supervisor campos campaign. the board of supervisors will pass those amendments to hide the overwhelming impact particularly on this board of supervisors. the lobbyists i've said before you don't approach the board of supervisors unless you have a check in our hand or votes in our pocket or an attorney none of us have a chance >> patrick private citizen. i would counter mr. hearts you don't have a moral imperative but an ethical one i get it you guys have problem with that coalitions. one audit what size of a needle in the haystack is that.

i was glad to hear commissioner renne raise the same southern i had over what a private citizen sending a single e-mail to the 11 board of supervisors that constitutes a lobbyist violation where you're going down a slirp opening that door for instance, if i send all 11 supervisors a single e-mail on a tuesday claiming that the in effect executive director had withheld the entire case in mr. gross man's lawsuit and you only got the appellant portion would i be sued of being a lobbyist because

of the court case. what about on the next day i sent a different e-mail to all 11 supervisors? say over bicyclists on the sidewalk in my neighborhood would that be considered lobbying. actually, i'm only writing about my pedestrian safety. you need to urge the mayor to send that legislation back to the supervisor chiu and make sure it's clear that the 5 contact limitation will not apply to private citizens commissioner renne. because when i first look at it that was my immediate concern i haven't seen any of the amendments that were tweaked but that needs to be crystal clear.

citizens have every right to petition their government and not be misconstrued as lobbyists. >> good evening, commissioners anita. the only comment i wanted to make it's very important that the commission reach out to all lobbyists and potential lobbyists and developers given the fact this legislation changes the thresholds for qualifications as a lobbyist. the legislation imposes joint and several liability that can be imposed on the employers and the lobbyist disclosure is requiring the developers to report their animations of 5 thousand or more they've made for nonprofit if it the

nonprofits have lobbied the city and the late penalties can be imposed it's important that the commission reach out but they reach out to everyone regarding the changes. thank you. >> thank you. the next item on the agenda is constitution and possible action regarding proposed stipulation and order in connection with the complaint received by the ethics commission. i want to make an announcement to do a procedure with the 3 closed sessions temples that will work with the consequences we plan on having public comment on item 4 and a vote whether or not to go into closed session

and we'll have a second public comment on item 5 and have a vote whether or not to go into closed session and have public comment on item 6 and vote on whether or not a closed session and one long closed session with all 3 decisions so we don't have folks out in the hallway for one closed session and go out again and come out and go in a third time and that's if we agree to go into closed session >> correct. >> so the first item. >> is there any problem with that. >> no so long as you said there's an agreement to go into closed session. >> the first item is public comment specifically on item 4. including whether or not to meet in closed session.

>> any public comment on that item on item 4. >> commissioners ray heart san francisco open government. agenda items especially relating to sunshine ordinance b reads as follows: quota description is meaningful it's it specific to alert a person of average intelligence who interests are focused by the items he or she may have a reason to attend the meeting unquote how would anyone know if their interests are effected by this description end of story if you go back and look at the ordinance it specifically says there's reasons you can't place information about what the item is only the temps things it might allow someone to flee the district and other things it

says nothing more than a anticipated legislation telling the public some information like the specific case to be discussed would not in my way breached the attorney-client privilege that would on the other hand, alert a person who interests are focused which is a requirement of time law. i sincerely hope this commission will not attempt to not have matter in full view of the public. i'll say it again, mr. sincroy has been do executive director so long as the sunshine ordinance has been in place he knows the requirement of the law and puts those generic meaningly descriptions so no one will know what you're talking about. you can be discussing a case related that was referred to the sunshine task force related to a

matter and i won't know whether or not to come here and no one else if you can't put an agenda item on there that a person of reasonable intelligence can look at it and have an idea then it's not properly agendized you can dismiss it but the bottom line your obligation 0 is to enforce the sunshine ordinance, in fact, your violating it by putting generic descriptions it don't talk about it and we raise the issue and you treat it like it's a joke it's not frankly i'm getting sick and tired of coming here and pouting pointing out with the millions of dollars of staff time to even follow the basic points of the law the

alone the intention that we need to have information to know what it is you're going to be discussing to make intelligent. >> patrick. i'm combine my public comment for items four and five i see that agenda item 6 actually lists the name of the court case and mr. gross man's case but four and five to say anticipated litigation as plaintiffs would be helpful to the members of the public if you would broadened those descriptions so people of older intelligence can figure

