unfortunately the supervisors are at the base of some of them and basically a lack of support for the previous excellent sunshine task force. and we now have every member of the sunshine task force serving without having basically after their seats have expired. there are a number of points to be made. first of all, seats 1 through 5 each have a single applicant and we certainly endorse those folks being appointed or reappointed as the case may be. in the case of the remaining applicants of which presumably you would need to cut out one more or two, rather, i can only say that david pilpel has had a long history of doing everything he can against the public interest and when he says he's got a [speaker not understood], i'm sure that's probably correct and it's probably because he is impervious to sympathy for the public. he certainly is not qualified

for seats 6 and 7 and i don't think should be on the sunshine task force. there are a number of issues that have been raised here, mediation. unfortunately we've had secretive process and no public description of outcomes. it is antitheyth cal to sunshine. the city attorney has often provided ~ absolutely wrong advice to the sunshine task force. open government is important to you as well as supervisors because that is your only way for check and balances to be looking at what the administrative departments are doing. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. dr. derek kerr [speaker not understood]. two years ago supervisors wiener, chiu, [speaker not understood] lead a campaign to purge the sunshine task force. they wanted to get rid of those who determined that a committee of supervisors had violated the

sunshine ordinance, while approving the park merced development deal. [speaker not understood] a pretext to justify the purge, namely, the innocent merger of the bylaws of the task force. what they wanted was a task force devoted to government rather than open government. supervisor wiener went so far as to deploy a slanted and surreptitious audit of the task force, again, to justify the purge. then compliance candidates were recruited. the task force was stacked with folks whose commitment to sunshine laws was more controllable. candidates advanced by the society of pro ~ professional journalists, league of [speaker not understood] were immediately dismissed. so was bruce wolfe, a qualified and experienced candidate, who was the sole representative of

the disability community. supervisor farrell of this committee discredited himself and alienated many by saying he was seeking "fresh blood" for the task force. as a result of this political vendetta, the task force couldn't function for four months because of its warped composition which violated the city charter. i hope this committee will turn the page on this disgraceful chapter and simply do the right thing. thank you. (applause) good afternoon, supervisors and madam clerk. denis [speaker not understood]. i'm here to support the present incumbents, all of them, and also bruce wolfe.

as was testified previously, bruce is the only disabled candidate. so, as you know, if he is not appointed, the sunshine task force cannot exist. and if you are truly advocates of open government and access to public records, you will not allow that to occur. let me just respond to a couple of questions from your body that i listened to during the nomination process. i think the board of supervisors should be more interested in the backlog of cases that are pending rather than the length of the proceedings. secondly, many occasions, the task force has not had a quorum, but that is a direct result of the board of supervisors not filling the vacancies.

so, you know, supervisors can speak that they are strong supporters of the task force, but what is more important is the actions that they take. you need to fund the task force with adequate resources to hear all the cases and make the nominations in a timely way. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> okay. supervisor tang, there are many, many people here. >> yes. again, i want to thank all the applicants who came out and took the time to express their interests in serving on the sunshine ordinance task force. obviously all of you know it is very important. i will speak for myself in saying that if i didn't care so much making sure we are transparent in the work we do, we really shouldn't be here. so, i really do respect what the task force does and it's

really, again, like i said earlier, goes hand in hand with our work in government. with that said, i did want to really acknowledge some of the public commentses that i did hear about the need for diversity and really opening up the opportunity to really look for candidates that are very representative of san francisco. i really do think that is important so i real i do want to thank you for bringing that up. and the other thing is that i didn't want to respond to in term of public comment, one issue, i would dispute it is not the director's [speaker not understood]. in some cases it may be, but it is not always the case it is because of supervisor's appointment process there is lacking in quorum. we certainly care about [speaker not understood]. we think it is important. especially if we are respondents, we want to make sure that, yes, the task force is in full operation so that we can also get our issues addressed as well. so, we really do care about that. and still, but with that said, i do want to respect the comments about seeking a

diverse board. so, for today i am comfortable with moving forward five nominees because i do understand that this must be sent forward to the committee report to the full board of supervisors all the applicants, however, would be under consideration still. so, it is not -- it would not take anyone out of the running. today we only have two members here on the rules committee. i think that for such an important task force that really we ought to find the time to go and search for the diverse candidates that we really deserve on the sunshine task force. so, with that said, then, today i would like to make a motion to see if we can nominate david pilpel for seat 6, louise fischer for seat 10, todd david for seat 8. rodman martin for seat 7. and samuel mccormick seat 11. and all those are really took into consideration not only your application and your

testimony today, but also all the background information, some experiences as well. so, with that, i'm happy to see what my colleague would like to say as well. >> similarly, the remark of having a diverse group of people is high on my agenda and it' been high on every committee, tac, commission and so forth, that we've been able to appoint. ~ it's we bring this up all the time. i'm also looking at the, if this is the correct record, of who missed meetings and so forth. it looks like at least for a while, there's always been a quorum so i'm not sure what people are saying. on this sheet, started 6-12,

