supreme court this case can remain pending e pending for a matter of months to come >> questions from commissioners? any status or background of the case? i have a question about what the supreme court judge did. did he review the in camera the underlying documents? >> no. >> whaes was it stipulated that the documents were attorney-client privilege and the issue was whether the sunshine ordinance allowed disclosure of the attorney-client privilege in the recorded documents. >> it was not stipulated there's an assertion of the privilege do you - there was an assertion of the privilege and

the question whether or not the provision of the sunshine ordinance is valid and like in the city charter. >> did the judge find that the - because it doesn't matter in his view that the ordinance allowed for disclosures whether or not it's privileged he if reach the issue of whether or not the documents are privileged. >> that's right. the judge did not address the issue of the provision of the sunshine ordinance is valid or invalid in light of the charter both parties agreed that issue is before the judge >> that's not my question my question is did he determine that he didn't need to review the documents in camera because it doesn't matter once the documents are privileged under the ordinances it has to be disclosed. >> oh, that's right.

>> any other questions? >> as i understand the that everything that was presented toys prior to the may 28th hearing and again packet to us here everything was made available for the public with the exception of one document i assume that one document is prepared by city attorney's office. that's right >> your asserting that was attorney-client privilege. >> the memoranda. >> the attorney-client privilege. >> the communication as a product yes.

>> anything else? okay. so now i think we should go into closed session on items 4 through 6. and we will then invite the public of when we've entered the closed session >> we should do public comment and okay. let's. >> i on on agenda item 6 it would have public comment. >> on agenda 6 relating 0 the discussion okay. let's have public comment then. >> boy i tell you a you guys are a piece of work. i don't think whoa whether or not to assume that's the kind of discussion when you go into the back you ask the city attorney a couple of questions and go into

there are inform 45 minutes or an hour i have the feeling that's the type of discussion you have in closed session. i'll say this you're not honest people. and you can say over and over over and over again how you want to be open and helicopter this is about the fact you don't want to disclose things to the pun how you handle sunshine and the brown act and other issues recommended to open government. and you don't want anyone in the public to know what the city attorney is advising you to do or not to do. you know, very frankly if you were an honest people you'll say we don't think it's appropriate to have this and that done because of this reason but you don't you go into a closed room to have a discussion and say anything you want and tell me the public well, we decided and

you have to live with that. very frankly, i think especially the two of you lawyers if you had a client and was on this end of those procedures you'd be raising hell and headed to superior court in the flash of a yeah. whatever. you know, very frankly it's in align to sit here month after month and sacrificing every action belies that. you hide as much as >> frank herbert says you know politics is the appearance of being open and hiding as much as possible you come in here and saying you're open and honest we just had an discussion about mr.

syncountries case you didn't say a darn thing why was this on the agenda you didn't discuss anything except you wanted to discuss you're going to go into closed session and discuss a bunch of other stuff. last month you were making those idiot, of course, comments about trying to hide stuff i know you are. i know you have people like mr. sincroy i'm one of the parties and will take a case and schedule it after i leave the state and hear it before i come back and you ignore me. >> i just tells us we're going to be asking advise we're not hiding it we're telling you

that. >> i'm supposed to building you're here discussing whether or not we should go into closed session if donates the extent of the discussion why did you need to discuss going into closed session about any of it. >> in some ways i am impressed you think their various things to be talking about beyond the advice of the city attorney. >> mr. shaw. >> thank you commissioner hur. >> i think you know of my website wwwstop downsize.com it's opening all one word i've read everything brief filed from supreme court just before the oral arguments. he went i would read a filing by

the esteemed dennis herrera's staff i was appalled. in fact, i was so appalled i wrote a really long analysis entitled something about fairlyy dust coming out of the city attorney's shop. you should read that. every word of what i wrote. because mr. gross man's lawyer michael absolutely obsoleted deputy city attorney andrew shins garbage. there's nothing in the city chart that protects city attorney i mean attorney-client

privilege not a peep. that was the root of mr. gross man's case the superior court was right to order the immediate release of the 24 documents withheld from mr. gross man should not have dragged on for two years before arriving as that hearing tonight and you're going to go into closed session god, only knows what. if the commission has too long of a history giving us reasons not to building you. mr. gross man should prevail other than the merits of his

