front of a task force in the future, and so if it is discretionary and i think that the policy matters and i am becoming persuaded that maybe we should just adjudicate this matter and find no willful violation of mr. ginsburg and let the task force and the complainant sort it out and clearly they have heard our viewpoints, and i think, you know, that the complainant would be emboldant, in light of what we think and maybe this is a safer course. >> i would like to follow up on what the chair has just suggested. and put it in the form of a motion. if we find that the sunshine ordinance was violated, by the department of or by mr. ginsburg, as head of the department of rec and park. and that it was a non-willful violation, and that would be my

motion. and to give, more clear guidance, that in regard to this particular information, it should be disclosed. >> is there a second to that motion? >> okay, so there is no second. >> i will second the motion. >> you will second the motion? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> no. >> so, the motion to find a non-willful violation of mr. ginsburg was not passed.

so it was defeated. the vote was 3-2, was sorry, the vote was 2-3, and there was no finding of a non-willful violation. and i mean, that i do think that we need a motion as to whether there is a willful violation, since that was... don't we since that was the basis of the referral in >> you could say that there was no violation. you could say, the motion could be that there was a willful violation, or that there was no violation, or that you want to refer to back to the task force. >> and my two cents here is that i am not prepared to find that there is no violation, i think that there is a sunshine violation, what i am not prepared to do is to find that mr. ginsburg is the right person in light of our discretion, and so while i am not prepared to vote that he

had a non-willful violation, i am prepared to resolve the issue in some way and let it go back to the task force and i am trying to look for your guidance on the correct procedural mechanism for that. >> and i guess what i am saying is that you could, i don't think that you necessarily have to vote that there has, or that there has been no willful violation, i think that you could, if it sounds like you feel like the procedure at this point, or what you would like to do is send it back to the commission, and sorry, the task force, to determine the proper respondent for the complaint is, and i think that you could, you could make that as a motion. >> to refer the issue back to the sunshine ordinance task force you know, for further

proceedings consistent with tonight. >> staff, is that... any comments from the commissioners? >> assist them with what though? are we saying that consistent with our view that the information should be disclosed? or yeah, you did the right thing, hor ray, i mean, what? what are we saying here? if we are giving them guidance. >> if it is the proper that the conclusion was that the proper respondent was not referred to the ethics commission. >> and i mean that you could say, make a referral that the ethics commission believes that there was a non-willful violation, but improper respondent was named in the referral and so we are sending it back and it is up to them if they want to rerefer it. >> unless someone has a

question. >> i am of the chapter three, and i mean, that it says that if the commission determines that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent has committed a violation the commission shall publicly announce this back and announce and may not include the findings of fact and law and fact, and therefore, the commission will take no further action on the matter. but i don't think that there is anything that preincluding the commission from referring this back to the task force, to name who, and on name a respondent, and who they believe properly should be named for this, for the decision to not to disclose this information. >> and you are telling the task force that they can't name mr. ginsburg, are you? >> i don't, i mean, the... and as i understand it. >> the problem that you are

having with their naming mr. ginsburg is that he was not initially named when this alleged violation arose. and that after, second hearing, they suddenly came out, and named him and so the whole question comes did mr. ginsburg get a proper notification, so that he could go to the task force and say, hey, you should not name me and here is why you should not name me? is that? >> no, i think that the question, and i mean, the staff raised the question before that it would be a violation of mr. ginsburg procedural. >> and i understand that, and i don't think that is right, and i think that tonight you can certainly, if you feel that mr. ginsburg non-willfully, and engaged in a non-willful violation of the sunshine ordinance, i don't think that you are precluded by the due process and if you think that mr. ginsburg did not violation the sunshine ordinance at all

but that someone else in the rec department may have done so and i think that you could refer it back to them, and for that purpose. >> so you are saying that if we find that mr. ginsburg did not commit a violation, of the sunshine ordinance, >> right. >> and we are referring it back to the sunshine task force, and they can't inquire into whether or not giving mr. ginsburg notice that they are considering him as being a potential defendant and you say, no you can't do that, because the ethics commission has already said that you didn't do anything wrong. >> so we don't have any record, that is the reason why we are saying in a sense, that you can't hold mr. ginsburg, it is because the task force did not have a record. >> and so i think that that if you feel that there is an insufficient factual record before you about whether mr. ginsburg was responsible for this, non-willful violation and