6-6-12, there's never been more than looks like two people that were absent from the meeting. there are some overlaps in regards to the people you named. for seat 6 i would also reappoint david pilpel. seat 8, todd david. seat 10 louise fischer. on my -- people that i felt comfortable with would be for seat 1 mark rumold, seat 2ali winston, seat 5 allyson washburn, and seat 9 chris hyland. so, the ones i actually named were all reappointments or they

are specific to a group. that's what i would like to move forward with. so -- >> it appears that we are in agreement on three appointments today and unfortunately there are only two of us. so, it looks like david pilpel seat 6, [speaker not understood] fishier [speaker not understood]. with those three can we perhaps make a motion to send those forward to the full board with the committee report? the city attorney has something to say. >> mr. chair, we were going to recommend that you duplicate the hearing file. send the original one, make a motion, and submit out. as a committee report, the duplicated file amended to only indicate the remaining seats and then continue that to the call of the chair. >> do i need to make that -- do we need to make that [speaker not understood]? >> okay. so, i'd like to make a motion to duplicate the file. we will keep one file continued to the call of the chair.

wased on our comments about seeking diversity of candidates, and then the second one duplicated file would be with the motion to appoint the three people that at least we agreed on so far. >> so, let me ask a question. if we only appoint three today, it doesn't seem -- would there be a quorum? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. existing members i believe are currently holding [speaker not understood] and will continue to hold over. the three appointments would be kind of dove planned approved by the board. those would be filled by the new members. so, unless there are issues with existing members continuing to make meetings, the appointments today would create form problems. >> okay. so, so, the recommendation is that we will move the three

people for seats 6, 8 and 10 which is needed to fill. todd david and louise fischer to the full board with positive relevanttion. ~ recommendation. >> as a committee report. >> no objection? so motion passes. [gavel] >> mr. chair, we need to make a motion to continue to the call of the chair [speaker not understood]. >> yes. >> yes. >> so, i'd just like to make a motion to continue the file to the call of the chair. >> seeing no objection, motion passes. [gavel] >> so, before we he entertain a motion to convene in closed session, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on item 4 through 17?

>> mr. chair, would you like me to call the item? >> yes he, please. >> items number 4 through 17 are [speaker not understood] for existing lawsuits and claim. >> okay. so, i believe there is one card first. milo [speaker not understood]. thank you it, my name is milo hanky [speaker not understood]. i sit on the national board of directors of civic america. today san francisco beautiful urges this committee to vote for a continuance on item number 8, settlement of lawsuit regarding contest promotions of bill board operator that is long violated the laws of this city. ~ the -- i think we have a number of concerns. it's been very difficult, almost impossible to get our answers -- our questions answered clearly to the planning department or the city

attorney's office. and we believe this committee needs to hear from us and receive our insights and our interpretations over the proposed settlement as we under it and also the background on the offending [speaker not understood] law bill board operator called contest promotions. we're not certain that the proposed settlement is even accurately summarized in the agenda. it mentions nothing about all the fines that, for instance, it might be forgivenfor a mere $375,000 ~. the last time a similar settlement came in it got passed, it was dropped off christmas eve, went through as a consent item at the board of supervisors and we ended up having to file a lawsuit against a group called metro fuel in the city of san francisco. what we're talking about, we're talking about prop g, a ballot proposition we sponsored with the help of a few supervisors, passed with 79% of the vote.

no new billboards in san francisco. and as i'm reading this today, it violates the law. it violates the law and rewrites the definition of what a bill board is. so, if this thing gets fast tracked on up to a meeting tuesday, we might be making a serious error and inadvertently be rewriting our sign definitions in violating prop g. so, i would say please let's go for a continuance and get the facts straight. >> thank you. chair yee and member tang, again, my name is patrick minot shaw and i'm also advocating that you separate item 14 from [speaker not understood] consideration of all of these matters.

last december 7th i wrote to the board of supervisors neighborhood services and safety committee of which supervisor yee and supervisor campos were then both assigned to that committee. and i submitted testimony to you this morning. i'm not sure it repeats the testimony i presented in december. the city controller has noted and advised the citizens general obligation bond oversight committee the unspent funds from bond measures which [speaker not understood] by way of recoupment is a policy matter for the board of supervisors to decide how that money is going to be used. it does not need to be

deposited directly into the general fund and my strong recommendation is that the mayor, 21% of the 70 million that the city attempted to recover, just 15 million being recovered. be used in one of three ways or a portion of it in all three ways. one, you should be paying down the debt on the general obligation bond so that the voter can have some relief. two, reserve the 15 million for [speaker not understood] problem at laguna honda. they have been eliminated in [inaudible]. >> thank you.

good afternoon, supervisor yee and tackvthv. i'm jim rubin, rubin, junius and rose, and i am the attorney for contest promotions which is number 8 on your calendar and matter that mr. hanky spoke about. i wasn't intending to speak unless somebody spoke on this matter. so, here i am. this is the settlement of a lawsuit that started in 2008. the city frankly was losing that lawsuit because the law was pretty clear that these were on-site advertising billboards. the city attorney recognized that. we've negotiated a settlement that took over a year. i find it hard to believe that the planning department wasn't available. they've always been available to answer any questions that anybody else wanted to ask. dan sider is the primary person that's been handling this and i know dan to return his calls and provide information. there is nothing that's been secretive about any of this. it's on your calendar. it's been properly noticed and

san francisco beautiful could have called me or anybody else. this is the first i've heard of anybody paying any attention to this settlement at all and it's a last-minute. so, i urge you to proceed and recommend that the settlement be approved along with all the other settlements that you have on your calendar for next tuesday. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> is there a motion to convene in closed session? >> so moved. >> okay. no objection. [gavel] >> member of the public, we will now be convening in closed session and we would ask that you please leave the committee room. thank you very much. >>please stand by - meeting in closed session