and disgrace, we are saying that you did a lot of bad things here, ma'am. and i don't know how you, and we had members of the public saying that she is just going to tap dance away from this, and nothing is going to come as a result of it. there is no way, after we make findings like this in conjunction with the fppc, that, a governmental agency, is just going to say, well, we

could get a problem, but it is over. >> we will go back to work and by the way you are due for a raise. that not going to happen and if that does happen, i would be the first one to complaint about it. and so in that regard, here, i see we as an agency, our staff has done a good job and in terms of it, i would defer to their findings related to things like credibility, and whether or not they are saw intent and deliberations and stuff like that, they were there, and they interviewed the witnesses and they interviewed her and i didn't, none of us did. and i think that we should defer to them, on those matters, unless it is clearly erronious what they are doing, and i don't think that it is. and we should go ahead, and the fppc which is an agency that has considerable repaout and

clout and they are saying that they find the same thing and we are joining together in an alliance with a sister agency and saying, that this bad stuff was done. i think that is not a bad night's work for us. >> do i hear a motion? >> i move that we adopt the findings. >> second. >> all this favor? >> aye. >> those opposed? >> i, oppose. >> and i, oppose. >> okay. there are three ayes if favor. >> and we have the motion passes. >> we approve the stipulation and the decision along with the fppc. and we will communicate this action appropriately.

>> okay. so, now we come to the budget. always a favorite topic of the commission. >> okay. >> and mr. st. croix, where are we with the budget? >> you have a blessed evening. >> you too. >> so, for years particularly because the city financially was doing poorly, as was the statement, contrary, the directions from the mayor's budget office has always been all departments to find a certain percentage of cuts in the budget proposals. and the ethics commission, is a little bit unique in that we are an independent agency from the rest of the city, and we don't quite function in the same structure. and so, although we are politely acknowledged the

budget instructions and we usually have declined to follow them in just submit a static budget of the same budget that we had the prior year. last year the commission decided that things have improved sufficiently enough that we should ask for a little bit more because we have the vacant positions that were vacant for a while. and so we did ask for a modest increase and that is what the commission adopted. following that, line, for this year, we did get a mild increase from the mayor's office and we have it back from the board of supervisors which did increase our budget and we have filled the empty, educator position and we have funds this year for an investigator, but, those increases that we got, last year, are only for this year. and they don't translate on to next year. and so what i am proposing is that we request a budget that actually keeps those increases in place. and that will allow us to fill

that one remaining staff position. and at that level, and then i am also proposing a very modest, $22,500 which reflects the increase in our net file contract and then this year, of course, the first time it is increased since we have had it and so basically acknowledging the fact that there is still some budgetary consideration that the city faces in terms of shortfalls, and we are not asking for the moon and stars. but we are asking for something more or less to keep us whole. and we are almost whole instead of just getting us to where we want to be. >> commissioners? >> any other ideas or comments. >> let me say one more thing if you don't mind because we have the new commissioners that were not here. there are two components to the budget and the election campaign fund that we use to give the financing to candidates that is an independent fund that we manage and by statute every year there

is a percentage deposited on the fund based on the city's population and so it is $1.9 million every year goes into that fund and it is capped at 7 and a half million and so if it reaches that point, then the deposits to that fund will stop temporarily and then the rest of the money that is the operating budget. >> administrative. >> and the overwhelming majority of the budget is for salary and fringe, and all of the other costs are minor compared to those two big ones. >> the funding on the second page because i am not familiar with the specifics of it and it seems rather fascinating for me in terms of the large increases

of funding that occurred and $157,000, and 05 and 07, it is one million, and 328,, and jumps to 8 billion and then goes down to three, what is going on here? >> there was not a separate fund and so the mayor had to do an annual appropriation for the program back to 02 when it was first initiated and so that was not included in our budget and it was just a separate line item in the budget and when that fiscal year of 06 and 07 kicked in, the board created mayor financing and we only had for supervisors before, and so part that have creation was to put a boost and create that election campaign fupd and put the money into it and so we followed the numbers down the

column, if you shift to the number in parenthesis, that is the logical follow of the column above. and in terms of what our operating budget is and our administrative budget, and so those big jumps in the first column, there was a lot of money in the fund and then at some point, the administration, borrowed some of it and so there was not as much and then it has and, over time they paid it back. and then the second time, the money was borrowed from it and that was slowly paid back and the fund was kept at 13 million and then the board decided that we will never use that much and we don't need that much and there are so many other needs and so, that is why these numbers have jumped around so much, over the years and most of them are big fluctuations in that campaign finance. >> how does the mayor office gets to borrow money from the budget? >> i did the budget for 20 years and by god we never let

the mayor's office take a nickel from us. >> and well, because the election campaign fund is a weird thing, and budget numbers are kind of fungable and the public defender's office is headed by an elected official who is elected in his own right who does not report to the mayor and neither do we, that is kind of why we don't necessarily follow the instructions. but, the, the. >> and even, he says that i need a loan. >> well, we don't really have any authority to say yes or no. and because the mayor and the board control all of those purse strings. and so if the mayor's office decides and the board concurs, that is basically what happens. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> a couple of things. and just, as a note, i am not

sure when the mo was drafted and i just want to have the consistency on the letterhead. of the commissioners. and particularly the memo on january 22, 2013, still. it is just not updated and i want to make sure that if all is using it,... >> yeah, >> that they are using the same one >> i beg your bar par don. >> what i did was i pulled last year's memo and i used that as a template and so i did not have to retype all of these numbers. >> i figured as much and. >> what is what i did wrong. >> let me under score that you are indeed a commissioner. >> and that is helpful. and at least on one of commissioners, so. >> i beg your par don, i will fix that. >> and then the election, fund in the middle of this memo and

the election fund and 1.903559 and then in the and a halfive the 1906395, are those the two same funds that you are talking about? they have two different numbers, are they the same fund? >> yeah, and i will apologize for that too. our budget person after i drafted this gave me new figures. and i believe that the 1903 is actually the correct one at this point. >> okay. >> and then, just my last would be a comment on this state of the city, which i'm generally going to be in support of this modest increase and i have been a part of the city budget process for 11 years and we have seen the mayor's budget instructions being double digit numbers and so, i mean just the 1.4 and the 1.95 for the second year of our two year budget, is great. and i think that it is very good and it goes to show that th

>> so moved.