>> yes mr. chair. i would like to amend the motion and in addition to the language in the original motion stating the violation i would like to add all three of the measures that the city attorney has pointed out to us, the cease and desist measure, and i can't recall the wordings of the other two. >> the posting of the website and the warning letter. i just read verbatim from the commission's recommendations. >> okay. i would like to add all three to my motion mr. chair. >> is that seconded again? >> commissioner andrews and i will take public comment on the amended motion. >> thank you chair renne. i apologize for my behavior but there must be a way for mr. pilpel not to comment on the task force. when we gets to

the word "we" in his testimony he's attempting to influence you as being a representative from the task force when they haven't authorized him to come and speak for "we." you've got to figure out how to cut him off on the mic. commissioner keane my esteem went up for you again. thank you for adding all three recommendations to your amended motion. i think the point of those would be to start sending a signal to other city departments that they had better start complying with the sunshine ordinance. to that extent it should be a unanimous four person vote to up hold your motion tonight sir. i really, really am disturbed by mr. pilpel's behavior. i'll be

amending that complaint and i am hoping commissioner keane that you will have the wherewithal during the agenda setting topic tonight to recommend that a public hearing on mr. pilpel's sia violation be expedited and put on your next commission meeting. >> any other public comment? >> commissioners, directors of san francisco and [inaudible] open government and i would like to say will. >> back to my general comment and regarding the things with the new members. frankly i think asking a question what good is it going to do to do this is rather transparent, but what it's supposed to do is get people to follow the law. they all have a responsibility. they all know what the law s they

have done it for a dozen years yet we repeatedly get in situations like this. he was denied due process because he was denied the records he needed to present his case at various points, whether it was at the sunshine ordinance task force, their subcommittees, the appeals board, the planning commission or whatever. if i can keep you from having the documents you need to prove your case and prove something i presented is not correct then you have interfered with the course of justice and that's what the planning department did and i have no reason to believe that they are so ignorant of what they do that they didn't realize that was exactly what they were doing. now as far as finding mr. rahaim responsible he is responsible. no ifs, ands or buts. if you're the head of the

department and accept $200,000, whatever salary you get plus another 40% in benefits and take an oath in defend the constitution of the united states and that of the state of california and all of the laws that come there from that's a big responsibility and you can't come back later and say "well, because i didn't directly handle this request i'm not responsible" is just a complete denial of anything you know about proper management and acceptance of responsibility. and now we find out that mr. rahaim has a direct report, the individual who was responsible to see that all those other people answer this request properly. and do any of you honestly believe that throughout this entire process from beginning to end mr. rahaim was not kept informed of

everything going on? and that he had every opportunity if he wanted to say something to show up at any of these hearings so he was not denied due process or notice or anything else unless you want to assume that every single employee tells him nothing and if that's the case he's got bigger problems than this. >> okay. i call the motion. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> thank you. >> motion is carried. >> [inaudible] >> unanimously. now there's a second charge in the referral from the sunshine task force which was a violation of section 67.29-7a which was maintaining

records in professional business like manner. any commissioners have any comments? >> yeah, on that mr. chair i don't think that we have any evidence of any kind before us as to how they maintained their records, so i would be hesitant to vote on anything relating to whether or not they maintained their records correctly or preserved them correctly or not preserve them correctly. i think the evidence that we had was pretty strong that they didn't comply with turning over the records that they had but i don't think we have anything in front of us in terms how they kept their record so i think in regard to that one i don't know

what the procedure would be -- >> well, i think it would be a motion made to make a finding that we did not have sufficient evidence to support a finding that there had been a violation. >> i so move mr. chair. >> second? public comment? >> thank you commissioner renne . so one minute my esteem goes up and then comes right back down because the sunshine task force held hearings. they issued an order of determination. it was referred to the compliance and amendments committee. after a while it came back to the full task force. they issued another order of determination and said "look they didn't keep the records in a business like

manner." what more do you need than to have the complainant [inaudible] than testify he took pictures of blank files? that photograph of a blank file is that not evidence commissioner keane? does the evidence only come from sotf or it can come from complainants or [inaudible]? your evidence should be the referral from sotf that the records were not kept in a business like manner, end of story. >> commissioners, i have been a professional manner for my adult life starting out at 16 doing it and the bottom line i am responsible for keeping the records and responsible for responding to anything that i am

responsible for anything i'm responsible to respond to it to and if you listen to the evidence and the testimony you heard tonight you have two choices. either they're so incomtant the records are in a half dashed way and this is the response and little here and there and then a kr.d d and then another one and go looking for this and that. that is the sign of a professional organization or professional record keeper? if you went into the internal revenue service and "we need to see documents to support the deductions?" and i have receipts here and a bag here and gave them something one day and send them something next week with something else what do you think the irs would say to you? the bottom line is they don't keep the records in a

