basic transparency and the set-up simply did not allow for it to show on the projection screen for both the commission and the public. so, that was disavowed. the second thing is we explored reconfiguring the podium that's at the public end so that we would allow a laptop to be used for members of the public to use that laptop for a-v presentations. that is the matter where it would require some aa. go. a. accommodations, some recabling, i mentioned earlier, the a.v. equipment is on the stable behind the dais of the commission. ~ ada accommodations so, we certainly explored that, got contractors to give us a cost and determined that could be done. that would require an expenditure of $40,000 to do that. >> so, here's what i have a problem. you thought it was worthy enough of an idea to actually

explore it, but when cost came into play and it made it cost prohibitive, that ultimately was the determinant of you not doing it, different than it's just something as a policy we are not going to do. so, you did entertain it enough that it was an idea. >> absolutely. >> explore it and brought it back >> the commission engaged in a conversation and explored whether it was a policy decision. as i mentioned, its was not my call. i did due diligence and bring it to the commission for full discussion on whether they were willing to spend the funds to reconfigure to allow for that. and also weighed in on the city attorney's judgment whether we were violating or abridging any public right of speech by not allowing to engage in public comment. and based on those factors of

the commission took action not to allow that. and their recommendation was to allow for any of the presentations to be printed, copied, and made available at the back of the room for the public. so, again, we feel strongly that it does not abridge anybody's right for public comment. it is a significant expenditure. and, again, i do not have the -- based on the charter, the simple ability to say we're going to incur that expenditure. so, i feel i'm between a rock and a hard place in terms of not feeling that we're violating that sunshine ordinance. >> i'm still a little stuck. so, maybe you can help me out. you're standing on, i think

it's 67.1 5a and b on the policy. to me it's enough to say we're already providing an opportunity, an access for the public and to the public and we are -- there is no need to even investigate this. there's no reason to even go down this road because we're going to stand on the merits of this -- of this code. so, it seems like a slightly inconsistent to stand solidly on this, but yet still investigate opportunities or options. >> let me qualify that. i, as a city librarian, felt compelled to at least explore that. at the point when i sent a response to mr. hartz saying that in my estimation, my judgment, i declined his request, then he filed the sunshine ordinance complaint. at that compliance committee when they suggested that we

take it back to the commission, i did just that. that's why it came back. and i also felt that because of the expenditure involved, it would be their judgment, their call and policy determination to do that. so, i felt that was, again, doing due diligence in having a full public hearing on that matter and they did that. and, again, it was a 6-0 vote not to do it because they felt they were not in violation and they got some attorney, city attorney advice and also -- i mean, the brown act and sunshine ordinance did not prescribe a specific method of allowing the use of a-v equipment during public comment. so, they felt that they were going even beyond that by allowing the printing of any audiovisual equipment. and i want to qualify that. when we invite -- and it's really not an invitation. it's a described agendized item for any presentations. for example, during the branch

library improvement program when we had peer reviews and we had a contractor sitting in the dais reviewing ski matt ictiontionerctiontion, those are allowed for the public to have full disclosure on the projects that are on hand. ~ schematics either budget or report that comes from the friends of the library, those are the two examples i can give you, there have been limited additional individuals invited to present. again, it's a very managed agenda that the commission has prerogative to do. >> commissioner keane do you have any questions? >> yes. i don't want to keep -- i don't want to repeat myself, but that's simply not good enough. i don't know what the city attorney told you, but whoever told you that you were okay on this, they're wrong. you cannot discriminate on the basis of subject matter or content.

the viewpoint, you're not discriminating. mr. hartz is saying, you don't like our viewpoint and therefore -- i don't buy that. we'll take that off the table. >> we're not discriminating on content. ~ commissioner, we're not discriminating on content. >> the presenters you invite who are presenting their content, they are using the equipment. the presenters who are -- the other presenters whom you -- that you allow, staff and individuals or individuals and organizations invited to make presentations to the commission. that's your language. there are individuals and organizations invited to make presentations to the commission. they are allowed to use the equipment. the rest of the public isn't. >> and it isn't during public comment. >> they're making presentations. we're talking about presentations here. [multiple voices]

