legal argument. and now she's taken that access she's written a book and she's know publicizing that book and making a profit from it from the access that she gained to city government. if any of us regular taxpayers here in the city wanted the same access to those e-mails or to the sitting in on the discussions we wouldn't be allowed to do that but herrera has made a series ethnics lapse to allow the reporter to have it for a commercial reason. all of this is adding up to more and more distrust of this commission by the public to serve as a watchdog. we don't really see you as

watchdogs but as lap dogs that's not good for our local government please don't take this matter behind closed doors >> good evening, commissioners. i hope you remember ii brought it lawsuit to your attention on december 23rdrd. at that time, there was a full two half a weeks for you to step in as one the main responders and take responsibility for the lawsuit payrollly i didn't do so i wonder if you have a policy that you ignore. from people who are not have your class. i don't know what you think your class is but, in fact, we've discussed as a society that

having representation for the entire citizenry and have a representative who will hear the points we want to make is one of the things that holds society together. and the society needs to include everyone. now if you look at your own agenda it says you're going into closed session as defendants, of course, this is preposterous reduce there's no defendants in the lawsuit you're the petitioner you're a party at all that raises a number of significant issues. first of all, you can't be petitioner's without taking action to initiate a lawsuit. when did you take action to initiate the lawsuit? i've been following this commission closely i don't think you've done so, in fact, if

you've not taken action to initiate those lawsuits as petitioner's you're not parties at all if look at the petition one of the provisions for going into closed session is to discuss with your attorney as a party to the litigation. all of this would have been much more clear if you had put in the date in the agenda of the times when this lawsuit was filed it's true upper respondents in the lower court and petitioner's in the upper court now but the fact you've not included the dates is anotherfully flaw in your notes why do we appear before you to find out why you're frustrating

ethics rather than implementing it the fact you're the commissioners is supposed to be your purpose not just your title. and, in fact, in ethics what had this should have been about thank you very much. >> pete war field again, the sunshine ordinance task force and pretty much ethics are basically supposed to be about openness. and yet this is all about shrieky keeping documents secret. you know the civil grand jury said this was a slooech watchful dog they got it wrong the watchful dog is awake but not

guarding openness. since all the actions by mr. syncountry before and after the sunshine process and in the litigation were taken without this commission first 30 years his actions. following the requirements of the brown act and sunshine. in properly agendized meetings whether an open or closed session is legal effect even if the court of appeals decided in favor of the commission would be questionable at best. the sunshine contingent will certainly pursue that matter and all of this could have been avoid in mr. syncountry had submit his files before the lawsuit was begun i'll ask you to discuss this matter openly and not go into closed session.

thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is headline district attorney and three years ago, i served on a civil grand jury committee that recorded on this body. unfortunately, it's very alarming some of the players have changed but the game remains the same we are that very concerned that this body which was supposed to be the top regulatory agency in the city had abdicated emphasis authority to its executive director. it's alarming to see nothing has changed. i would hope you would do your due diligence our committee recorded that your performance as an ethics commission body was under overwhelming and nothing

has changed. thank you >> good evening commissioners again hope johnson i also want to emphasize that if materials were distributed to you for the closed session that they would not be privileged because this is about the closed session you're going into is related to public access laws and the sunshine ordinance so again, they would fail under the same section of the sunshine ordinance that makes the public access not attorney-client privilege so i don't know if you have my materials distributed to you, we should have access to. along the same vein the court

action itself is about the ethics regulations for handling the sunshine referrals and complaints and pretty much the ethics commission entire process about that has been somewhat closed. during my time on the at the desk we tried to work with you we were grateful you asked for our opinion it took us a long time to get back to you but we had to carry everything in the open session. the vice chair said it would be a conflicting for him to help us so we having had no access or opinion from the city attorney. we our own attorney that's appointed to the board didn't wish to participate to mr. gross man helped us the city attorney

was referring to him as a ghost writer and we did it all in open and in front of the of the public and had a agendized and everything attached this is about the ethics commissions process for how they're goes to handle the sunshine ordinance and the public complaints and we have no idea what the process is we don't know the process you're going do have a discussion about. it's something that we feel like you're hiding behind the attorney-client privilege that the process that the ethics commission would go through and consider how to handle those things. this is part of why we're we're 0 we're concerned why mr. grossman wanted to see how would the sunshine task force with work the commission self-we don't have the process or the