case and the appellate court should get over itself trying to hold attorney-client privilege immulberry it's not when it comes to narrow area of law focused on public utilities access. mr. gross man is not waging a battle to get at some kind of documents that will give him a road map he's after public records what part of that don't you get? >> it somewhat baffles me what you think you're going to do in closed session to be honest with you. you can't assert our attorney-client privilege because mr. sincroy did it a

year and a half ago and steadfastly continued to do that with the support of the city attorney. so you can't undo that and do a redo unless you've not seen the papers and look at them and say there's no big deal theirs nothing toxic so let the trouble maker have titus has a way. that's one problem the next one the provision in the brown act which requires that i see every record that was provided to the commission before this meeting on this item if i had a guess there was some attorney-client privilege material in it. if i'm wrong then hopefully what's in here is all i've

provided but if i'm right you have the same problem a month ago which is the only place you can assert the attorney-client privilege is in a closed session there's a reason for that because the public is entitled to everything that can possible see that you see except what's disclosed in a closed session. i really have a problem that you know, i practice law a long time. and i've dealt with a lot of people but i don't understand con don something that's costing the taxpayers of this city a ton of motorbike long time ago it cost 25 thousand if i win this time you can imagine when i filed my request for the records

mr. sincroy can could have said we're going to have our attorney-client privilege that was in october of 2012. october of 2012. and you know what happened since then i don't have to repeat it. thank you. >> good evening commissioners hope johnson. i hope the attorney-client privilege section of the sunshine ordinance the section it addresses the attorney-client privilege that we're fighting over is not about an investigation not about protecting some individuals right to privacy if there isn't something found it's about turning over the ethics commission it should be made clear maybe small business will watch this it should be made

clear that you want to talk about in closed session is recommend to how the ethics commission is going to enforce violations of the sunshine and the california records act so the sunshine ordinance specifically says that those kinds of communications between the lawyers and the commissioners are not privileged we don't want them to the privileged the public didn't want that. and then the superior court judge agreed without having to look at the documents is nearby if you go into the closed session and it's found again that the superior court finding was correct our violating the sunshine ordinance by going into closed session. this isn't about i don't understand why advise from the

city attorney about how to go enforce sunshine complaints or drafts is privileged why would the public not have access to those it didn't makes sense >> ms. johnson at the risk of beating my head against the wall this is sort of the way i see it there's an argument if the documents that mr. engross man should be turning over i understand that i understand what the superior court did the closed session we're talking about is to discuss pending litigation no matter what the court decides about the documents it has nothing to do because the litigation and we're litigants can talk about our litigation whether it's about documents. >> what preponderance of the evidence litigation is it about. >> it's the case been identified. i want to make it clear

>> the case that's identified is over. >> that's - >> the ruling is standing. >> what we're doing right now is related to closed session. >> so you're saying its pending litigation in case you have to file a supreme court ruling. >> thank you. >> o session. >> okay. we're going back in open session. we will take the items that we decided in order first item 4 >> on item had the ethics commission announces that it is reached a stipulation with claudine changing that agrees

that pay $9,000 for the campaign code that will be posted open the ethics commission website tomorrow. >> item 5. on its meeting of june 23rd in the matters of the ethics commission complaint the ethics commission made a draw your attention there's probable cause to building the following violation of the conduct code and the response committed the them one violation of the conduct code subsection for failing to include a disclosure side our an hang and one conduct code subsection for failing to include a disclosure section type size on a door hanger and

each commissioner who participated must certificate on the record that he or she personally reviewed the evidence or otherwise the entire procedures. commissioners so certificates. vice chair commissioner renne >> so certified. commissioner keane. i so certificate the respondent is presumed to be innocent and subsequent hearing the executive director shall issue a statement for investigations for enforcement proceedings. at the regular meeting on the matter of ethics complaint you tell ethics commission made a desertion there's probable cause to building the following

violations of the california government code was by the conduct code and the respondent melissa committed them one violation of the cool code for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of january 31st and one violation of the government conduct code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement by the required city council of july 21st, 2012, and 3 the violation of the government code for failing to file a campaign statement by the required deadline of january 31st, 2013, and four one violation of the california government code subsection a for failing to file a campaign attempt by the required deadline of january 31st and 5 one

