is and a wonderful community leader, there is no way i'm inclined to tell the puc you ought to fire her. well, he did have more than commissioner renne characterized in the stipulation. he had some egregious language in the violation itself. influencing a governmental decision in which the official has a financial benefit. and i remember at the time when we were looking at that myself, i don't want to speak for commissioner hur who is next to me, we sort of had a visceral reaction to that, made some comments, some comments that were in the record. and in regard to the other language, prohibits any city officer or employee from making a contract in which he or she has a financial interest. it wasn't just some sort of

generic thing. well, yeah, she he didn't -- she really didn't do it right. it was this is fairly substantial language of a violation how we heard all this other stuff. in my opinion [speaker not understood] in all the other thing we heard. in the face of it, i looked at that and i looked at what we see he is our mandate under our rules ~ to promote the highest standards of ethical behavior in government, and i see a department which is allowing someone to continue an employment who has pled guilty to these two rather egregiously sounding offenses. and to me it seemed based upon that knowledge and that knowledge only, it was

appropriate to say that she shouldn't continue. i've learned a lot more tonight, i have to tell you. >> that's the problem. >> that's the problem, is that it come off with, sure, you're quoting the statute. but even as you read the facts, what we knew about the facts, i certainly didn't feel it was a corruption case in the classic term of the word. that is some public employee who is taking money under the table or doing something else. and her conduct, when it came up, was essential open and above and cooperative and she's paid the fine for it. she's made a mistake. i agree with these people who said she's made a mistake, she fessed up to it and go forward. ~ certainly >> commissioner, it sounds to me in some ways we're kind of doing our own temperature check on the commission's comfort level with the city departments

to internally deal with this personnel matter in some kind of disciplinary fashion. if we trust that there is a process, an internal process, and we trust that something would have happened, then we would -- it seems to me we wouldn't be finding ourselves here so much. to believe that nothing happened, i would say yes. but we'll never know. we don't know. it sounds to me it felt like the executive director was intimating that something happened and there was some disciplinary action, it was a personnel issue. he he said all the right things in public. around the fact that it's an h.r. issue. but the fact is we'll never know what actually that was. so, we'll just always have to trust the disciplinary actions were taken, if appropriate. so, to me, it seems that would be a logical and reasonable

line item to add to a stipulation that if appropriate, disciplinary action should be taken by the agency or the entity. i mean, it's vague enough, it would seem to me, that at least it brings to notice that the organization has a responsibility or the entity has a responsibility to investigate what they should do post the commission's decision. >> and i think that's fine to include. i think to the extent we want to provide a recommendation, i do think it should be done in the context of discussing the settlement in which case, for example, we had determined -- i'm not saying there was or wasn't sufficient evidence to make this determination. but if we had determined that we thought we wanted to send a letter like that, then i think the procedure would have been -- the settlement would have been rejected. the commission would have had -- staff would have had to gone

back to ms. ellis. and if she rejected that part of -- she rejected the settlement on that basis, then it would come to a hearing in front of us and then we would hear all the evidence and make a determination. so, as long as we make that decision in the context of approving the settlement, i think we are going to cover our bases and sort of do the right thing by due process. >> the only thing i would just add to that, i think you're absolutely right, is -- and that's why i said the word reasonable. it would be reasonable -- i mean, it would be -- almost seem unreasonable for the respondent to not want to sign off on, if appropriate, disciplinary action be taken. what they're basically saying is i get to violate it and i don't think it's fair if i am disciplined on my violation. so, it's well within not only what i consider just general reasoning among the commission, but certainly to any of the respondents who are in violation. ~ of any of these codes. that's where i wanted to see if

we could find a middle ground here, where it would not be a kill switch on the stipulation, but at least have, have the, the violator on notice, the respondent on notice, and the entity on notice that something should be done. >> okay. public comment on this notice? hello, commissioners. today is a very sad day, really, very sad day. i participated when gavin williams, his case was brought before you all, tony hall, sheriff ross mirkarimi, and now

juliet [speaker not understood]. during your deliberations, y'all know you were a little bit slow because of whatever reason in adjudicating this case. this case really came from the fair political practices committee which had a stipulation ~. and then just because it came from a higher authority, that kind of entered the flow and y'all messed up big time. so, in the investigation, there are over 30 cases of the san francisco public utilities commission [speaker not understood], their employees, infringe on ethics, morals and standards. this woman, juliet ellis, ~