deliberation process. thank you >> comments from the commissioners. >> can i interject quickly. >> okay. >> i think that there were certain non-privileged documents that were distributed to the commissioners that were not made attachments to the agenda there's a requirement under the sunshine ordinance that all documents distributed to commissioners have to be attached and made available to the public so that doesn't happen i recommend we put this over to the next meeting. >> okay. and staff do you have my view or

opinion on that what happened here and i wouldn't want to contradict that recommendation >> what side that mean. >> that the city attorney made - normally when we have closed session the documents related to normally when we have closed session the documents are not included in the public. commissioner renne >> i see no reason why not give them a list of what we received as a passage they're essentially only court papers. and there's no reason why to keep it a secret or make people think they couldn't see something >> commissioner keane. >> yeah. i agree with that in regards to the comments from the public as to what we got and

some of the comments have the assumption that we got this this material and we're going to look at the material in closed session. we haven't voted as to whether or not there's a closed session we have public item on 4 we're going to discuss the grossman case and then it's talks about the possible closed session. maybe there will be a closed session i can tell you right now i'm going to vote against closed session the thing should be done in open session to in regards to that having to do with the materials whether there's a secret recommending to the materials when last time this came up i was one of the ones that said i want to hear a total discussion about the case i knew the case was pending before the court of appeals i wasn't on the

commission when that happened i want to be brought up to date i asked prosecute syncountry to send me all the briefs from the coiling the briefs on behalf of the petitioner's and the respondents which is a pretty good statement of all of the legal issues and all the legal arguments and the background regarding those issues i've made myself available and prepared to talk about it tonight i'd like to talk about it tonight. in regards to one of the members requests to me what did you get that's why what i got. i could have been gone to the coiling myself and gotten those materials instead i took the leases man's way and asked the executive director to send me

the briefs that's the materials i have and they're all well auditor by good lawyers and present interesting issues. i'd like to talk about them tonight. >> i would thank you i'll make the quick point that 67.9 of the sunshine ordinance doesn't simply require a list of documents but the non privileged documents should be posted on the website and made available to the public in the same matter manner as the agenda. i share what's been said even though the bulk of the documents distributed were public documents i don't think that it's sufficient under the sunshine ordinance they just be publicly available somewhere but attached to the agenda and since

they are not here my recommendation to put the matter over actually next mow month and make the non-privileged documents available in the same manner as the attachments typically are that's my recommendation. >> okay. so commissioners i'm inclined based on the advice of the city attorney to put the matter over in the city attorney is telling us there's documents that should be in the procure we're opening ourselves 80 up to another sunshine issue by not providing the attorney at law for the public. is there a vote we have to take to do that. is there an objection from the

commission my i object yes. >> because you disagree it would be a violation of the sunshine not to provide them. >> i do in a sense no harm, no foul i think commissioner rennes suggestion we inventory what we have a in regards to the materials i've seen that he everybody has gotten there's nothing that is of a particular moment or great importance that somehow we've sub actively violated the spirit all of the sunshine ordinance and the public will know what it is we're taking up. the fact we've referenced that we are going to be discussing gross man vs. st. kci which is

before the california pelosi first appellant district in my opinion incorporates by reference. all of the matters that would be there before the coiling. those are the only materials we have. i think we have advised the public as to what materials we're working for when we tell them we're discussing that and we referenced the particular case for the coiling. there's nothing else we have that's secret or we're sandbagging the public on in any way that's sufficient notice. i think we've gone ahead and the discussion is starred in a robust healthy way we shouldn't and i abort it at this point >> short point of order please. mr. shaw you didn't notify the public - mr. shaw

