how they respond. >> sure yeah. commissioner renne there's a couple of answers first, we do have drafts we're drafting regulations to implement the new changes. and those we hope are before you at the end of july for your july meeting and with the passage of those regulations we're going to update the lobbyist manual that we have then we'll distribute that to relocated lobbyists addresses update our online trying under the new rules the lobbyists will be filing a statement certifying they've done that would be one year >> as i understand under those regulations if joe blow private

citizen goes to his supervisor and urges him in support of this legislation is he a lobbyist. >> no he'll have be to compensated for that. >> the level is no longer compensated. >> that's right. >> can you talk the costs on the commission enforcing the ordinance. >> well in terms of administering really the probability main costs we do anticipate based on some feedback from the regulated community that the number of lobbyists will increase by virtue of the new threshold that will take time for the staff getting people signed up and problem bes and issues there will be the fees collected with the lobbyists but there's no staffer time. and then there's the issue of

for the permit expediteers the permit requirement going into effect january one of 2015 and getting that online will obviously you been a cost because we have to amend our contract with net file, etc. >> what about the cost of of the audit? >> well, yeah that's correct. well, right now the costs for the audit fee they're obviously staff time dedicated to quiet frankly getting up to speed with the lobbying requirement but we don't know how many we're going to audit immediately which is for the first year but that will be staff time >> so they're saying at least one and hopefully to do more. >> that's correct.

>> and the idea is what that how will we determine how many are feasible. >> well, we'll look at the number of registered lobbyists i don't know off the top of my head we'll look at the capacity and the workload we're trying to get through the number of audits we have for the campaign financed we're optimistic so a lot of it will be making sure we're looking at it and take into account our staffing and our workload. >> any questions? public comment? >> commissioners ray heart for open government. first, i'd like to is that the

conversations so far has me disturbed you seem to be treating this lightly they're to change their law and you have nothing no ability to do anything but implement it you have a moral obligation to look at the laws and see if the changes are appropriate and to raise any issues as far as the implementation of the law and simply accepting it and saying we're going to teach people to do whatever is unacceptable i'll be following this agenda item and subsequent action taken. 3 examples as long as contacts can exceed 48 per year so if i have interest in the city and have something that works for me

and sends them to talk to them i don't have to report them to the lobbyist how many thousands of lobbyists do we have none of the visits will be recorded arrest in section 3 adding an exemption for nonprofits those groups receive millions of dollars per year as their results of contacts with the city officials it must be open to public scrutiny. that's been a devious and hidden operation last time they snuck it in and none of us that obtained to the tricks wouldn't know to show up. in section 4 random audits of one per year a what a joke oh,

saying we'll probably do more is a joke there should be a reasonable amount like 20 or 25 so the public understands it's not up to our pull it out of the air of how many eager to do the true legislation is nothing but an effort by dpooufd to hide the contracts and documented by 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