you could refer back for additional factual development. >> mr. hayon. >> what is the penalty, once whomever we determine to be the respondent here, what is, you know, what is the penalty for the violation? >> willful or otherwise? >> no penalty, for a non-willful violation. >> so then, you know, in terms of that, what difference because it make? it does not make any difference at all and i do agree with the idea that whoever is the head of the department is responsible for whatever takes place at the department. and in the sense of the buck stops here. but, while i have the floor i just want to say one thing, i think that i am the only person on this commission who really is just your average citizen and i am just an old lady from

the richmond district and you know. >> my wife is going to get mad at you saying that. >> we live in the richmond. and my concern and i will voice it, and i agree that technically and legally there has been a violation. but, as a citizen of the city, i mean, who is looking out for my privacy? it seems to me that the sunshine ordinance task force only looks out for those people that have some kind of complaint about documents, and procedure within different city departments. but f my name is on that list, or any other list, where i may have engaged in some business, with the city department, what right to privacy do i have? apparently i have none. and granted, we live in a age in which we can say there is no privacy any more, i think that most of us at some level,

believe that. we are in the age of technology, and in the internet, and there are many, many entities out there that know, far more about us, than we probably know about ourselves. but even so, i would like to believe that even in some little, you know, corner of city government, there is at least one department that is not going to give us my address and my phone number. and apparently, i can't really depend on that any more. and so whatever the commission decides, i mean that i will probably vote with the majority as i have stated. yes, a violation of the law has taken place. but i have in questions about the law and those ordinances. and i think that i just want to be on the record for that. because otherwise, as far as i am concerned, we are having a discussion about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin and the average citizen in san francisco does not care

about that. and they, you know, they want clean, government, and they want the open government, but, they also want to preserve their individual privacy. and so that is my say on the topic. >> thank you, commissioner hayon. >> and any other comments from the commissioners? >> okay. is there a motion to refer the matter back to the commission to provide to the task force to provide proper notice to the respondent? >> i move that we refer this matter back to the task force for more factual information. >> is there a second? >> i will second this. >> all in favor? >> could i clarify? >> yes. >> i just want to clarify, are

you referring it... >> is this a free-for-all. >> are you intending to refer it back to the task force to further proceedings that will require them to bring it back before the commission or for them to determine how further to proceed? >> mr. pilpal. we have found that there was no, and we have not found a violation, we are referring it back without yet, finding a violation, that to, and i think that the task force then, when it gets it back and needs to go through its process and send it back to us as it normally would through the process. or not, if we choose not to. >> or not. >> that is an option. >> yeah, i mean, yes. i think that nobody is soliciting your input at this point and i am not trying to be rude and we just need to... >> i just want to have to go through this again. >> thank you. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no.

>> no. >> motion passes. 3-2. >> the next item on the agenda is a closed session.closed session held pursuant to brown act section 54956.9(a),(e)(2) and sunshine ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation as defendant in light of mccutcheon v. federal election commission, no. 12-536 >> public comment? >> we need a motion for go into closed session? >> the public comment on the motion? >> is there a motion to move into closed session? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment on the closed session? >> i think that it absolutely makes sense for you to hold the close session, i just wanted to comment on what i understand as the implications of it and i hope that you will consider what legislation that you might bring before the board of

supervisors to amend it in relation to the aggregate contribution limits that you might have options, and analyze what those options might be, and both in the near term and in the other implications. and long term and that you would not decide in closed session to pursue any of those tonight but that will bring those back to the commission before further discussion before doing anything, legislatively, and considering the timing and the implication on elections that are already in progress with the aggregate limit that we have now. >> thank you. >> and any other public comment? >> i would submit that it is improper to go into closed session because this item is not properly agendaized and the sunshine ordinance specifically states that a person of reasonable intelligence should be able to figure out what it is that is being discussed and simply putting down mccutcheon verses something does not tell

the average citizen as commissioner hayon pointed out that most citizens would like to read something as to have some idea of what the matter under the discussion in closed session would be so that they would know as mr. pilpal has used his rights, whether or not they need to come forward and talk to you about specific areas. and this basically just listing a case, does not give a a person of reasonable intelligence, looking at this document on the website or anywhere else any understanding whatsoever of the subject matter of this discussion and as a result it would deny them, the right to come here, and the awareness that they should come here, to talk about ail specific issue, when they had some idea as to what that issue is. >> i also, want to make it firmly clear that i will be out in the hallway and i would like to be notified as soon as closed session is done because i have comments on the remaining issues items on the agenda. >> we will let you know.

>> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> and opposed? >> the moti >> is there a motion. >> just au minute, mr. chair, i move that we disclose that in closed session, the commission discussed the legal ramifications of the decisions and has decided to have a public policy decision discussion at the next meeting to determine how to respond to it. >> is there a second. >> second. >> all in favor? >> public comment in >> ray hartz that i would like to say that in the five years coming to the hearing this is the only time that i have ever heard anybody come back and vote to disclose anything, from closed session.

and now, i find that really, really, and i find that really misty fying. >> opposed? >> it passes 5-0. >> and on the agenda, the discussion of the minutes, of the last meeting. >> any comments from the commissioners? >> public comment? >> commissioners ray hartz, director of san francisco, open government, and i

wholeheartedly support the approval of these minutes and it documents the efforts of both the commissioners and the commissioners to openly and honestly discuss my case before this commission. and i would like to point out on page 6 of the document where the commissioner keane expressed that the library was discriminate and went on in the last sentences is important, mr. herrra, stated that the members of the public are not prohibited to make the public comment, but that they are denied the ability to make the public comment on a equal footing for those who are invited, and those that are approved by the library, and the information that the library wants the public to have, and they simply want to deny the opportunity for people to use the overhead, when they disagree, which is a violation of the brown act, and it documents as a matter of public record, the pattern of deceit,

used by the city librarian and it documents the willful ignorance, by commissioners renne and hayon. he is the head of the library and they made their decision of the library commission based on the same false testimony he gave here, about the fact that it would take $40,000 to give members of the public an equal footing and use of the graphics. herrera is the department head and nothing happens at the library without his approval and commissioner hayon, participates in the hearing and siding with him and the library commission and the friends and prior to the vote, she said a concern about the conflict of interest. and as a former library commissioner, she intentionally participated in the hearing, and siding with the library, and clearly exhibiting that conflict of interest, i would

suggest that you read the willful ignorance that a law professor wrote. and this is an example of what mr. herrera does not want me to be able to use in my public comment and he took had job in 2006 and went through ethics and sunshine training in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and in 2009, filed a purgered statement saying that he got nothing from the friends when in actuality he got over $5,700 worth of reportable items and took the training next year and filed a false report and if you go back and look at the years prior to this, this is only because they could not go back more than 3 years. he is a deceitful person and he deceived you, and he deceived the library commission by saying that it is a $40,000 to

give equal ground, and he is just a liar and i don't use that term lightly and he is an admitted purgerer. >> david pilpal. >> on page seven of the minutes and i am sorry that i was not at the meeting last month, and the four paragraphs. >> and you were not there much at all. >> i have been around. >> all right, never mind. and for paragraphs up from the bottom on page 7, the second line, executive director stated that she should have requested it, and might you insert, st. croix and that might be consistent with the way that the minutes read and as to the two motions assume that the motion to be recused came first but it is numbered second and it is just confusing in reading

it and i don't know if you want to renumber the motions and as to the language of both motions, and the commissioner hayon be maybe, just commissioner hayon be recused from this matter and permitted to be recued seems a little more attenuated and to the main motion, it could read a little better somehow that mr. herrera has the burden of proof and that the commission finds no violation of the sunshine ordinance and find, the grammar is just bothering me that is all, otherwise, thank you. >> is there a motion to approve the minutes, my view is that i do like the change to the

second motion, i think that we should say that the commission finds no violation. >> and i move that we approve that with the amendments that as mr. pilpal corrected our grammar and other matters. >> is there a second. >> yes. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> the motion passes 5-0. >> on the agenda is the director's report. >> just one quick highlight, this was the first year where we have done all electronic filing of financial disclosure forms. and it took a lot of hand holding by the staff and a lot of back and forth on various people, but ultimately, it, or the process was pretty successful. i think that a lot of users that have frustrations will be able to find it more user

