campaign a one reason the court stated the following one there's no right more basic then to elect our please leaders and two the right to participate in democracy is protected by first amendment. >> 3 congress or state and local government any limit the contributions but may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or reduce some in order to influence others and in other words, leveling the playing field is not permissible and it may seem repugnant to some bus

the constituti the constitution protects us. and it you guardians an individual's right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political opinion and using those the court invalidated a scheme of aggregate limits similar to the scheme in california's contribution law the agency gaited limits is primarily in general the election of the candidates even when the contributions fail within the limits. the aggregate limit denies the individual all ability to exercise the donors exciting and right by tricking to something else who will aggregate for the

other benefits i urge the recommendations by staff >> ms. may i believe you feel vindicated. >> many years ago when it was first adapted yes, thank you. >> affidavit pacific islander peel i agree with ms. may the commission should adopt it and not enforce the provision and should hold actually a series of interested persons meetings probably one or two initially and spend time looking at options and come back from a a the series of interested parties prior to bring the package to the commission before it takes effect i've never been a fan of this aggregate contribution limits it odd to me it would be based on the number of offices

being elected rather than anything else in my opinion this is only in the years whether when there were multiple open seats and contested and it wasn't clear who was front runner was but was limited by the number of candidates or offices at issue so in summary i think it's fine not to enforce and i look forward to interested persons meetings that's an overall scheme for the contribution of limits aggregate spending various other provisions and she sort of work together to create the ordinance as a whole if this piece is taken away we need to look at

other pieces how they play out to increase and other ways to decrease the number of contributions in spending in local campaigns thanks and hello michael again. >> i'm reading our document in the introduction it says in short staff recommendations that the commission resolve to suspend enforcement. i've got to repeat that you're asking you've been asked by the staff to spend enforcement. i can't read beyond this and take it seriously trying to take the commission sooerl this is summing up the problem i feel with so much of what you don't do you're not a watchful dog. i say the hearing on television is few months ago from the woman

from the public utilities commission was guilty of two violations and instead of taking the right course and enforcing some penalty against her you the matter. recently, i filed a number of complaints about public officials not filing the proper paperwork before traveling out of town it took six or seven months from the ethics commission sanctioning yes those people had not followed the law in disclosing their trips out of town and making the disclosure. basically no enforcement and no penalty. that's why so many people in the public are not filing complaints do not come hopper to ask you for help in getting more

sunshine and more ethnics because you've created a bureaucracy and when we read the documents and you want to resolve to suspend enforcement it's sending a message this is not a public watchdog you've got to pay attention to the fact that the public is growing up frustrated with this commission with the sunshine ordinance task force and how enforcement and penalties do not seem to every be piloted against the city departments. thank you. >> patrick. i'd like to echo what the gentleman just testified to. this body has been an absolute failure of enforcement of the

sunshine orders of determination of referrals to this body. are you've repeatedly dismissed or found reasons to let city officials off the hook unfairly. now you want to suspend enforcement of campaign finance regulations. if you're going to continue abdicating our enforcement obligations why don't you have city attorney dennis herrera wave that magic wound and disbanded this body who is not doing enforcement

>> yes. pete war field again skews my voice this is not an item i came for but i'm disappointed to put that mildly i don't believe the agenda gives permission to the or in person whether their interest would be effected. i'd be happy if someone quotes from the sunshine ordinance the explanation in an agenda item but this agenda item discussion and possible action on the ethics commission for the united states court decision so forth period. they would certainly have to read the attachment and before they read the attachment they'll have to be familiar with that decision. and might well, not be, however,

they might be a campaign contributor or someone who is running for office there is nothing in here that states what the plan tennis and that's concerning the aggregate contribution and the city's campaign reform ordinance and concerning something immediately to ma church you not struck down a federal law which found that a federal aggregate violated the first amendment now you're talking about something that effects the city law and the local elections. your city agenda is very, very sadly lacking in the minimum requirements for folks to understand what you're thinking

about or planning to do. i don't think it's that hard it's been stated fairly sue single in the memo you've received in that succinct should be something you state your planning to consider within the scope of that agenda item. thank you. >> is there a motion to adapt the attached resolution and direct staff to include a provision repeeping section 1482 in the future pact. >> so moved. >> all in favor, say i. >> i.

offered hearing number one, the motion passes 5 to zero. the next item is discussion and possible action on the pending litigation gross man vs. the executive director we just made them into one decision point. the next item on the agenda is relating to gross man vs. the ethics commission. public comment on agenda item 4 concluding whether to meet in closed session. >> since this is a first public hearing on those two cases i have no way of knowing how much you know about them unless upper

given information of either by mr. syncountry or by the city attorney. i wouldn't touch right now the issue of asking for the material provide by the city attorney but i do think that any material you've got from mr. syncountry must be available to the public which this notice and agenda were published that's right in the law. on the assumption you know something about it i'll go ahead. the attorney-client belongs to the client that's you. doesn't belong to mr. syncountry. there are 24 public records that he refused ultimately to disobey close 4 are disclosed once the lawsuit was filed.