>> commissioner keane, i mean, i will say that we often have presenters who speak much longer than the three minutes allocated for public comment. for the benefit of the commission to introduce an item, it's to explain a situation. so, r it's not -- i don't think we need to necessarily hold presenters to equal access as public comment. and i mean, one of the things that distinctly -- in the actual ordinance, it says you can't do it on the basis of reasonable time constraint. so, if your view is accurate, then you couldn't allow anybody to speak, invited or otherwise, for longer than three minutes. >> mr. chair, actually the language is much more guided than that. it says the only way you can limit things is on the basis of time constraints. that's -- >> right. >> so, let me just finish. since the language is specifically saying the only way you can limit presenters is on the basis of time

constraints, they're limiting presenters on the basis of whether or not they can use the equipment. so, they're violating the language in this limitation itself. they're going to something other than time constraints and saying, we're going to limit it in another way. you can't use the equipment to make the presentation. to me, this is just black letter law in regard to the fact that it is content based, subject matter based discrimination in a public forum. you can't do it. >> i think mr. herrera's point is there is a difference between presenters and public comment. in public comment i agree with you entirely that it's got to be equal for everybody. if somebody in public comment can use the a-v equipment, then everybody's got to be able to use it. but just as a presenter can speak for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or half an hour, which is much longer than you can in public comment, the rules are not the same for public comment and for presenters. >> [speaker not understood].

>> but time is the one thing that they do say you can't do it on. and my point is even on that, you are committed to discrimination between those who present and those giving public comment. >> don't we already have, don't we already have examples of folks who are very -- who are very adept at participating in public comment who use a-v all the time? we have it here, we have it at the board of supes. it's not like we don't see this every day. so, that's why i'm wondering, again, and i agree with commissioner keane that i think it's the time that can be the limitation, not necessarily the the a-v equipment because i see many great presentations are done in three minutes. >> right. but, meaning that, meaning that that should be allowed just as much for the invited guest, for the staff, or the sophisticated public who is willing to do that ~. >> we have -- at city hall we

have the equipment built in to allow somebody to come in with their laptop and put it on our screen. and their problem is that they're in a different building and the staff presentation which is where the a-v is, the only way you could do it would be to have the public comment come to the staff thing. and i think where i agree with commissioner keane to a certain extent is that if you have an item on the agenda that you are allowing some outside party to use your a-v equipment because say it's your architect or whatever else it is. if somebody in the public came to you and said, we would like to in response to what they're going to say, we would like to show how the drawing should be different. the only way now they can do it is come in with hard copy or

something and hold it up and put it in the record. and it would seem to me that if you invite somebody in support and somebody comes to you and says, we would like to be invited even though we're not going to support you, no, we won't invite you because you aren't going to be supporting us. >> i understand what you're saying, commissioner. it's not a matter of supporting. it's not taking a stance on any given issue. it's simply providing the information that then the commission lib rates on. >> so, can i ask -- >> well, first of all, i want to bring this up as a former member of the library commission. first, i think we're being misled a little bit, the language of invited presenters i think is misleading. my recollection is that a-v

presentations are only used to inform the commission on the business at hand at the library. and because so much of what the library does has to do with construction or, you know, architectural renderings, the budgetary presentation which you make, you know, that's how the a-v equipment as i recall has been used. so, i think it's misleading to say that you're invited people who use it. so, if you're inviting outside guests to make presentations that's one thing, but i don't ever recall you having outside presenters just doing a presentation about something. and as far as friends of the library, friends of the library are a part of the day-to-day business at the library in terms of their support for the library and all of the cooperative projects which they

have with the library. so, that stands to reason that there is a need for presentations. but aside from that, i have a question about what other commissions do and what kind of a precedent it's going to set if we feel that the library commission should have -- should make, you know, special arrangements for the public to use the a-v, then what we're saying is that every single commission, including our own, should have access to either the, you know, whatever a-v technology is being used. so, i don't know where that takes us, but i think that that has to be considered. >> commissioner, if i can respond just in part. first of all, i do concur with you that the choice of language is not about inviting any member of the public to present. and then secondarily, in looking at other commissions, other commissions that are outside city hall do not allow for audiovisual during public

comment. two examples are the housing authority and the health department. so, you're correct that it would set a precedent for all the others outside city hall to do so. >> commissioner andrews? >> well, it seems to me we were talking -- now i'm just getting to the dollars. we were talking about cost. and the $40,000 keeps rattling around in my mind. and i was wondering if we could split the difference in this. at least maybe go back and revisit it and for the cost of -- and if it's about just basically heightening the level of presentation, not to this degree, but a -- an overhead projector and a screen that could cost $5,000 could very well move the needle in some kind of way. and that's why i wanted to hear how many options you've fully