out what part of charter section 3 c dash 99 you're referring to. and what type of case you're considering entering into anticipated litigation. the public has a right to know what it is you're considering. >> is there a motion? >> sorry to get up here i've been looking at the brown act i don't think the description is accurate in one respect of anticipated litigation is actually covered separately in both of the sunshine ordinance and the brown act. and the brown a act says that

lets see - litigation - anticipated litigation okay in a emotion to the information notice on behalf of the agency maybe required to produce an oral statement pursuant to the paragraphs of the law but there's an earlier provision that the input fact that you have to demonstrate that discussing providing that type of information name the name if possible litigant and so forth you have to justify it by showing there is prejudices of service of progress or to your case. and i don't think that's been done here. i can't put my figure on it bylaw but it's in here i'm sure

with your high price lawyers you'll find it. thank you >> is there a motion inform move into closed session before we do that is the city attorney or staff have anything to say whether or not it's appropriate to go into closed session for an agenda item. >> i'll say it's mandatory for item four and five under with respect to item 4 there's the chapter section 3 plus if you'll look at the final paragraph it basically states that any member of the compligs commission that dloez information before the probable cause so the commission

has to go into closed session for the proposed settlement a that's a violation of the proposed chart similarly with item 5. under that provision as well as the commissions unregulations probable cause hearings have to be held in closed session there's incrimination we have to vote even though their notice latitude as item 67 i think that there maybe some discretion but this truly is pending litigation and i think it would be, you know, possible to provide, you know, full and frank advise to the commission about that pending litigation in open

session. >> is there a motion to going go into closed session. >> before we go into closed session i think at our last meeting we said weigh to explain why you should understand that when we are considering whether or not a complaint should be filed with the individual the individual has been informed he or she knows we're intending to discuss that matter if after in our closed session we determine that no complaints should be filed she or he has a right to the privacy so it's like any kind of a legal process the government and the district attorney when it initiates a public investigation they don't go to the public so see he or

she has compliment a crime that's an invasion of the their privacy the only reason in private if we decide that, yes there's probable cause it then gets disclosed and there's will be a public hearing that is the first step in the process not trying to keep the public out but protect the interests of the individual who's been notified that there's going to be this determination and he or she can come in and say hey, there shouldn't a probable cause determination invites to the about keeping something secret from the public. that the public has a right to know until we ask. >> i'll move we go into closed session. >> in favor?

i. opposed? hearing none that motion passes so for number 4 we're going into closed session. public comment with respect to item 5 discussion and possible action regarding the connection for complaints received or by the ethnics. ray heart i'll respond to the comments that are disingenuous and dishonestly honest saying in public those people say they know what's going on is a bunch of crap in march you had a hearing i was not invited and you had a hearing prior to me come back so, yes there's this imaginary thing that people all know that's not the case and add to that the fact it need not my cased up by about which i as a

member of the public or a party that maybe involved i should know which cases those are. those particular item here we have the same issue in triple we have three cases that no one has any idea regarding what cases are discussed, of course, i'm assuming that since no documents whatsoever were produced or provided for the public that the commissioners received nothing in advance that's the same issue we've talked about last week mr. goldman's case. what the public is asked to building you're going to discussing discuss 3 cases without preparation they didn't send documents or tell you what was documents were you know nothing because if you did know something we're supposed to know

anything that's not privileged. you don't know what the cases are don't know the scope of the discussion and you don't have any idea a that's the way it seems from the public's point of view if it's the case you don't know what to go into closed session if you don't know what you're going to discuss in closed session hallway can you decide that a closed session is required if you look at the yawned item we can't tell if a closed session is required sunshine ordinance section 67 pointed 8 stitsdz states it the agenda disclosureer should specifically identify a case under discussion that's what the law says you can be as disingenious about it >> only tell us things like it's a legal case the law says

you have to say with the specific case is if you don't understand that then our annual signing the sunshine declaration your falsifying it. >> patrick. it appears you have a short memory just a month ago t c a white advised commissioner renne that because the agenda and meeting materials had been deficient you had to postpone mr. gross man's case mr. gross man informed you that your agenda more than likely violates the brown act it would be useful to hear d c white weigh in on