chose and employed the wife of this director [speaker not understood]. you all failed to do the investigation. y'all failed miserably. you remember president bill clinton, i did not have sex with this woman? monica lewin ski, looking us all in the eye and not blinking, and what they found out, that he did. juliet ellis is a very, very elegant person. [speaker not understood] to me. and once in this hallway and a bunch over there, i warned her many, many months ago to change

her ways, change her ways and be humble. she did not. commissioners, today is a very, very sad day in the history of this commission that was charged to do right, to discern and to adjudicate based on morals, ethics and standards. you failed miserably. thank you very much. good evening again. dr. espinola jackson. i would like to say, after listening to your deliberations, i went to the commission, puc commission. in fact, they will be in the

very room tomorrow and i will be definitely on them. i said to that commission that i would like for them to have a staff to cease and desist in what was going on in bayview hunters point dealing with the sewer plant. and the commissioner called me back to the podium and said, ms. jackson, we don't have anything to do with the staff. we only deal with the director. i said, okay. but he said, i will be your [speaker not understood] between this commission and you, mrs. jackson, because when i come to a commission meeting, i come with facts. what we are going through in bayview hunters point and what i see now that i will have to do is request that the rico act be enforced here in san francisco. you made a statement about corruption. this city is so corrupt and it

became corrupt from '96 up until now because of what is going on. and i've been watching. i'm 81 years of age, but i've been watching the politics of san francisco for the last 55 years. i have walked these halls like i own them. but i want to make sure that at your next meeting -- i'm finished with that. at your next meeting -- you're the director, correct? when you go over the minutes -- i've already talked to the attorney -- to make sure that he look up the responsibility of the chair. and before you make your motion to support the minutes that's going to be presented to you, you will have to make adjustments because i don't want to see you in trouble on an action that you have taken because i have been chairman of many boards and i have been on many commissions and i had to

learn robert's rules of order. so, that's one thing that i do know well, what a chairman can do and cannot do. so, i don't want no embarrassment on you all at all about your actions that you take. and i want you all to have a blessed evening. >> thank you. any other public comment? dr. derek kerr. several of the public speakers mentioned that ms. ellis had reported her error to you and to the fppc. she he herself had done it. if so, that's commendable and should be taken into consideration. usually these types of wrongdoing come to you or the fppc from a tip, from a whistle blower.

and the wrongdoers who are exposed by whistle blowers instinctively try to ferret out who it is and toize the threat, just a threat. if this case came about through a whistle blower, i would be concerned about am i ellis' return to her position because that would constitute a risk, a threat to the whistle blower if there was one. ~ neutralize thank you. >> no voter action on number 5. so, moving on to number 6, discussion and possible action on the minutes of the commission's meeting of february 24, 2014. ~ on the minutes.

i have one change i'd like to disclose. on page 4 of 6, it states that -- i think it's suggesting that i seconded the motion relating to the closed session, and i don't think i did. i thought i recused myself for that item. okay. you have me rejoining after that so it's hard to see how i could have seconded it. so, i think that should be changed. any other -- >> do we adopt the minutes as amended? >> second. ~ move that we -- >> public comment?

seeing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? passes. next item, the director's report. do we have a report? >> i'm going to make this very quick. the only thing i would draw your attention to is the chart attached to the eb report. you all may remember that the city is actively pursuing a single data site with all of the good information about san francisco government and its work. and all the information and data available from the various agencies. so, the status report at a meeting held this week regarding this particular effort kind of shows you here that the ethics commission has really been quite a partner in this. the second one on defined reflects data that was posted by city employees who did not leave any identification as to who the poster was. so, we have no idea how that information is.

so, you know, obviously always thanks to see our tech person worked that out, making available the data which is always good for transparency. that's my only highlight. >> comments from the commissioners on the executive director's report? public comment? seeing none, items for future meeting. any proposals at this time? public comment on matters appearing -- do i need to take public comment on 8? public comment? seeing none. public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda. none. seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

for wednesday, march 26, 2014. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i am joined by vice-chair eric mar and committee member john avalos. we want to thank the members of sfgov-tv covering this meeting nona melkonian and jonathan and the clerk of the committee ms. linda wong. madam clerk do we have any announcements? >> yes he, mr. chair. silence cell phones. completed speaker cards and copies of documents it to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be on april 5, 2014 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay, thank you, madam clerk. can you please call item number 1? >> time number 1 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the fleet management division of the general services agency to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $384,000 from alameda county for electric vehicles and chargers, for the period of july 30, 2013, through december 31, 2015.