explored to ultimately see if you could satisfy this, satisfy this request. >> commissioner, i think i would be willing to go back and explore that overhead projector concept. i know that when we first explored it sometimes it raises other issues, but certainly -- we certainly want to be respectful to the process and to, again, do our due diligence. again, the $40,000 expenditure is at the bottom end of it and we've also had conversations with mayor's office of disability. it triggers some other major modifications in the auditorium if we needed to literally take that [speaker not understood], you want to speak to that? >> good evening, commissioners. roberto lombardi, i'm the facilities director at the library. i have some experience in this regard, actually work on this building with you you have very, very good accommodationseses for a-d-a provisions. the library unfortunately was

built earlier than this building, was remodeled ~. and, so, when the auditorium was constructed there were some hasty things done at the end. regulations concerning a-d-a really hadn't been adopted yet in the city. so, one of the challenges we face now is the [speaker not understood] literally has a podium which looks like it's about, say, a quarter of the size of this podium and was rather hastily installed. some seats were removed just before the building opened. people said, oh, my goodness, we haven't made accommodation here for public comment. so, the trouble is that when we do these projects now, it's under the very, very close scrutiny of the mayor's office of disability. luis mentioned the $40,000 might be a low estimate. when i spoke with susan missener who was the director of m.o.d., she pointed out a situation that's not untypical. once you actually start doing the analysis you may wind up with a large project, all the way up to and including the possibility when we install an

a-d-a compatible podium, since we're talking about podium that has a lot of equipment in it, has to be able to rise and lower, that's what we put in the bayview community center recently. you start looking at the clearances around it. all of a sudden if you start wiping out the seating behind the podium, you can actually go as far as triggering a complete redo of all of the seating in the carrette. i'm not saying that would definitely happen. i spent many years in dpw construction management, so, experience with this. many times m.o.d. doesn't really know what exactly is going to be triggered and they can't really tell you until they have the drawings, the architect is really designed exactly what's going to be there. and they do some -- parts of their job is to do some interpretation of the code. so, the concern from my end as facilities director is that it is actually difficult to ascertain exactly how extensive the work could be, but it could did all the way up to if you

start removing seats that m.o.d. [speaker not understood] could require equivalent seating in the auditorium. and only way to do equivalent seating is remove all the seating -- equivalent seating, you don't know, rather than having the a-d-a accommodations at the front or at the back, it's an auditorium where you see the accommodation scattered throughout the auditorium in kind of an even way so there really is an analyst for people who need accommodation to not feel that there is only one part that can be -- so, i just wanted you to know it's kind of a big technical problem, difficult to nail down. >> so, mr. lombardi, what mr. commissioner andrews' proposal of having a simple overhead projector next to the podium, no changing the podium, put a screen? >> the problem we get into -- i know it's very difficult for people not in the construction business to believe how difficult some of this stuff can be, but you are all very familiar with the city's systems, too. the problem is he we can't just run wires from the podium

across the floor. that for sure is going to be an a-d-a problem. so, we have a concrete floor. we wind up having to core through the floor, you wind up having to run conduits under the floor. you wind up coring back up under the stage to get over to where the rest of the equipment is. and it gets worse because at the main library, you can't core the floors without x-raying the floors before you do that because they're loaded with electrical conduit, piping, reinforcing steel. the next thing you know, you have to call out an engineer from dpw to tell you how to detail this 3-inch hole you have to make. so, it gets -- that's why, that's why these things always become more complicated than one would like. >> any other questions for mr. lombardi? >> so, i just want to be clear. you've already, then, fully explored that? >> we explored the option that i just described, which is that how could we get -- can we get wire, data wire power? because we'd have to run power out there and data wire back

and explore the option of running in and for the overhead, too. so, we explored that option of getting connectivity between that area and the podium that is up on the stage. but we didn't -- at that point the information if we do an a-d-a podium up there, there are some otherish uz too that come up. the exploration, we didn't go forward with it. we got the cost if we power up the podium we have right there [speaker not understood]. i hope that's had helpful if there are any questions i can answer. >> that's helpful. i want it to be clear you were talking data and i hadn't even gotten -- i hadn't even got that hectionv far. i was just wondering about power. >> yeah, we would run data back -- >> like our elementary school teachers taught us. >> [speaker not understood] the building was built a few years later. again, when the technology is there, but if you're building new, it's really a simple matter to put it in.