whether or not items four and five sunshine be detailed another thirty days for the compliance for the agenda. you do remember what happens thirty days ago when item 6 was poinl for a month; right? >> the item a really confusing it's in connection with the complaint initiated or received by the ethnics commission is refers to convince of anticipated litigation as plaintiffs so if you receive the complaint you would be suing

that if you initiate the complaint you would still be suing. okay. i suppose that's the way it works and >> talk about the brown act i think i found the section i was looking for. it's a section if it's closed i'm reading now from section oh, it's a long one. i think that's referred to in the agenda. says based on existing factors you can go into closed session with your attorney and have sections with the attorney-client privilege based on the facts the protective body has digging whether or not to

initiate litigation and it says if the session is closed pursuant to subsection a the party shall state the identity of the litigation to be discussed unless the body says to do so will justices of the peace the agency ability to service of progress upon one or more parties or jeopardizes it's ability to include the settlement negotiations you're talking about settlement in the agenda item. i thought.

oh, stimulation i'm sorry oh, the point has been made. thank you. >> commissioners, comments or questions. is there a motion to go into closed session with respect to agenda item 5? >> so moved. i'll second >> in favor i. opposed. hearing none. that motion passes. agenda item 6 discussion regarding the status and background of pending litigation with gross man and the san francisco ethics commission public comment? >> commissioners ray heart for open government api i've been wade for keen anticipation

whether to handle this agenda item in full view of the public hell i'm curious whether you'll let the public have my opportunity to observe your discussion i'm good morning to go out on a limb they'll vote to hide and commissioner renne will vote to let the sunshine in. i win either way you choose to hide which proves this or you i'm wrong and you choose to be open which is my deserved outcome. i doubt i will be wrong that is but i sincerely hope i'm wrong. john the executive director pattern of the hiding as much as possible it getting truly tiring not plaza items properly on the agenda and not providing the documentation, etc., etc., etc.

it didn't seem like mr. sin country feels any obligation to follow any aspect of the law we come back case by case and issue after issue you sit up there and look like a bunch of no see no evil and speak no evil monkeys. i believe the members of the ethics commission need to give the executive director to be as open as possible. i don't think you're going to do that you like the fact he keeps everything hidden so this constant refrain you're not trying to hide everything you are. it's rather than stupid to sit up there and say you're not trying hide something your successful you won't thrills

what the 4 or 3 cases if you want to complete the first two and the only reason you did mr. gross man because he won't call you hide and hide and hide and if there's my any member of the public don't that that's the truth they should come here. you notice people don't bother to come here they know you're a bunch of politicians that are appointed by the politicians your supposed to hold accountable i'll raise the question i want one of you to get up and honestly tell me how anything you've done to improve the ethics of this city you confuse activity with accomplishment you do dozens of things and accomplish nothing.

>> patrick. we were here thirty days ago and your memories have slipped by. we invited you thirty days ago you're not the defendant in this case your agenda continues to assert you are you're the plaintiffs in this case. which i'm sure even commissioner hayon living in the richmond understands the difference between plaintiffs and independents. commissioner keane last month wanted to quickly move to ignore deputy city attorney whites advise to postpone it for a

month. commissioner keane according to the audit wanted to jump into an open session on the spot i believe it struck me then and now to the extent commissioner keane elected to attempt to ignore deputy city attorney josh whites city attorney advise. found it like appoints to the sunshine task force. where supervisor tang is using a witness test of undying loyalty to city attorney advise. so if commissioner keane can ignore whites advise why can't the sunshine task force who overall had reached a simple interpretation of city attorney advise. as many city policy bodies often

do during open session they found ways to get around the advise presented by the deputy city attorney. but what happened no commissioner keane's idea of gap government transparent and holding it in closed session particularly on a pacing says that's not pending litigation anymore. all that needs to happen is the appellate court is to release it's opinion. litigating is done. it's not pending litigation anymore. and i should hold this session in open session. so we can hear what kind of advise you're going to get since you took no action to authorize

mr. sin country to file this case in superior court he did that without our explicit permission. >> i want to read i something from the brown act section 54946.9. but i want to mention after the last meeting i put in a records request inform mr. sincroy that was provided to the commissioners before the placing last meeting i got copies of everything that's listed but one was withheld because of the subject to the attorney-client privilege asserting that the attorney-client privilege on the material that was provided to the commissioners afforded. this is what