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 failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of july 31st, 2012, and four one violation of california government 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 from july 31st, 2013, and of one violation of california government code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement form 460 by the deadline of july 31st, 2013. each commissioner who participated but certify on the record that he or she personally read or reviewed the entire proceedings. >> commissioner renne. commissioner andrews. commissioner hayon. commissioner keane. i also so certify your the respondents are presumed to be innocent unless their proved by the merits regulation a b 5 the executive director shall issue a regulation with the ethics commission regulations for the

enforcement proceedings 9 a. >> public comment there's no public the next temple on the agenda is execution and possible action on the minutes of the commissions minutes april 8, 2014, commissioners my comments. i understand that mr. pro-peel provided proposed corrections >> mr. propel handed me a document i haven't looked at it i'm comfortable in looking at the changes. >> do you have it. >> yes. would you like to see it. any objections in hearing the

corrections? >> okay. i'm going to ignore the grammatical correction but on page one section 2 public comment the first paragraph the word complaint is misspelled on the first and last line it should be complaint instead of compliant. package 2 the first full paragraph at the top the complainant was not present add a semicolon after the word present the next line after rec

and park put department and the next paragraph the top line after california add the word public. on the paragraph that begins with d c a white the third line second word change the word to and. >> i don't know about that one. >> i'm sorry. right forget that one sorry. >> you know, i'm not sure this is the right way to go about this i mean, if he's not here to discuss this if it were one or

two changes maybe but i'm not inclined to have this be a standard practice. any objections from the commissioners? >> i would move to adapt the minutes as presently drafted and second. >> all in favor, say i. i. opposed this motion passes 5 to zero. the next item on - what. the next item on the agenda it the discussion of the executive director report >> i don't have high highlights other than to say our initial budget hearing it june 16th i'll attend if necessary a supplemental hearing will occur both mondays. by the way, on the previous matter i wanted to note there was