professional manner or they purposely with held the information. what are the other choices? i mean i think you're giving them the benefit of the doubt if you say they're not keeping professional records because the other one is a willful violation. we keep the records that we can't find them so when someone asks them pretend we did a good job searching. we don't know the plateses we put the records to search and we keep some here and over there and we think it depends who you talk to. i heard one thing where the complainant got a letter saying you have to ask a specific person and everybody on this commission ought to know is wrong. you can ask any employee of any branch and they have a responsibility to respond and that they kand they have the

responsibility to get you to someone that can. that is in the ordinance. so which is it? they're unprofessional and kept the records in the way they didn't and require multiple hearings or did they do what i think they did? they didn't want to give the information because it would put a monkey wrench on what they were trying to get through on behalf of somebody and now want to hide it. they're intelligent people. which is it? are they bad record keepers or bad liars? >> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. at this time i support the motion. i agree there is insufficient evidence to find a violation for this

code for failure to keep records in a professional and business like manner. thanks. >> [inaudible] >> no other public comment. call the motion. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? it's passed unanimously. turning to -- >> commissioner -- >> number four on the agenda. >> i apologize. >> sure. >> under the regulations the next step in the process is for the commission to instruct staff to prepare a written order reflecting the commission's findings so you're free to do that if you like. >> all right. so i would ask that the staff prepare an appropriate order reflecting the findings and the determinations of the commission on agenda item number three. item number four. discussion and possible action on request for two waivers from

campaign and governmental contact code section 3.222 section leo chow who occupies one of two seats on the arts commission has requested two waivers from section 3.222 which bars members of boards and commissions from entering into contracts with the city where the amount exceeds $10,000. the attachments were waiver request from mr. chow. letter from tom decaigny and jd beltran, 2023, 2014 and text memo and draft resolution and i believe also added to that was an email from the mayor's office in support of the requested waivers. is

mr. chow here? come forward. >> good evening. >> good evening commissioners. >>i am wondering if you could state the reasons why you believe we should grant this waiver of the section 3.222? >> certainly. let me begin by saying that i fully am supportive and appreciative of the reason for the ordinance in the first place, the importance of creating separation and preventing favoritism is extremely important to all of us as citizens of san francisco, so my understanding as i discuss this with the city attorney's office was that the provision that allows for a waiver in this case really is i think specific to exactly the kind of situation that i have here which is that

as a architect i -- my firm specialize in large scale, complex projects. for example we were the designers of the international terminal at san francisco so that's the scale we work at. it's a specialized area of the profession and so i also believe that san francisco should have the best -- have the opportunity to have the best in design for all of its civic projects, and so i really try to -- i see it as an opportunity to try and help out the city in terms of achieving that great design in public life as well as my private practice so in the public arena i see that the arts commission is an opportunity for me to bring some of the experience and some of the knowledge i gained through my years to bear on reviewing

projects, and i take that very seriously, and i really am passionate about that. at the same time i think that the city really should benefit from some of the expertise that we have as a firm, and so i think that my goal would be to try to allow for that design excellence to be brought to the firm in both arenas and in order to do that i believe that the separation of what i do for the commission, from what we do at the firm needs to be completely separated so that does involve recusing myself in all review of these projects or discussions about these projects at the commission level, and then at our firm because we're a large firm. we have about 250 people here in san francisco and the way we would do that there are separate individuals from myself, design

partners and managing partners who are responsible for review and oversight of the project. i would be completely separate from any involvement within the projects. in fact the project -- one of the projects that is a current project moscone center is performed in an office space in a separate building so i don't see what is going on in a daily to day basis so the goal is to make sure that i get to continue to serve the city and also have the city benefit from the professional services that my firm could provide. >> commissioner andrews. >> mr. chow. thank you. i wanted to talk a little bit about timeline. you have been a commissioner since 2009. is that right? >> that's correct. >> yeah. and i was just looking here on the footnote

that it said commissioner chow indicates he was initially unaware of the firm's agreement and i wanted to find out -- one, is there an internal process inside of your firm that would have either a policy or practice in place where you kind of check out for conflicts of interest? and we find ourselves here so we might have well state there is a perceived conflict of interest. how long had you known about this or your firm know about this. >> sure. so a couple of i think points of clarification. first is i have been commissioner since 2009 although i've been a partner at the firm since october of 2013, so relatively new. as far as the conflict originally my understanding was that there wasn't a conflict because our

contract in fact is with a nonprofit so there is a provision that states that nonprofit contracts are exempt, so that's the way i understood it. when the project for -- almost at the same time we signed the contract we began pursuing or considering pursuing the work at san francisco international and at that time i contacted the be director i think this would be a potential issue here and at which time he put me in contact with the city attorney's office to discussion it and during that discussion i found out it was a potential conflict so in that timeline was the contract was signed in april. i think probably middle of may when this conversation started. >> any other questions?

