depending on how the next referral from the task force regarding the records of the planning department it maybe time to review the procedures for handling the matter i've had discussions with the staff my hope they've been productive and feinstein in the event that the grand jury has another report we should probably set aside times for that either in jump or the august meeting. thanks i intend to comment on item 3. >> next item is on the agenda is discussion and possible action regarding the cpc. syncountry do you want to introduce this matter >> has the memo points out and

everyone knows this decision would appear to have an impact not only on federal law but on the several states and lock immaterial that have limitations. we believe that we have no choice, however, unfortunate ruling is to fellow the inclines with that. at some point we're going to need to alternate what's on the books in san francisco. we don't think that is necessarily something we have to do right now we can fold it into the next 6 to 9 months but we think the commission should consider adapting a policy like the city of los angeles has done basically stating for the record this is not a record we can

endorse so we can inform the candidates this restriction do not apply based on the supreme court ruling >> anything from the commissioners commissioner keane. >> i agree with mr. syncountry that ma capture makes it unconstitutional for there are to be my kind of enforcement of an aggregate limit it's something that is a reality no jurisdiction could indicator even though we have it on the books even if we didn't adapt the enforcement we could enforce it anyway. >> because of the courts case. i guessed in order to give

notice to my candidates who might be relying upon the present state of the law saying they can't aggregate monies in regards to running that's unfair to them for us not to give them as much notice as possible on this local level. so i support the idea of adapting the resolution of non-enforcement >> other comments from the commissioners? >> i think it is not goes to effect the maximum to each candidate that should be made clear. >> very good. >> i agree with that sentiment that we should adapt the resolution i don't see how we

can enforce it as commissioner keane stated. my comments from the commissioners on whether the staff should just deal with that on a one of basis or prepare others changes to consider as a package? >> i did want to hear more from mr. syncountry you said over the next several months we're loovnth more changes and those are inevitable. >> the supra is something we have to work on. >> i'm in agreement with commissioner keane the more notice we can give the candidates i'll support moving forward with the decision one

.1. and just hold off on actually having a full resolution to remove it non-enforcement >> on the point about whether the staff should work up whatever multiple changes to sequa do you think we should wait for that. >> i don't see a reason it seems like it is extra work when we can't enforce it that will be inevitable work that will happen within the next 6 to 9 months i'd rather give them the opportunity to make the changes all at once and move for a resolution just not enforcement now and not have them wait for the next 67 to 9 months.

>> other comments from the commissioners. >> what commissioner andrews said sounds sensible. any public comment on that item? number 3? >> commissioner director of san francisco open government i'll make the same comments it's like reranging deck chairs on the titanic basically, you spend 90 percent of your time reraining the rule on candidate finance we can't come to you like 9 city librarian accepting thousands even if dollars of guests from an entity he's supposed to be overseeing under the penalty of the perjury he got nothing. we had to take it up because you

won't take it up. would i like to know you actually made a difference in this city or sit here like bumps on the laws it to you rearrange the deck chairs. the sequa restraining order issues are noticing but confusing activity for accomplishment your activity i change the law but when it comes down to things like endorsing those laws when do you do it what agency has been found in violation of my laws when they quit and go to work for others departments and come and ask you for a waiver to go and work for those people you go sure just go work for them and ignore the fact i probably give them a nice

big contract and you're going to go over and talk about how your agency deals with what we don't like and give it to them so they can get a heads up over the competition. the bottom line is i watch those ethics commissions on television and you know i comb here i'm really, really put out of joint you're sitting here and taking a hearing from sunshine and schedule it at a day i left the state and heard it before i got back i expected you to have some integrity and have it brought back on the schedule instead of saying oh, the city librarian got off the hook when this judge was out of town. you want people to understand

that's a consequence and mr. syncountries disingenious i was surprised that mr. heart didn't show up for his own hearing he knew i was out of town and scheduled that purchasely and anyone that buildings otherwise is a fool. >> good evening. i'm anita from the pacific islanders burger firm i'd like to make a few comments 40 in support of the staffs recommendation for the aggregate contradiction and appeal the contribution document this was issued april 2nd of this year mccapture addresses

the right of citizens to elect the leader transcribing to the 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