>> are there battery powered overhead projectors? >> i don't know. i don't know the answer to that because i'd have to -- i would really have to look at the expertise of our i-t division to tell me that. i know technology changes a lot, too. >> any other questions for mr. lombardi? okay. is there anybody here speaking on behalf of the complainant? mr. hartz is not here. so, we're not taking public comment yet. i understand, sir. >> are you an attorney representing mr. hartz? no. >> okay. then we are still conducting the hearing portion and we will, before we vote on the matter, we'll ask for public comment. even though ray is not here? >> right. okay. >> commissioners, discussion on this? >> could i just make sure i

know what the procedure is? this comes to us from the sunshine task force? >> right. >> and they have made a finding that the library is not in compliance and the way we are dealing with it here, the burden is upon the library to convince us that they are, they had the burden of proof to show us that they are. and we have to find that they have convinced us in order to -- [speaker not understood]. it's not the library. it is mr. herrera personally, according to the referral from the sunshine commission. first, they initially held the commission, the library commission in violation. then they had a new hearing, and then they ended up just charging mr. herrera. >> just mr. herrera. >> as i read it, it says the

written order, october 2nd, 2013, the task force again heard the matter. it found luis herrera in violation of the sunshine ordinance. it determined [speaker not understood] and referred the order to the ethics commission. so, that, one might think there is a fairly serious question a to whether there is a proper body against whom to charge. mr. herrera is an employee. >> yeah, i think proceeding against the library is one thing, but proceeding against mr. herrera is a whole different situation. whether we have the proper party before us for us to take action, i think commissioner renne raises -- >> the referral is against mr. herrera, so, he's the proper authority.

it's -- the sunshine ordinance task force found him in violation of 67.15 sections a and b which deal exclusively with public comment. so, the question the commission has to decide is was the task force correct in making the determination that mr. herrera violated toes two sections. ~ those two sections. >> well, i don't think i'd have any problem making the decision that the task force was correct in terms of the library not being in compliance. i have some hesitation in regard to putting it all on the head of an employee of the library. i'm troubled by that. >> on the procedure, i would agree with you clearly the library commission voted on this matter and decided that they were not going to make the accommodation. to the extent there is a liable party, it doesn't seem to me

like it is mr. herrera in this instance. >> i agree. >> on the substance, i do have some concern with a policy decision that basically says that a presenter is the same as a member who is speaking during public comment. i mean, i think that's set for a whole host of potential issues down the road. how do we then limit a speaker to any of the -- how do we not limit them to any of the other constraints in public comment? as a policy matter think, and as a matter of the sunshine ordinance task force do not think that the law there is meant to cover those types of presentations. now, whether we reached that or not i guess is a different issue, but -- >> i disagree with you on that point. but on the point of who is the proper party before us, i don't think we have the proper party before us.

>> commissioner hayon? >> i don't understand why is it not sufficient to hand out material to the public that they can look at while you make your presentation or your comments as a member of the public? it seems to me that given the many problematic buildingses in which commissions have to perform their duties, that makes the most sense would ~ without having to create special [speaker not understood] av, et cetera. i would think being able to hand out complete packets for someone's presentation should meet the requirement of providing the information to the public and having a fair hearing. >> i agree. >> commissioner, you wanted -- >> is it appropriate to make a

motion at this point? >> yes. well, let's see if there's other comments from commissioners. no? any further comment? should we take public comment? if you want to -- >> yes. >> before a motion is made. public comment on this matter. dr. derek kerr. i'm a little bit uncomfortable with the assumption that the members of the public are somehow inferior to any experts that you or a commission might want to engage in giving a presentation. so, it really depends on how much you value the public. and the ability to show a table or a graph gives one more power

to express an idea. so, there has to be limits to conduct meetings. there has to be some structure, but the public should not be made inferior to architects, experts who come and speak to you. thanks. >> that's a good point, dr. kerr. first and foremost, we have to have an understanding about three individuals. one is ray hartz. another is [speaker not understood], and james chafee. otto rich, astute, stellar individuals who are very well versed with the digital medium. now, most of their deliberation

was not on point and it wasn't on point because what the city is doing not only the commissions, but even at the board of supervisors is depriving advocates, people with knowledge, not giving them sufficient time. for example, if you go to the board of supervisors, they're limited to two minutes. if they see me, they limit it to one minute. that's not funny. ray, mr. hartz, much like myself, are very well versed with the freedom of information act. he served in the navy, i served in the army.

we feel strongly the need to express ourselves with the best technology available. not once have you commissioners mentioned any equipment that's wireless. do you know of any laptop that's wireless that can perform all that you stated? so, we have an expert or a facility manager here who says about digging under the concrete floor, installing a pipe and making -- and blowing this out of proportion. any wireless laptop can perform that action. finally, mr. herrera has been charged on otis