friendly in the future and a lot of the feedback was a computerized process was actually easy and it took me two minutes and 43 seconds to do mine, and so, of course, i don't have anything else to report. but, the ultimate numbers are pretty good. and i have great hopes that the outstanding individuals will be able to get the form to file in the foreseeable future, but all in all, i think that it went well for the first time around, and in this particular form all electronic and i think that people will be happy when i see that next year, that they don't have to reenter all of their information and it will be there for them and i would just add that we have done, a lot of work to make sure that the security of the system is good. >> yeah, kutos to that and i think that it is great for the file and hers for the public to have access to that information. >> questions for...

>> i just want to say one thing for the record, and we are to cover my own tail here. and that is that i had received a few weeks before an e-mail saying that my form 700 was electronically with these with the deadline for these. and i spoke with mr. st. croix and he said that was an error and mine is not due until next year because i recently did one and i just wanted to document that some way since i got that e-mail telling me all sorts of horrible things would happen it me if i did not file the thing, with that deadline. >> noted. >> commissioner andrews? >> mr. st. croix, i just wanted to hear a little bit more about the status of the san francisco bureau of delinquent revenues, at what point, some of us are going back to 2011, at what

point do they become delinquent? >> well, yeah. go ahead. >> the city rules require that any obligation that someone has to us over 300 dollars, has to be referred to them after 90 days. >> 90 days. >> they have been here for some time that is all. >> and and two of the three cases, have already been adjudicated in court in our favor. and but, again, i think that i pointed off before, winning those cases and collecting the money are not always... >> yeah. >> okay. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments? >> public comment? >> commissioners ray hartz, director of san francisco open government, i noticed month after month after month this

report is nothing but a form and it changes the date to protect the innocent and i would like to talk about item two, there are three complaints there are always three complaints, and so it does not really matter what is going on or what is coming up, i have in idea and i know as a matter of fact that my referral was sent here from the task force and there were two others sent with it and so that was three right there and so how there were three last month and there was one hearing held last month and now there is still three, really confuses me. and i have decided without a doubt the executive director of the commission, john st. croix is a (inaudible) and that is a term for a full time, professional functionary of the government and ie a agent of the government that held me position of bureaucratic or political responsibility. st. croix has no conpunction of depriving the citizens of san francisco of the right to

participate in the city government, he will do everything in his power to protect the elected and appointed officials for responsibility for actions or in actions and i find it truly deplorable that the ethics commission will rely, without question upon the recommendations of the staff when those recommendations are knowingly and willfully taylored to deny justice, i do not believe that the staff is responsible, but is wholly and totally at the mercy of st. croix, a damned bureau crat, i point out the determination and i filed a hearing with this body, and i have already gotten a decision, it seems like i get fast tracked and everybody else has to wait months to have their hearings and basically there was no discussion, no nothing, mr. st. croix, just automatically took it upon himself to decide that the commissioner hayon's actions in my hearing were without doubt, and although, his, logic is,

and escapes me. and nor did she violate, as... of the campaign because she did not have a personal professional or a business relationship with mr. herrera and that is false, she is a former library commissioner and she is the city librarian and basically she was participating in the same fraud relating to the friends of the san francisco public library that i have been fighting for the last five years of the library commission. >> for her to sit here, and side with the library and, then disenagain you yusly at the end say that i don't want to appear that i have a conflict of interest. i will not vote, i don't even think that you knew what to do with that because you were all sitting there going,... she wanted to have her cake and eat it too and she wanted to stand up for something that she herself had done and then say that she was not in a conflict because she did not vote.

>> matters appearing or not appearing on the, i am sorry, yeah, items for the meetings? >> you have your public comment on the executive director's report. >> david pilpal and two items under item three, the campaign finance discloser program, and the last sentence and the first paragraph there, the next filing deadline, i guess was march 24th and so, i guess this report is not capturing who was or was not timely on that. and maybe it will get an update next month? >> and, it also occurs to me that i believe that this thursday, is the oral argument in the alan grossman case, and i don't know that we are going to know anything further after thursday, and as to the disposition of the matter and that will probably take up to 90 days and if there is anything, interesting tt