>> commissioner keane i think my concern here is the same way that you got the materials that we got the materials that was provided to us directly i don't think you expect the public to see all the pleadings if it's the opinion of the city attorney it needed to be included did by other commissioner want to comment. >> i just only heard the bulk of the city attorney said the bulk of the information was shared you didn't saw all of it. >> there's one document it's protected by the attorney-client that's not posted. >> any other commissioner want to weigh in open the issue. >> okay. let's put this over until next month. >> by the way, it would have

been nice to know that. >> ask your staff. >> i apologize for that and i apologize for that. >> isn't there public comment on the motion to put it over. >> there's no motion to put it over it's the to the call of the chair. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> (inaudible). >> the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action regarding a complaint received or initiate by ethics commission and possible closed session. public comment recommending to agenda item 5 including whether or not to meet in closed session. >> commissioners wray san francisco open government i've

done this on numerous occasions but this has to be repeated and i think i can't remember the exact quote berry goldwater said if you're hesitant in deliver it's not good. those closed sessions are all the time their appearing your withholding stuff it's coke to say we have the documents related to the case and the public has to figure out which documents. i think this case has hundreds of documents are you going to look at it and did you get hundreds of documents or thirty and what specific documents did you get in those matters i'll be willing to bet you've been given documents the public hadn't seen

and we're supposed to guess we're said in the navy a wild hairy guess. you don't tell us anything you say we're going into closed session owe talk about x. what about x when we look at what happened in the last case there's a good argument the city attorney said the bulk of what we had should have seen and you all sit there and act like the city attorn city attorneys issue the staff are the ones who pick and choose what you the he the public deserves the same right to know what you're going to did you say so whether or not to be an open or closed sessions we have to know what your intending to discuss we can't guess we

shouldn't be put in this post-office box it's not certainly open and honest. as i said in the frank herbert quote it's all well and good to appear open and honest but we can't figure out. the agenda should contain sufficient description of the item so a person of reasonable intelligence can understand whether or not their interests will be effected your staff doesn't do that. and this is noted a one-time case this is all the times they say we can agree we technically he met the law but the intent is we're supposed to be planter and you can't be a parent without the document that's why we have the sunshine ordinance you can't make reasonable public comment

if we don't have the documents. >> is there a motion to go into closed session regarding agenda item 5? >> i so moved. >> is there a second. >> i second. all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i. opposed? >> no. >> no. the motion passes 3 to 2 >> we wi

session. >> okay. we're going w we're back in open session during the closed session there was a motion that was passed regarding the portions of the closed session that would be disclosed to the public. the first thing we agreed to disclose related to the reason we went into closed session in the first place which was to address the probable cause reports and under the commission regulations when we deal with a probable cause report we're required to go into closed session. we discussed in the future trying to disclose that at the

combining and at the end before we go into closed session and like we are now after the closed session to invite the public of why we are that in closed session. in addition the executive director has american people announcement. >> at a special meeting on may 28th in the ethic complaint the ethics commission made a determination there recent probable cause to building the following violations of the california government cod as incorporated by the san francisco conjectural code and one one violation of california government code section 84200 subsections and i a for failing to file a campaign document by 2013. two one violation of government

code subsection a for failing to file a campaign fund by required 12 of july 31st, 2013. 3 one violation of california government code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement by required deadline of january 31st, 2014, arrest each commissioner would participated in the decision as you certificate on the record that jorge reviewed the testimony and reviewed the entire record of the proceedings. regulation each commissioner must publicly certify on the record >> commissioner renne commissioner andrews. commissioner hayon. commissioner keane.

i also so certify >> the respondents are presumed to be innocent until the preertdz on the merits unifies regulations for investigation regulations the executive director shall issue an acquisition and the next announcement at a special meeting open wednesday, may 28, 2014, in the matter of ethnics complaint the commission made a determination there's probable cause to building that the following government passing as conduct code and the respondent committed them one the violation of california code subsection a

for failing to file a campaign statement form by the deadline of july 31st, 2011, and two one violation of the government code suction a for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of january 2012 and one violation of california code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline july 31st, 2012, and four one vision of california code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of january 31st, 2013. and 5 one violation of california government code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of july 31st, 2013, and of one violation of california government code

subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement form by the required deadline of january 31st, 2014. each commissioner who paerptd must certify they've reviewed the regulation commissioner renne. commissioner andrews. commissioner hayon. commissioner keane. i also so certify >> the respondent are presumed to be innocent until the allegations are approved on the regulation the executive director should issue an acquisition in corners with the proceedings regulation 9 a. third and final announcement findings the probable cause for

the ethics claimed at a special meeting of wednesday, may 28, 2014, in the matter of the case the notification made a determination that there's probable cause to building the following violations of the california government codes as incorporated by governmental consultation code and the respondent made them one violation of government code dot 3 subsection a-1 for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of go october thit 2013 and violation for failing to file a campaign statement and 3 one violation of california government code subsection a for