at the task force hearings he said when asked have you can you describe the records and mr. syncountry said i haven't read the records and these i haven't counted them okay. so he u serpd your job you were the ones who should have been looking at the records to wave the privilege i can go through this whole list of occasions when this matter could have been brought to you there are at least 7 when the task force acted on them and i when mr. syncountry was responsible to respond and the committee said it should be referred to you there were two or three others so all this time you would have

been dealing with a situation that could have been roved the day after i asked for the records. so let's you tell pit it this way no time machine is going to do bring it back it's not going to happen. this is where we are. we're at a place where the case is heard by the 13r0ish9 judge and found the records are were disposable it was appealed and filed a man dams case the briefs were filed an oral argument was heard and we're waiting for the decision and we don't know what's going to be so what's to discuss with the city attorney. thank you. >> dr. derrick occurring.

regarding the closed session issue. the sunshine ordinance section 67.10 provides that a policy body may but in the required to hold closed sessions. it cites 3 requirements based on the advice of legal council and a motion in open section to excerpt the attorney-client and 3 when discussion this open section will unvalidly prejudice the city. how would a discussion in open section in closed session harm the city in both cases they're applying practically over. the real question is whether the commission will support the directors but isn't that would

public comments should address and isn't that something that the commissioners should speak to in open session. and shouldn't the advice from the city attorney be in writing and if so where is it. another reason why openly discussed draft reviews by the council should be preferred is because should drafts are commonly rectified openly at boards meetings and board committee meetings and even the planning commission. the draft is openly decided in other settings so why is it different here? sunshine. thank you.

>> on my website stop la downsize all one word.com i posted my article sandblasting in march. sunshine ordinance 6712 didn't say that a policy body can delegate to a staff body to pursue litigation which the policy body is required to report out in closed session in an open session public utilities it doesn't hold the closed session authority and 6712 a-2 suggests that the decisions at minimum be determined by the policy body not by the executive director. and you're required to do so only during a properly noticed

open or closed session meeting of the body. since the commission never authorized the lawsuit small wonder michael referred to the court should deny the appeal he argued this shouldn't make the kiss procedural effective but it does. it's a big deal not only was the request to strike down it was not properly brought before the sprisht on behalf of syncountry was not brought properly before the appeals court because the commissions refusal to authorize the appeal. in the name of syncountry and the ethics commission i didn't bring it that's a bigger deal

that syncountries let the filings and 5 lawyers are representing him the city attorney's advise is not allowed in public records but here we have the city attorney representing syncountry both another city court and the appeals. regarding the i have a few questions and public records this is precisely what dennis herrera is doing the ethics commission could get the legal koinlt rather than are turning to the city attorney who is theoretically prohibited from doing so this may be yet more the city attorney dennis herrera's fairy dust.

>> get this up on the screen. oh, okay >> one of my forecast authorizes politics it the way to be open and squeal as much as possible. the ethics commission have gone to the political he theatre. the sunshine ordinance says when you agenda did i see an order a person can understand it and whether or not their interests are effected i can read this and i can't tell what you're going to discuss. as discussed by prior speakers i have to wonder what you're going to discuss sins you've got no

documents you're going to go into the room and have a discussion on what the air? that you have no documents to look at and it's all going to be attorney-client which is really, really a board brush and anything you don't want discussed out in front of which the public you put under the attorney-client and someone said prove it like mr. grossman did and you can't. you come back from the hearings and have a discussion about whether or not you should disclose and you don't. i have a hard time believing you go in there and have those go long-drawn-out discussions and not disclose anything. i'm saying the citizens of san francisco want open government that's what we voted for 3 to one when they passed the

sunshine ordinance to enforce and bolster the brown act they didn't feel it was enough for the city of san francisco so you how i can sit there and take my position other than the fact to be open with the public i can't fathom you'll go into a backroom and have discussions we don't see my documents your discussing or my of the actual nothing to actually is here's what we're going to go back and discuss just a vague statement well, only mr. grossing man's case. what about mr. grossing man's case the public has a right to know those things i'll bring up one late thing i have 17 ordinance 7 of which have been

brought to this body and he everyone has been dismissed you're right every time. and the citizens of san francisco shouldn't have to haul you into court to get you to be open and honest. >> hello michael again. i'd like to encourage you not to take this matter behind closed doors there's two which darkness in city government and you shouldn't take that about what you're going to discuss and when you come out from your closed session we're not going to have minutes and a substantive sense of what was discussed. one thing i want to address

reading this new book forcing the spring about the prop a a lawsuit and gay manger the authors joe becker from the new york times writes in her book she was given access to documents that went back and forth between the city attorney of san francisco and ted olsen's office. okay. also this new york times resort was allowed to sit in on discussions the city attorney was holding about their arguments that they were going to be making to judge van walker and before the supreme court. you read this book and wonder how the heck did dennis herrera allow this new york times resort to see the documents including the jousted e-mail exchanges between herrera's office and ted

olsen's office and sitting in on their discussions about the 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 b