>> no. i think i have enough. >> i guess the thing that concerns me mr. chow is and i appreciate your willingness to serve on a public commission which doesn't pay you money for the time and effort that you spend and you bring your expertise to it. on the other hand, the purpose of the statute is to avoid not only a real conflict but the public perceiving that there may be a conflict and i guess when i think about som and how big they are, how much work they do and so much of it i mean we're talking millions of dollars, with the san francisco government, and for us to grant you a waiver and say well you know we will rely on the fact you won't have anything to do with it, but you're still out

there to the public's eye you're an som architect who is sitting on the arts commission, and i guess it strikes me there's got to be some very, very special circumstances before we should make a waiver of this statutory provision which is clearly intended to not only deal with real conflicts but to give comfort to the citizens of san francisco that there isn't sort of an old boys network that contracts are going out to companies and partners in those companies are sitting on public commissions and whatever res

teej may accrue from it it's -- i have to say i for one start with a position that only in exceptional circumstances -- nothing personal about you at all, and i mean and it's a difficult decision because i appreciate citizens being willing to serve on these commissions. on the other hand, the voters have said they want to keep a separation, so my initial reaction is to look very skeptically about our granting a waiver. >> may i respond? >> yeah, sure. >> maybe two points. first is that the selection process for these projects is a public open call for proposals, so there are many firms i having for the

projects. they go through a publicly. >> >> open selection process all of which can be sunshine ordinance and all of the records how the project designers are chosen is open to the public. and then i think secondly the fact that the -- i apologize if i over step here. i'm not an attorney but my interpretation as to the reason why the waiver concept is introduced within the legislation specifically is for individuals or where there's specialized knowledge and specifically says "trades and professions" and my seat that i sit in for the arts commission is specifically appointed for architects so i think that there's a desire for specialized knowledge so those are the two things i consider as being

integrated into the concerns that you're raising. >> chair, this may be a question for the commissioners. i wanted to see if there was some distinguishing feature with what is before us as compared to the same conversation we had a few months ago, and it was another architect i believe that was in front of us seeking a waiver, and what is different -- what is similar, and is what commissioner chow put forward just as architect that represents a firm that represents large projects warrant the distinction between what we ruled on a few months ago and what is in front of us today?

>> mr. chair, responding i wasn't part of the board at that time so i don't have anything that i could add relating to that discussion, but i would agree with commissioner renne and again this isn't personal at all. you're clearly an exceptional individual in your profession and by not having you the arts commission is going to lose some real talent, but i can't help but think just like there are other lawyers out there in terms of my protection there are others out there that have talents and would like to be part of the arts commission, and could be quite helpful just as you are, and the defining

thing with me as with commissioner renne is the appearance to it. when we're talking about these projects in regard to a company like yours, a huge company like yours, the projects worked on and what is going on in san francisco now. we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of big projects and everything under scrutiny, under criticism, sort of a presumption that somebody out there is stacking the deck for someone, and that's not -- i know that's not the case in your situation, but that would be the perception by some members of the public, and it's something that the citizens of san francisco i think would not be well served by having that perception, so i think that

regrettably i'm going -- i would vote that the waiver should not be granted. i would commend you for your service just as commissioner renne did. i am sure you added quite a bit to architecture and art in san francisco, and i hope you're not a stranger to it in the future as a result of this, but i think it's just too important in regard to having this kind of non appearance of any kind of conflict. >> well, my view is a little bit different because i do think with some of these regulations the city kind of cuts off its nose to spite its face, and there are any number of extremely large architectural firms in this city, and all of these firms have contracts of one kind or another with the city. i think that is pretty

inevitable with the many projects under way, and so in a way we're punishing every single employee of any of these architectural firms if they want to serve or do some kind of public service within the city and county of san francisco simply because they're employed by som or -- i don't know the names of all of the other architectural firms but heller madis, et cetera, et cetera, so unless you are actually involved in some of these projects that are currently under way, and i would like you to clarify that for me, i see no reason why you shouldn't continue on the arts commission. i think the issue is whether or not you are directly involved either in the bidding process or even in the

architectural process of these existing projects that skid more you [inaudible] and has currently so if you could respond to that i would preecial it, but -- appreciate it, but otherwise if you're not involved and able to recuse yourself from anything with a decision on design review for those projects i would be satisfied with that. >> okay. so my request is for two specific projects so it's not a blanket request. the first is moscone center which is a project we currently have and went through a open request for proposal. the second one is a project for san francisco airport which we understand is about to continue its renovation program and we think there are projects there that we might be able to lend our expertise to. so we don't have those

projects. in fact rfps are not out right now but i want to be proactive and we have a potential conflict there and would have and come to you with a request specifically for that one project as well so i could assure mechanical engineering and other firms we're putting together as a team to pursue these projects that we would initiate be able to pursue them. >> you're talking about moscone project. >> that we have but also the airport. >> and with moscone aren't they involved with the design review of the project? >> as part of the design review project there is a committee of five and two architects and we would be normally involved with that and i