violation of the government code section subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement of january 31st, 2014. each commissioner would participated in the discussion must certificate on the record they reviewed the buyer xeerdz >> commending. softly. commissioner hayon i certificate as well. the respondent is presumed to be innocent in a sunset hearing the executive director should issue an accusation with the ethics commission regulars is for investigation and enforcements proceeding. finally in its regular commission of monday, june 23, 2014, in the matter of ethics commission complainant number 20 dash plus the ethics commission made a determination there's

probable cause to building the following violations of the california government code as incorporated by the san francisco campaign of governmental conducted code occurred one violation of the california government code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement 460 by the required deadline of january 31st, 2013, and one violation of the california code subsection a for failing to file a campaign statement 460 by the required deadline of january 31st, 2014, each commissioner who participated must certificates on the records they've reviewed the entire procedures on the record. commissioner renne.

commissioner hayon. i also certificate >> the respondent is is presumed to be innocent in a subsequent hearing the vice chair shall issue a regulation for the investigation and enforcement proceedings. >> agenda item 6. the commission voted in closed session not to disclose the closed session dlibsdz the commission sought the advice of the attorney regarding the litigations in addition i wanted to raise one thing during the public comment prior to us moving into the closed session one person was giving a public comment subsequent as we were moving into closed session ms. johnson indicated to me should

had not completed her public comment which the staff confirmed we asked ms. johnson to return to give her public comment but she declined and ms. johnson expressed to me that she found my response to be rude and for that i apologize ms. johnson. you need a motion on the session? that >> is there a motion to not disclose the closed session dlibsz related to agenda item number 6? >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> oh. commissioners director formal san francisco public government i don't understand the 4 cases 3 had to do with campaign violations and you couldn't

write on the agenda those are campaign violations and the public will have some ideas what you were doing but that's too much to ask i don't know what the first case was but it was something you could have given a vague stipulation without compromising monlz anyone's rights frankly the harder you fight the more obstinate you get the reason you come to those meetings and you see the few members of the public don't come because you make it obese by trups someone in the mid of their speak and have to come back and their frame of thought ms. johnson felt anger and she

couldn't come back and express herself so your apologize is a day late and it's not to the person it should have been given >> the next item. >> oh, we have to move and didn't we all in favor, say i. opposed? hearing none, the motion passes the next item on the agenda is the discussion and possible action sorry is yes discussion and possible action on the minutes. public comment? >> dan ray heart n for the san francisco open government those minutes are the reason i fought

for the one hundred and 50 words summers in the minutes they pair down to nothing in parking lot from the denims from the public utilities public those are meaning less i get one sentence out of it you're not listening, in fact, those are a de facto of public sensorship if anyone buildings you'll off base i ask people to speak for 3 minutes and read f the sum you'll not recognize it. see for user whether there's had anything representative in a meaningful fashion we're talking about constitutional political free speech. the protection of that free

speech extends to its recommendation in the public record because it's been paid for that i public funds. this is particularly true when did free speech equalities for a petition of gruvenz ail the petitions have the basis in a petition for readdressing things we felt upper handing things unlawfully and dpw denigrated the speakers the one thing you'll not take an action to change our kwauz you're just determined the public is not going to be involved in the public hearing and if the public has something to say you're not going to make an attempt to put it into the public record because you don't like what they

say. you can deny it before and after but with you don't like what we have to say and as a result, you pay him to put in a couple of short sentences and sensor what we're putting in there not because we're not getting to say it because government censorship. that's what the library commission has done for years and that's why i started to fight for the one hundred and 50 word summers because those things need to be on the record i'm sic and tired of people raising issues and saying oh, nobody said anything i can sit and look down at our desks shows

the kind of district you people have >> comments on the minutes. is there a motion to approve the minutes from the may meeting marry second >> second. >> all in favor, say i. opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. the next item on the agenda is the discussion of the executive director report >> just a couple of things i want to highlight. i did ask for and we will receive help from the controller's office on some of the audits that are pending. there there they're going to help us with a dozen audits that means by the end of this calendar year we'll be caught

that's a first for us in a long time. so i think that's very good news we have a filing period of january 1st through june 30th. i would point out that the training that the f pc did for us we're very grateful that they took the time to come down here and do an all day tracing training with our staff we found it useful. and you can see the director wants to turn this into a picture he felt it would be funny to see this swargs. we're going to be a little bit short on our revenue because of the revenue stream our revenue target is going